This Table will Hurt Much But is needed for "Constructive" Talk

[MilSpec]

Please discuss

Will Pakistan Do the unthinkable?

With all due respect, there is no situation where Pakistani Military can Lose in the situations.

For your Discussion

My personal opinion is it comes down to Pakistani military choosing to preserve itself along with it's influence on the country vs launching Tactical nukes which will ensure an MAD situation, if push comes to shove, what does the military brass choose?

Does decide to go kamakazi, ensuring complete annihilation of it's influence on the country, some part of India, and all it's infrastructure, just too stand behind some terrorists .....

OR

Does it consolidate it's choke hold with a loss at minimal standoff with Indian forces on the borders , and choose the straight path be owners of a country for the next couple of decades, as demonstrated at every standoff with Indian Forces....

I am guessing the later,it's cleaner, more efficient, and wonderfully places a decade or two of the armed forces in the driver seat for every debacle that pakistani military has, it is never the military that owns up to the guilt of defeat, it's either some generals or some ministers that are made the scape goat, and works perfectly for the Military Machine in Pakistan. What makes you think it would be any different this time around.....

Counter Narrative

All of the above is if any of sequence of events are as you mention. but most likely there will be no cold start as a military riposte to massive terror attack in India.

The payback that you have mentioned has no specific measurable metric and thus holds no value for the Indian government. The investment in such mass conventional strike does not have any value as the payback even if pakistani military surrenders is very low. This is no longer an east Pakistan where mitigating two sided geographical military threat would have been strategically paramount, even with the surrender of pakistan after a limited confrontation, the strategic equation will return to the same scenario in two to three decades, and the cycle will continue, hence conventional strike - followed by MAD or otherwise has no benefits for India.

Instead a next generation warfare of weakening pakistani economy, marginalizing international trade by competing and subsidizing the market players, Pressuring internal markets, lowering economic investment threshold, diplomatic marginalization, will lead to a much better return on investment by weakening of Pakistani institutions, without expending any of massive reserves in India.

Asymmetric assets which roam free in pakistan, which are a direct product of Pakistani Intel agencies deliberate negligence and in some cases assistance, do not need any additional assistance from Indian Intel agencies, All they need is weak institutions which has been a highlight of Pakistan as a nation, That is what India can concentrate on, why fight pakistan on it's strengths like it's premier institution like military, when it's soft underbelly is it's weak "idaare". Hit where it hurts the most.

If pakistan keeps showing hostile intents towards India through terrorism, then all options in sphere of modern warfare, conventional, non-conventional, Economic, diplomatic marginalization, political destabilization.... all is fair game

 

[DrawingDead]

@Irfan Baloch

Knowing the way the world works today, the Pakistan army puts up minimal resistance and waits for the world to intervene and force India into a ceasefire and withdrawal from Pakistan's territory.

 

[acid rain]

India won't make the mistake of launching nukes in pakistan. She'll carpet bomb major cities where army is located. In addition, she won't face sanctions by international community (or it may if she decides to use nuclear bombs as a response).

Let's face it, in international theatre, whoever uses nukes first will be the bad person. Even if India does in reply, it won't face severe criticism like that of Pakistan. Carpet bombing will be ignored in international media (like how 10 Palestinian is overshadowed by 1 Jewish child) and pakistani nukes will be highlighted, so pakistan will be humiliated.

Thus, pakistan leadership realizes a full scale war is a lost cause as it'll be over run by India and isolated by international community (run out of oil, unable to sustain war etc). And it is our pure patriotism that "we gonna beat India." This is not to say India will win the war, as the leftover pakistanis or other Taliban will start infiltrating India.

India too realizes that a war with Pakistan will results in 100s of millions of their citizens lives. Pakistan may not exist anymore, but India will become a barren desert.

Thus, the pakistani and Indian leadership is not interested in full scale war. It will come to proxy, skirmishes or other mini scale war. Pakistan is already destroying itself (Taliban) and India need not to get its name in the dirt.


The chart is a self boosting, very patriotic piece. Indian can come up with similar things.


Bottom line is, no one is going to full scale war. The nukes were developed for the sake of deterence, not to wipe out other nation. In today's world, economic warfare is the biggest paralyzing warfare (Russia, Iran, etc. they survived cuz oil. Pakistan lacks that and India has tourism, will hurt them greatly in event of war).


Because it's stupid to use nuclear bomb for wars like kargil. Also protect our air space, sea and stop Indian funded terrorists.

It's good to know that there were no intentional targeting of civilian population by both sides in all of our wars...even when the provocation was high..lets hope it remains the same..as someone rightly said..It would be the Islamists in the pak army who would be itching to target population centers in India.

