PDA

View Full Version : Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis



Tinu
05 Jul 11,, 09:45
Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis

Written by: Khan A. Sufyan

Recent testing of short range ballistic and cruise missiles by Pakistan has initiated a debate in India regarding possible use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the strategic instability it has caused. Pakistan’s declared nuclear format clearly indicates deterrence against conventional as well as nuclear threat. To provide credibility to such deterrence a full spectrum response capability is essential which also devolves around the principle difference between the use of tactical nuclear weapons and tactical use of nuclear weapons.

Contrarily, the Indians state that their nuclear capability principally acts as deterrence against the use of nuclear weapons by any adversary. This clearly indicates that against Pakistan they intend to fight a conventional war using their superior conventional forces. An attempt to acquire anti-ballistic missile defence capability is also indicative of such intent.

Various Indian Defence Ministers and Chiefs of Army Staffs, on different occasions have stated that all wars fought between India and Pakistan were limited in nature and that limited wars are possible in future also, under a nuclear overhang. It has been further qualified that the limited war would be fought for attainment of shallow objectives, while remaining short of Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds.

Accurate identification of an adversary’s nuclear thresholds is indeed a difficult proposition. Though the nuclear policies and various strategies guiding nuclear responses have relatively been well profiled by various nuclear weapon states, the thresholds however, have never been made public in the manner. More often than not, this ambiguity is deliberately left in order to cause uncertainty in adversary’s decision making calculus. This may force imposition of restrictions as to how deep or shallow the objectives of attacking forces may have to be.

In India – Pakistan nuclear environment as well, such circumspection has apparently added to the deterrence value and may dictate the duration, thrusts and locations in the application of forces. An examination of Pakistan’s possible nuclear thresholds will be in order to see if the Indian doctrine of conventional war under nuclear overhang is at all valid.

A Pre-emptive Response Threshold (PRT) may be evoked against Indian actions that may be premeditated, pre-emptive, incautious and accidental or events spiraling out of control. These strikes may invariably be launched on Indian territory and may take the form of nuclear strike on Indian armed forces, cities and economic and communication centers. The response may even be undertaken due to preparatory engagement of targets inside Pakistani territory, threatening strategic and forward assembly of Indian troops, on escalation of nuclear alert status or even an accidental or rogue firing of Indian nuclear missiles.

An Early Response Threshold (ERT) may result in a nuclear retaliation during the early stages of Indian offensive after the international border has been crossed. Early nuclear response may be resorted to when sensitive locations (important towns/cities etc close to the international border) of psycho-social and communication/economic importance are threatened or captured. It could also be the combined resultant affect of an existential extreme political and economic situation, exacerbation of which is blamed on India and may be undertaken by a government under intense public pressure.

In a Delayed Response Threshold (DRT) the nuclear strikes may be undertaken only after saturation of the conventional response. Evoking of such a response may vary according to the peculiar geographical lay of international border or contiguity of various sensitive locations to the international border and may even take the form of certain imaginary lines drawn on the map.

Finally, the Accumulative Response Threshold (ART) may be evoked if India initiates a graduated application of force. In such a scenario, a naval coercion gradually escalated to blockade coupled with graduated conventional selective air and ground strikes on economic targets, communication infrastructure, politically sensitive locations and military targets are undertaken. The accumulative destructive effect of such conventional strikes may evoke either an early or a delayed nuclear response depending on the summative effect of destruction that has taken place.

These thresholds highlight the fact that even limited wars which Indian defence intelligentsia believes in, are fraught with the threat of nuclear response even before the attacking forces attempt to cross the international border. The decision to initiate war therefore, even limited, must carefully factor in the nuclear response during the early stages of mobilization.

The Indian stated position that their nuclear warfare preparations are against China which would automatically take care of Pakistan’s nuclear threat, has indirectly infused a sense of inconsequentiality of Pakistan’s nuclear capability and has forced Pakistan to improve her nuclear response. This has led to stability – instability paradox for which only the Indians are responsible and not Pakistan.

With China factored in by the Indians, the bilateral India-Pakistan discussions on any nuclear restraint regime may not be helpful towards amenable regional environment. Therefore, inclusion of China in a regional strategic stability can produce the desired results.

Link: Exploring Pakistan's Nuclear Thresholds - Analysis (http://www.eurasiareview.com/exploring-pakistans-nuclear-thresholds-analysis-05052011/)

nvishal
12 Jul 11,, 15:56
Written by: Khan A. Sufyan
Interesting writer. Brilliantly makes a case by edging around conspiracy theories all the while avoiding making any outright hyperbole statements.

At least, this (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/60775-us-plans-jewish-state-ihk.html) didn't require any wit to write.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 09:28
Interesting writer. Brilliantly makes a case by edging around conspiracy theories all the while avoiding making any outright hyperbole statements.

At least, this (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/60775-us-plans-jewish-state-ihk.html) didn't require any wit to write.

Sir,
There are no conspiracy theories the writer highlights, he has just explained the ground realities. Interestingly however, whereras the Indian government declared China as their number one threat, about 80% of their armed forces are deployed against Pakistan. I dont know if the Indian government declared China as their number one threat primarily to gain American and Western economic investment, support or is just plain lying to acquire advanced weapon systems as such weapon systems can not be provided by Russians. Either ways, by keeping 80% of their forces biased against Pakistan decries their pronouncement of China being their number one enemy. And Pakistan have to fight Alqaeda and Taliban in the west along Afghanistan border and has also to hold balance against such massive Indian forces stationed accross their borders in the east. Nuclear response is probably the only answer.

nvishal
13 Jul 11,, 10:10
@Tinu
The writers assessment resembles that of a typical fanboy. I honestly hope you wack away this fantasy at the most.

Nuclear war defies logic. It WILL be limited.

The cryptic desire of pakistan that it can provoke to extinguish itself and go back to becoming a part of bharat is far stretched. India will rather watch pakistan kill itself than to have to do it herself. The "shallow objectives" are actually "cynical" after all. What's interesting is its methods; all it has to do is disengage.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 10:58
@Tinu
The writers assessment resembles that of a typical fanboy. I honestly hope you wack away this fantasy at the most.

Nuclear war defies logic. It WILL be limited.

The cryptic desire of pakistan that it can provoke to extinguish itself and go back to becoming a part of bharat is far stretched. India will rather watch pakistan kill itself than to have to do it herself. The "shallow objectives" are actually "cynical" after all. What's interesting is its methods; all it has to do is disengage.

Sir,
From his writings, he certainly seems much more educated that your fanboy assessment. The writer has gone further than your comments "Nuclear war defies logic. It WILL be limited." and states that due to advent of nuclear environment and low Pakistani thresholds, even limited war does not remain an option. That is exactly what the Americans and Russians understood after years and years of confrontation. I think it is time you guys also learn the same.

Incidentally, if you are so sure of a only limited war against Pakistan under a nuclear overhang, as the Indian say, why have the Indians overwhelmingly biased their armed forces towards Pakistan as compared to China - India's declared number one enemy. Are Indians fooling the US and the West - I think they are.

nvishal
13 Jul 11,, 11:24
@Tinu
Do not insist on making an argument based on fantasies.

You cannot compare US/Russia with India/pakistan. The formers nukes actually work and can travel the claimed distances and hit the bullseye. They have an enormous inventory. The later's inventory is low, untested, inefficient and fails to go full nuclear. Even with a 50% success rate, you can hardly damage 10% of india.

There is no way india and pakistan have the capacity to fight a nuclear war. Pakistan has no choice but to fight off an indian military intervention with traditional ways. If this intervention ever attracts a desperate pakistani nuclear response, you can be sure that the pain, suffering and death which the pakistani's will be made to endure will be slow and agonizing.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 11:40
@Tinu
Do not insist on making an argument based on fantasies.

You cannot compare US/Russia with India/pakistan. The formers nukes actually work and can travel the claimed distances and hit the bullseye. They have an enormous inventory. The later's inventory is low, untested, inefficient and fails to go full nuclear. Even with a 50% success rate, you can hardly damage 10% of india.

There is no way india and pakistan have the capacity to fight a nuclear war. Pakistan has no choice but to fight off an indian military intervention with traditional ways. If this intervention ever attracts a desperate pakistani nuclear response, you can be sure that the pain, suffering and death which the pakistani's will be made to endure will be slow and agonizing.

You are repeating what many Indian Generals have often said, India is very big and can absorb Pakistan's nuclear strike but when India strikes back Pakistan would be totally destroyed. That is why probably Pakistan is increasing her nuclear arsenal. If in a couple of year's time - or even now, as one report says that Pakistan has almost 200 nuclear weapons and India has about 150 - Pakistan destroys about 200 major Indian cities in first strike, India would become unlivable for next 1000 years. Yeas your counter strike would do the same to Pakistan - this is what MAD is and is part of deterrence strategy. What triggers such massive destruction, Indian conventional attack against Pakistan. Think sanely before you go and shout hoarse about India being a powerful and strong country - no you aint. :)

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 12:01
That is why probably Pakistan is increasing her nuclear arsenal.Pakistan denies this.


If in a couple of year's time - or even now, as one report says that Pakistan has almost 200 nuclear weapons and India has about 150Both may increase about 5 nukes in 2 years but no way can their reactors produce that much fissile materials in such short time.


Pakistan destroys about 200 major Indian cities in first strike,Aircraft delivered? Highly unlikely.


India would become unlivable for next 1000 years.Who's living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today?


Yeas your counter strike would do the same to Pakistan - this is what MAD is and is part of deterrence strategy.Pakistani Generals have no hope of surviving a nuclear exchange with India.

nvishal
13 Jul 11,, 12:05
Oh tinu, i understand you are a very patriotic guy. But please try to give higher precedence to "logic".

What use is having expensive destructive weapons if you do not the capacity to be able to throw them where you want?

Nuclear-isation is a 25-30 year process. By the time you reach there, your opponents will reach 25-30 more years ahead. Its a race in which you cannot win and will likely ruin yourself in the process.

I won't be participating in this thread any longer. You either understand or you don't.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 12:09
What use is having expensive destructive weapons if you do not the capacity to be able to throw them where you want?Obviously, the Pakistanis have identified their deployments and have the capacity to do so. Expansion of their delivery methods would increase their deployment capabilities but clearly, they have more targets than nukes.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 12:40
Pakistan denies this. Yeah they would as the Indians would also deny

Both may increase about 5 nukes in 2 years but no way can their reactors produce that much fissile materials in such short time.

Old information. Pakistan's capability has apparently increased as many international experts have stated recently.

Aircraft delivered? Highly unlikely.

Aircraft, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, short range missiles for tactical nukes

Who's living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today?

Neither Pakistan nor India have Japan's capability and it wont be only two cities

Pakistani Generals have no hope of surviving a nuclear exchange with India.

Neither would Indian Generals

I wish it was all so simple

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 12:43
Obviously, the Pakistanis have identified their deployments and have the capacity to do so. Expansion of their delivery methods would increase their deployment capabilities but clearly, they have more targets than nukes.

Yes at this stage there may be more targets and less delivery and nukes, but over time this differential is likely to reduce. After all why would a nuclear power have non-compatible target engaging infrastructure.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 12:45
Oh tinu, i understand you are a very patriotic guy. But please try to give higher precedence to "logic".

What use is having expensive destructive weapons if you do not the capacity to be able to throw them where you want?

Nuclear-isation is a 25-30 year process. By the time you reach there, your opponents will reach 25-30 more years ahead. Its a race in which you cannot win and will likely ruin yourself in the process.

I won't be participating in this thread any longer. You either understand or you don't.

When you don't have the answers to questions that are being asked, this is the best strategy. :)

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 13:09
Yeah they would as the Indians would also denyI have not read such denials by India.


Old information. Pakistan's capability has apparently increased as many international experts have stated recently.The expansion of their facilities have not even began yet and it will be done by China via 1970s technology, hardly a step in increased production within 2 years. All that has been done thus far are the paper plans and the contracts being signed.


Aircraft, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, short range missiles for tactical nukesEven accepting your number at 200 nukes, that's way too small an arsenal for tac ops. Also, there is no intelligence that the Pakistanis have started working on RVs and impact fusing. Pakistan has officially stated that they will not mate nukes to rockets. At this juncture, I do have not read anything to contradict that statement. All their missiles have been assigned to conventional strike batteries, no nuclear assignments thus far. Also, taking into account that their nukes are kept in component form, no exercises have been observed to mating nukes to rockets.

The same with India though they do have 2 regts assigned the nuclear role.


Neither Pakistan nor India have Japan's capability and it wont be only two citiesWhat? Clean water? There won't be rain for ten years? 30 years? 100 years? 1000 years? You really want to discuss nuclear decontamination with me? People may not be living near Chernobyl but animal and plant life have long since returned.


Neither would Indian GeneralsIndian generals have thought this through, more specifically, K Sundarji. I have yet to read a Pakistani general with such clear understanding.


Yes at this stage there may be more targets and less delivery and nukes, but over time this differential is likely to reduce. After all why would a nuclear power have non-compatible target engaging infrastructure.So that they don't have to fight a nuclear war.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 13:53
I have not read such denials by India. You may not have

The expansion of their facilities have not even began yet and it will be done by China via 1970s technology, hardly a step in increased production within 2 years. All that has been done thus far are the paper plans and the contracts being signed.

You are talking about the known facilities being constructed with Chinese help. How many thousands of centrifuges do Pakistan have is a mere guess game. How much have they increased is also guess game. After the Indian nuclear agreement with USA, how much fissile material has India accumulated is also a guess work

Even accepting your number at 200 nukes, that's way too small an arsenal for tac ops. Also, there is no intelligence that the Pakistanis have started working on RVs and impact fusing. Pakistan has officially stated that they will not mate nukes to rockets. At this juncture, I do have not read anything to contradict that statement. All their missiles have been assigned to conventional strike batteries, no nuclear assignments thus far. Also, taking into account that their nukes are kept in component form, no exercises have been observed to mating nukes to rockets.

All their ballistic missile batteries should be part of their nuclear command structure, as it is frivolous for a small nuclear power to use these for mere conventional strikes, unless used as dummy strikes to hide the nuclear weapon carrying platform. If they have a lot more than nuclear requirement, then it may be possible to use these for conventional strikes. Yes the cruise missiles which they have would also be used for conventional strikes. I dont think they'd be announcing such exercises in media. I however think that transparency would come in as their program enhances and as they would want their deterrence value enhanced

The same with India though they do have 2 regts assigned the nuclear role.

Outdated information. They already have three missile brigades with each strike corps and there are additional missile brigades for long range missiles as well. Currently, I don't have the exact number

What? Clean water? There won't be rain for ten years? 30 years? 100 years? 1000 years? You really want to discuss nuclear decontamination with me? People may not be living near Chernobyl but animal and plant life have long since returned.

Agreed. The efforts required to take care of even 100 big cities are enormous to say the least.

Indian generals have thought this through, more specifically, K Sundarji. I have yet to read a Pakistani general with such clear understanding.f his time.

Yes I've read Sunderji's book. He in my opinion was much ahead of his time. However, when India conducted the nuclear tests, no Indian general was even taken in to confidence and therefore their strategic application started later. Yes Pakistanis have not written much about this due to their secrecy stuff, but this does not mean that their induction of nuclear aspect lacked in any way.

So that they don't have to fight a nuclear war.

I dont think so. I think they would be ready to fight a nuclear war due to their limited conventional response capability

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 14:50
You are talking about the known facilities being constructed with Chinese help. How many thousands of centrifuges do Pakistan have is a mere guess game. How much have they increased is also guess game. After the Indian nuclear agreement with USA, how much fissile material has India accumulated is also a guess work.Physics is not guess work. And my country and my alliance as those of our former great foes (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) have been at this game for 30 years longer than Pakistan had nukes. You may be good at hiding a few things but not that good. As it currently stands, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists states both India and Pakistan have around 100 nukes. One side may have about 10-20 more than other but pretty close to each other. No way either country can double or even get 50 more in the next 2 years. From what I can gather from non-open source materials, that's pretty accurate.


All their ballistic missile batteries should be part of their nuclear command structure, as it is frivolous for a small nuclear power to use these for mere conventional strikes, unless used as dummy strikes to hide the nuclear weapon carrying platform. If they have a lot more than nuclear requirement, then it may be possible to use these for conventional strikes. Yes the cruise missiles which they have would also be used for conventional strikes. I dont think they'd be announcing such exercises in media. I however think that transparency would come in as their program enhances and as they would want their deterrence value enhancedYour evaluation is faulty. Those Pakistani missiles are based on Chinese programs and the Chinese have replaced their first strike option with conventional packages as did the Americans and the Russians. Again, I state there is no intelligence that either Pakistan nor India have even began mating nukes to rockets. Most certainly, the Pakistanis have not started RV and fuse developments necessary for these programs to do so.


Outdated information. They already have three missile brigades with each strike corps and there are additional missile brigades for long range missiles as well. Currently, I don't have the exact numberConventional strike packages. Your reference to tac nukes is quite telling which points to your bias. Tac nukes are obsolete. Conventional strike packages delivers equivalent effects and without the hassles and time delays of asking the NCA for release on time sensitive targets. Neither Dehli nor Islamabad would ever release authority to brigade colonels needed by brigade colonels to attack time sensitive targets.


Agreed. The efforts required to take care of even 100 big cities are enormous to say the least.People will die both during and after a nuclear exchange. The collapse of the local infrastructure so wide apart will collapse both Indian and Pakistani LOCs in trying to rush aide to the impact areas. It is not like an earthquake (which is far more damaging than the entire combined arsenals of both countries) or a tsunami where the damage is concentrated and your rescue parties can move from one end to the other. You have to stretch your rescue forces both north, south, east, west and even Western aide cannot add much.

That being said, it is ludicrous to suggest that no one will live in those cities for a 1000 years. Given enough rain, the radioactivity will be washed away to tolerable levels.


Yes I've read Sunderji's book. He in my opinion was much ahead of his time. However, when India conducted the nuclear tests, no Indian general was even taken in to confidence and therefore their strategic application started later. Yes Pakistanis have not written much about this due to their secrecy stuff, but this does not mean that their induction of nuclear aspect lacked in any way.You fight the way you are trained and neither India nor Pakistan have been training for nuclear war.


