When is the right time to use nuclear weapons?

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

I am just curious how do you guys think about this question. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, probably more than one, at different locations. Assuming another country carries out any of the following, do you think Pakistan will use nuclear force to retaliate.

  1. Israeli aircrafts fly into Pakistan and bomb Nuclear Research facility in Kahuta or Chasmha or some other place. Will Pakistan launch a nuclear strike inside Israel?

  2. India stops our water supply in Kashmir? Will Pakistan launch a nuclear strike inside India?

  3. Indian Airforce launches precision strikes inside Azad Kashmir. At what point will Pakistan launch a nuclear strike inside India?

*]India initiates border skirmishes with Pakistan on the Punjab/Sindh border, which escalate to heavy artilery fire and tank attacks. At what point will Pakistan launch a nuclear strike inside India?

2

Faisal Bhai - Kya baat hai, aaj aap bahot Nuclear ho rahe ho ?

Sir Ji - India/Pakistan will never use nukes at each other no matter what.

3

Madhanee... its not so much as a question of who has how many war heads. Just a single warhead may prove to be one too many. The question is that we hear so much about the nuclear capability and ye karr dein gay aur woh karr dein gay... when you get down to think about it, what is a single realistic scenario where Pakistan will actually use a nuclear weapon first.

The proverbial "deterrent" is there, yes... and Pakistan has refused to sign on a no-first-strike pact, citing that the gross imbalance between conventional forces mean that Pakistan can not possibly sign a non-nuclear-first-strike pact with India. All that is fine and good... but practically what are the odds of Pakistan using a first nuclear strike in face of blantant non-nuclear aggression from India or someone else?

4

Madhanee, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is a deterrence. Pakistanis aren’t dumb and neither are Indians hopefully so the question of who has 10 warheads and who has 500 isn’t relevant. Pak has the bomb and it can do some major damage so best to stay friendly that’s the bottom line. And what’s wrong with that? :flower1:

5

Well, we cannot rule out the scenario that MAdhanee has written about. That has a grain of truth...

Faisal, if another country carries out a nuclear attack on Pakistan, than the retaliation from our side will depend on various fators.

a) Do we have the capability to deal with an emergency of that magnitude as that would ensue after a nuclear attack. And yet keep ourselves intact to gather all the resources and retaliate with all the force.If we assume that our nuclear facilities are not hit and somehow saved from the attack. In that case, we might be able to strike back.

b) However, in case of a nuclear attack on our facilities, I don't think we will be able to retaliate because the attack would have wiped all our nuclear facilities and would have created a panic situation for us. That is why there is so much stress on having the 'second strike capability'. I do not think we have acheived that a yet, where we are attacked and yet have the strength and capability left to strike a blow...

c) Now this is naive. We will ( I don't think that people at the helm of affairs are so insane or do not have any clue as to what nuclear attack entails. WE don't need to be wiped out. Besides we do not have strategic depth. And that raises the question as to how mobile our nuclear facilities are,umm.. are u getting my point? ) not attack India with nuclear weapons if it stops the flow of water. The presence of nuclear weapons is only for the sake of deterrence as Xtreme mentioned BUT this deterrence in the South Asian case is highly questionable. We have to see the geography of the South Asian region in this regard. Deterrence worked between USSR and USA because of the huge mass of land and water, i.e, due to the distance between the two states. Because of the geographical proximity between Pakistan and India that argument is loosing its relevance.

3) thats a worst case scenario. We should only use such weapons if we know we can survive an attack from the India side.

4) Neither Pakistan, not India did that during the Kargil fiasco. Thats like playing with fire. I hope there are rational and saner ppl dealing with such issues.

6

Xtreme, why were we unable to stop Indian advances and why did Nawaz Sharif had to go to Washington after the low intensity Kargil war.If we had nuclear capability, why were we unable to deter the Indians? I don't understand that ... :--(

How do you explain this in light of ur statement, " Pak has the bomb and it can do some major damage so best to stay friendly that's the bottom line. And what's wrong with that? "

7

as far as nawaz sharif going to washington goes .. i call it the strongest display of weak or non-existant leadership. the matter couldve been resolved with alot of grace inviolated. that was the beginning of nawaz sharif's end. plus, kargil was different, pak army wasnt exactly/fully involved ... it was a well-planned and executed 'limited battle' which had extremely small chances of spreading out. so i say, there was no chance of nukes there .... answer to the questions in the opening post...
case1: nukes all the way!
case2: least likely ... table talks would resolve the matter (ganghes/indus/jammu water treaty or something like that)
case3: pak will respond by air strikes on indian territories .. if international powers dont intervene, nukes cant be ruled out.
case4: nukes will be fired as soon as we lose sialkot/lahore and indian army marches towards isloo.

hth.