 

[WishLivePak]

It's good to know that there were no intentional targeting of civilian population by both sides in all of our wars...even when the provocation was high..lets hope it remains the same..as someone rightly said..It would be the Islamists in the pak army who would be itching to target population centers in India.

It'd be also patriotic people wishing to see civilians dying in India.

One very senior staff member here said that all indians who voted modi should be killed. He hates islamist, but if he had nukes button is his hand, he'd have launched it the moment pre poll result suggested modi going to win.

 

[acid rain]

It'd be also patriotic people wishing to see civilians dying in India.

One very senior staff member here said that all indians who voted modi should be killed. He hates islamist, but if he had nukes button is his hand, he'd have launched it the moment pre poll result suggested modi going to win.

Orya maqbul jaan when he was with your UN delegation met up with a taliban leader in the UN who promised him 1-2 lakh talibanis to join with pak army to target "Hindus".

I guess many islamists in pakistan still hold on desperately to the dream of Gazwa hind. They keep citing example of how some muslim army attacked the somnath temple 17 times till they were victorious. Such islamists are the reason why Pakistan is in such a mess.

 

[I.R.A]

Let's face it, in international theatre, whoever uses nukes first will be the bad person.

And what the world had to say about anyone conducting nuclear tests first?

@Irfan Baloch sir I am not an expert, but your table somehow does not mention anything about second strike capability. In an all out war Pakistan is sure to be annihilated and this is where second strike capability kicks in to make sure nobody enjoys the party after we are gone. Your feedback on that?

 

[WishLivePak]

And what the world had to say about anyone conducting nuclear tests first?

@Irfan Baloch sir I am not an expert, but your table somehow does not mention anything about second strike capability. In an all out war Pakistan is sure to be annihilated and this is where second strike capability kicks in to make sure nobody enjoys the party after we are gone. Your feedback on that?

Tests are not the same as conducting nuclear strike.

No one gets hurt in tests.

 

[I.R.A]

Tests are not the same as conducting nuclear strike.

No one gets hurt in tests.

Then let Iran, or any other country test their nukes, why go jumping up and down about them having nukes? World will be at peace if everybody has nukes.

 

[OrionHunter]

@Irfan Baloch this thread will turn out to be a troll infestation u should ask mods to be here in that case
or else u should move it to senior section for debate

I agree!

But for starters, there is no basis for this thread as there is no such thing as 'Cold Start' doctrine.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If such a thing happens, the nuclear fallout will most certainly affect China's western provinces as well.

 

[WishLivePak]

Then let Iran, or any other country test their nukes, why go jumping up and down about them having nukes? World will be at peace if everybody has nukes.

They're stopping Iran from making nukes. Hence sanctions. Though sanctions existed before their intention of getting nuclear stuff.

India got their nukes in 70s. Now it isn't the 70s.

Even NK got their nukes recently. They point is, it's about testing. Testing does not carry the same effects as that of killing others. NK, thus, faces sanctions. But if it was to carry nuke attack, things will turn out to be bad for her.

 

[Zohaib Irfan]

In Pakistan there are already a lot of things to get hurt . biggest one is Terrorist Activities May ALLAH protect us Ameen

 

[indianBong]

The Threshold for Nuclear War Between Pakistan and India Keeps Dropping - FPIF
Most people think that, since the end of the Cold War, chances that a nuclear war will break out are slim to none. Though some nervousness has surfaced since the Ukraine crisis, it’s true that, barring an accident, the United States and Russia are unlikely to attack each other with nuclear weapons. Southeast Asia is another matter, as Gregory Koblentz warns in a report for the Council of Foreign Relations titled Strategic Stability in the Second Nuclear Age. Interviewed about the report by Deutsche Welle, Koblentz pointed out: “The only four countries currently expanding their nuclear arsenals are China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.”

China, for example, is developing mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles to prevent its stationery ICBMs from becoming sitting ducks, as well as submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, by 2020, Pakistan could have enough nuclear material to build 200 nuclear weapons, about as many as Great Britain currently has. Koblentz told Deutsche Welle:

Altogether, Pakistan has deployed or is developing eleven different nuclear delivery systems including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

As if terrorism, such as the Mumbai attacks of 2008, and territorial disputes, such as over Jammu and Kashmir, don’t make relations between Pakistan and India volatile enough, a new element has been introduced. Pakistan is now seeking to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (as opposed to strategic ― the big ones) to compensate for its inferiority to India in conventional weapons and numbers of armed forces. Koblentz told Deutsche Welle:

Since the conventional military imbalance between India and Pakistan is expected to grow thanks to India’s larger economy and higher gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate, Pakistan’s reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for its conventional inferiority will likely be an enduring feature of the nuclear balance in South Asia.