I dont think so. I think they would be ready to fight a nuclear war due to their limited conventional response capabilityLack of conventional response? Despite India's Cold Start Doctrine, any fight between these two are going to be bloody and hard. Those canals the Pakistani Army dug ain't easy to cross.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 15:49
Physics is not guess work. And my country and my alliance as those of our former great foes (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) have been at this game for 30 years longer than Pakistan had nukes. You may be good at hiding a few things but not that good. As it currently stands, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists states both India and Pakistan have around 100 nukes. One side may have about 10-20 more than other but pretty close to each other. No way either country can double or even get 50 more in the next 2 years. From what I can gather from non-open source materials, that's pretty accurate.

Agreed physics is not guess work and is worked on accurate stats. And these accurate stats are the ones which should be accurate enough to produce accurate results - these accurate stats are not available.
I disagree on your content that only limited %age can be hidden.
I for one would question your non-open source information

Your evaluation is faulty. Those Pakistani missiles are based on Chinese programs and the Chinese have replaced their first strike option with conventional packages as did the Americans and the Russians. Again, I state there is no intelligence that either Pakistan nor India have even began mating nukes to rockets. Most certainly, the Pakistanis have not started RV and fuse developments necessary for these programs to do so.

My evaluation may be faulty. Agreed. However, your evaluation is based on Russia - America nuclear environment. Pakistan and India are two nuclear armed neighbors which Russia and America or the Chinese are not. The environment here is almost completely different and so would the reactions of the two countries would be.
Who said the nukes are mated. In Indian case I've read news coverage indicating construction of silos for missiles, but whether they would be mated or are mated, I also have no confirmed information - though the concept of construction of silos tend to indicate mated environment or drastic reduction of reaction time.

You need to better understand the environment of two acrimonious nuclear neighbors living under nuclear environment before comparing Russian and American experience - In my knowledge there are many many things which can not be taken for granted.

Conventional strike packages. Your reference to tac nukes is quite telling which points to your bias. Tac nukes are obsolete. Conventional strike packages delivers equivalent effects and without the hassles and time delays of asking the NCA for release on time sensitive targets. Neither Dehli nor Islamabad would ever release authority to brigade colonels needed by brigade colonels to attack time sensitive targets.

Well, again I would ask you to try and better understand the nuclear environment of two acrimonious nuclear armed neighbors. US nuclear response in European theater was different, though at one time, the theater commander was allowed to use 50-60 nuclear weapons within first some minutes of WARSAW's offensive, which included tactical use of nuclear weapons. That is what the author also emphasizes, "use of tactical nuclear weapons or tactical use of nuclear weapons". However, in case of two nuclear armed neighbors, the SOPs of how to use these weapons, if at all, can be worked out - again I emphasize, you need to understand that these are two neighbors with inflammable acrimonious relationship and the survival of one against the threat of other.

People will die both during and after a nuclear exchange. The collapse of the local infrastructure so wide apart will collapse both Indian and Pakistani LOCs in trying to rush aide to the impact areas. It is not like an earthquake (which is far more damaging than the entire combined arsenals of both countries) or a tsunami where the damage is concentrated and your rescue parties can move from one end to the other. You have to stretch your rescue forces both north, south, east, west and even Western aide cannot add much.

Agreed. You need to understand the response capability of both these countries. I have lived in both for a protracted period of time and it is nothing like what you see in the west. The response capabilities, whatever the strength, are all in the cities, and if the cities get nuked, the illiterate villagers wont be able to respond in the manner

That being said, it is ludicrous to suggest that no one will live in those cities for a 1000 years. Given enough rain, the radioactivity will be washed away to tolerable levels.

Agreed

You fight the way you are trained and neither India nor Pakistan have been training for nuclear war.

I disagree partly. Both countries have conducted exercises with this in mind

Lack of conventional response? Despite India's Cold Start Doctrine, any fight between these two are going to be bloody and hard. Those canals the Pakistani Army dug ain't easy to cross.

WOW ....... Both countries have these canals and defense ditches constructed on their borders. You are an engineer, you'd better understand the AVLBs, and numerous other types of quick launch bridges etc. Both armies have these and continuously practice to cross these obstacles using such engineer infrastructure. These can delay an advancing force, can not stop it.

bigross86
13 Jul 11,, 16:13
Wow. Did you just question a Staff level Engineer on engineering tactics and tools? Tinu, you might be knowledgeable in the area, but until you show some creds that show you have a comparable amount of knowledge and experience as the Colonel, you are outgunned here.

Israel also has a very intricate system of ditches, berms and minefields and we train to breach the Syrian side, but the difference in the training is that Israel is in a fight for her survival. Barring the nuclear option, and considering the size of the border between India and Pakistan, neither India nor Pakistan are in a survival deathmatch and therefore the tactics and strategies are different, including the acceptable casualties in breaching the fortifications.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 16:23
Wow. Did you just question a Staff level Engineer on engineering tactics and tools? Tinu, you might be knowledgeable in the area, but until you show some creds that show you have a comparable amount of knowledge and experience as the Colonel, you are outgunned here.

Israel also has a very intricate system of ditches, berms and minefields and we train to breach the Syrian side, but the difference in the training is that Israel is in a fight for her survival. Barring the nuclear option, and considering the size of the border between India and Pakistan, neither India nor Pakistan are in a survival deathmatch and therefore the tactics and strategies are different, including the acceptable casualties in breaching the fortifications.

Oh I am so sorry if you feel I've challenged any professional here. You may have misunderstood my intent - which was pure intellectual discussion and nothing more. I am learning here and it is a good intellectual discussion. I am enjoying being part of it, but I never intended to challenge any professional. I highly respect these guys - they are good at what they do, as those professionals some of whom I know in Pakistan. :)

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 16:29
Wow. Did you just question a Staff level Engineer on engineering tactics and tools? Tinu, you might be knowledgeable in the area, but until you show some creds that show you have a comparable amount of knowledge and experience as the Colonel, you are outgunned here.

Israel also has a very intricate system of ditches, berms and minefields and we train to breach the Syrian side, but the difference in the training is that Israel is in a fight for her survival. Barring the nuclear option, and considering the size of the border between India and Pakistan, neither India nor Pakistan are in a survival deathmatch and therefore the tactics and strategies are different, including the acceptable casualties in breaching the fortifications.

Pakistan considers itself in a survival mode and that is why the nuclear as well as the conventional environment are completely different as compared to many other parts of the world. One needs to understand the nuclear environment between India and Pakistan in this survival mode.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 16:30
Oh I am so sorry if you feel I've challenged any professional here. You may have misunderstood my intent - which was pure intellectual discussion and nothing more. I am learning here and it is a good intellectual discussion. I am enjoying being part of it, but I never intended to challenge any professional. I highly respect these guys - they are good at what they do, as those professionals some of whom I know in Pakistan. :)

I've amended my post as well.

bigross86
13 Jul 11,, 16:43
Pakistan considers itself in a survival mode and that is why the nuclear as well as the conventional environment are completely different as compared to many other parts of the world. One needs to understand the nuclear environment between India and Pakistan in this survival mode.

Pakistan may consider itself in survival mode, but physically it is not. A country of 170 million is not at threat of extinction from a ~3.5 million man army, barring a nuclear exchange. Islamabad is ~300 km from the border, and even IF Islamabad would fall, Pakistan is still not in threat of it's existence, especially since as far as I know, the main portion of the conflict revolves around Kashmir.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 16:43
Agreed physics is not guess work and is worked on accurate stats. And these accurate stats are the ones which should be accurate enough to produce accurate results - these accurate stats are not available.A factory and a mine has been producing x amount of materials for x amount of years. That ain't no made up stuff.


I disagree on your content that only limited %age can be hidden.You've never seen NATO and Warsaw Pact eyes and ears working. We are not India and Pakistan. We have been looking for and targeting each other's nukes long before both South Asian countries got that gleam in their eyes. In case, you don't get the meaning. The 1st strike option against both India and Pakistan has been studied and the confidence of their success is not low.


I for one would question your non-open source informationBe my guess.

Pakistan (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full)
Indian nuclear forces, 2010 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/5/76.full)


My evaluation may be faulty. Agreed. However, your evaluation is based on Russia - America nuclear environment. Pakistan and India are two nuclear armed neighbors which Russia and America or the Chinese are not. The environment here is almost completely different and so would the reactions of the two countries would be.You're right. The environment is different. Ours had far, far, far, far, far more lethality. The Fulda Gap dwarfs anything both India and Pakistan can even pretend to understand. The opening day of that unfought war would have seen over 1000 nukes being tossed against one another. You have a long way to go to pretend you know more than me here.


Who said the nukes are mated. In Indian case I've read news coverage indicating construction of silos for missiles, but whether they would be mated or are mated, I also have no confirmed information - though the concept of construction of silos tend to indicate mated environment or drastic reduction of reaction time.And thus, their primary 1st strike mission is conventional.


Well, again I would ask you to try and better understand the nuclear environment of two acrimonious nuclear armed neighbors. US nuclear response in European theater was different, though at one time, the theater commander was allowed to use 50-60 nuclear weapons within first some minutes of WARSAW's offensive, which included tactical use of nuclear weapons. That is what the author also emphasizes, "use of tactical nuclear weapons or tactical use of nuclear weapons". However, in case of two nuclear armed neighbors, the SOPs of how to use these weapons, if at all, can be worked out - again I emphasize, you need to understand that these are two neighbors with inflammable acrimonious relationship and the survival of one against the threat of other.Both Pakistan and Indian nuclear force postures are consistent with a 2nd strike retaliatory role. There has been no training to mate, mount, and launch nuke tip missiles on surprise alerts. Their storage is also consistent with design to absorb a 1st strike rather than launch on warning, mainly component form nukes not mated to delivery vehicles and thus, spreading out the number of targets that must be hit to disable the nuclear arm. In complete contrast to American, Russian, British, and French arsenals where a significant portion is always on a warfooting. No Pakistani nor Indian nuke is on a warfooting.


Agreed. You need to understand the response capability of both these countries. I have lived in both for a protracted period of time and it is nothing like what you see in the west. The response capabilities, whatever the strength, are all in the cities, and if the cities get nuked, the illiterate villagers wont be able to respond in the mannerYou mean those villagers cannot give someone water or give him a decent burial if only to avoid rotting corpses poisoning their water?

Those villagers go against your argument, not for. You cannot bomb someone back to the stone age when they're already being happy in the stone age.


I disagree partly. Both countries have conducted exercises with this in mind.Show me which exercise resembles a nuclear battlefield. I've been through quite a few of those. Which one are you suggesting is one?


WOW ....... Both countries have these canals and defense ditches constructed on their borders. You name yourself an engineer, you'd understand the AVLBs, and numerous other types of quick launch bridges etc. Both armies have these and continuously practice to cross these obstacles using such engineer infrastructure. These can delay an advancing force, can not stop it.I am not going to cross a corps on AVLBs.

Cactus
13 Jul 11,, 17:03
I highly respect these guys - they are good at what they do, as those professionals some of whom I know in Pakistan. :)

Tinu, Would you care to tell us what are those "80% of Indian armed forces deployed against Pakistan"? By a rough rule of thumb I see that Indian Eastern and ANC Commands have nothing to do with Pakistan, Northern, Central and Southern Commands are dual-tasked, and only the Western and South-Western Commands are primarily Pak-centric. Yes, the Indian heavy ground forces are Pak-centric, and it is a self-explanatory factor of topography and current threat-perception; in balance, you should note that the Indian naval and strategic forces are proportionately lot less interested about Pakistan. What do your professional friends in Pakistan have to say about those formations? :biggrin:

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 17:14
Pakistan may consider itself in survival mode, but physically it is not. A country of 170 million is not at threat of extinction from a ~3.5 million man army, barring a nuclear exchange. Islamabad is ~300 km from the border, and even IF Islamabad would fall, Pakistan is still not in threat of it's existence, especially since as far as I know, the main portion of the conflict revolves around Kashmir.

Like Israel, people generally do not understand the terrain properly to visualize the kind of threat they face. Therefore, it is important to understand the terrain along India-Pakistan border and how does it impinge on defense as well as offense. The three Indian strike corps and other corps size formations which are predominated with armour and mechanized columns and supported by many additional divisions (minus the nuclear environment) would attempt to cut the thin Pakistan waist possibly from 3-4 different locations and would later attempt to deal with each segregated portion independently. Pakistan's limited war stamina as compared to India is likely to force Pakistan to make an early nuclear call, which in my opinion is basically a survival call. The author says that even threat of capture of Islamabad and other such like critical centers may invite threat of nuclear response.

Like I said, people who are not from Israel may not correctly understand their predicament - so would people who are not from Pakistan, would find it difficult to understand as to how Pakistan feel and react.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 17:25
Tinu, Would you care to tell us what are those "80% of Indian armed forces deployed against Pakistan"? By a rough rule of thumb I see that Indian Eastern and ANC Commands have nothing to do with Pakistan, Northern, Central and Southern Commands are dual-tasked, and only the Western and South-Western Commands are primarily Pak-centric. Yes, the Indian heavy ground forces are Pak-centric, and it is a self-explanatory factor of topography and current threat-perception; in balance, you should note that the Indian naval and strategic forces are proportionately lot less interested about Pakistan. What do your professional friends in Pakistan have to say about those formations? :biggrin:

OK. You asked for it ...... here goes

Indian border with China including the LAC is about 3380 kilometers. With Pakistan the border including the LOC spans for about 2012 kilometers. To defend this vast space Indian Army’s current deployment posture and the increase after new raising still indicate a heavy bias towards Pakistan.

Commands (less Training Command)
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 5
Against China (Current Deployment) - 1
Against China (After New Raising) - 1

Corps
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 10
Against China (Current Deployment) - 3
Against China (After New Raising) - 4

Armoured Divisions
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 3
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Mechanised Divisions
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 5
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Infantry Divisions
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 17
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Mountain Divisions which are part of eastern command, in case of war with Pakistan, most are moved to Pakistan borders
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 3
Against China (Current Deployment) - 7
Against China (After New Raising) - 11

Artillery Divisions
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 3
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 1

Independent Armoured Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 7
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Independent Mechanised Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 2
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Independent Infantry Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 2
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Mountain Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 3
Against China (Current Deployment) - 1
Against China (After New Raising) - 3

Independent Artillery Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 3
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Independent Air Defence Brigades
Indian Army Deployment Against Pakistan - 12
Against China (Current Deployment) - 0
Against China (After New Raising) - 0

Out of the current 6 Army operational commands (each comprising 2–3 Corps) 5 are deployed against Pakistan. Eastern Command touted to be deployed against China, also looks after the Bangladesh and Myanmar borders. In case of war, most of its formations move to Pakistan border as has happened in all previous wars.

Out of thirteen Corps’, ten are defensive, while three are Strike Corps. The three strike Corps consist of 3 Armoured, 4 Infantry, 5 Mechanised and 3 Artillery Divisions. The only country against whom these mechanised components numbering over 3-4000 tanks and armoured personnel carriers could be employed, is Pakistan and not China due to the mountainous nature of the terrain. Ten out of the thirteen Corps are deployed against Pakistan.

The Indian Navy is equipped with over 140 surface ships, 17 submarines and 119 aircraft/helicopters, divided in 4 Naval Commands with bulk deployed against Pakistan. Out of 16 Indian Navy bases, only 4 are deployed on its eastern coast against purported Chinese intrusion in the Bay of Bengal whereas 12 naval bases are on its western coast against Pakistan.

Indian Air Force consists of 5 operational commands. It has 44 Operational Squadrons and 12 Transport Squadrons. 29 Indian Air Bases are deployed against Pakistan as compared to 6 against China, which India calls it enemy number one.

Please read this and then we can discuss. :)

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 17:44
A factory and a mine has been producing x amount of materials for x amount of years. That ain't no made up stuff.

Sir, Agreed. However, you can be accurate only if you know the x amount of materials and for x amount of years, provided you know the number of days the factory didn't work. When these things are secret, only intelligent guesses are worked out which in my opinion are not always correct.

You've never seen NATO and Warsaw Pact eyes and ears working. We are not India and Pakistan. We have been looking for and targeting each other's nukes long before both South Asian countries got that gleam in their eyes. In case, you don't get the meaning. The 1st strike option against both India and Pakistan has been studied and the confidence of their success is not low.

Well sir, good luck to your strike options and confidence - have you worked out the details, if you may be surprised and then the consequences. Think coolly, as we are discussing nuclear strike options here. In any case Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is India Centric and is no threat to the west.

Be my guess.

Pakistan (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full)
Indian nuclear forces, 2010 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/5/76.full)

Sir these are open source materials. I can produce a ton of links here and no two analyses may be identical.

You're right. The environment is different. Ours had far, far, far, far, far more lethality. The Fulda Gap dwarfs anything both India and Pakistan can even pretend to understand. The opening day of that unfought war would have seen over 1000 nukes being tossed against one another. You have a long way to go to pretend you know more than me here.

And thus, their primary 1st strike mission is conventional.

Agreed as far as your environment are concerned. You are talking India - Pakistan - and Sir by no stretch of imagination I consider you an expert in this field - no offense meant sir.

The primary first strike mission is nuclear - delay in mating notwithstanding. This is not a hair-trigger alert environment. See even our thinking is different


Both Pakistan and Indian nuclear force postures are consistent with a 2nd strike retaliatory role. There has been no training to mate, mount, and launch nuke tip missiles on surprise alerts. Their storage is also consistent with design to absorb a 1st strike rather than launch on warning, mainly component form nukes not mated to delivery vehicles and thus, spreading out the number of targets that must be hit to disable the nuclear arm. In complete contrast to American, Russian, British, and French arsenals where a significant portion is always on a warfooting. No Pakistani nor Indian nuke is on a warfooting.


Sir, the systems that are followed by nuclear neighbors are not the same as followed by Russians and Americans. You need to understand that. We dont follow your definitions as well. :)

You mean those villagers cannot give someone water or give him a decent burial if only to avoid rotting corpses poisoning their water?

Those villagers go against your argument, not for. You cannot bomb someone back to the stone age when they're already being happy in the stone age.

Agreed.

Show me which exercise resembles a nuclear battlefield. I've been through quite a few of those. Which one are you suggesting is one?

Hmmmmm .... I believe mock sites are available with both India and Pakistan. No, these are not nuked ones :)

I am not going to cross a corps on AVLBs.