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Minerva: *
b) However, in case of a nuclear attack on our facilities, I don't think we will be able to retaliate because the attack would have wiped all our nuclear facilities and would have created a panic situation for us. That is why there is so much stress on having the 'second strike capability'. I do not think we have acheived that a yet, where we are attacked and yet have the strength and capability left to strike a blow...
[/QUOTE]

Virtually all our ballistic missiles (the primary method of delivering warheads) are mobile, and by default that gives us a second strike facility because it is virtually impossible to wipe out every single mobile launcher an enemy posseses (see how much trouble the Allies had with Iraqi Scuds in the 1st Gulf War).

9

So, what you guys are saying is that unless someone else attacks us with a nuclear weapon first, there is no realistic option for Pakistan to strike first with a nuclear weapon.

Deterrance is all fine and good. Its good to have nukes, so no one else can either eye-ball us on issues (more important and more likely) and also no one can dare think of dropping a nuclear weapon on us (equally important but less likely). Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is likely to be disbursed in several places so its not expected to be an issue that we will be wiped clean of our nuclear assets in one attack by the enemy, and that was really not the point.

The point is, that even in extreme provocation and war, unless our enemies use a nuclear force on us first, Pakistan may never be in a position to use nukes.

10

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Faisal: *
The point is, that even in **extreme provocation and war*, unless our enemies use a nuclear force on us first, Pakistan may never be in a position to use nukes.
[/QUOTE]

sad but thats the truth.... :-(

aur waisay bhi india kuch bhi karay.. agar pakistan ne pehel ki to the whole world will go agaisnt us :S

11

The point of Pakistan's nuclear forces is to ensure that any hostile state remains in fear that should they apply sufficient conventional force to us to potentially overcome out conventional forces, they will be attacked with nuclear weapons, in large enough quantities to offset the gain from winning the war. In this way, conventional attack from a hostile country can be deterred - given the fact that Pakistan does not have the resources available to wage a full-scale conventional war for more than about 2-3 weeks.

And as for when they would be used - the initial deployment of nuclear weapons will be as tactical battlefield weapons once the conventional forces are in no shape to continue to fight.

For example, suppose that 18 days into the war, the remnants of a Pakistani Infantry Brigage, low on weapons, supplies and food, find that their part of the line is about to be attacked by 3 Indian tank brigades, the only way in which that section of the line can be held would be to use a short-ranged ballistic missile to detonate a small (5 kiloton) nuclear warhead a few thousand feet above the point where the Indians would be massing for attack.

A good way to look at this is to consider the circumstances under which NATO was willing to use nukes first during the cold war.

The NATO plan called for tactical nuclear weapons to be used to hold back the Warsaw Pact army should they break through the NATO defences in West Germany. NATO was willing to go nuclear first should its forces face collapse; so must Pakistan be ready to go nuclear first.

Of course, the Soviets were aware from their spies that defeating NATO in West Germany would throw the world into nuclear war, helping to encourage peace.

12

Well, Maddy you have explained it rather nicely. And I believe thats the answer to Faisal's question. However, we understand that it is only in such a situation Pakistan will be compelled to use a nuclear device, otherwise the possibility or the probability is far less...

My question is,
1) true in any such case, the enemy would be deterred from advancing further into our territory, however, once we have used a nuclear bomb, the liklihood of our opponent using and retaliating in kind could not be ruled out. So, how does deterrence work here?

2) Don't you think that it was 'bluff' so far as the cat was inside the bag. Once, we detonated our nuclear bomb then it was no longer a matter of bluffing BUT it is a reality now and which is balanced by an equally terrifying truth that the other side also has a nuclear bomb/s. It deterred the Indians as far as the other side 'knew' that we have something called nuclear capabilty.. the ambiguity created that kind of terror.

(Even a 5-kiloton nuclear wepaon would produce a lethal fallout.That is collateral damage cannot be ruled out ...talk of precision nuclear low yield weapons, thats dangerous...( this is just something I read and wanted to share)

13

salam logo ....

i have read almost all the possible situations put forward by u people here and what i cant seem to understand is why is everyone so worried about it......

it has been said time after time that Pakistan's Nuclear options are the last options not the first one.

as far as people asking when Pakistan will launch it ..... well the simple answer is when it has no other choice left.

someone here said that India has so many warheads and Pak only has 6 ....... well do u have any idea how much damage 6 nukes can do. it took just 2 (firecracker compared to todays nukes) to bring down Japan in WWII. it doesnt matter how many nukes u have .... what matters is how you use them if u decide to use them at all.

can anyone name 6 cities which India is ready to sacrifice to destory Pakistan????

