of course every nuclear power has its nuclear policies, i never said any different. nor did i ever said that india wouldn't respond to a pakistan nuclear attack.
what i said was if i wasn't clear before, by making it clear that a large scale attack on pakistan will lead to it using nuclear arms in defense of itself, it will make indian planners more reluctant to launch an attack in the first place. for instance, cold start calls for large and quick land grabs, and it must be done below the pakistani nuclear threshold(so india isnt going after for instance, the nuclear C&C), then negotiating for peace with the upper hand because it physically occupies a lot of pakistani land. this is a non starter now that it's likely that such a large and quick force would be countered by tactical nukes. so basically the ball is in india's court of whether it want nuclear annihilation for both countries. now obviously india would act in defence of itself. if pakistan starts a war, india isn't going to just stand by and let pakistan do all the shooting. however where this does come into play is for instance, another 2008-like attack, or some other spark that is overall fairly minor compared to a full scale war.
and im not sure where anyone said anything about stopping missiles, because neither country could prevent the incoming from the other side. and what i meant by nuclear superiority is that neither side has it, so its death for both if it gets going.
additionally, credibility comes into play here too. a glaring example is obama and his red line, with promptly got crossed and he did nothing. so you gotta ask yourself, if pakistan uses a nuclear device, on its own territory, and no indian civilians were harmed, then would india really start to shoot off its strategic nukes? i personally don't think it would.
you clearly dont.
you first nuke the indian army on pakistani soil to stop them dead in their tracks then if india "nuke you as a part of retaliation" then its full on nuclear war and both dies.
its simple really, pakistan knows that the indian armed forces are larger and would find it difficult to stop a full on assault on short notice. nuclear arms equalizes the equation. the reason its only used on their own soil is to prevent a generally nuclear war. afterall this the scenario, no indian cities or any civilians would be harmed, could india justified ending both countries in that case?
puny? lol you sure you're talking to the right person? both my countries- my currently home and my ancestral home is 3/4 largest nations on earth, one is the reigning superpower, the other is the rising superpower, both have a seat pretty much all world gatherings. and you call my country puny? lol. sure, indian super-powa! right?
making a nuclear policy known is normal, just as russia has said it will allow it self the option of nuclear arms in conventional combat when faced with an existential threat with powerful conventional capabilities ie: nato. just as the US refuses to limit itself to a no first use policy. so go learn some more before you spew more nonsense like "Pakistan is the only country who is openly talking about nuking".