Agreed. As I said, AVLBs and other quick launch bridges. I am not a soldier and neither an engineer but I've seen corps sized formation crossing rivers, canals and ditches.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 17:55
Quote from Cactus
Tinu, Would you care to tell us what are those "80% of Indian armed forces deployed against Pakistan"? By a rough rule of thumb I see that Indian Eastern and ANC Commands have nothing to do with Pakistan, Northern, Central and Southern Commands are dual-tasked, and only the Western and South-Western Commands are primarily Pak-centric. Yes, the Indian heavy ground forces are Pak-centric, and it is a self-explanatory factor of topography and current threat-perception; in balance, you should note that the Indian naval and strategic forces are proportionately lot less interested about Pakistan. What do your professional friends in Pakistan have to say about those formations?



Sir,
Let me talk about the dual tasked formations. Indian Northern Command - 14, 15, 16 and 9 Corps' are deployed against Pakistan. An infantry brigade and some Indo Tibetan Border Police battalions are deployed against China. The stretch of border along India - Pakistan and India - China is almost the same. And yes sir, an infantry brigade and few ITBP battalions are tasked to fight against Chinese as compared to 4 Corps' are deployed along the line of control in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Central Command - All its Corps' are used against Pakistan and this has been proven time and time again by the exercises they conduct. No known exercise by any of these elements have been conducted along India - China border.

Yes these are dual tasked formation and would move to Chinese border only in case of war with China, but their primary task is against Pakistan.

Andaman Nicobar Command (ANC) - This command can threaten Pakistani shipping through Malacca Straits and is thus a threat to Pakistan.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 18:29
Sir, Agreed. However, you can be accurate only if you know the x amount of materials and for x amount of years, provided you know the number of days the factory didn't work. When these things are secret, only intelligent guesses are worked out which in my opinion are not always correct.It took Pakistan over 15 years to get 100 nukes. No matter what your guess is, there is simply no way to double that in 2. Not without at least doubling of factories.


Well sir, good luck to your strike options and confidence - have you worked out the details, if you may be surprised and then the consequences. Think coolly, as we are discussing nuclear strike options here.That contingency's confidence is high. If you note that there is talk about American SF teams securing Pakistani nukes in case of a Pakistani Taliban take over. That contingency is openly discussed. The nuclear strike contingency is not. But be that as it may, American confidence in locating Pakistani nukes is extremely high.


In any case Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is India Centric and is no threat to the west.It's a threat when its usage becomes irresponsible. The Taliban takeover scenario is one that is heavily discussed and while dismissed by Pakistan, it is entertained in Washington.


Sir these are open source materials. I can produce a ton of links here and no two analyses may be identical.I have challenged these conclusions and more specifically Hans Kristensen in the past. He added 20 more nukes to Pakistan's arsenal from 2009 to 2010 with the flimsiest of explanations. That being said, he is referenced by the Indian Military as being accurate to Pakistan ... and by extension, India. The Nuclear Notebook is the reference material for arms control observers and while not always accurate (China has been referenced with 100s more nukes than she actually had), their research is extensive. If you wish to challenge, then challenge the materials they've produced.


Agreed as far as your environment are concerned. You are talking India - Pakistan - and Sir by no stretch of imagination I consider you an expert in this field - no offense meant sir.

The primary first strike mission is nuclear - delay in mating notwithstanding. This is not a hair-trigger alert environment. See even our thinking is differentI was a war fighter and some tenets of warfare remains the same no matter which side of the world you live in. When speaking of nuclear weapons, there is a danger of use them or lose them. Conventional systems are now accurate enough to take out nuclear delivery vehicles.

The is the Chinese 1st strike threat that I spoke of earlier that China can posed to India without one single nuke. China has now 2000 SSMs dedicated to a conventional strike mission. Most of them are aimed at Taiwan but 5 500lb bombs landing on a non-slio rocket whether that rocket carries a nuke or not will stop that rocket from ever carrying a nuke.


Sir, the systems that are followed by nuclear neighbors are not the same as followed by Russians and Americans. You need to understand that. We dont follow your definitions as well.You will note that I deliberately left out the Chinese. You've read Sundarji. You should read up on Chinese Field Marshall Rie, China's nuclear weapons strategist. While there is no open writing on Pakistani nuclear postures, it behaves like both China and India's postures.


Agreed. As I said, AVLBs and other quick launch bridges. I am not an engineer but I've seen corps sized formation crossing rivers, canals and ditches.I can also get a corps across provided that I can lay a real bridge and I need at least 48 hours to build one good enough to take that kind of pounding, especially 70+ tons vehicles both trucks carrying supplies and those blasted tanks.

bigross86
13 Jul 11,, 18:47
Colonel, what have you against tanks?! What did we ever do to you? :biggrin:

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 19:07
It took Pakistan over 15 years to get 100 nukes. No matter what your guess is, there is simply no way to double that in 2. Not without at least doubling of factories.

I agree with you that it can not double its total in two years. But the calculations carried out by different experts say different things. Be that as it may, the actual number of weapons Pakistan has will only be confirmed when Pakistan makes it public. Till then all these calculations are at best - intelligent guesses. I believe this firmly.

That contingency's confidence is high. If you note that there is talk about American SF teams securing Pakistani nukes in case of a Pakistani Taliban take over. That contingency is openly discussed. The nuclear strike contingency is not. But be that as it may, American confidence in locating Pakistani nukes is extremely high.

Lets agree to disagree on this

It's a threat when its usage becomes irresponsible. The Taliban takeover scenario is one that is heavily discussed and while dismissed by Pakistan, it is entertained in Washington.

Both have their reasons to state what they state. I would be very very concerned indeed if Taliban could do it. I am sure Pakistani authorities would also be very very mindful of such a scenario

I have challenged these conclusions and more specifically Hans Kristensen in the past. He added 20 more nukes to Pakistan's arsenal from 2009 to 2010 with the flimsiest of explanations. That being said, he is referenced by the Indian Military as being accurate to Pakistan ... and by extension, India. The Nuclear Notebook is the reference material for arms control observers and while not always accurate (China has been referenced with 100s more nukes than she actually had), their research is extensive. If you wish to challenge, then challenge the materials they've produced.

I am not going to challenge any body. But I know this that at best these are intelligent guesses.

I was a war fighter and some tenets of warfare remains the same no matter which side of the world you live in. When speaking of nuclear weapons, there is a danger of use them or lose them. Conventional systems are now accurate enough to take out nuclear delivery vehicles.

Again a contentious statement. The boost phase defense, intermediate and terminal defenses need different technologies. For example, Iranian Shahab 3's booster takes about 70-75 seconds between fire and extinguish, and in these 70-75 seconds the launch is to be identified, the missile has to be acquired after it is launched and the interceptor has to be fired to destroy it before the booster motor gets extinguished in 70-75. Not impossible but not easy either. There are counter measures that are being concurrently worked on and this is an ongoing game.

However, if you miss the consequences are horrendous. That is why the logic defies such confidence.

The is the Chinese 1st strike threat that I spoke of earlier that China can posed to India without one single nuke. China has now 2000 SSMs dedicated to a conventional strike mission. Most of them are aimed at Taiwan but 5 500lb bombs landing on a non-slio rocket whether that rocket carries a nuke or not will stop that rocket from ever carrying a nuke.

See, Chinese are also working on a ballistic missile which will strike a naval aircraft carrier. Yes it will not be nuclear. In case of Pakistan, I think that they will first build enough for their nuclear strike and then go for conventional ones. This is what I am saying.

You will note that I deliberately left out the Chinese. You've read Sundarji. You should read up on Chinese Field Marshall Rie, China's nuclear weapons strategist. While there is no open writing on Pakistani nuclear postures, it behaves like both China and India's postures.

May be. That is what you believe. But at the end of the day, it'll be to suit its own strategy rather than basing it on some one else's strategy.

I can also get a corps across provided that I can lay a real bridge and I need at least 48 hours to build one good enough to take that kind of pounding, especially 70+ tons vehicles both trucks carrying supplies and those blasted tanks.

For 70 ton vehicles - may be. In Pakistan - India environment, the strike elements which would cross first would not be 70 ton vehicles and 48+ hours is too long a time. It may be required to cross all the elements of a Corps, but the fighting echelons that cross over the obstacle and secure area across and the build up of remaining offensive forces has to happen within the same night. Indians also practice this and so do the Pakistanis. The bridges are laid by engineers which can take heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles - and all this is done within the same night.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 20:19
I agree with you that it can not double its total in two years. But the calculations carried out by different experts say different things. Be that as it may, the actual number of weapons Pakistan has will only be confirmed when Pakistan makes it public. Till then all these calculations are at best - intelligent guesses. I believe this firmly.We're basing contingencies on these assessments. The confidence in their accuracy is extremely high ... or it may be the Pakistanis have less than we believe. Confidence is extremely low that they have more.


Lets agree to disagree on thisIt's a matter of public record that the US Government has discussed securing Pakistani nukes.


I am not going to challenge any body. But I know this that at best these are intelligent guesses.Then, you're just taking the word of one person over another without examining the evidence. The Nuclear Notebook has referenced their sources. At least take a look at their research materials before deciding who is better than whom.


Again a contentious statement. The boost phase defense, intermediate and terminal defenses need different technologies. For example, Iranian Shahab 3's booster takes about 70-75 seconds between fire and extinguish, and in these 70-75 seconds the launch is to be identified, the missile has to be acquired after it is launched and the interceptor has to be fired to destroy it before the booster motor gets extinguished in 70-75. Not impossible but not easy either. There are counter measures that are being concurrently worked on and this is an ongoing game.

However, if you miss the consequences are horrendous. That is why the logic defies such confidence.I am not talking about ABM systems. I mean to say that conventional systems are now accurate enough to hit the rockets and planes where they sit without the need of a nuke.


See, Chinese are also working on a ballistic missile which will strike a naval aircraft carrier. Yes it will not be nuclear. In case of Pakistan, I think that they will first build enough for their nuclear strike and then go for conventional ones. This is what I am saying.Since the Pakistanis do not mate nukes to their delivery systems until need arises, there is an extremely large risk that their delivery vehicles will be destroyed before the nukes could be mated.


May be. That is what you believe. But at the end of the day, it'll be to suit its own strategy rather than basing it on some one else's strategy.At the end of the day, not one of Pakistan's nukes is on a warfooting.


For 70 ton vehicles - may be. In Pakistan - India environment, the strike elements which would cross first would not be 70 ton vehicles and 48+ hours is too long a time. It may be required to cross all the elements of a Corps, but the fighting echelons that cross over the obstacle and secure area across and the build up of remaining offensive forces has to happen within the same night. Indians also practice this and so do the Pakistanis. The bridges are laid by engineers which can take heavy tanks and other heavy vehicles - and all this is done within the same night.Lead elements are going nowhere fast if fuel, ammo, water, food, and men are sitting behind that canal waiting for a bridge that won't collapse because the tanks have shaken them to pieces.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 20:56
We're basing contingencies on these assessments. The confidence in their accuracy is extremely high ... or it may be the Pakistanis have less than we believe. Confidence is extremely low that they have more.

Good enough. You need numbers for such contingencies and obviously you would chose those assessments on which confidence is high.

It's a matter of public record that the US Government has discussed securing Pakistani nukes.

If such mission is undertaken when Taliban have captured Pakistan, good luck to you guys. However, if this mission is undertaken in anticipation that Taliban may take over and Pakistani forces are in control, this would be an act of war and would be crossing of declared Pakistani nuclear threshold. The response in such case would be nuclear strikes against whosoever undertakes such mission.

Then, you're just taking the word of one person over another without examining the evidence. The Nuclear Notebook has referenced their sources. At least take a look at their research materials before deciding who is better than whom.

Agreed, I will do that.

I am not talking about ABM systems. I mean to say that conventional systems are now accurate enough to hit the rockets and planes where they sit without the need of a nuke.

Agreed

Since the Pakistanis do not mate nukes to their delivery systems until need arises, there is an extremely large risk that their delivery vehicles will be destroyed before the nukes could be mated.

Agreed, such a risk does exist. But then this is a strategy which the Indians also follow and so do the Pakistanis. This also is a confidence building measure between India and Pakistan and also provides a good measure of security against any unauthorized launch attempt by elements in India as well as Pakistan or or accidental launch.

At the end of the day, not one of Pakistan's nukes is on a warfooting.

Yes this is strategy which is followed - as explained above.

Lead elements are going nowhere fast if fuel, ammo, water, food, and men are sitting behind that canal waiting for a bridge that won't collapse because the tanks have shaken them to pieces.

Ammo and needed logistics is carried on fighting vehicles followed by local logistical vehicles. As the fighting echelons advance the logistical vehicles replenish food, ammo and water etc.

The Indians have some types of Russian bridges while Pakistani Army Engineers have American bridges. I have witnessed an armoured division (fighting echelons with allied logistical support) crossing an obstacle on such American bridges in one night after the assaulting echelons have captured the area across the obstacle. The bridges were maintained by Pakistan Army Engineers and they withstood such a crossing - shaken to pieces or not - I don't know but these were still operative the next day and the day after.

snapper
13 Jul 11,, 21:52
"I dont think so. I think they would be ready to fight a nuclear war due to their limited conventional response capability"
Not when they know they can only lose that too.

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 21:57
"I dont think so. I think they would be ready to fight a nuclear war due to their limited conventional response capability"
Not when they know they can only lose that too.

Lose against Indians - not a chance in hell.

bigross86
13 Jul 11,, 22:02
In a nuclear war everyone loses

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 22:15
In a nuclear war everyone loses

Agreed. But in case of India, if Pakistan is pushed to the wall, it would be a full spectrum response and nothing short. And that there should not be any doubt in anybody's mind, least of all the Indians themselves.

Doktor
13 Jul 11,, 22:16
@Tinu

I am reading closely your conversation with OoE and am thinking the following:

You haven't introduced yourself, but you engaged 2 former staff members (OoE and BR), so I must do the dirty job since zraver is MIA ;)

All your claims are uncited, which is not a good first impression over here.

Piece of advice: In order to survive here and be taken seriously introduce yourself, read the guide for survival (someone link pls), buy the Colonel a pack of Scotch and a DVD collection with last 10 Stanley Cups and last but not least cite your sources whenever possible.

Hope you'll have fun and enjoy your stay over here.

Doktor
13 Jul 11,, 22:19
Lose against Indians - not a chance in hell.
Can you tell me when was the last time there was a vicory parade in Islamabad?

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 22:23
@Tinu

I am reading closely your conversation with OoE and am thinking the following:

You haven't introduced yourself, but you engaged 2 former staff members (OoE and BR), so I must do the dirty job since zraver is MIA ;)

All your claims are uncited, which is not a good first impression over here.

Piece of advice: In order to survive here and be taken seriously introduce yourself, read the guide for survival (someone link pls), buy the Colonel a pack of Scotch and a DVD collection with last 10 Stanley Cups and last but not least cite your sources whenever possible.

Hope you'll have fun and enjoy your stay over here.

Roger. :)

Tinu
13 Jul 11,, 22:32
Can you tell me when was the last time there was a vicory parade in Islamabad?

Sir,
I have had very good intellectual discussion here which I thoroughly enjoyed. I also enjoyed the highly professional and highly educated responses that I got from members here and stand much better educated merely interacting. However Sir, if you don't want me to post here, just say the word and I'll be invisible forever. No offense meant. Thank you indeed.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jul 11,, 23:38
If such mission is undertaken when Taliban have captured Pakistan, good luck to you guys.It's disturbing that you take this as a possibility.


However, if this mission is undertaken in anticipation that Taliban may take over and Pakistani forces are in control, this would be an act of warNo sh!t, Sherlock.


and would be crossing of declared Pakistani nuclear threshold.As opposed to surrendering the nukes to the Taliban?


The response in such case would be nuclear strikes against whosoever undertakes such mission.With what? I don't think you understand the scenario. The Americans would have decided to secure Pakistan's nukes because the danger of them falling into Taliban, and, therefore, Al Qaeda hands have became intolerable (China's hand would also be forced in this scenario). The primary objective is not securing Pakistan's nukes, that is for public consumption. The primary objective is to deny those nukes to the Taliban. That means whatever the Americans cannot secure, they will destroy. You have already admitted that conventional systems are accurate enough to do just that. And if we add in American nukes to the equation, they assign 3 nukes per target to ensure its destruction. And in case, they don't feel that they've got everyone, then they go after everything else that support the nukes and that means the National Command Authority. Do you want to imagine 6 nukes onto Islamabad? 3 to target the PM and 3 to target the COAS. And by some miracle, enough C3 and nuke and delivery vehicle survives, how the hell you going to hit the CONUS? Pakistan got nothing with that range.


Agreed, such a risk does exist. But then this is a strategy which the Indians also follow and so do the Pakistanis. This also is a confidence building measure between India and Pakistan and also provides a good measure of security against any unauthorized launch attempt by elements in India as well as Pakistan or or accidental launch.Then it follows that the majority of your delivery vehicles have conventional mission priority over nuclear. You are not going to keep 200 missiles and 30 aircrafts idle when the Indian Army is knocking at the front gates, not while you still have a chance to keep them from coming through the front gates.


Ammo and needed logistics is carried on fighting vehicles followed by local logistical vehicles. As the fighting echelons advance the logistical vehicles replenish food, ammo and water etc.What local logistical vehicles? The Indian Army would be in hostile territory. They have to secure their LOC as well bring up supplies.


The Indians have some types of Russian bridges while Pakistani Army Engineers have American bridges. I have witnessed an armoured division (fighting echelons with allied logistical support) crossing an obstacle on such American bridges in one night after the assaulting echelons have captured the area across the obstacle. The bridges were maintained by Pakistan Army Engineers and they withstood such a crossing - shaken to pieces or not - I don't know but these were still operative the next day and the day after.You're still talking limited action and divisional level is not corps level. Unless you're talking the Golden Gate Bridge, such battlefield bridges are too flimsy and too small to support any meaningful deep corps thrust.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 11,, 05:01
Colonel, what have you against tanks?! What did we ever do to you? :biggrin:You leak diesel, poop oil like cow puck bingo, requiring us to clean up the mess before the tree huggers come yelling that we poison the water table.

And plus you guys sh!t wherever you like at times right in the field I'm trying to clear.

Doktor
14 Jul 11,, 07:38
Sir,
I have had very good intellectual discussion here which I thoroughly enjoyed. I also enjoyed the highly professional and highly educated responses that I got from members here and stand much better educated merely interacting. However Sir, if you don't want me to post here, just say the word and I'll be invisible forever. No offense meant. Thank you indeed.
You nor anyone else don't need my approval to have conversation over here.
I was just asking when was the last time Pakistan was victorious. I know there were at least 4 wars they had with India, but don't remember a parade in Islamabad afterwards.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 08:57
You nor anyone else don't need my approval to have conversation over here.
I was just asking when was the last time Pakistan was victorious. I know there were at least 4 wars they had with India, but don't remember a parade in Islamabad afterwards.

