Use of NASR and retaliation by India (if Any)

[X-2.]

Stop the nonsense
Indians always live in myths believe init other than properganda by ppl
PAk is responsible country not like India who has fought wd all of his neighbours!!! Sigh

 

[Zee-shaun]

A Nuke that will neutralize the Intruder ie Kill yes - How will this be minimum damage to the environment? how? Thats funny ! Its A Nuke !!! It is bad for everything and everyone!

Yes it is bad and will kill everything withing it's yield which is considerably small. Much smaller than the 15kt Hiroshima bomb. We are talkimg about a subkiloton device.

 

[cerberus]

How many these you have means operational plus the Rafales?
Or at least when deal signed?

Funds are Allocated S-400 deals is just drafted It will be signed year end Reliance already signed contract with Almaz antey for S-400 production on 25 dec 2015

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/12/25/4522/?h

Rafales are coming Deal Dates are uncertain

 

[CriticalThinker02]

Scenario 3 A sea based version of NASR used to attack and destroy an Aircraft Carrier

I dont know if a sea based version of NASR exists. But if it does it will be a very effective "Carrier Killer" (if it manages to get in range without being detected and stopped) Given the short range of NASR this scenario seems very difficult. No Aircraft carrier will come within 60-70 KM of the coast and any ship carrying the missile will be intercepted and destroyed before it can do the damage. However if it succeeds then

India's Reaction A nuclear attack on an Aircraft Carrier will lead to a full scale Nuclear Reaction

I dont want this to be a troll thread. I want discussion on these of any other scenario(s) where NASR can be used. What reaction will India give for such a use

You do know there will be a naval version of Barbur cruise missile with 1000 km+ range capable of carrying Nuclear warheads right?

 

[Hellfire]

@hellfire countered that it may not always be the case.

This thread is to discuss possible uses of NASR and reactions (if Any) by India

I would ask @Joe Shearer , @MilSpec, @PARIKRAMA to add to it where I may be going off track, or point out at the errors if any. (not for what I write below, you cant find any reference to this gentleman for this field although he has written 10 books in different fields which can be googled on net!!)

I am quoting one officer (retired almost a decade now) of Indian Army who was responsible for:


1. Raising and developing the doctrines, the training concepts for the Indian Army and subsequently the armed forces and civil authorities for Disaster Management and worked extensively with INMAS and DRDO, DRDL.(site will not be mentioned for obvious reasons)

2. Who was present in the control group for Op Brasstacks, member of the 1st Indian Army Team for introduction of High End technology in 1982. (that's the teams name). Prepared and presented papers giving rise to massive mechanisation of late 80s in a small nucleus of officers under Gen Sunderji along with Gen BC Joshi which ultimately led to delayed formulation of 'cold start' (delayed as 90s saw crunch of funds and which hit the massive mechanisation program under vision Army Plan 2000)

3. Raised the Faculty of NBC Protection and trained the first lot of instructors for the armed forces,

4. Raised the Additional Directorate General of NBC in Army Headquarters under then AG's Branch.

5. Wrote the first overt comprehensive Indian Military Exercise in NBC backdrop in 1994 Ex Divyastra, Wrote the initial training manuals and precis at ARTRAC.

6. Involved in Pokhran 2, right from planning to execution to briefing of PM and later RM.

7. Was responsible for shaping the Strategic Forces Command,

8. Wrote the military aspects of Nuclear Doctrine which I shall put out subsequently.

9. Was pointsman when he walked into Ukhrul to meet Muivah of NSCN IM on directions of the then HM LK Advani along with CO 17 AR to work out the ceasefire which came about subsequently.

He will remain un-named for now.

The contentions made and accepted in toto:

1. India reserves the right to retaliate to any attack on any of it's forces or territories or interests by any force/nation by Nuclear/Biological or Chemical attack (since CBRN) with a weapon of its own choosing, at a place of its own choosing and at a time of its own choosing.

This line is the most pertinent line.


Politically phrased as

"(a) any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat: and

(b) any attack on India and its armed forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor”


2. Any aforementioned attack will invite a massive retaliation to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy forces/nation employing such weapons.

The attack can be at a tactical level. It can be at a strategic level too. Response will be determined by target. How targeting is done will elaborate later, if required.

3. India will not be first to use a nuclear weapon, but will not be last to use it either.

This is the most ambiguous point accepted by GoI in formulation of responses. It does not rule out pre-emptive strikes if an imminent attack is assessed. (Depending on MOPP level of opposing forces and other intelligence indicators of an opposing force preparing for a strike and operating in a contaminated environment). This is corroborated by points a and 1 above.

