The Limited Military Utility of Pakistan’s "Battlefield Use" of Nuclear Weapons

[OrionHunter]

Estimated number of tactical Nuclear Weapon of
-Russia ~ 2000
-USA ~ 4650

These are obsolete. These tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold War.

Tactical nuclear arms in Europe are outdated: not only have the bombs themselves reached the end of their service life, but the strategy to employ them was overtaken by events twenty years ago. Today, they are no longer welded into that strategy.

In June1991, President Bush ordered the military to unilaterally cut its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though. All nuclear weapons, including TLAM-Ns, were removed from surface ships and stored ashore. Between 1991 and 1993 US tactical nuclear weapons were reduced by 85 percent, and related weapons storage sites were reduced by more than 80 percent.

Tactical nuclear weapons have lost prominence in the US Air Force planning, and plans to use them will expire when the F-15, F-16, and F-117 are retired from service (there are no plans to integrate them aboard the F-22).

The US Army is out of the tactical nuclear weapons business, and the Navy’s tactical nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles are not carried aboard Navy vessels anymore.

 

[Mrc]

But is that because there is no further threat of large russian armoured formations sweeping through europe any more??

 

[acid rain]

But is that because there is no further threat of large russian armoured formations sweeping through europe any more??

I guess command and control issues and as the op suggests, they are hardly of any practical use other than inviting a massive nuclear retaliation.

 

[asad71]

It seems somebody has read this report and has instead chosen to fuel Baluchistan and KPK insurgencies.

 

[HRK]

These are obsolete. These tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold War.

Tactical nuclear arms in Europe are outdated: not only have the bombs themselves reached the end of their service life, but the strategy to employ them was overtaken by events twenty years ago. Today, they are no longer welded into that strategy.

In June1991, President Bush ordered the military to unilaterally cut its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though. All nuclear weapons, including TLAM-Ns, were removed from surface ships and stored ashore. Between 1991 and 1993 US tactical nuclear weapons were reduced by 85 percent, and related weapons storage sites were reduced by more than 80 percent.

Tactical nuclear weapons have lost prominence in the US Air Force planning, and plans to use them will expire when the F-15, F-16, and F-117 are retired from service (there are no plans to integrate them aboard the F-22).

The US Army is out of the tactical nuclear weapons business, and the Navy’s tactical nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles are not carried aboard Navy vessels anymore.

plz rater to reply with long and irrelevant personal commentary post any document which says that

• Tactical nuclear arms in Europe are outdated:
• "The US Army is out of the tactical nuclear weapons business"

or at least read the links provided in my previous post ...... TNW are very much operational with US

secondly let me remind you this thread is not about US TNW, but about the limited use of tactical nuclear weapon in Indo-Pakistan scenario.

 

[SrNair]

Yes. For a K-15 attack India will need a tug and pontoon as no Indian sub is yet ready for carrying Ballistic missiles.

That would complete within one year .INS Arihant is already
in sea trials.

 

[Kinetic]

From what I know and believe , Pakistan is not fool to fire battlefield size nukes just to provide an excuse to any attacker to nuke it back with more force. Pakistan, if it comes to that, will exercise a 'massive first strike' option! There's no sense in it but there is absolutely no sense in wounding a larger attacker and not killing it.

See IAF will go all out for nuke hunt on the first day itself. We have deep ground penetration bombs along with supersonic missiles. PAF is much smaller compared to IAF to throttle the attack. So how you will be able to launch a massive attack is under question.

Everyone can easily imagine how you get 7,000 + likes hahhahahaha such a shit post I've ever seen from Indian side lol...

Tu kabhi nehi sudhrega...

 

[NP-complete]

I really dont see much use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield except for implementing 'scorched earth' tactics. And that i think is the purpose of Pakistani battlefield nukes as well.

 

[Kinetic]

It seems somebody has read this report and has instead chosen to fuel and . They called it insurgency! Baluchistan and KPK insurgencies.