Victory is directly proportional to the achievement of aims and the objectives. One way to celebrate victory is by holding victory parades on V days etc - the other way may be is to learn from what happened, better the survival response and move on. Israelis have won many wars - I didn't see any victory parades in Tel Aviv.

Pakistan is a small country. Ours is a survival environment. When we don't allow the Indians to break us up and survive despite their overwhelming power, strength and offensive actions, this is victory for us. We defend ourselves against overwhelming odds, yet we pull up our chin, face the adversities, look the other guy in the eye and tell him F**** Ya.

This is exactly what we are telling the Taliban. AND THIS WHY THEY WON'T SUCCEED. Over 5000 of our soldiers have died so far and over 35000 civilians are dead. During our independence, Indians killed over 3 million of us, but we still gained our freedom. India defeated us in 1971 with the help of Bengalis living in Bangladesh - in any case it was over 1000 miles away from mainland Pakistan. We learned lessons and now we are a nuclear power, despite US sanctions. Our nuclear program is not a Muslim Bomb or a Taliban Bomb as many may like to project - It is only for ensuring Pakistan's security and freedom and let all others day dream.

We will never allow any one to take away our freedom. This may seem rhetorical but is a fact ingrained. We will enhance our nuclear capability, but it is India Centric and not against anyone else. We will not hesitate to use it if our freedom is threatened by the Indians who believe that 5000 years ago Pakistani territory belonged to their kings. period.

Indians always project that they are a peaceful status-quo power and have no hegemonic designs against any of their neighbors. History tell us something different. India is not a status-quo power. It is a regional hegemon. It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread terrorism in all her neighboring states including Pakistan.

Therefore, our survival is our victory and we don't have victory parades to celebrate our freedom. We make sure that we remain free. :)

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 08:57
You nor anyone else don't need my approval to have conversation over here.
I was just asking when was the last time Pakistan was victorious. I know there were at least 4 wars they had with India, but don't remember a parade in Islamabad afterwards.

Victory is directly proportional to the achievement of aims and the objectives. One way to celebrate victory is by holding victory parades on V days etc - the other way may be is to learn from what happened, better the survival response and move on. Israelis have won many wars - I didn't see any victory parades in Tel Aviv.

Pakistan is a small country. Ours is a survival environment. When we don't allow the Indians to break us up and survive despite their overwhelming power, strength and offensive actions, this is victory for us. We defend ourselves against overwhelming odds, yet we pull up our chin, face the adversities, look the other guy in the eye and tell him F**** Ya.

This is exactly what we are telling the Taliban. AND THIS WHY THEY WON'T SUCCEED. Over 5000 of our soldiers have died so far and over 35000 civilians are dead. During our independence, Indians killed over 3 million of us, but we still gained our freedom. India defeated us in 1971 with the help of Bengalis living in Bangladesh - in any case it was over 1000 miles away from mainland Pakistan. We learned lessons and now we are a nuclear power, despite US sanctions. Our nuclear program is not a Muslim Bomb or a Taliban Bomb as many may like to project - It is only for ensuring Pakistan's security and freedom and let all others day dream.

We will never allow any one to take away our freedom. This may seem rhetorical but is a fact ingrained. We will enhance our nuclear capability, but it is India Centric and not against anyone else. We will not hesitate to use it if our freedom is threatened by the Indians who believe that 5000 years ago Pakistani territory belonged to their kings. period.

Indians always project that they are a peaceful status-quo power and have no hegemonic designs against any of their neighbors. History tell us something different. India is not a status-quo power. It is a regional hegemon. It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread terrorism in all her neighboring states including Pakistan.

Therefore, our survival is our victory and we don't have victory parades to celebrate our freedom. We make sure that we remain free. :)

David Crocket
14 Jul 11,, 08:59
I wonder to what extent Pakistan's Nuclear Capability is a threat. America threatened to bomb them into the stone age in 2001 and entered into Pakistan unchallenged. There are rumours that America has also secured Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. I do not see Pakistan or India going to war while the USA is playing the "Great Game" in Central Asia.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article647188.ece
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, the President of Pakistan, claimed last night that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb his country “into the Stone Age” if it did not co-operate with the US after 9/11, sharply increasing tensions between the US and one of its closest allies in the war on terrorism.
The President, who will meet Mr Bush in the White House today, said the threat was made by Richard Armitage, then the Deputy Secretary of State, in the days after the terror attacks, and was issued to the Pakistani intelligence director.

“The intelligence director told me that [Armitage] said, ‘Be repared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age’,” President Musharraf said. “I think it was a very rude remark.” The claims come at the end of a week in which relations between the US and Pakistan have sharply deteriorated, and days ahead of the publication of President Musharraf’s memoir, In the Line of Fire, which will be serialised in The Times from Monday.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 09:28
It's disturbing that you take this as a possibility.

I have no doubt that it can ever happen. It is you guys who keep on talking about it and therefore I said what I said.

No sh!t, Sherlock.

The trick my dear Watson is not to show that it hurts.

As opposed to surrendering the nukes to the Taliban?

Yes, that too.

With what? I don't think you understand the scenario. The Americans would have decided to secure Pakistan's nukes because the danger of them falling into Taliban, and, therefore, Al Qaeda hands have became intolerable (China's hand would also be forced in this scenario). The primary objective is not securing Pakistan's nukes, that is for public consumption. The primary objective is to deny those nukes to the Taliban. That means whatever the Americans cannot secure, they will destroy. You have already admitted that conventional systems are accurate enough to do just that. And if we add in American nukes to the equation, they assign 3 nukes per target to ensure its destruction. And in case, they don't feel that they've got everyone, then they go after everything else that support the nukes and that means the National Command Authority. Do you want to imagine 6 nukes onto Islamabad? 3 to target the PM and 3 to target the COAS. And by some miracle, enough C3 and nuke and delivery vehicle survives, how the hell you going to hit the CONUS? Pakistan got nothing with that range.

Such a mission would be successful only if the target is known with certainty. Whereas, the location of some may be known - location of all would certainly not be known. The consequences of such a response would indeed be horrendous, despite any amount of calculations. We have lived in a survival mode for over 60 years and Pakistan's response in my opinion would not always be according to the book.

Then it follows that the majority of your delivery vehicles have conventional mission priority over nuclear. You are not going to keep 200 missiles and 30 aircrafts idle when the Indian Army is knocking at the front gates, not while you still have a chance to keep them from coming through the front gates.

NO sir, all are meant to respond nuclear. Like I said above, Pakistan's response in my opinion would not always be according to the book.

What local logistical vehicles? The Indian Army would be in hostile territory. They have to secure their LOC as well bring up supplies.

You're still talking limited action and divisional level is not corps level. Unless you're talking the Golden Gate Bridge, such battlefield bridges are too flimsy and too small to support any meaningful deep corps thrust.

You create a secure and maintainable beach-head of sorts and then pass many armies through it. The logistics of supporting such Corps sized operations are thoroughly worked out. Remember, our LOCs are not very deep. As I understand, the methodology of staff working of such operations is different in South Asia as compared to NATO and US.

Cactus
14 Jul 11,, 11:52
With what? I don't think you understand the scenario. The Americans would have decided to secure Pakistan's nukes because the danger of them falling into Taliban, and, therefore, Al Qaeda hands have became intolerable (China's hand would also be forced in this scenario). The primary objective is not securing Pakistan's nukes, that is for public consumption. The primary objective is to deny those nukes to the Taliban. That means whatever the Americans cannot secure, they will destroy. You have already admitted that conventional systems are accurate enough to do just that. And if we add in American nukes to the equation, they assign 3 nukes per target to ensure its destruction. And in case, they don't feel that they've got everyone, then they go after everything else that support the nukes and that means the National Command Authority. Do you want to imagine 6 nukes onto Islamabad? 3 to target the PM and 3 to target the COAS. And by some miracle, enough C3 and nuke and delivery vehicle survives, how the hell you going to hit the CONUS? Pakistan got nothing with that range.

Such a mission would be successful only if the target is known with certainty. Whereas, the location of some may be known - location of all would certainly not be known. The consequences of such a response would indeed be horrendous, despite any amount of calculations. We have lived in a survival mode for over 60 years and Pakistan's response in my opinion would not always be according to the book.

The question was, what can you do about it?

You cannot prevent the US from declawing you. If somehow you do manage to save a few bombs, you still can't touch the United States -- especially if a fundamentalist government is in power in Pakistan, the US has cut off travel and transport from Pakistan, and so you have no means of sneaking in your response. Like you have repeatedly said, your military is India-centric. You can't do anything to stop China from declawing you, let alone the US.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 12:13
The question was, what can you do about it?

You cannot prevent the US from declawing you. If somehow you do manage to save a few bombs, you still can't touch the United States -- especially if a fundamentalist government is in power in Pakistan, the US has cut off travel and transport from Pakistan, and so you have no means of sneaking in your response. Like you have repeatedly said, your military is India-centric. You can't do anything to stop China from declawing you, let alone the US.

I don't think that US would have any reason to do this because if someone thinks that there would be a Taliban government in Pakistan lives in a fools paradise. If Aunty had balls she would be an uncle. And Taliban would never ever have this kind of capability. Even if the Indians provide covert support to Taliban from their assets based in Afghanistan, which many news sources quote, such a scenario is not possible.

It is an Indian wet dream to wish that the US would declaw Pakistan - something which the Indians themselves can not dare to do.

Double Edge
14 Jul 11,, 12:17
However Sir, if you don't want me to post here, just say the word and I'll be invisible forever. No offense meant. Thank you indeed.
Doktor only requested you to create an intro thread in the memebrs introduction section so that the rest of the board can welcome you.

Post away all you want :)

Doktor
14 Jul 11,, 12:20
I think he will have close encounter with the lady bulldog or with the angry bird. Whoever comes first ;)

antimony
14 Jul 11,, 14:45
Pakistan is a small country. Ours is a survival environment. When we don't allow the Indians to break us up and survive despite their overwhelming power, strength and offensive actions, this is victory for us. We defend ourselves against overwhelming odds, yet we pull up our chin, face the adversities, look the other guy in the eye and tell him F**** Ya.


But, but, I thought you were British!!!:confused::eek:

Or not:cool:

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 11,, 15:08
Such a mission would be successful only if the target is known with certainty. Whereas, the location of some may be known - location of all would certainly not be known. The consequences of such a response would indeed be horrendous, despite any amount of calculations. We have lived in a survival mode for over 60 years and Pakistan's response in my opinion would not always be according to the book.Use that brain of yours. We have been looking for nukes for over 60 years. We have determined that the Soviets were not lying when they sign the SALT and START Treaties. We determined Chinese nuclear storage ... And you have the Americans forcing the dual key release on your NCA and they have been roaming your country for almost a decade. What do you think?


NO sir, all are meant to respond nuclear. Like I said above, Pakistan's response in my opinion would not always be according to the book.The manual of mating warhead the SOP of nuclear release is the same no matter what country you're from. It's a minimum of 5 hours to mate a warhead onto a missile or get the bomb onto the plane and that is if you have been training. You have not. So, add in another 2 hours just to sort the confusion out. That's 7 hours before you can nuke an Indian advance and that's 7 hours that the battlefield picture has changed. The enemy is no longer where you expect them to be. So, you have to get another hour to find them and then determine a suitable location for the nuke deployment. And that is assuming you get the NCA release.

Now, the NCA release is a whole another ball of wax. Islamabad is not going to give you that release is the Pakistani Army is holding and most definitely, you will not get the release if the Pakistani Army is winning. And you will not be able to determine that within 24 hours of combat. It will take time for an Indian Advance to smash into a Pakistani main force and unless the Pakistani soldier is so overrated that he just throw down his gun and run, there will be a fight, a big fight, and that fight will be at least 10 hours, more if the Pakistanis are determined fighting to the last man.

All told that is 72 hours minimum before the NCA has to make a decision, more like 5 days if the Pakistanis are stubborn but still losing. Never if the Pakistanis can bring their reserves before the Indian Army can bring theirs through that one tiny little bridge that you think can support an entire corps.

And you mean to tell me that the battlefield commander is not going to use those 30 planes and 200 missiles to smash Indian bridges and rear echelon build up?

S2
14 Jul 11,, 15:15
Mr. Crocket,

You owe us an introduction in the new members section of this forum. It's difficult to miss as it's at the top of the homepage. Please do so and tell us a bit about yourself if you don't mind. That will also serve as an excellent opportunity for you to acquaint yourself with our forum guidelines and perhaps read Zraver's Completely Unofficial Guide To Surviving The WAB.

Secondly, you perpetuate a myth. From WHOM did Musharraf hear such words of "bombing into the stone age"? Armitage?

No. Musharraf's own Director, ISI instead did so.

Richard Armitage has refuted this characterization numerous times. He should know. It is easily researched.

Armitage Denies Making 'Stone Age' Threat-NPR Sept. 22, 2006 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6126088)

Staying informed and conveying solid information to our members is a helpful way of adding value to this board and our knowledge.

Sharapthai
14 Jul 11,, 15:45
There can be 2 assumptions where-in a war between India & Pakistan is possible. Respected Professionals in here might be able to add more.

1. Kargil type misadventure by the Pakistani army
2. A major terrorist attack in India, that has been traced back to Pakistan and it's agencies.

Now, for Pakistan to require using tactical nukes on IA, would mean that Pakistan has already lost parts of Pakistan and is afraid of losing more. For the IA to achieve that, atleast 3-5 days are needed. The world including US would not sit idle in the meantime.

With countries like US, UK, Israel etc having sophisticated network of gathering intel and India arming it's Armed Forces to the teeth with modern weapons from the West (Phalcon being one), I seriously doubt any nuclear war would happen. Once Pakistan start assembling nukes with delivery systems it would be picked up and the message relayed across to Indian authorities. Assuming, India has gone to war with Pakistan, India would make sure they have credible intel on the exact co-ordinates of the delivery systems.

If everything else fails, and the advancing IA is nuked or cities of India are nuked, then by going with the NFU doctrine of India, the retaliation would be massive. I hope that day never arrives.


Can you tell me when was the last time there was a vicory parade in Islamabad?

I beg your pardon for replying to this post.

The answer - Never. However, official Pakistani history being taught states that all the wars of 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil - were won by Pakistan.


It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread terrorism in all her neighboring states including Pakistan.

What was that? Fiction or fantasy? :)

nvishal
14 Jul 11,, 16:09
@Sharapthai
A pakistani state will still exist in "some form" after an indian intervention as a refuge for its military and political class; provided they have not exercised their nuclear option.

BTW, indian decision to retaliate is not based on thresholds.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 16:18
But, but, I thought you were British!!!:confused::eek:

Or not:cool:

Sir,
I never thought anything of you. :Zzzzzz:

antimony
14 Jul 11,, 16:49
Sir,
I never thought anything of you. :Zzzzzz:

Ahh, a touch of humour at last, how very droll:cool:

But seriously, do keep posting. Its fascinating watching the Colonel's response on top of yours.;)

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 17:23
Use that brain of yours. We have been looking for nukes for over 60 years. We have determined that the Soviets were not lying when they sign the SALT and START Treaties. We determined Chinese nuclear storage ... And you have the Americans forcing the dual key release on your NCA and they have been roaming your country for almost a decade. What do you think?

Sir, this is your biggest problem. You guys are so confident about your abilities and technology and think that you are invincible. And then someone comes and surprises you completely. Some major known examples ……. 1998 Indian nuclear tests, 9/11, post Iraqi invasion environment when the defeated Iraqi bathists, al-qaeda and Iraqi army hit back catching US forces off-guard etc etc. Don’t you think that these Pakistanis would not know the kind of technological capability the US possess and you think they’d not be prepared for it despite the Americans being there in their amidst. That’s why I said some would be know, most would not be known. Sir this is not Soviet era facilities which were not built to evade the current US technological advantages. And sir, they’d be using their brains.

The manual of mating warhead the SOP of nuclear release is the same no matter what country you're from. It's a minimum of 5 hours to mate a warhead onto a missile or get the bomb onto the plane and that is if you have been training. You have not. So, add in another 2 hours just to sort the confusion out. That's 7 hours before you can nuke an Indian advance and that's 7 hours that the battlefield picture has changed. The enemy is no longer where you expect them to be. So, you have to get another hour to find them and then determine a suitable location for the nuke deployment. And that is assuming you get the NCA release.

Now, the NCA release is a whole another ball of wax. Islamabad is not going to give you that release is the Pakistani Army is holding and most definitely, you will not get the release if the Pakistani Army is winning. And you will not be able to determine that within 24 hours of combat. It will take time for an Indian Advance to smash into a Pakistani main force and unless the Pakistani soldier is so overrated that he just throw down his gun and run, there will be a fight, a big fight, and that fight will be at least 10 hours, more if the Pakistanis are determined fighting to the last man.

All told that is 72 hours minimum before the NCA has to make a decision, more like 5 days if the Pakistanis are stubborn but still losing. Never if the Pakistanis can bring their reserves before the Indian Army can bring theirs through that one tiny little bridge that you think can support an entire corps.

Excellent explanation. I feel that in the run-up to the environment which lead to mobilization of forces, both India and Pakistan would have mated their systems and be ready for a nuclear response, much before their forces would move to forward assembly. Though during the Indian mobilization of 2001 both India and Pakistan accused each other of readying their nuclear forces and though both denied – I for one feel, that the nuclear forces of both countries were on hair-trigger alert status. Your explanation above confirms my assessment.

And you mean to tell me that the battlefield commander is not going to use those 30 planes and 200 missiles to smash Indian bridges and rear echelon build up?

Both India and Pakistan use dedicated resources for nuclear strikes which are different than the ones used for conventional operations.

Doktor
14 Jul 11,, 17:23
I beg your pardon for replying to this post.
Neither you, nor anyone else needs my pardon/permission to post anything. This forum has these fine admins/mods who seem fair so far. At least to me.


The answer - Never. However, official Pakistani history being taught states that all the wars of 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil - were won by Pakistan.
Well, Tinu defined what's victory for Pakistan - staying on the map. There you go. They won.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 17:26
Ahh, a touch of humour at last, how very droll:cool:

But seriously, do keep posting. Its fascinating watching the Colonel's response on top of yours.;)

I am learning and thoroughly enjoying such an interesting discourse. :)

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 17:28
Neither you, nor anyone else needs my pardon/permission to post anything. This forum has these fine admins/mods who seem fair so far. At least to me.


