Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India
Troops dont attack towns, they will only attack other army. Yes they can try to occupy or take control of the town. So even if we assume that they come from one direction and are 12km away then 10-15 low yield warheads will eliminate both the troops and the town. And no country can afford 10-15 warheads for saving a town. Pakistan has 45 nukes, so imagine how many towns can be saved like this.
A low yield warhead will have minimal effect 12 km away. At any rate, a single larger nuke configured for an airburst detonation could effectively eliminate a large infantry unit and stall an attack before it starts.
Example. You know, from reconnaisance, that the opposing division is massing along a sector 12 km long. You withdraw your forces from the area, leaving a rearguard to give the illusion of your continued presence, then drop enough nukes (the number depends on the yield) to eliminate the massing force.
You don't have to eliminate all of the enemy - just concentrations.
Aside from which, the published numbers of warheads India and Pakistan have are just estimates (which vary wildly by source), and so do not include the ongoing production of nukes by both countries.
Both India and Pakistan have been frantically developing the infrastructure required to maintain command and control in a nuclearised war, using theories developed for this situation by NATO and the Warsaw pact. Trust me and my sources on that ;)
I agree with this point. I know india and pakistan both have nuclear command and control structure. They have "Atom bomb" proof bunkers for top leaderships. But i am talking about the factor of surprise here. it only takes few minutes for missiles from one side to hit another. Do you think they will have enough time.
(btw who controls pakistani bomb?).
Neither India nor Pakistan are led by stupid people. Their plans will at least include a backup chain of command going into the nuclear protected sites as soon as the conflict starts, with the primary leaders going into bunkers as soon as the risk of nuclear war because too high.
Pakistan's bombs are under command of the army, due to the current unity of national and military leadership though our President-General. This ensures total integration of conventional defence plans with nuclear plans.
But all the troops wont die in one nuclear attack. i was talking about your point where you said after the nuclear fallout it will be impossible for a force to move forward and occupy other's land.
You misunderstood me. I said that any plans to move large numbers of troops into land to occupy and pacify it would be foilded by nuclear attack. Not only would troops garrison be destroyed, but air bases could be completely destroyed, because a nuclear strike would vapourise the runway. Bridges, etc, other communications links could similarly be destroyed with small nuclear arms should conventional weaponry be unable to take them out.
You got it wrong here my friend. You have this impression because USA has shown its military powerss a lot recently, other mentioned countries have not fought a full scale war lately. USA dont have "the best " weaponary in the world, but they do know how to make best use of what they have.
[/QUOTE]
The other countries do not have the cruise missile stocks to carry out sustained cruise missile bombardment such as those the USA does. The USA's recent wars have all been against technologically much weaker militaries that lacked the capability to defend against US aircraft and missiles.