Pakistan can never say yes to a no first strike pact simply coz india has an army more than twice the size , airforce outnumbers PAF about 3 to 1 and Pak Navy is simply a boat club compared to Indian Navy.

people who would like to have an idea what would happen incase of an Indo Pak war i would advise them to read a book titled "The Forth Round 1984" written by a very respected defense analyst named "Ravi Rakhye". that must be enough to give u an idea.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ich_dien: *someone here said that India has so many warheads and Pak only has 6 ....... well do u have any idea how much damage 6 nukes can do. it took just 2 (firecracker compared to todays nukes) to bring down Japan in WWII. it doesnt matter how many nukes u have .... what matters is how you use them if u decide to use them at all.
[/QUOTE]

That anology does not hold true. The reason why Japan surrendered after just 2 nuclear strikes on population centres was that they believed the USA had sufficient extra nukes that should they continue to resist, every city in Japan would be destroyed, while Japan lacked the firepower to hit back.

George Fernandes, the Indian defence minister, said during the course of the last nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan that it did not matter if Pakistan lauched nuclear strikes on India, because India had so many people that it could take the loss of 12-20 million of its population and recover within a few years. Furthermore, the Indian nuclear strikes would have obliterated all Pakistani cities, crippling Pakistan for centuries to come.

Comparing Japan to India is simply not valid.

Faisal, I was reading your initially post once more, and I think you are under the impression that the only use of a nuclear weapon could be to hit the enemy cities, such as what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hence the use of nukes seems like a major event.

Over the past decades, many armies, including Pakistan's, have viewed nukes as being a tactical weapon, used to turn the tide of a particular battle, rather than being limited to just city-busting.

A small nuclear strike against a troop concentration would not be as serious an escalation of the conflict as a large nuclear strike against a city. Limiting the initial usage of nukes to battlefield targets would not directly lead to nuclear holocaust, unless the other side in the conflict decides to disproportionately respond to a tactical nuclear strike against a military target with a strategic nuclear strike against a population centre.

Assuming both sides want to spare their population centres from annihilation, neither party in such a limited nuclear war scenario would be willing to escalate to strategic nuclear warfare in such a way.

15

Pakistan has 6 nuclear weapons?? I think not fellas
What did Musharraf come on Gupshup and post this himself. Even conservative estimates I have read would place that figure closer to 20.
How could you have 6 nukes if they have been in devlopment since the 70's. As for the Indians having the ability to handle nuclear damage, that is very strange statement. Can you imagine the casualties produced by a nuclear strike on a city like Bombay. Thats not just the casualties from the nuke but from the chaos that would ensue afterwords. The strain on the health care system would be massive. Forget India, I don't even know if the US could handle such a burden. (caring for millions of people suffering from radiations burns, starvations, cancer,,,,). Don't forget that in the process of nuking Pakistan, India would also devistate Indian Punjab which produces the majority of Indias food.
Of course it goes without saying that in the course of such a nuclear war Pakistan would be annhialated. All these things basically add to a positive, I doubt that there will ever be even a minor war on the subcontinet in the forseable future. The consequences of such an even would be too severe.

16

How about "never."

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fayax: *
How about "never."
[/QUOTE]

I'd go for that!

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

A small nuclear strike against a troop concentration would not be as serious an escalation of the conflict as a large nuclear strike against a city. Limiting the initial usage of nukes to battlefield targets would not directly lead to nuclear holocaust, unless the other side in the conflict decides to disproportionately respond to a tactical nuclear strike against a military target with a strategic nuclear strike against a population centre.

Assuming both sides want to spare their population centres from annihilation, neither party in such a limited nuclear war scenario would be willing to escalate to strategic nuclear warfare in such a way.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with this scenario is that once Pakistan uses tactical nukes to wipe out an indian formation, the least the indians will do is retaliate in kind (only a fool would believe they wouldn't at least retaliate with tactical nukes). Now since both sides are using tactical nukes to wipe out conventional forces, the problem is that pakistan has fewer conventional forces AND fewer nukes so it is likely to be on the losing side of a tactical nuclear exchange. What happens when all our conventional forces are wiped out? Option 1 - we surrender. Option 2 - launch nuclear strikes against indian cities in the hope that it will force them to negotiate a truce. Of course option 2 could backfire horribly when the indians decide to retaliate against our cities. Make no mistake - it would be extremely difficult to limit a nuclear exchange on the asian sub-continent to just a tactical exchange. Only the intervention of the international community would prevent a tactical nuclear exchange escalating into a strategic exchange.

19

Any nuclear scenario concerning Pakistan is sure to draw China into the fray...No one will mess with China and Pakistan and China have a long history of siding with each other in conflicts, albeit one for which I am not happy...The Tibet issue...

20

shudders at the thought

i wish inshallah it never comes to that