Well, Tinu defined what's victory for Pakistan - staying on the map. There you go. They won.

How eloquent Doktor - but can't help it ........ ha ha ha ha

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 11,, 20:09
Sir, this is your biggest problem. You guys are so confident about your abilities and technology and think that you are invincible.There's a reason for the confidence. It's because we're good.


And then someone comes and surprises you completely. Some major known examplesAll bad examples


……. 1998 Indian nuclear tests, 9/11,We were not looking. We're looking for Pakistani nukes.


post Iraqi invasion environment when the defeated Iraqi bathists, al-qaeda and Iraqi army hit back catching US forces off-guard etc etc.They've took advantage of the lack of numbers, not the lack of foresight.


Don’t you think that these Pakistanis would not know the kind of technological capability the US possessNo, you don't.


and you think they’d not be prepared for it despite the Americans being there in their amidst.Oh, I am sure they believe they are prepared. But the fact is that American confidence remains high and it remains high for a reason.


That’s why I said some would be know, most would not be known.An old axiom. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. If I were a Pakistani General and I saw such American confidence, I would automatically assume they have such confidence for a reason and then proceed accordingly.


Sir this is not Soviet era facilities which were not built to evade the current US technological advantages. And sir, they’d be using their brains.How could the Soviets evade technologies that didn't exist yet? However, they did try (and so did we) to evade Cold War technologies and truth be told, we're light years ahead of Pakistan in this arena.


Excellent explanation. I feel that in the run-up to the environment which lead to mobilization of forces, both India and Pakistan would have mated their systems and be ready for a nuclear response, much before their forces would move to forward assembly. Though during the Indian mobilization of 2001 both India and Pakistan accused each other of readying their nuclear forces and though both denied – I for one feel, that the nuclear forces of both countries were on hair-trigger alert status. Your explanation above confirms my assessment.Your assessment is wrong. 2001 is way too early. Pakistani and Indian tests of 1998 revealed shortcomings in their warhead designs. 2001 would way to early for the fixes to work their way through the arsenal.


Both India and Pakistan use dedicated resources for nuclear strikes which are different than the ones used for conventional operations.With the exception of India and her two regiments, there are no dedicated nuclear units anywhere in south asia. All current missile forces and aircrafts answer to their immediate commands and not to the NCA. That means that the division and corps commander can do with the missiles as he sees fit as does the wing commander his birds.

David Crocket
14 Jul 11,, 21:14
I do not see how Armitage's denial amounts to a "refutation". Furthermore, on cannot logically make the leap that the story of Musharraf is false simply on Armitage's word. All his denial does is make this situation a "He said" "He said". You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth. I provided a link to a very reputable paper The London Times which published Musharraf's assertions. Are you asserting that the London Times is not a reputable source? If so on what grounds do you make your claim?

Also, I see that you are intimating that this is somehow hearsay. Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself. Where is his denial that he ever spoke to Musharraf on these matters? If Armitage is telling the truth it is not as if Musharraf overheard this threat from someone in a bar. It was the head of Pakistani Intelligence.

http://www.whale.to/b/gritz.jpg

I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me. According to Lt. Col. Bo Gritz, Armitage dropped the ball on the MIA/POW's held in South East Asia. He let them languish there and most likely to the end of their days.


Bo Gritz Letter to George Bush (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/gritz1.htm)
http://www.cyber-anarchy.com/forum/&id=1816&catid=3&func=fb_pdf



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLOHywYQjyM

Mr. Crocket,

You owe us an introduction in the new members section of this forum. It's difficult to miss as it's at the top of the homepage. Please do so and tell us a bit about yourself if you don't mind. That will also serve as an excellent opportunity for you to acquaint yourself with our forum guidelines and perhaps read Zraver's Completely Unofficial Guide To Surviving The WAB.

Secondly, you perpetuate a myth. From WHOM did Musharraf hear such words of "bombing into the stone age"? Armitage?

No. Musharraf's own Director, ISI instead did so.

Richard Armitage has refuted this characterization numerous times. He should know. It is easily researched.

Armitage Denies Making 'Stone Age' Threat-NPR Sept. 22, 2006 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6126088)

Staying informed and conveying solid information to our members is a helpful way of adding value to this board and our knowledge.

Tinu
14 Jul 11,, 21:34
There's a reason for the confidence. It's because we're good.

Agreed you are very good. But then there’s an excellent old axiom – never underestimate the other side.

All bad examples

Sir, when there is no answer – the examples become rotten.

We were not looking. We're looking for Pakistani nukes.

I’ll believe you when US becomes a GOD, till then keep on looking sir, when you find some let us know as well.

They've took advantage of the lack of numbers, not the lack of foresight.

Lack of foresight it was. Had it not been lack of foresight, the preparations, including the numbers should’ve matched the response and a surge would certainly not be required – not to mention the time taken and the additional casualties.

No, you don't.

Sir, you are wrong in this assessment of yours.

Oh, I am sure they believe they are prepared. But the fact is that American confidence remains high and it remains high for a reason.

Like I said before, never underestimate the other side – confidence notwithstanding.

An old axiom. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. If I were a Pakistani General and I saw such American confidence, I would automatically assume they have such confidence for a reason and then proceed accordingly.

Agreed.

How could the Soviets evade technologies that didn't exist yet? However, they did try (and so did we) to evade Cold War technologies and truth be told, we're light years ahead of Pakistan in this arena.

My response was in an answer to your statement when you said that you knew where Soviet nukes were and knew when the Soviets were lying during SALT etc
Agreed. You are way ahead of all other countries in the world, not only Pakistan. However, this is not WW-2 Hiroshima and Nagasaki environment.
And at the end of the day, we are discussing a contingency wherein purportedly, Taliban may take over Pakistan and US may attempt to take out Pakistani nukes so that these would not fall in Taliban’s hand. Neither the Taliban would take over Pakistan nor would an environment occur wherein US may have to attempt this contingency.


Your assessment is wrong. 2001 is way too early. Pakistani and Indian tests of 1998 revealed shortcomings in their warhead designs. 2001 would way to early for the fixes to work their way through the arsenal.

I disagree. Shortcomings notwithstanding, mating would have taken place with whatever assets which were available then.

With the exception of India and her two regiments, there are no dedicated nuclear units anywhere in south asia. All current missile forces and aircrafts answer to their immediate commands and not to the NCA. That means that the division and corps commander can do with the missiles as he sees fit as does the wing commander his birds.

You have wrong information. Both countries have nuclear commands and these commands have assets directly placed under them and not the Army Commands / Corps Headquarters. In case of Indians however, three of their short range Prithvi Missile Brigades were or may be still under the Army Commands to support operations of their strike corps’.

snapper
14 Jul 11,, 21:35
Tinu Sir, Simple fact is, as explained elsewhere, the Colonel (probably correctly) suggests that if Pakistan initiated a nuclear exchange with India the US, with the backing of the other nuclear 'powers', would be forced to act with overwhelming force to stop any escalation. Presumably such information would communicated to the Pakistani Government before any action was taken and hopefuly before Pakistan initiated such an action. The inference is that the same conditions would apply to India thus any future war between India and Pakistan is more likely to remain conventional.

Doktor
14 Jul 11,, 22:15
How eloquent Doktor - but can't help it ........ ha ha ha ha

Your own words are joke to you?


Therefore, our survival is our victory and we don't have victory parades to celebrate our freedom. We make sure that we remain free. :)

BTW, I haven't seen one link backing up your claims.

Totally OT. May I ask if Pakistan is so great country, what are you doing in the UK?

Officer of Engineers
14 Jul 11,, 23:07
Agreed you are very good. But then there’s an excellent old axiom – never underestimate the other side.The other axiom that is equally important, never over-estimate them either.


Sir, when there is no answer – the examples become rotten.The examples you gave does not counter nuclear detection by the US.


I’ll believe you when US becomes a GOD, till then keep on looking sir, when you find some let us know as well.Pakistan is certainly no God. And here you go

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/Masroor_tn.jpg

It's open source too.


Sir, you are wrong in this assessment of yours. When did Pakistan became part of Skunkworks?


Lack of foresight it was. Had it not been lack of foresight, the preparations, including the numbers should’ve matched the response and a surge would certainly not be required – not to mention the time taken and the additional casualties.If you want to discuss the Iraq War, there's 100 pages of it here and the details of planning and execution failures have been examined in minute detail. Needless to say, it does not support your premise that the Americans are lacking in nuclear weapons detection.


My response was in an answer to your statement when you said that you knew where Soviet nukes were and knew when the Soviets were lying during SALT etc
Agreed. You are way ahead of all other countries in the world, not only Pakistan. However, this is not WW-2 Hiroshima and Nagasaki environment.2011 United States is 30 years technological ahead of Cold War US. To give you a perspective on the difference in mathematics. We can detect Jupiter size planets in other star systems now.


And at the end of the day, we are discussing a contingency wherein purportedly, Taliban may take over Pakistan and US may attempt to take out Pakistani nukes so that these would not fall in Taliban’s hand. Neither the Taliban would take over Pakistan nor would an environment occur wherein US may have to attempt this contingency.Pakistani lack of success in evicting the Taliban has kept this contingency alive.


I disagree. Shortcomings notwithstanding, mating would have taken place with whatever assets which were available then.Then, let me put in terms you can understand. Your 1998 nukes were duds.


You have wrong information. Both countries have nuclear commands and these commands have assets directly placed under them and not the Army Commands / Corps Headquarters. In case of Indians however, three of their short range Prithvi Missile Brigades were or may be still under the Army Commands to support operations of their strike corps’. Fine. Give me the Order of Battle and the Direct Chains of Command. Put up or shut up.

S2
15 Jul 11,, 01:29
"...All his denial does is make this situation a 'He said" "He said'..."

Hardly. We are discussing Richard Armitage. He is the alleged source of this presumed quote. He is therefore the ultimate authority on the matter.

Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim-Feb. 11, 2009 CBS NEWS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035633.shtml)

"...You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth..."

The comment didn't happen-plain and simple. The information provided to Musharraf by his Director, ISI was a dramatized elaboration that heavily embellished the actual account.

"(CBS/AP) Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president...

...Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

'It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it,' Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage — who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time — said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

'I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat,' Armitage said."



"...Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself..."

Why is that necessary? Armitage's refutation and the circumstances surrounding it is clear...unless you choose to ignore such in preference to perpetuating a myth. It appears that's the case with you. You seem to possess an agenda regarding Mr. Armitage.

"...I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me..."

This is an ad hominem attack. The circumstances surrounding Lt. Col. Gritz's claim is irrelevant to the incident. Thoroughly. Let me be clear-it has no bearing whatsoever.

Armitage, regardless of the allegations made by Bo Gritz, carried the trust and confidence imposed by POTUS and SECSTATE as a Deputy Sec'y of State to deliver a very specific message to the government of Pakistan. At no time since Armitage delivered his message to the representative of the Government of Pakistan has either George Bush or Colin Powell suggest their trust in Armitage to deliver their message was misplaced.

That's definitive IMV. Now STFU because you're needlessly derailing a thread that has next to nothing to do with this topic.:mad:

David Crocket
15 Jul 11,, 01:54
Yes, we are discussing Richard Armitage and as such his credibility is at issue. Is Armitage a credible source? Hence, the Bo Gritz quote, it goes to show how little Armitage should be trusted. Quite, frankly I do not trust the words of men that let POW's die in captivity. That is a betrayal of the trust invested in him by the American People.

Please correct me if I am mistaken here but there are three parties involved in this situation. They are the ISI head, Musharraf and Armitage. So, to quote one of the Big Lebowski's openning scenes "who is at fault here"? I have yet to read a report that has the head of ISI denying that he told Musharraf to paraphrase "We'll bomb you into the Stone Age". Musharraf is not changing his story. Two out of the three parties have the same story. And, then we have the word of Armitage a man who has betrayed America and let our brothers and fathers held in captivity die there. Do you really support letting American POW's die in captivity?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter because it is true as you have called it. I do not want to derail this thread. I only wished to respond to your argument.



"...All his denial does is make this situation a 'He said" "He said'..."

Hardly. We are discussing Richard Armitage. He is the alleged source of this presumed quote. He is therefore the ultimate authority on the matter.

Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim-Feb. 11, 2009 CBS NEWS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035633.shtml)

"...You want to also argue that because the ISI head is the one who heard these words and not Musharraf himself then this is false and I am being accused of perpetuating a myth..."

The comment didn't happen-plain and simple. The information provided to Musharraf by his Director, ISI was a dramatized elaboration that heavily embellished the actual account.

"(CBS/AP) Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president...

...Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

'It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it,' Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage — who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time — said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

'I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat,' Armitage said."

"...Even according to Armitage's version of events he does not claim in the link you provided that he did not talk to Musharraf himself..."

Why is that necessary? Armitage's refutation and the circumstances surrounding it is clear...unless you choose to ignore such in preference to perpetuating a myth. It appears that's the case with you. You seem to possess an agenda regarding Mr. Armitage.

"...I think that there is good reason to question the words that come out of Armitage's mouth. Do you know who Lt. Col. Bo Gritz is? He is the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War. He served as a Green Beret. His story is one that may make you question Armitage's word. He makes me think little of Armitage's word. It means next to nothing to me..."

This is an ad hominem attack. The circumstances surrounding Lt. Col. Gritz's claim is irrelevant to the incident. Thoroughly. Let me be clear-it has no bearing whatsoever.

Armitage, regardless of the allegations made by Bo Gritz, carried the trust and confidence imposed by POTUS and SECSTATE as a Deputy Sec'y of State to deliver a very specific message to the government of Pakistan. At no time since Armitage delivered his message to the representative of the Government of Pakistan has either George Bush or Colin Powell suggest their trust in Armitage to deliver their message was misplaced.

That's definitive IMV. Now STFU because you're needlessly derailing a thread that has next to nothing to do with this topic.:mad:

S2
15 Jul 11,, 02:14
"...And, then we have the word of Armitage..."

And the minutes from the meeting.

Not a peep from anybody at STATE suggesting otherwise. Still, an FOIA request should get you those minutes and you can confirm or deny what Armitage has said.

You choose to believe the ISI and Musharraf?

Sure.:rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 11,, 04:26
As per the original article, it is pure horse puckey. Islamabad will retain tight fisted control of its nukes no matter what fanboys try to believe. We have two Pakistani General Officers offered their view of a nuclear exchange (falsely as their facts do not reflect the actual physics) in that they have no hope of Pakistan will survive a nuclear exchange with India. Given such a culture of Officers who are not even in the nuclear command structure, it is very clear that the Pakistani Staff military culture fears such an exchange. Tinu, don't even pretend that you are part of this culture.

From the articles I've posted, two Pakistani brigadiers obviously cannot be trusted with nukes. One wants Armageddon and the other is scared to death of such an exchange. Neither is conducive to a nuclear weaponeer.

For Tinu to suggest ready regiments to accept nukes means that officers who have not passed psychological testing to be a nuclear weaponeer contradicts whole history of nuclear weapons practices. Nuclear weapons officers are chosen and trained to be nuclear weapons officers. For ready regiments with no history of officers passing such a course to be given nukes ... well, fanboys can have their dreams also.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 11,, 05:11
You choose to believe the ISI and Musharraf?

Sure.:rolleyes:Steve, to be fair. "Either you're with us or against us" carries an implicit threat all its own. Recall the hurt and the anger of the times. We declare war on the Taliban when they said no to handing over OBL. That message could not have escaped the Pakistani elite. And American anger was very, very visible.

S2
15 Jul 11,, 05:24
Colonel,

"Steve, to be fair. "Either you're with us or against us" carries an implicit threat all its own.

No doubt.



"'I told him in a very straightforward way this was a black-and-white issue for Americans. You were either for us or against us...'

He said several State Department personnel were in the room and heard the exchange, and

'no one remembers a military threat. And the cable does not reflect that.

I would note that Gen. M was fired not long after that by President Musharraf,' Armitage added.

Armitage said he met with Musharraf on Thursday. He did not discuss their conversation.

Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said she knew no specifics of the Armitage documents, but department cables generally reflect conversations precisely."

It is for that reason that a diplomat was chosen to convey the message. However precise the wording, the ambiguity of an "implicit threat" covers all concerned however which way matters might proceed.

Regardless of what our new friend, David Crocket, thinks Mr. Armitage was one of the absolute best at assuring messages were delivered accurately without overstepping boundaries.

S2
15 Jul 11,, 05:40
Colonel,

You open the floor on this matter so let's explore it. America, without question, conveyed our determination and stark perspective post 9/11 to Pakistan.

Still, however much Musharraf would like to caricaturize America as a raving bully by insinuating "stone age" we left how matters would proceed to them. So what we have is Pakistan wishing to have their cake and eat it too.

We MIGHT have made war upon Pakistan had they chosen to openly obstruct our post 9/11 immediate plans in Afghanistan. We, however, didn't say as much nor remotely suggest "stone age".

OTOH, how much was Pakistan presuming immediately post 9/11 regarding America? Did their own threat analysis suggest the possibility that we might make war upon them? If so, then were they likely to perceive any hint at our determination to take action in Afghanistan as a suggestion that Pakistan couldn't be far behind should they choose an open rejection?

Sir, this is conjecture. We don't actually KNOW what the ISI's independant analysis following 9/11 might have been. We can, however, presume that there'd been intensive meetings in Islamabad/Rawalpindi almost immediately following the attacks.

I can't speak for the actual level of fear and trepidation existing among them at the time but if we leveraged that obliquely then that certainly shouldn't be surprising to anybody.

snapper
15 Jul 11,, 07:56
Perhaps Pakistan requires no psychological testing? Let's grab them now?

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 12:47
The other axiom that is equally important, never over-estimate them either.

Agreed sir, but how do explain when your own Secretary Defence, when he was the Director CIA stated in May 2009 that the US did not know the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. As he admitted: “Obviously we try to understand where all these are located. We don’t have, frankly, the intelligence to know where they are all located.” He also conceded that the US was confident that the Pakistan government had a “pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons.”

Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Sites: India Tests Nuke Missile (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Pakistan_Expanding_Nuclear_Sites_India_Tests_Nuke_ Missile_999.html)

The examples you gave does not counter nuclear detection by the US.

Yeah sure and as you are seeking such duds since 1950s, that reason you couldn’t identify it because the stuff needed for 1998 Indians explosions was grown by the Indians in Pokharan. C’mon sir, this was a valid example.