For point 3: It is pertinent to note that India is a signatory of CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) and BWC (Biological Weapons Convention). We do not hold any weaponised stocks in inventory as per the parameters of aforementioned conventions. But it does not take much time for the same to be weaponised if need arises.

Scenario 1 Attack on column of tanks breaching the pakistani mainland and moving towards one of the top cities

One has to be clear where is the Pakistani threshold. It is different in different theatres.

Also understand that no one goes for "top" cities. The threshold of employment is determined by what is the enemy's perception of the tenability of their defences and their perceived ability to contain any of own advance and attempt to reverse any depth achieved by any offensive operation.

This scenario assumes that the attack will happen on Pakistani soil against a column of tanks. The casuality figures seem very less to me. Why use a nuke if you are going to just destroy 6-7 tanks. Forgive my ignorance about military tactics I dont think that if a column of tanks is attacking then only 6-7 tanks will be in area of 1 - 1.5 KM. My understanding is atleast 20-25 tanks will be in that zone and use of a nuke to destroy that many tanks and to halt the progress of the rest of column ( to save from nuclear fallout) is a good use of a tacticle nuke

For bold and underlined. That is where a tactical situation comes into place. That is where the probability of use of a weapon at tactical level becomes improbable. Am breaking things down as this response by me is being made on move.

The whole topic is too big and exhaustive with no definite answers.

I shall try and explain:

A brigade - an IBG as of today - will have around a squadron of tanks. That is 15 tanks. Each in a frontage (which does not happen) will have inter-tank distance of 250-300 meters in conventional scenario. (because no tank will attack unsupported by infantry!!!) Now just extrapolate it when we know that there is a likely deployment of a nuke - it goes upto 700-900 meters. And the tanks have an overpressure system, wherein any chemical strike or a nuclear strike creates an overpressure into the tank thereby preventing effects. In case of nuclear weapons, the coating and lining of tanks is expected to reduce the neutron exposure (gamma ray exposure) as also prevent secondary radiation by overpressure from radioactive fallout by NIGA et al. (there is another clause of ERWs or enhanced radiation weapons or "salted" which have significantly greater effects; however, lets keep off it for now)

Also, what is known as a nominal nuclear bomb - device yield of 20 kt will affect in 2-2.5 km radius. a tactical weapon will be about 1 Kt for argument sakes. Do a google and you will know the effect.

Now India, when it conducted it tests, did sub-kiloton yield devices. (hence lot of people raising the bogey of failed tests as seismic data not collated). The smallest device was a 0.2 Kt for a 155 mm cal. Now before the dumba$$es here start of low yield, in tactical scenario low yield converts into low residual radiation, and low fallout - the aim of a tactical strike is to exploit the situation either by holding the ground which has been cleared off enemy (hence a contaminated ground) or to launch own offensive operations which will entail moving through the said area.

India's Reaction

- My understanding is that in case of such high casualities India will retaliate with full Nuclear Strike

Incorrect. It depends on the situation as assessed. If the advantage of non-use of a nuke there itself outweighs a retaliation, then there shall be no strike.

However, due to the fact that there has been a strike, the initiative is lost by the user and the affected nation is in a position to dictate the future course of war.

First you need to be clear on doctrine and nuclear targeting aspects. Then build scenarios.

You created three scenarios without being clear on the concepts.

My post above is not more than a write up in a hurry. You ask specific questions will answer specifically. The damn topic is a thesis in itself. The aforementioned officer of IA did his PhD on it!!!

@Soumitra sorry for the shoddy job ... hectic day and too bummed out ...

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Indian Media , and politicians Say something else

Really?!

Please show me some proofs.

 

[Tipu7]

I would ask @Joe Shearer , @MilSpec, @PARIKRAMA to add to it where I may be going off track, or point out at the errors if any. (not for what I write below, you cant find any reference to this gentleman for this field although he has written 10 books in different fields which can be googled on net!!)

I am quoting one officer (retired almost a decade now) of Indian Army who was responsible for:


1. Raising and developing the doctrines, the training concepts for the Indian Army and subsequently the armed forces and civil authorities for Disaster Management and worked extensively with INMAS and DRDO, DRDL.(site will not be mentioned for obvious reasons)

2. Who was present in the control group for Op Brasstacks, member of the 1st Indian Army Team for introduction of High End technology in 1982. (that's the teams name). Prepared and presented papers giving rise to massive mechanisation of late 80s in a small nucleus of officers under Gen Sunderji along with Gen BC Joshi which ultimately led to delayed formulation of 'cold start' (delayed as 90s saw crunch of funds and which hit the massive mechanisation program under vision Army Plan 2000)

3. Raised the Faculty of NBC Protection and trained the first lot of instructors for the armed forces,

4. Raised the Additional Directorate General of NBC in Army Headquarters under then AG's Branch.

5. Wrote the first overt comprehensive Indian Military Exercise in NBC backdrop in 1994 Ex Divyastra, Wrote the initial training manuals and precis at ARTRAC.