Everyone can call it insurgency but not you. You fought against Pakistanis in 1971. they called it insurgency. lol

 

[asad71]

Everyone can call it insurgency but not you. You fought against Pakistanis in 1971. they called it insurgency. lol

In fact these days in 1965 I was fighting for Pakistan.

 

[Counterpunch]

See IAF will go all out for nuke hunt on the first day itself. We have deep ground penetration bombs along with supersonic missiles. PAF is much smaller compared to IAF to throttle the attack. So how you will be able to launch a massive attack is under question.

A) My post was not India specific (No-offence). However, since you have mentioned IAF and hence India therefore I will try to answer specifically from that angle
B) Hunt missions would have made sense in early 90s era. Pakistan has learnt from other's mistakes not to put all its eggs in one basket. Plus, PAF is no cake walk for attacker of any size. It also believes in strike-first (when the hostilities have reached to point of no return already). This is indebted to its smaller size requiring it to take an aggressive stance for its survival.
C) Pakistan does have credible launch platforms other than Airforce. Contrary to that India doesn't have a credible Air-shield that can protect it absolutely

So, I believe massive first strike makes sense in a nuclear scenario for Pakistan. During 2002 stand-off a nuclear tipped Missile was traced by US and it is widely believed that the same resulted in India pulling back from its aggressive stance. To me it doesn't make sense that there was only a single ready missile at that time

 

[The Deterrent]

@OrionHunter before you bold more of your posts to prove your point, consider this:
What if the term "battlefield" is being taken in the wrong context for Nasr? You really think that Pakistan's nuclear decision makers didn't (or couldn't) take into account the uselessness of such a weapon against armored IBGs, and sanctioned possibly millions of dollars for such a program?
Just think about it, what else can be targeted by such a low-yield and short-ranged weapon besides an IBG?

And if the use of something as small as Nasr (relatively) can escalate into a full-blown nuclear war, won't it fulfill its purpose of achieving deterrence and stop the possibility of even a brief conventional conflict?

 

[Armstrong]

In fact these days in 1965 I was fighting for Pakistan.

Asad Bhai then you fought against us - How could you ? I thought we were Brothers ?

Okay jokes aside have you read 'Wastes of Time Reflections on the Decline & Fall of East Pakistan' by Syed Sajjad Husain ?

@OrionHunter before you bold more of your posts to prove your point, consider this:
What if the term "battlefield" is being taken in the wrong context for Nasr? You really think that Pakistan's nuclear decision makers didn't (or couldn't) take into account the uselessness of such a weapon against armored IBGs, and sanctioned possibly millions of dollars for such a program?
Just think about it, what else can be targeted by such a low-yield and short-ranged weapon besides an IBG?

And if the use of something as small as Nasr (relatively) can escalate into a full-blown nuclear war, won't it fulfill its purpose of achieving deterrence and stop the possibility of even a brief conventional conflict?

You're talking in riddles !

The suspense is killing me what else can it target - Tell me....!

 

[The Deterrent]

You're talking in riddles !

The suspense is killing me what else can it target - Tell me....!

Any sort of riddle or suspense was unintended, it was a simple open question. For example, Pakistan has a small number of nuclear weapons (relatively), and no SSBNs or vast land areas to hide them during a conflict. Every other land-based nuclear delivery system is too large and easily detectable, so Nasr provides more flexible options.

 

[The SC]

Don't know, but most people on this thread seem to think that tanks move alone in a battle field. That is not correct, they are usually followed closely by infantry troops, logistics and engineering corps, all of which are vulnerable to nuclear weapons much more so than tanks.
Tanks can be dealt with very successfully with potent small personal antitank weapons like in the 1973 war, where the Egyptian infantry destroyed more than 400 Usraeli tanks on its own using a limited number of the Sagger antitank missile -and that is old tech! -. So what are 1000/2000 tanks against limitless supply of the modern and more efficient anti tank missiles. They can be dealt with easily without using any nuclear device. The latters being reserved for something else...like an all out invasion with a million or two men armies, so they are there just in case, and might also have other objectives no one knows about.