What makes tactical weapons so dangerous is that, by blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, they turn nuclear weapons from unthinkable to thinkable. Equally as dangerous, Koblentz explains:

The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons may lead Pakistan to loosen its highly centralized command and control practices. Due to their short-ranges (the Nasr/Hatf-IX has a range of about 60 kilometers), these types of weapons need to be deployed close to the front-lines and ready for use at short-notice.

Thus are lower-ranking officers granted “greater authority and capability to arm and launch nuclear weapons” which “raises the risk of unauthorized actions during a crisis.” Another risk

… is inadvertent escalation. There is the potential for a conventional conflict to escalate to the nuclear level if the commander of a forward-deployed, nuclear-armed unit finds himself in a ‘use it or lose it’ situation and launches the nuclear weapons under his control before his unit is overrun.”

It’s all too vertiginous for words. Some in the United States might think that’s not our problem. Pakistan and India are digging their own grave ― let them lie in it.” But, of course, nuclear war in Southeast Asia has the potential to turn the entire world into a grave. To wit:

Summary of Consequences of Regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan
(from studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder and UCLA)

If …

• War is fought with 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (currently available in India-Pakistan arsenals), which have half of 1 percent (0.05%) of the total explosive power of all currently operational and deployed U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons

• 20 million people die from the direct effects of the weapons, which is equal to nearly half the number of people killed during World War II

• Weapons detonated in the largest cities of India and Pakistan create massive firestorms which produce millions of tons of smoke

• 1 to 5 million tons of smoke quickly rise 50 km above cloud level into the stratosphere

• The smoke spreads around the world, forming a stratospheric smoke layer that blocks sunlight from reaching the surface of Earth

• Within 10 days following the explosions, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere would become colder than those experienced during the pre-industrial Little Ice Age

… This cold weather would also cause a 10% decline in average global rainfall and a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon.

• 25-40% of the protective ozone layer would be destroyed at the mid-latitudes, and 50-70% would be destroyed at northern high latitudes.Massive increases of harmful UV light would result, with significantly negative effects on human, animal and plant life.

• These changes in global climate would causesignificantly shortened growing seasons in the Northern Hemispherefor at least years. It would be too cold to grow wheat in most of Canada.

• World grain stocks, which already are at historically low levels, would be completely depleted. Grain exporting nations would likely cease exports in order to meet their own food needs.

• Some medical experts predict that ensuing food shortages would cause hundreds of millions of already hungry people, who now depend upon food imports, to starve to death during the years following the nuclear conflict.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, we truly are all in it together. Many claim that whatever leadership the United States and the West might demonstrate in disarmament would be lost on Asian nuclear-weapon states. But they fail to take into account how disarmament is becoming a norm all over the world including in Asia.

true...

 

[Windjammer]

Remember Pakistan is not investing much into the city killers rather it's building miniature head tactical nuke missiles so the only Indians toasted are those who feel adventurous also there's no much fall out, however if the conflict spreads out, it has been pointed out by experts that Indian cities are much more congested with peoples compared to Pakistan where apart from a few cities, most of the population is thinly spread out. Also any major war between the two countries will give opportunity to local freedom movements and insurgencies to achieve their goals, hence the Somali pirates or some cattle smugglers will be the last of India's worries.

 

[nair]

Remember Pakistan is not investing much into the city killers rather it's building miniature head tactical nuke missiles so the only Indians toasted are those who feel adventurous also there's no much fall out, however if the conflict spreads out, it has been pointed out by experts that Indian cities are much more congested with peoples compared to Pakistan where apart from a few cities, most of the population is thinly spread out. Also any major war between the two countries will give opportunity to local freedom movements and insurgencies to achieve their goals, hence the Somali pirates or some cattle smugglers will be the last of India's worries.

Though i agree with you on highlighted part, and Pakistan would certainly win a nuclear war in case the win and lose was decided based on number of people dead........ But then we need to look at the size of both the countries and there will not be anyone left in Pakistan to celebrate this victory.....

On topic :
Some how i dont agree with OP's theory of this war...... There is not going to be any war between our nations for a simple reason "MAD"...... The very reason Pakistan has created nukes was to convey the bold message of "MAD" .....

What could cause a war between India and pakistan?? the only likely chance of that would be a reaction from India on a terrorist attack emanated from Pakistan....... With the goof up of mumbai, i am sure those agencies or non state actors are smart enough to ensure another goof up doesnt happens in case they planning an attack, and most probably there will be local support that will stop the govt from taking any drastic steps....... and the response of such attack is going to be given in different channels not necessarily thru a direct military attack on Pakistan......