Pakistan is certainly no God. And here you go

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/Masroor_tn.jpg

It's open source too.

Off-course its open source, that is why on the top left hand side it is clearly written POSSIBLE Pakistani Nuclear Storage Area.

When did Pakistan became part of Skunkworks?

Please see General Wes Clark’s interviews and speeches on you tube.

If you want to discuss the Iraq War, there's 100 pages of it here and the details of planning and execution failures have been examined in minute detail. Needless to say, it does not support your premise that the Americans are lacking in nuclear weapons detection.

OK. Please refer to Mr. Panetta’s statement then.

2011 United States is 30 years technological ahead of Cold War US. To give you a perspective on the difference in mathematics. We can detect Jupiter size planets in other star systems now.

Yes sir, you certainly can detect juniper size planets in other star systems. :) We were talking earthly things and one such being is Mr. Panetta with his statement.

Pakistani lack of success in evicting the Taliban has kept this contingency alive.

Sir, has the mighty Americans thrown out Taliban from Afghanistan yet. Accuse us when you do that.
And thank God for sure, the Americans don’t have nuclear weapons in Afghanistan because most of American weapons and equipment is sold in Peshawar bazaars – before you leap to the conclusion that Taliban may take over Pak nukes because they are there in Pakistan also.

Then, let me put in terms you can understand. Your 1998 nukes were duds.

Sir, I agree with you and oh, I think both countries mated the duds, which both had readied many many years before 1998.

Fine. Give me the Order of Battle and the Direct Chains of Command. Put up or shut up.

Sir, Indians have two Prithvi based Missile Groups (333 and 334) and two Agni based Missile Groups (444 and 555). Two Missile Groups known as squadrons (2203 Squadron is known) for the Air Force and one known for the Navy. They also stated in 2007 that they will raise a Brahmos Missile Group as well.

Hypersonic missile threat | Pitts Report (http://www.pittsreport.com/2011/01/hypersonic-missile-threat/)

Indian Army to form BrahMos missile group - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion (http://frontierindia.net/indian-army-to-form-brahmos-missile-group)

And sir, I’ll continue to put up and won’t shut up because I learn from you – no matter how many times you tell me to shut up. :)

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 12:56
Perhaps Pakistan requires no psychological testing? Let's grab them now?

Agreed sir that they don't have over 50 years of psychological testing, yet they do have over 13 years of on-job training. And over 10000 troops under a Major General are guarding such facilities. Try and grabin'em ............. :)

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 13:38
Your own words are joke to you?



BTW, I haven't seen one link backing up your claims.

Totally OT. May I ask if Pakistan is so great country, what are you doing in the UK?

Doktor, I meant what I said as a complement to you for explaining my one para rhetoric in one simple straight line. The laugh however, was for the gentleman you responded to.

Pakistan indeed is a great country from the sea to the prime desert to the plains and to the mountains which hold eight of the highest peaks in the world.

My girlfriend lives in London - and as all gentlemen are afraid of their ladies, how can I dare not fly her flag :)

antimony
15 Jul 11,, 14:52
Sir, Indians have two Prithvi based Missile Groups (333 and 334) and two Agni based Missile Groups (444 and 555). Two Missile Groups known as squadrons (2203 Squadron is known) for the Air Force and one known for the Navy. They also stated in 2007 that they will raise a Brahmos Missile Group as well.

Hypersonic missile threat | Pitts Report (http://www.pittsreport.com/2011/01/hypersonic-missile-threat/)

Indian Army to form BrahMos missile group - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion (http://frontierindia.net/indian-army-to-form-brahmos-missile-group)

And sir, I’ll continue to put up and won’t shut up because I learn from you – no matter how many times you tell me to shut up. :)

The first link is a lengthy article on India's various missile systems, nothing about ORBAT or command structure. The second one is a link that just talks about induction of the Brahmos into the army, not into the Strategic Forces Command, which is in charge of the nuclear arsenal and the body responsible to the Indian NCA.

I could not find any mentioned of either the Indian SFC or any Pakistani version of such in either article, so not exactly sure how any of these two pieces of info answer the Colonel's query on the ORBAT and Command Chain of Indian and Pakistani nuclear forces.

snapper
15 Jul 11,, 15:19
Tinu Sir, Should the Pakistani nuclear capability (limited as it is) be in danger of falling into untrustworthy hands it can be and will be removed from those hands, as the Colonel has tried to explain. Should Pakistan initiate a nuclear echchange with India the US would also forced to act on the three to one ratio.

You seem to have a very inflated idea of Pakistans capabalilities and strategic choices should the country either become engaged in war with India or succumb to extremist Islamic factions none of which you provide any evidence for... You either know things which you aren't telling us or you are wrong. Pray tell us the source of your wisdom?

I am not a military type but Pakistan has no permanent nuclear regiments from my understanding whereas India does and the US certainly does. Am I missing something? Nor does Pakistan have warhead 'mated' to missiles for immeadiate use as far as I am aware. Forgive me Sir if I have missed something but the India army is also vastly larger to the Pakistani army. I cannot reason your confidence in Pakistans capabilities...

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 15:21
The first link is a lengthy article on India's various missile systems, nothing about ORBAT or command structure. The second one is a link that just talks about induction of the Brahmos into the army, not into the Strategic Forces Command, which is in charge of the nuclear arsenal and the body responsible to the Indian NCA.

I could not find any mentioned of either the Indian SFC or any Pakistani version of such in either article, so not exactly sure how any of these two pieces of info answer the Colonel's query on the ORBAT and Command Chain of Indian and Pakistani nuclear forces.

The details of NCA and SFC are available in abundance. It is this Indian Orbat which is rarely available in this manner. Yes sir the article is lengthy one that is why I quoted the relevant aspects and provided a link. Information about Brahmos is not covered in the first link, therefore the second one. Use search provided for searching such length pieces and viola, you'll be there in no time. As the discussion was regarding Indian elements, I posted these for your convenience.

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 15:57
Tinu Sir, Should the Pakistani nuclear capability (limited as it is) be in danger of falling into untrustworthy hands it can be and will be removed from those hands, as the Colonel has tried to explain. Should Pakistan initiate a nuclear echchange with India the US would also forced to act on the three to one ratio.

You seem to have a very inflated idea of Pakistans capabalilities and strategic choices should the country either become engaged in war with India or succumb to extremist Islamic factions none of which you provide any evidence for... You either know things which you aren't telling us or you are wrong. Pray tell us the source of your wisdom?

I am not a military type but Pakistan has no permanent nuclear regiments from my understanding whereas India does and the US certainly does. Am I missing something? Nor does Pakistan have warhead 'mated' to missiles for immeadiate use as far as I am aware. Forgive me Sir if I have missed something but the India army is also vastly larger to the Pakistani army. I cannot reason your confidence in Pakistans capabilities...

Sir, I am positive that with what I’ve read including the senior US administration officials and even the Indian Chief of Army Staff’s statements about the safety and security of Pak nuclear arsenal, an unauthorized or untrustworthy intrusion is not possible. However, the Americans and the West including India have expressed concerns about the Taliban. Pak Government and at least I am very confident that this is not gonna happen.

The US has never before intrusively intervened in any India Pak conflict. It has always been generation of an outside influence to force the two apart. Both countries have accused the US of siding with the other in all such previous environment. In my opinion, this time on when both the countries possess nuclear weapons, though the US concern would be heightened and they’d be making much serious efforts to stop the environment crossing a certain threshold, Their siding with one nuclear power against the other would be highly improbable (with emphasis). Why? Because the US has many bases in countries which are well within easy ranges of various platforms. The safety of her men and women and the safety of their friends would in my opinion weigh heavily on US nuclear intervention on one side or the other. The pressure mounted by US and others would certainly be very high indeed.

Sir, Pakistan does have a Strategic Force Command and have regular and well trained regiments on its Orbat. Recently, I’ve read somewhere and I am trying to find the link where it has been indicated that mated deployable elements exist.

Sir, Indian Army is 1.3 million strong as compared to Pakistan’s over 500,000 strong. Recently, one of the Indian Chiefs of Army Staff has said that Pakistan has superior tanks – I can find the link. Though India has more artillery pieces, these are Russian origin and most of Pakistani artillery is American origin which in my opinion is much better. However, without going into such details, if we weigh the ratio it is 1:2 point. something, which is good enough for defence, as Pakistan does not have an offensive design like Indian Army. The Indian Generals have mentioned on more than one occasion that their offensive would stop well short of Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds – so the deep strikes to cut Pakistan in different segments of sorts may not happen. . Though some Indian Generals have argued for calling Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, the deterrence has however held so far.

antimony
15 Jul 11,, 16:16
The details of NCA and SFC are available in abundance. It is this Indian Orbat which is rarely available in this manner. Yes sir the article is lengthy one that is why I quoted the relevant aspects and provided a link. Information about Brahmos is not covered in the first link, therefore the second one. Use search provided for searching such length pieces and viola, you'll be there in no time. As the discussion was regarding Indian elements, I posted these for your convenience.

Your exchange with the Colonel went something like this



Originally Posted by Tinu

You have wrong information. Both countries have nuclear commands and these commands have assets directly placed under them and not the Army Commands / Corps Headquarters. In case of Indians however, three of their short range Prithvi Missile Brigades were or may be still under the Army Commands to support operations of their strike corps’.

Fine. Give me the Order of Battle and the Direct Chains of Command. Put up or shut up.

You were expected to provide the ORBAT and Command Structure of the bodies outside the purview of the Army Commands, that would control this arsenal.

You responded with information about India's missile systems, which is not relevant to the question asked.

In multiple exchanges you have asserted that the Pakistani side has assets and delivery systems specifically reserved for a nuclear force, even though there is no discernible evidence of the same.

I would like to ask you again, what information do you have specifically about the Pakistani nuclear commands which are outside the Army Command? And no, just information about the NCA would not suffice as it is simply the policy body. The Indian SFC is already a known entity.

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 16:25
Your exchange with the Colonel went something like this



You were expected to provide the ORBAT and Command Structure of the bodies outside the purview of the Army Commands, that would control this arsenal.

You responded with information about India's missile systems, which is not relevant to the question asked.

In multiple exchanges you have asserted that the Pakistani side has assets and delivery systems specifically reserved for a nuclear force, even though there is no discernible evidence of the same.

I would like to ask you again, what information do you have specifically about the Pakistani nuclear commands which are outside the Army Command? And no, just information about the NCA would not suffice as it is simply the policy body. The Indian SFC is already a known entity.

The Colonel is a Colonel - I don't take orders from you. And the discussion precedes what you've quoted from. However, the 333 and 334 are Prithvi Missile Groups which being short range have been quoted to be given under command two different Army Commands. The other two 444 and 555 I believe are with the SFC.

Regarding the remaining information you are asking for, find it out yourself and post it here if you so desire, I haven't opened an information booth for you.

Tinu
15 Jul 11,, 16:25
Self deleted. Duplicate.

antimony
15 Jul 11,, 16:57
The Colonel is a Colonel - I don't take orders from you. And the discussion precedes what you've quoted from.

Regarding the remaining information you are asking for, find it out yourself and post it here if you so desire, I haven't opened an information booth for you.

So you do not have anything to back up your claims, thought so:cool::rolleyes:

By the way, your snarky tone is not helping your arguments. We have debated these points with the Colonel and other MilProfs, both on the Pakistani and the Indian side, number of times in the past and are more or less aware of the issues and details involved. On this board if someone makes claims around something not generally known or accepted, one is expected to back it up with information. The MilProfs have some leeway based on their training and personal experience, we civvies don't.

Finally, would advice you one again to familiarize yourself with some similar topics already discussed on this board. I recall one thread with an absolutely brilliant string of analysis and exchanges between OOE and Zraver that veered from analysis of events to formulation of a new nuclear strategy. It was a fascinating read, here you go :

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/staff-college/56458-no-cold-start-doctrine-india-tells-us-20.html

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 11,, 23:30
Agreed sir, but how do explain when your own Secretary Defence, when he was the Director CIA stated in May 2009 that the US did not know the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. As he admitted: “Obviously we try to understand where all these are located. We don’t have, frankly, the intelligence to know where they are all located.” He also conceded that the US was confident that the Pakistan government had a “pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons.”Note what I said. The US has high confidence that she can take out Pakistan's nukes. There are only so many places Pakistan can store her nukes (explained later) and all of them have been identified. Do we know exactly which one has nukes and which one doesn't? Cannot be 100% sure. Can we turn them all into glass and everywhere else that we think there's nukes? Of that, we can be 100% sure.


Yeah sure and as you are seeking such duds since 1950s, that reason you couldn’t identify it because the stuff needed for 1998 Indians explosions was grown by the Indians in Pokharan. C’mon sir, this was a valid example.No, it is not. South Asian did not warranted a 24/7 watch in 1998. The best was a satellite passing through and that was easily avoided by the Indians who simply did their preparations when the satellite was not overhead. The entire region is now watched 24/7 ranging from foot on the ground to UAVs to geosync satellites.


Off-course its open source, that is why on the top left hand side it is clearly written POSSIBLE Pakistani Nuclear Storage Area.And here is where you get your lesson. What's more important? Hiding a nuke or protecting it? Suppose you decided to hide it in town or a city? With that many people around, when would the neighbours start noticing something is out of midst and which one can be trusted not to be bribed?

Supposed you found a cave to hide it? What happens if a hiker found it or worst, a company of Taliban fighters?

Ok, you decide to protect it where you hid. How much protection? A single platoon? A company? Considering the fact that the Pakistani Army has come out less than stellar in several company level actions against the Taliban, nothing less than a determined battalion will do. Do you think you can hide an entire battalion from the birds in the sky? Rhetorical.

Now, why is this a suspected sight? Protection is too high for protecting nothing. The layout is conducive to weapons storage but an extreme lack of any activity usually associated with conventional munition storage. Can Dr Kristensen be sure that this is a nuke storage? No, he cannot. Can we be sure that this is on an American nuclear strike list? Yes, we can.


Please see General Wes Clark’s interviews and speeches on you tube.You can be forgiven for not knowing what non-American NATO militaries (and even a large percent of the American military) think of the man and what his views are worth. Don't raise him as an authority before me.


OK. Please refer to Mr. Panetta’s statement then.Refer above.


Yes sir, you certainly can detect juniper size planets in other star systems. We were talking earthly things and one such being is Mr. Panetta with his statement.It's a statement on how we can detect the movement.


Sir, has the mighty Americans thrown out Taliban from Afghanistan yet. Accuse us when you do that.Afghanistan don't have nukes and Afghanistan is not our home. The same cannot be said of FATA and your Pakistan.


And thank God for sure, the Americans don’t have nuclear weapons in Afghanistan because most of American weapons and equipment is sold in Peshawar bazaarsHorse Puckey! I don't see M1A2 tanks, F-18s, or even HUMVEEs on sale anywhere in Afghanistan.


before you leap to the conclusion that Taliban may take over Pak nukes because they are there in Pakistan also.The Taliban has mounted attacks on your nuclear facilities. They've tried and continues to try.


Sir, I agree with you and oh, I think both countries mated the duds, which both had readied many many years before 1998.What of kind of horse puckey is that? When you know the weapon is a dud. You take it off line. Fix it. Then put it back up. You don't leave a dud in service.


Sir, Indians have two Prithvi based Missile Groups (333 and 334) and two Agni based Missile Groups (444 and 555). Two Missile Groups known as squadrons (2203 Squadron is known) for the Air Force and one known for the Navy. They also stated in 2007 that they will raise a Brahmos Missile Group as well.Only 444 and 555 have been tasked with a nuclear assignments but no intel yet that they have received their nukes. 333 and 334 are tasked with conventional assignments.

BrahMos is a conventional strike platform even though it can accept a nuke but it doesn't need a nuke. It's kinetic kill capability couple with a 500lb bomb is enough to make short work of any stationary target.


Hypersonic missile threat | Pitts Report (http://www.pittsreport.com/2011/01/hypersonic-missile-threat/)

Indian Army to form BrahMos missile group - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion (http://frontierindia.net/indian-army-to-form-brahmos-missile-group)These articles contradict your claims of a nuclear strike force when clearly it is the Army and not the SFC who is raising these regiments.


And sir, I’ll continue to put up and won’t shut up because I learn from you – no matter how many times you tell me to shut up. :)Anthony already challenged you on this and he is correct.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 11,, 06:11
The MilProfs have some leeway based on their training and personal experience, we civvies don't.Just a quick question. I know it is damned hard to understand that deterrence is not warfighting. But out of curiosity, have you started to appreciate Sundarji's brilliance in this matter?

I know I sound like a broken record when I keep repeating this line but I'm wondering if you can appreciate that line of strategic thought and if so, how long did it took you?

antimony
16 Jul 11,, 08:03
Just a quick question. I know it is damned hard to understand that deterrence is not warfighting. But out of curiosity, have you started to appreciate Sundarji's brilliance in this matter?

I know I sound like a broken record when I keep repeating this line but I'm wondering if you can appreciate that line of strategic thought and if so, how long did it took you?

I can now, after going through your many explanations. If I had mot read your notes and comments I would not have understood the significance. However, I also think you are too hard on yourself for not appreciating the warfighting vs deterrance conundrum straightaway, as you have been trained in warfighting yourself and I guess it would be a bit hard to adjust to a different line of thinking. As a civilian I do not have that problem.

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 12:12
Just a quick question. I know it is damned hard to understand that deterrence is not warfighting. But out of curiosity, have you started to appreciate Sundarji's brilliance in this matter?

I know I sound like a broken record when I keep repeating this line but I'm wondering if you can appreciate that line of strategic thought and if so, how long did it took you?
Well, let's make it more clear. You appreciate it more because its a complete change to the way you were trained. An alternative means to an end. But to a civvie, warfighting vs deterrence is like comparing apples & oranges. Big deal, so what ? nukes is nukes.

Lets see how well i understood it. The test is if one can give an understandable explanation to a layperson.

deterrence is not warfighting means:
- Possible to deter a nuclear opponent with a smaller arsenal. They are only to be used in a retaliatory strike. warfighting requires larger arsenals.
- warfighting implies the war just began after the first nuke was tossed, but deterrence sees it as the end. As the point is not to fight a nuke war to begin with. The counter-intuitive part is why have nukes in the first place if you don't want to use them. But otherwise there is no other way to deter a nuke strike by an opponent.
- warfighting is a true MAD scenario, everything valuable is targetted. Deterrence depends on threatening a debilitating if not death strike.