6. Involved in Pokhran 2, right from planning to execution to briefing of PM and later RM.

7. Was responsible for shaping the Strategic Forces Command,

8. Wrote the military aspects of Nuclear Doctrine which I shall put out subsequently.

9. Was pointsman when he walked into Ukhrul to meet Muivah of NSCN IM on directions of the then HM LK Advani along with CO 17 AR to work out the ceasefire which came about subsequently.

He will remain un-named for now.

The contentions made and accepted in toto:

1. India reserves the right to retaliate to any attack on any of it's forces or territories or interests by any force/nation by Nuclear/Biological or Chemical attack (since CBRN) with a weapon of its own choosing, at a place of its own choosing and at a time of its own choosing.

This line is the most pertinent line.


Politically phrased as

"(a) any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat: and

(b) any attack on India and its armed forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor”


2. Any aforementioned attack will invite a massive retaliation to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy forces/nation employing such weapons.

The attack can be at a tactical level. It can be at a strategic level too. Response will be determined by target. How targeting is done will elaborate later, if required.

3. India will not be first to use a nuclear weapon, but will not be last to use it either.

This is the most ambiguous point accepted by GoI in formulation of responses. It does not rule out pre-emptive strikes if an imminent attack is assessed. (Depending on MOPP level of opposing forces and other intelligence indicators of an opposing force preparing for a strike and operating in a contaminated environment). This is corroborated by points a and 1 above.

For point 3: It is pertinent to note that India is a signatory of CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) and BWC (Biological Weapons Convention). We do not hold any weaponised stocks in inventory as per the parameters of aforementioned conventions. But it does not take much time for the same to be weaponised if need arises.





One has to be clear where is the Pakistani threshold. It is different in different theatres.

Also understand that no one goes for "top" cities. The threshold of employment is determined by what is the enemy's perception of the tenability of their defences and their perceived ability to contain any of own advance and attempt to reverse any depth achieved by any offensive operation.




For bold and underlined. That is where a tactical situation comes into place. That is where the probability of use of a weapon at tactical level becomes improbable. Am breaking things down as this response by me is being made on move.

The whole topic is too big and exhaustive with no definite answers.

I shall try and explain:

A brigade - an IBG as of today - will have around a squadron of tanks. That is 15 tanks. Each in a frontage (which does not happen) will have inter-tank distance of 250-300 meters in conventional scenario. (because no tank will attack unsupported by infantry!!!) Now just extrapolate it when we know that there is a likely deployment of a nuke - it goes upto 700-900 meters. And the tanks have an overpressure system, wherein any chemical strike or a nuclear strike creates an overpressure into the tank thereby preventing effects. In case of nuclear weapons, the coating and lining of tanks is expected to reduce the neutron exposure (gamma ray exposure) as also prevent secondary radiation by overpressure from radioactive fallout by NIGA et al. (there is another clause of ERWs or enhanced radiation weapons or "salted" which have significantly greater effects; however, lets keep off it for now)

Also, what is known as a nominal nuclear bomb - device yield of 20 kt will affect in 2-2.5 km radius. a tactical weapon will be about 1 Kt for argument sakes. Do a google and you will know the effect.

Now India, when it conducted it tests, did sub-kiloton yield devices. (hence lot of people raising the bogey of failed tests as seismic data not collated). The smallest device was a 0.2 Kt for a 155 mm cal. Now before the dumba$$es here start of low yield, in tactical scenario low yield converts into low residual radiation, and low fallout - the aim of a tactical strike is to exploit the situation either by holding the ground which has been cleared off enemy (hence a contaminated ground) or to launch own offensive operations which will entail moving through the said area.






Incorrect. It depends on the situation as assessed. If the advantage of non-use of a nuke there itself outweighs a retaliation, then there shall be no strike.

However, due to the fact that there has been a strike, the initiative is lost by the user and the affected nation is in a position to dictate the future course of war.

First you need to be clear on doctrine and nuclear targeting aspects. Then build scenarios.

You created three scenarios without being clear on the concepts.

My post above is not more than a write up in a hurry. You ask specific questions will answer specifically. The damn topic is a thesis in itself. The aforementioned officer of IA did his PhD on it!!!

@Soumitra sorry for the shoddy job ... hectic day and too bummed out ...

