Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

Of course India will retialiate against Pakistani troops. That is what will force Pakistani troops to disengage from the battlefied and hence achieve a stalemate once the nuclear Rubicon is crossed. After its first use of nuclear weapons, Pakistan will be unable to launch an offensive against the newly created hole in the Indian front line, because India would vapourise any Pakistanis who try to do so.

Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, India and Pakistan will have to disperse their conventional forces to protect them from nuclear attack and thus no further land battles of signficance will be possible.

22

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

Pakistan will never strike first against Indian population centres.

It will certainly strike first with nukes against Indian troops if the war appears to be going badly for Pakistan.

Remember, nuclear weapons are much more versatile than the anti-nuclear propagandists make out.

Small yield nuclear warheards (2-5 kilotons) can be used to very efficiently wipe out military units on the battlefield, as tactical weapons rather than city-busting strategic weapons.

23

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

^ ^ what makes you think that all the forces will be at a same place at the same time. Nuclear bombs will be effective only if they are dropped on a populas city. Or to eliminate the leader ship/nuclear command and control of other nation. once you eliminate later two then you disintrigate the remaining leadership. Thats an unexpected defeat right there.
again to remind you that both countries (atleast india) has capability of NBC warefare. So war will not be a short one unless usa or russia intervenes.
plus now days wars are more fought by missiles and airplanes and army is used to occupy the land.

24

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

its US based report and i am not surprised by the thinking.

25

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

You oversimplify.

what makes you think that all the forces will be at a same place at the same time. Nuclear bombs will be effective only if they are dropped on a populas city.

You don’t need to annihilate all the opposing troops. You simply need to disrupt their ability to execute offensive or defensive operations. Armies can only carry out such activities through massing troops. For example, to attack a town , you may need to commit 15000 troops. If they attack , they are going to be coming from, say, 1 direction, along a 12 kilometer front. You can use a pattern of 10-15 low yield warheads to saturate this front with a nuclear barrage and thereby eliminate a large protion of those 15000 attacking troops.

Nuclear bombs are much more effectively used for attacking battalion sized and larger units than they are for attacking cities. Attacking a city will not help prevent your land from being captured.

Or to eliminate the leader ship/nuclear command and control of other nation. once you eliminate later two then you disintrigate the remaining leadership

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 :wink:

again to remind you that both countries (atleast india) has capability of NBC warefare. So war will not be a short one unless usa or russia intervenes.

NBC capability allows troops to fight on battlefields contaminated by radioactivity and biological/chemical agents. It also makes them invulnerable to biological/chemical agents. But no one has invented anything that can protect a human being from a nuclear detonation.

plus now days wars are more fought by missiles and airplanes and army is used to occupy the land

Only if you are the USA. No other country, be it India, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, France or China, has the missile capacity and air power required to do so.

The last modern conflict that didn’t involve the USA was the Falklands war - and that was a classical conventional conflict.

spríng br3ak
26

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

ms what one gains in occupying pakistan or bangaldesh . why india would spend its money to adminster pakistan? we put more money in kashmir than taking out why would anybody want to rule a hostile population of pakistan?

27

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

rvizk…where did you hear that Pakistani population is hostile? yaar, don’t believe what you read or hear. I am telling you that 93% Pakistanis will love to be governed by Indians. We have never had an elected one govern us for a stretch longer than 6 years (that too with emergency decrees thrown in every 4 months). I personally will welcome to become part of India (revert to original Nation - Hidustan Hamara!). Only a handful of Saudi financed fanatics want Pakistan to be ruled by Mullahs or dictators, majority would like to become part of India, so we can have a say into who governs us.

Jay Hind!!

:jhanda:

Your favourite guppies??
28

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

If India had no interest in occupying Pakistan, then there would be no war happening, so there would be no nukes being used.

The nukes are there in case India ever tries to occupy Pakistan. Think of it as an insurance policy.

If India wanted to occupy Pakistan, Pakistan’s Army could not stop them from doing so for more than about a month. Pakistan does not have the money to maintain an army that can indefinitely stop India from occupying Pakistan.

The nukes though, the nukes give Pakistan the means to do so.

29

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

"If India had no interest in occupying Pakistan, then there would be no war happening, so there would be no nukes being used"

Occupation of others land is not the issue for the war here, none of the side wanted to occupy others side. "Kashmir" is the factor. If there is gonna be any war in future then it will be for kashmir.

And trust me India has no intention in occupying pakistan and even pakistani generals know it.

Dukhtar-e-Naik Akhtar Noor Chashmi ....
30

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

read what musharuff said most threats is from within and from extremists.

31

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

You don't need to annihilate all the opposing troops. You simply need to disrupt their ability to execute offensive or defensive operations. Armies can only carry out such activities through massing troops. For example, to attack a town , you may need to commit 15000 troops. If they attack , they are going to be coming from, say, 1 direction, along a 12 kilometer front. You can use a pattern of 10-15 low yield warheads to saturate this front with a nuclear barrage and thereby eliminate a large protion of those 15000 attacking troops.

Nuclear bombs are much more effectively used for attacking battalion sized and larger units than they are for attacking cities. Attacking a city will not help prevent your land from being captured.

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.
*(I think we are talking too much imaginary situations which are very much unlikely) *

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?).

NBC capability allows troops to fight on battlefields contaminated by radioactivity and biological/chemical agents. It also makes them invulnerable to biological/chemical agents. But no one has invented anything that can protect a human being from a nuclear detonation.
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.

Only if you are the USA. No other country, be it India, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, France or China, has the missile capacity and air power required to do so.
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.

32

Re: Report says Pak may launch nukes against India

If India has no intention of occupying land other than Kashmir, why did the Indian army attack towards Lahore in 1965 rather than towards Muzaffarabad?

33

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.

Dukhtar-e-Naik Akhtar Noor Chashmi ....