Thats what i can say off the top of my head.

Effective deterrence is directly proportional to presence of capable delivery vehicles. This applies in both warfighting & deterrence.

Lets say the US or Russia threaten a nuke attack on Pakistan. Pakistan might have nukes, but no present way to deliver them to the US or Russia. So can one conclude that Pakistan has no deterrence against US & Russia ? Instead what they can say is if you hit us we will hit India and maybe get some level of deterrence that way.

US might have contingency plans to take out nuke sites in Pakistan but it would be good to know that no strays can fly over to our side of the border.

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 12:50
Note what I said. The US has high confidence that she can take out Pakistan's nukes. There are only so many places Pakistan can store her nukes (explained later) and all of them have been identified. Do we know exactly which one has nukes and which one doesn't? Cannot be 100% sure. Can we turn them all into glass and everywhere else that we think there's nukes? Of that, we can be 100% sure.

Colonel Sir, I would still tend to agree with what Mr. Panetta said. The fact notwithstanding that he may have said what he said for certain other reasons in the hind-sight as well. I may have a bit of knowledge about the sync procedures and methodology involved after a target has been identified for tracking and tracked to a certain site through geosync sats and subsequent confirmation procedures, either through UAVs if these can be operated in the area without the threat of identification or ground based assets or both. Finding and tracking all what is needed to be found and tracked requires a certain amount of assets placed in the space above and may experience capacity problems. Currently, the nukes are in storage areas – on mobilization they won’t be. And in such an eventuality, can the geosync sats track where thousands of vehicles would go to. I am saying this because I may have a bit of understanding of the capability and capacity of the birds stationed above. I can understand the enormous capability the US possesses, yet the technology also places certain limitations about certain number of tracks undertaken simultaneously vis-ŕ-vis the number of assets available. The limiting factor also highlight as to when a certain facility was illuminated blacking-out what happened their earlier etc etc.
Here I would not comment on the capacity and capability of UAVs and capacity and capability of ground assets.
Those who operate and execute need to be given a certain amount of confidence in the system that is operative. Without a high confidence level, the execution may never be 100%. I agree with you when you say that their confidence level is high but this does not prove beyond a measure of certainty that everything is known. All I would say is – All what is known is known and can be targeted.

No, it is not. South Asian did not warranted a 24/7 watch in 1998. The best was a satellite passing through and that was easily avoided by the Indians who simply did their preparations when the satellite was not overhead. The entire region is now watched 24/7 ranging from foot on the ground to UAVs to geosync satellites.

As above.

And here is where you get your lesson. What's more important? Hiding a nuke or protecting it? Suppose you decided to hide it in town or a city? With that many people around, when would the neighbours start noticing something is out of midst and which one can be trusted not to be bribed?

Supposed you found a cave to hide it? What happens if a hiker found it or worst, a company of Taliban fighters?

Ok, you decide to protect it where you hid. How much protection? A single platoon? A company? Considering the fact that the Pakistani Army has come out less than stellar in several company level actions against the Taliban, nothing less than a determined battalion will do. Do you think you can hide an entire battalion from the birds in the sky? Rhetorical.

Now, why is this a suspected sight? Protection is too high for protecting nothing. The layout is conducive to weapons storage but an extreme lack of any activity usually associated with conventional munition storage. Can Dr Kristensen be sure that this is a nuke storage? No, he cannot. Can we be sure that this is on an American nuclear strike list? Yes, we can.

Excellent explanation.

However Sir, Knowing about the target is one thing and ordering a strike on such targets is another ball-game altogether.

Is Pakistan’s nuclear capability a threat to the US – In my opinion NO.

Does Pakistan feel that the US is a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear capability which essentially is India Centric – In my opinion the answer is NO.

Pakistan’s nuclear capability may become a threat to the US if Taliban take control of it. Both Pakistan and the US would together ensure that such a specter doesn’t arise.

You can be forgiven for not knowing what non-American NATO militaries (and even a large percent of the American military) think of the man and what his views are worth. Don't raise him as an authority before me.

OK.

Refer above.

It's a statement on how we can detect the movement.

Agreed.

Afghanistan don't have nukes and Afghanistan is not our home. The same cannot be said of FATA and your Pakistan.

OK.

Horse Puckey! I don't see M1A2 tanks, F-18s, or even HUMVEEs on sale anywhere in Afghanistan.

I’ve seen Taliban driving a HUMVEE on TV news channel. However, the kind of war Taliban are fighting they don’t need tanks and air craft etc. With your tanks, F18s and what not, you still have not been able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. So instead of nitpicking each other lets fight together to eliminate this menace from the face of the earth. Difficult eh? No, just need a bit of lowering our inflated egos as the alternative is far worse.

The Taliban has mounted attacks on your nuclear facilities. They've tried and continues to try.

Bull-crap. They attacked a bus carrying normal workers to one of the facilities. The city in which the attack was carried out is far far away from the facility.

What of kind of horse puckey is that? When you know the weapon is a dud. You take it off line. Fix it. Then put it back up. You don't leave a dud in service.

I disagree.

Only 444 and 555 have been tasked with a nuclear assignments but no intel yet that they have received their nukes. 333 and 334 are tasked with conventional assignments.

BrahMos is a conventional strike platform even though it can accept a nuke but it doesn't need a nuke. It's kinetic kill capability couple with a 500lb bomb is enough to make short work of any stationary target.

Prithvi missiles carried by 333 and 334 were nuclear tested, if you know what I mean. Please don’t ask me to provide a link. If you ask me (I hate looking for links) – I’ll agree with you and Anthony :)

You said that they have two – I said they have three. Both of us were wrong. The air force and navy assets are also there.

Brahmos has nuclear capability. Which capability Indians chose to utilize is neither your or my decision. The intent is with the Indians, we can only talk of the capability and they have it.

These articles contradict your claims of a nuclear strike force when clearly it is the Army and not the SFC who is raising these regiments.

In Indian and Pakistan, in certain cases due to capacity constraints, various elements are raised and placed under administrative command of one headquarters and for operational purposes under another. In my opinion this is the reason. Yes I could be wrong as well.

Anthony already challenged you on this and he is correct.

I am not witch hunting. I did not appreciate in the manner @ antimony challenged and I reacted.

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 12:55
Well, let's make it more clear. You appreciate it more because its a complete change to the way you were trained. An alternative means to an end. But to a civvie, warfighting vs deterrence is like comparing apples & oranges. Big deal, so what ? nukes is nukes.

Lets see how well i understood it. The test is if one can give an understandable explanation to a layperson.

deterrence is not warfighting means:
- Possible to deter a nuclear opponent with a smaller arsenal. They are only to be used in a retaliatory strike. warfighting requires larger arsenals.
- warfighting implies the war just began after the first nuke was tossed, but deterrence sees it as the end. As the point is not to fight a nuke war to begin with. The counter-intuitive part is why have nukes in the first place if you don't want to use them. But otherwise there is no other way to deter a nuke strike by an opponent.
- warfighting is a true MAD scenario, everything valuable is targetted. Deterrence depends on threatening a debilitating if not death strike.

Thats what i can say off the top of my head.

Effective deterrence is directly proportional to presence of capable delivery vehicles. This applies in both warfighting & deterrence.

Lets say the US or Russia threaten a nuke attack on Pakistan. Pakistan might have nukes, but no present way to deliver them to the US or Russia. So can one conclude that Pakistan has no deterrence against US & Russia ? Instead what they can say is if you hit us we will hit India and maybe get some level of deterrence that way.

US might have contingency plans to take out nuke sites in Pakistan but it would be good to know that no strays can fly over to our side of the border.

Excellent explanation DE.

Doktor
16 Jul 11,, 15:44
Tinu, you have a problem understanding one thing.

Nuke detonated anywhere in the world is the problem for all of us, including USA, Russia and China.

Think about Chernobyl and Fukushima for a second, then compare both to 100x 20kt

Detonating a nuke in India or in Pakistan is hell of a problem for two obvious reasons:

The other side will retaliate
The Geiger counters will go to disco dancing worldwide

Therefor they (N5) will try to prevent it any possible way even if that means tossing Tomahawks, Nukes, kitchen sinks... anywhere in Pakistan (or India for that fact)

You think your generals don't know that? Pray to whatever you believe in your PM knows that, too

IMHO, Pakistani thresholds are really not that low as they officially claim :fish:

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 16:51
Tinu, you have a problem understanding one thing.

Nuke detonated anywhere in the world is the problem for all of us, including USA, Russia and China.

Think about Chernobyl and Fukushima for a second, then compare both to 100x 20kt

Detonating a nuke in India or in Pakistan is hell of a problem for two obvious reasons:

The other side will retaliate
The Geiger counters will go to disco dancing worldwide

Therefor they (N5) will try to prevent it any possible way even if that means tossing Tomahawks, Nukes, kitchen sinks... anywhere in Pakistan (or India for that fact)

You think your generals don't know that? Pray to whatever you believe in your PM knows that, too

IMHO, Pakistani thresholds are really not that low as they officially claim :fish:

Doktor,
You make a very strong statement in geopolitical terms. Nuke detonation anywhere is a problem for Pakistan as well. However, without going into the deterrence theories etc, I would say that unless it is critically important for the US and it feels that it is a direct threat to critical US national interests, and for the moment I will leave Russia and China out for later, the US would in all likelihood not join any pugilist against the other for a nuclear war. Yes, they’d put tremendous amount of pressure on both to de-escalate. That is one of the reason Indians invented “Cold Start That Was Not” :) (Indian Army Chief said there is no Cold Start).

China would also want to de-escalate the tension. However as a contending world power who intend to keep her economic rise on track, would they join to nuke Pakistan which is also critically important to them in geopolitical and geo-strategic terms and even India for that matter, in my opinion it is highly unlikely. North Korea is one example – if the Chinese want that North Korea should de-nuke, they could do it very quickly – they are not doing it for their own interests.

Would Russia do it, almost the same theory applies to them as well.

Both these countries may want USA mauled in such an encounter so that their own rise to replace the US happens quickly. A threat of nuclear strike may force many countries where US have basing facilities to ask the US to leave. Has the US ever talked of such a thing. They’d be very very careful indeed. How would the Muslim world react to such a specter – clash of civilizations.

You probably are asking too much from a so-called joint P-5 collaboration for a nuclear retaliatory action. The ramifications of such collaboration would go far beyond the realm of P-5. With probably the exception of UK who may join the US, though I still have my doubts, I don’t think anybody else would vote yes in the UN Security Council. There would be more nays than ayes. All these guys have their own national interests and they’d dance to those interests instead of dancing to some Geiger counters playing disco somewhere.

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 17:27
IMHO, Pakistani thresholds are really not that low as they officially claim :fish:
Yeah, i'd imagine this would be one consequence of 'deterrence is not warfighting'.

It directly contradicts Tinu's opener. The lack of a NFU policy does not change anything.

Use them once and its over. Therefore in this scenario it would be prudent to only use them when the country is at grave risk. Therefore as mentioned earlier, limited wars are certainly possible.

antimony
16 Jul 11,, 17:35
Well, let's make it more clear. You appreciate it more because its a complete change to the way you were trained. An alternative means to an end. But to a civvie, warfighting vs deterrence is like comparing apples & oranges. Big deal, so what ? nukes is nukes.


Not any more, though, at least for us who have gone through the previous thread. Stuff like "India/ Pakistan need tac nukes" or "limited nuclear war" will not go past our radar.

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 17:48
Yes I've read Sunderji's book. He in my opinion was much ahead of his time.
Which book of his were you referring to ?

Doktor
16 Jul 11,, 17:57
Tinu,

A strong geopolitical statement? What geopolitics will it be and how it will affect the let's say China if India and Pakistan start exchanging nukes? I think it's getting better if they do it during monsoons.

Nuking Pakistan (or India) would be the last thing they'd do (but still on the table). Was thinking creative diplomacy. You know the one with the carrot and the stick. If that doesn't bloom they still have Tomahawks, Helos, SF...

You really think it would be that hard to take Pakistani nukes? They are THAT secure? Looking what happened to that naval base a month ago, I have doubts.

Taking India nukes is another topic.

De-nuking N. Korea by China will release US sources elsewhere. If I was Chinese, I'd get US be busy there and in Iran, rather then anywhere else.

USA clearly stated they will war USSR if they go nuclear with China. You think they have other standards for Pakistan and India?

You seriously think there will be UNSC meeting if Pakistanis start mounting those warheads?

Geiger counters will play disco at their homes, first in China, then in Russia, then elsewhere.

Muslim world's reaction? You mean like those when USA when to Iraq (twice)? Or like USA not going to Syria? Which one?

Don't underestimate the PR that will follow these events.

Doktor
16 Jul 11,, 18:03
Use them once and its over. Therefore in this scenario it would be prudent to only use them when the country is at grave risk. Therefore as mentioned earlier, limited wars are certainly possible.
I think in this case it will be try to use them and it's over. Training terrorists to blow up things in the other country, certainly should be punished (on both sides). If caught bear the consequences, they would be minimal compared to using nukes to defend those terrorists.

S2
16 Jul 11,, 18:12
MAD, by itself, is not assured deterrence. Recall that by the late seventies the perceived hugely disproportionate conventional warfighting capabilities favoring the WARSAW PACT forces over NATO. It was commonly presumed that the only means by NATO of stopping an advance across western Europe was resorting early to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The issue, of course, was that the WARSAW PACT would likely retaliate...on western European soil. MAD would likely assure that neither the Soviet Union nor America, Great Britain and France would be targeted but, it's safe to say, W. Germany, E. Germany and possibly Poland/Czechoslovakia would be devastated.

Such a scenario was generally unacceptable to the West Germans. As such an argument increasingly developed within NATO between W. Germany's commitment to an aggressive forward defense and America's belief that only an active defense in depth (W. German DEPTH). America had no faith that such a W. German posture wouldn't prove brittle in the face of the expected echeloned onslaught from WARSAW PACT conventional forces. W. Germany had no faith in the notion that their soil would become a devastated battlefield from the IGB (Inter-German Border) to the Rhine river.

Nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, provided no solution to this conventional dilemma. It was NATO's conventional weakness which neutered their nuclear response capability. Until it was addressed both through the acquistion of more capable conventional systems (and MORE of them) while revamping our conventional doctrine to make vulnerable WARSAW PACT second and third echelon forces by extending battlefield depth EASTWARD into their operational and tactical assembly areas NATO's nuclear deterrence capability was rendered moot.

Pakistan faces a similar problem. The suggestion of Afghanistan as strategic depth has no foundation in an Indian-Pakistani conventional battle fought in Punjab. India won't be transferring major conventional forces to Afghanistan from which to threaten Pakistan. The Khyber pass is a chokepoint and the remainder of the western border largely inpenetrable to a conventional attack from that direction.

Still, a determined conventional attack in the east by India leaves little manuevering room for conventional Pakistani forces. They must fight a forward defense and do so successfully very early on. While Pakistan can suggest "red-lines" behind which they'll resort to nuclear strikes the fact remains that doing so means the effective end of Pakistan too.

What end is achieved if the state is destroyed by the very means of its final defense? Without a viable conventional defense capability, the Pakistani posture becomes a very dangerous bluff. Not unlike the American officer who, during the Vietnam war, suggested we had to destroy a village in order to "save" it are we not presuming the same from the Pakistani leadership? Would they resort to destroying their "village" in order to save it?

A meaningful nuclear deterrence only exists where a viable conventional defense is also possible.

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 18:30
MAD, by itself, is not assured deterrence. Recall that by the late seventies the perceived hugely disproportionate conventional warfighting capabilities favoring the WARSAW PACT forces over NATO. It was commonly presumed that the only means by NATO of stopping an advance across western Europe was resorting early to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The issue, of course, was that the WARSAW PACT would likely retaliate...on western European soil. MAD would likely assure that neither the Soviet Union nor America, Great Britain and France would be targeted but, it's safe to say, W. Germany, E. Germany and possibly Poland/Czechoslovakia would be devastated.

Such a scenario was generally unacceptable to the West Germans. As such an argument increasingly developed within NATO between W. Germany's commitment to an aggressive forward defense and America's belief that only an active defense in depth (W. German DEPTH). America had no faith that such a W. German posture wouldn't prove brittle in the face of the expected echeloned onslaught from WARSAW PACT conventional forces. W. Germany had no faith in the notion that their soil would become a devastated battlefield from the IGB (Inter-German Border) to the Rhine river.

Nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, provided no solution to this conventional dilemma. It was NATO's conventional weakness which neutered their nuclear response capability. Until it was addressed both through the acquistion of more capable conventional systems (and MORE of them) while revamping our conventional doctrine to make vulnerable WARSAW PACT second and third echelon forces by extending battlefield depth EASTWARD into their operational and tactical assembly areas NATO's nuclear deterrence capability was rendered moot.

Pakistan faces a similar problem. The suggestion of Afghanistan as strategic depth has no foundation in an Indian-Pakistani conventional battle fought in Punjab. India won't be transferring major conventional forces to Afghanistan from which to threaten Pakistan. The Khyber pass is a chokepoint and the remainder of the western border largely inpenetrable to a conventional attack from that direction.

Still, a determined conventional attack in the east by India leaves little manuevering room for conventional Pakistani forces. They must fight a forward defense and do so successfully very early on. While Pakistan can suggest "red-lines" behind which they'll resort to nuclear strikes the fact remains that doing so means the effective end of Pakistan too.

What end is achieved if the state is destroyed by the very means of its final defense? Without a viable conventional defense capability, the Pakistani posture becomes a very dangerous bluff. Not unlike the American officer who, during the Vietnam war, suggested we had to destroy a village in order to "save" it are we not presuming the same from the Pakistani leadership? Would they resort to destroying their "village" in order to save it?

A meaningful nuclear deterrence only exists where a viable conventional defense is also possible.

S2,
Marvelous indeed. Probably this has been one of the reasons the US has been providing wothwhile conventional support to Pakistan.

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 18:38
Yeah, i'd imagine this would be one consequence of 'deterrence is not warfighting'.

It directly contradicts Tinu's opener. The lack of a NFU policy does not change anything.

Use them once and its over. Therefore in this scenario it would be prudent to only use them when the country is at grave risk. Therefore as mentioned earlier, limited wars are certainly possible.

I don't remeber mentioning anywhere that "The lack of a NFU policy does not change anything."

Limited or any other war is only possible if a type of nuclear threshold is not crossed, which govern at that particular moment.

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 18:42
Which book of his were you referring to ?