Bss kr de bhai
Your calculations are making me laugh.
You people have ZERO understanding about this system. But you people still love to play blind shots ......
Esa hva to esa kr dain ge, esa hva to esa kren ge and other similar Bla bla ......
I assure you, NASR will not used so easily not it will be used as you people think ....

 

[Darth Vader]

Really?!

Please show me some proofs.

There is a thing Called Google Do it Yourself

 

[GuardianRED]

Yes it is bad and will kill everything withing it's yield which is considerably small. Much smaller than the 15kt Hiroshima bomb. We are talkimg about a subkiloton device.

So there will be no radiation, no nuclear fallout and environmental damage?? All is well with the world??

 

[OrionHunter]

Ok, lets cut out the chatter and get into specifics......

Tactical nukes? How many are you going to use to stop an Indian thrust? Here's the maths...

For a max 5KT warhead (max 5KT warhead on Nasr which is between 1 to 5 KT)

– Blast and fireball radius 500m or approx < 2 sq km

Integrated Combat Group frontage < > 10 km with two combat teams up. Depth < > 5 km. Total area covered approx 50 sq km.

How many tactical nukes would be required to destroy one CG? - 25 Nasrs (with 5KT warhead. 125 nukes with 1KT warhead).

Initial strike with 10 -15 combat groups simultaneously. Total area covered < > 500 sq km.

Minimum battlefield nukes needed to destroy the CGs > 250 Nasrs with 5KT warhead or 1250 Nasrs with 1KT warhead!

That’s a hell of a lot of Nasrs required! Remember, all tanks and personnel carriers are protected from nuclear radiation. There will be no infantry out in the open.

So, going a step further, 250x5 KT = 1250 KT ie, equal to the yield of 65 Hiroshima atom bombs on Pakistani territory (as these will be employed only after the CGs have penetrated deep into Pakistan and would be used as a last resort!!) And I haven't even got started on an Indian nuclear riposte! Add that to the mix and....Curtains!

What would be left of Eastern Pakistan?

It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Bottom line: Use of tactical nukes? Bad idea!

 

[Daghalodi]

There chance e India Will Survive Fission based Nukes of Pakistan Due S-400 or other Air defence we minimize the damage

Pakistan will Surely not survive more than 30 Thermonuclear Explosions

This guy is the joke of the century ...seriously hired by Bharat Mata at 3000 Indian rupees to post BS over here

 

[Delnavaz B]

Funds are Allocated S-400 deals is just drafted It will be signed year end Reliance already signed contract with Almaz antey for S-400 production on 25 dec 2015

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/12/25/4522/?h

Rafales are coming Deal Dates are uncertain

Then brag about these systems when at least deal finalized or get the initial delivery and don't assume plus post as if you have in hands / operational.

 

[cerberus]

Then brag about these systems when at least deal finalized or get the initial delivery and don't assume plus post as if you have in hands / operational.

We have Operational MR SAM

And S-300VM
for Delhi and Mumbai

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM

 

[Delnavaz B]

We have Operational MR SAM

And S-300VM
for Delhi and Mumbai

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM

Then talk about this OK for last almost decade Rafale deal is on hanging and since then you people are running on online forums like headless chicken with pompous and bully claims.

 

[Hellfire]

Bss kr de bhai
Your calculations are making me laugh.
You people have ZERO understanding about this system. But you people still love to play blind shots ......
Esa hva to esa kr dain ge, esa hva to esa kren ge and other similar Bla bla ......
I assure you, NASR will not used so easily not it will be used as you people think ....

Ok. sure. read again that's what I said .......... not so easy to use.

Last I remember you were talking of ERWs, something that US itself discontinued, as if talking of throwing balls to play catch.

And what effing calculations? Hallucinations right?

Am talking armored frontage .. somehow you have no clue of it so don't even butt in

Was quoting the specific member to his post....

BTW ... put you on ignore list. Somehow you cropped up.

@OrionHunter There is this guy here @Tipu7 he was going into ERWs on a thread long back. Guy's theory is good, I admit. But his application ... died of laughter when he said he will use it against an armoured div!!!! I mean, there are stupids across the border on both sides as you can see here, but a guy who knows something posting stupidity --- is irritating. Request deal with him. He is on ignore list so his posts will not be cropping up.

In my more than a decade of butting around in this field .... could not come across anyone as hilarious as this gentleman

He laughs at calculations - has no clue of armour .. really don't know what he calculates to laugh at!

There chance e India Will Survive Fission based Nukes of Pakistan Due S-400 or other Air defence we minimize the damage

Don't make such absurd statements