I was refering to the book in which he wrote that, "the time of Indian T-72s crossing the Sukkur Barrage are long gone."

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 20:26
I don't remeber mentioning anywhere that "The lack of a NFU policy does not change anything."
You did not. It's often mentioned that the lack of a NFU gives some sort of advantage to Pakistan. I think it makes no difference because Pakistan is also using the same deterrence doctrine that India or China is using for that matter.


Limited or any other war is only possible if a type of nuclear threshold is not crossed, which govern at that particular moment.
Right, but Pakistan isn't going to use nukes unless it a last resort. So your opening article talks about different thresholds. There is just one, either the state falls or the nukes get used. Thats the only one. No matter what Pakistan says that is the only case in which Pakistan will use nukes.

There is one point i'm not clear on here, OOE's often times said 'use them or lose them'. What does it mean and how does it tie into this scenario.


I was refering to the book in which he wrote that, "the time of Indian T-72s crossing the Sukkur Barrage are long gone."
Which book is that ?

Tinu
16 Jul 11,, 20:33
You did not. It's often mentioned that the lack of a NFU gives some sort of advantage to Pakistan. I think it makes no difference because Pakistan is also using the same deterrence doctrine that India or China is using for that matter.


Right, but Pakistan isn't going to use nukes unless it a last resort. So your opening article talks about different thresholds. There is just one, either the state falls or the nukes get used. Thats the only one. No matter what Pakistan says that is the only case in which Pakistan will use nukes.

There is one point i'm not clear on here, OOE's often times said 'use them or lose them'. What does it mean and how does it tie into this scenario.


Which book is that ?

Blind men of Hindustan

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 21:11
Blind men of Hindustan
No, that's not what OOE is referring to when he mentions Sundarji, rather its Sundarji's essay to a journal in '96


It's an essay written to NUCLEAR RIVALRY AND INTERNATIONAL ORDER. I don't have an electronic copy but most libraries should have it ... or have access to it.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 11,, 22:20
Colonel Sir, I would still tend to agree with what Mr. Panetta said. The fact notwithstanding that he may have said what he said for certain other reasons in the hind-sight as well. I may have a bit of knowledge about the sync procedures and methodology involved after a target has been identified for tracking and tracked to a certain site through geosync sats and subsequent confirmation procedures, either through UAVs if these can be operated in the area without the threat of identification or ground based assets or both. Finding and tracking all what is needed to be found and tracked requires a certain amount of assets placed in the space above and may experience capacity problems. Currently, the nukes are in storage areas – on mobilization they won’t be.The job is even easier then. We know where the nukes are going - to their delivery vehicles. Two birds, one stone.


And in such an eventuality, can the geosync sats track where thousands of vehicles would go to. I am saying this because I may have a bit of understanding of the capability and capacity of the birds stationed above.No, you don't. I'm not going into this any further because you have thus far refused to even learn about what's available. Those drones flying over Pakistan. Their pilots are sitting in the US. That's how much bandwidth there are and that's how much bandwidth is being utilized. You have not even begun to understand the technology available to the US and you still insist on using obsolete Cold War techniques to compensate.


I can understand the enormous capability the US possesses, yet the technology also places certain limitations about certain number of tracks undertaken simultaneously vis-ŕ-vis the number of assets available. The limiting factor also highlight as to when a certain facility was illuminated blacking-out what happened their earlier etc etc.
Here I would not comment on the capacity and capability of UAVs and capacity and capability of ground assets.
Those who operate and execute need to be given a certain amount of confidence in the system that is operative. Without a high confidence level, the execution may never be 100%. I agree with you when you say that their confidence level is high but this does not prove beyond a measure of certainty that everything is known. All I would say is – All what is known is known and can be targeted.Wrong. What is probable will also be targeted and that includes the C3, the NCA, and the LOCs.


Excellent explanation.

However Sir, Knowing about the target is one thing and ordering a strike on such targets is another ball-game altogether.It's a known contingency and one that is regularly updated.


Is Pakistan’s nuclear capability a threat to the US – In my opinion NO.It is a non-friendly, yet to be hostile, arsenal.


Does Pakistan feel that the US is a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear capability which essentially is India Centric – In my opinion the answer is NO.Look back at 2001 when both your ISI and your PM stated that the US was ready to bomb Pakistan back to the stoneage if they didn't join the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You can bet your bottom dollar the first thing to be hit would be your nukes.


Pakistan’s nuclear capability may become a threat to the US if Taliban take control of it. Both Pakistan and the US would together ensure that such a specter doesn’t arise.You have a lot of work ahead of you.


I’ve seen Taliban driving a HUMVEE on TV news channel.You've seen GM HUMMER SUVs.


However, the kind of war Taliban are fighting they don’t need tanks and air craft etc. With your tanks, F18s and what not, you still have not been able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.Your premise was that the Taliban has access to all American weapons which is a horse puckey stand to begin with.


So instead of nitpicking each other lets fight together to eliminate this menace from the face of the earth. Difficult eh? No, just need a bit of lowering our inflated egos as the alternative is far worse.Pakistan demands to do that job alone and thus far, the results are less than stellar but I'm not going into it here. It is off topic from this thread.


Bull-crap. They attacked a bus carrying normal workers to one of the facilities. The city in which the attack was carried out is far far away from the facility.What's bull-crap is your under-estimation of the enemy's determination and capabilities. They've reached the front gates in at least one time out of three.


The Terrorist Threat to Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss7.pdf)

The incidents include an attack on a nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on Nov. 1, 2007, and a homicide bombing at the nuclear airbase at Kamra on Dec. 10, 2007, as tracked by Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford in the UK.

But Bradford also noted a much more considerable raid by the Pakistani Taliban on Aug. 20, 2008, when homicide bombers blew up several entry points to a main armament complex at the country's main nuclear facility, the Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex, according to the paper.


Prithvi missiles carried by 333 and 334 were nuclear tested, if you know what I mean. Please don’t ask me to provide a link. If you ask me (I hate looking for links) – I’ll agree with you and AnthonyPRITHVI was NEVER nuclear tested. At no time did India ever conducted a missile deliver nuke test. You seem to have a problem that just because a platform is nuclear capable, that it is automatically assigned to a nuclear role. That is not how things work.


You said that they have two – I said they have three. Both of us were wrong. The air force and navy assets are also there.No, I am right. The Order of Battle reflects my stand.


Brahmos has nuclear capability. Which capability Indians chose to utilize is neither your or my decision. The intent is with the Indians, we can only talk of the capability and they have it.And the Indians told you of their intent. The Army, not the SFC, is raising these regiments.


In Indian and Pakistan, in certain cases due to capacity constraints, various elements are raised and placed under administrative command of one headquarters and for operational purposes under another. In my opinion this is the reason. Yes I could be wrong as well.You are very wrong. No one and I mean no one go about nuclear packages half assed. If you are not trained for a nuke, you're not going to get authorized for a nuke, let alone getting a nuke.


I disagree.And once again you are wrong. The last thing you want is to warn the Indians that you're about to toss a nuke only to have thing sitting looking pretty with no mushroom cloud. It would state that your nuclear arsenal is entirely useless and would egg the Indians on.


I am not witch hunting. I did not appreciate in the manner @ antimony challenged and I reactedGrow a back bone. The WAB is not your granny's knitting circle.


S2,
Marvelous indeed. Probably this has been one of the reasons the US has been providing wothwhile conventional support to Pakistan.Not the US. China.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 11,, 22:32
There is one point i'm not clear on here, OOE's often times said 'use them or lose them'. What does it mean and how does it tie into this scenario.It won't be part of the India-Pakistan scenario since neither party has the conventional superiority needed to attack each other's nuclear assets, at least not effectively.

The scenario is that a superior power launches a conventional attack on either Pakistani or Indian nuclear assets. Do they initiate a nuclear exchange when the attacking power has not crossed the line? If not, can they afford to suffer the loss of their nuclear assets under conventional attack.

USSWisconsin
16 Jul 11,, 22:45
technical points about modern nuclear weapons and nuclear power plant accidents
(I do not pretend to have the insights that our OOE and his senior military professional colleagues have about nuclear weapons and doctrine, but I do understand these devices in a way that the average civilian does not - this is the perspective of a civilian nuclear engineer (my training emphasised fusion power generation and applications, not fission power plants - though fission power plant design and operation were covered on a graduate level, it is intended as a supplement to this discussion - not an argument or rebuttal to the people who know this subject better than I do)

1. A nuclear power accident spreads radiation - it is not a nuclear detonation - comparing nuclear power accidents to nuclear explosions is invalid. They don't even have the same kind of fallout. A power plant accident is comparable to a conventional radiological dirty bomb - not a nuke.

2. Thermonuclear and fission explosions are two different things - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission detonations (so was operation crossroads). Fission bombs are obsolete - they aren't used in modern arsenals anymore. Todays weapons are normally thermonuclear - and involve much higher temperatures. A direct comparison between modern and historical weapons is not valid.

3. Boosted fission weapons are thermonuclear - they are hundreds of times hotter than a pure fission explosion of the same yield and can vaporize and irradiate more material- leading to fallout of a far more devastating and widespread nature.

4. Scaling: the blast radius scales as the 1/3 power of yield, the damage footprint scales as the 2/3 power (it is an area). So a 200 kt warhead could level about 4.5 times more area than a 20 kt fatman bomb - if it detonated at the same temperature as the fission weapon (it doesn't). Yield energy is dissipated unevenly in 3D (most of it goes up), blast radius is 1D (so is yield energy itself) and blast area is 2D. But the blast temperature adds another non- orthogonal dimension to the equations. The fact that public CD fallout shelters were abandoned when the H-bomb came into the story is very telling.

5. Point: Comparing bomb yields between historical vs. modern weapons in simple linear terms is not valid. The comparison of nuclear yields to TNT is a very old concept, and came about before nuclear weapons were well understood and before the first nuclear test in 1945.

6. I Pray that no one sets off these devices - I don't believe that our non-technical civilian leaders can understand the math involved in how serious the consequences could be. :insane:

USSWisconsin
16 Jul 11,, 22:58
Alfred Einstein once said "I know not what weapons will be used in WW III, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones". :eek:

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 11,, 23:13
2. Thermonuclear and fission explosions are two different things - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission detonations (so was operation crossroads). Fission bombs are obsolete - they aren't used anymore. Todays weapons are normally thermonuclear - and involve much higher temperatures. A direct comparison between modern and historical weapons is not valid.Pakistani weapons are all fisson. They have not gone to the Pu route yet.


6. I Pray that no one sets off these devices - I don't believe that our non-technical civilian leaders can understand the math involved in how serious the consequences could be. :insane:There's a reason why the last no-go is a military no-go.

Double Edge
16 Jul 11,, 23:13
It won't be part of the India-Pakistan scenario since neither party has the conventional superiority needed to attack each other's nuclear assets, at least not effectively.

The scenario is that a superior power launches a conventional attack on either Pakistani or Indian nuclear assets. Do they initiate a nuclear exchange when the attacking power has not crossed the line? If not, can they afford to suffer the loss of their nuclear assets under conventional attack.
If the nuclear release authority has a cool & rational head then losing them would be the better option. They might lose their current nukes but still somehow retain their knowledge which could help in the future. Once the genie is out its difficult to put it back. Would also reduce loss of life in the immediate term. If they act suicidal or use that as a tactic they lose.

Thing is, whether an attack on the said country's nuclear sites crosses the line. They don't have a choice here either way. Moment they use their nukes they have lost everything.

So, that means an attack to take out Pakistan's nukes by the US should, in theory NOT result in a nuclear exchange. Pakistan's best bet would be in convincing civilian leaders that doing so would not be in their interest. It will not work with the military though as they would see through the bluff.

Mullen recently expressed confidence in Pakistan's nuclear controls.

Mullen: Pakistani Nuclear Controls Should Avert Any Insider Threat | Global Security Newswire | Jul 08 2011 (http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110708_3987.php)

USSWisconsin
17 Jul 11,, 00:36
Pakistani weapons are all fisson. They have not gone to the Pu route yet.

There's a reason why the last no-go is a military no-go.


Modernisation and expansion: Pakistan is increasing its capacity to produce plutonium at its Khushab nuclear facility, a Washington-based science think tank has reported.[39] Estimated Pakistani nuclear weapons is probably in the neighborhood of more than 200 by the end of 2009. “The sixth Pakistani nuclear test (May 30, 1998) at Kharan was a successful test of a sophisticated, compact, but powerful bomb designed to be carried by missiles. The Pakistanis are believed to be spiking their plutonium based nuclear weapons with tritium. Only a few grams of tritium can result in an increase of the explosive yield by 300% to 400%.”[40] Citing new satellite images of the facility, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said the imagery suggests construction of the second Khushab reactor is “likely finished and that the roof beams are being placed on top of the third Khushab reactor hall”.[41]


Pakistan's nuclear weapons development program is based, primarily, on highly-enriched uranium (HEU),[1] which is produced at the Khan Research Laboratories at Kahuta, a Zippe centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment facility. The Kahuta facility has been in use since the early 1980s. By the early 1990s, Kahuta had an estimated 3,000 centrifuges in operation, and Pakistan has continued its pursuit of expanded uranium-enrichment capabilities.

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
Global Beat: Mark Hibbs' Nuclear Watch: July 17, 1998 (http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nucwatch/nucwatch071798.html)

Pu Production

Pakistan is thought to have produced approximately 2,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 90 kilograms of separated military plutonium by early 2008.3

Babur Cruise Missile

The Babur is significantly slimmer than Pakistan’s ballistic missiles, which suggests that Pakistani engineers have made progress
in warhead miniaturization, perhaps based on a new and smaller plutonium warhead.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/65/5/82.full.pdf+html


We estimate that Pakistan has a
nuclear weapons stockpile of 90”110
nuclear warheads, an increase from the
estimated 70”90 warheads in 2009
(Norris and Kristensen, 2009). The US
Defense Intelligence Agency projected
in 1999 that by 2020 Pakistan would
have 60”80 warheads (Defense
Intelligence Agency, 1999); Pakistan
appears to have reached that level in
2006 or 2007 (Norris and Kristensen,
2007), more than a decade ahead of predictions.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full

Sir, I concur that bulk of the current Pakistani stockpile uses HEU. I was considering boosted fission weapons as a rudimentary form of TN weapons - while the bulk of the explosive yield is fission - thermonuclear temperatures are achieved in these devices - making them very different than the Nagasaki fat man device, many people reference.

I am grateful for the military final no-go control of these devices - perhaps people who truly understand them may have a chance to intercede.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 11,, 01:40
If the nuclear release authority has a cool & rational head then losing them would be the better option. They might lose their current nukes but still somehow retain their knowledge which could help in the future. Once the genie is out its difficult to put it back. Would also reduce loss of life in the immediate term. If they act suicidal or use that as a tactic they lose.There is one historical example. China. Lin Biao gave the order to mate warhead to missiles and the missiles loaded with fuel to be launched. That order was never obeyed.

Part of the deterrence is not warfighting doctrine is NEVER to invite a nuclear strike. If the Chinese had mated warhead to missiles, the Soviets would have surely nuked Lop Nor before the rockets finished fueling up.

Which is why Tinu's theories is so out of whacked with Sundarji's thinking, aside from the sheer military stupidity of the suggestions.


So, that means an attack to take out Pakistan's nukes by the US should, in theory NOT result in a nuclear exchange. Pakistan's best bet would be in convincing civilian leaders that doing so would not be in their interest. It will not work with the military though as they would see through the bluff.The question is would Pakistan start a nuclear war that she cannot win nor can she hurt the US with a nuclear strike in any form.


Mullen recently expressed confidence in Pakistan's nuclear controls.

Mullen: Pakistani Nuclear Controls Should Avert Any Insider Threat | Global Security Newswire | Jul 08 2011 (http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110708_3987.php)Only if the Pakistanis decide to fight. The attack on the naval base suggests that their heads, if not their hearts, are not in the game yet.


Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
Global Beat: Mark Hibbs' Nuclear Watch: July 17, 1998 (http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nucwatch/nucwatch071798.html)

Pu Production


Babur Cruise Missile

Pakistani Nuclear Forces, 2009 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/65/5/82.full.pdf+html)


Pakistan (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full)

Sir, I concur that bulk of the current Pakistani stockpile uses HEU. I was considering boosted fission weapons as a rudimentary form of TN weapons - while the bulk of the explosive yield is fission - thermonuclear temperatures are achieved in these devices - making them very different than the Nagasaki fat man device, many people reference.Pakistan will need to test a Pu device. There is no ifs, ands, ors about it. The North Koreans have demonstrated ... as did all nuclear weapons powers, including India, just how difficult it is to build a Pu device without testing and you will get it wrong the first and 2nd times around.

Given the current climate, there is no confidence of Pakistan having any operational Pu device.

Or USSWhisky, that Pu sample from Pakistan's tests. It has been determined that it came from India and her test of a Pu device. The sample was carried by wind.

And I don't know what the article claims of any successful Pakistani tests. They were all duds.

USSWisconsin
17 Jul 11,, 02:10
I see, thank you Sir.

My concerns regarding a nuclear exchange still remain - as the more advanced nuclear powers might consider using TN weapons in response to a Pakistani nuclear attack.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 11,, 04:07
To be fair on all of this, Chinese Field Marshall Nie Rongzhen was the first one who came up with the concept that deterrence is not warfighting. I do not how much influence he had, if any, on Gen K Sundarji. However, I do know that Gen K Sundarji examined the Sino-Soviet Communist split and came to as much the same conclusions as FM Rie.

That being said, it was Gen Sundarji who introduced the concept to me BUT it was FM Rie who put it into practice.

Two very, very brilliant generals whom unfortunately are being ignored by fanboys today. Yes, Tinu, I count you as one.

Double Edge
17 Jul 11,, 12:34
The question is would Pakistan start a nuclear war that she cannot win nor can she hurt the US with a nuclear strike in any form.
If the military retains control over the nukes then theory suggests they would not. The behaviour of the Pakistani military has been very rational upto now. Even if the Taliban put a gun to their head, they would take that bullet rather than relinquish control. They would render their nukes inoperable.

The difficult bit for Pakistan is convincing the US & the world at large about these intentions. Stuart Slade does not have anything to offer here. All he says is if a dictator develops nukes that said dictator will become less belligerent after. Nothing is said about a militia group gaining control over anothers nukes. One would think said militia would naturally become more rational & sober but its not a given.

The line about Pakistan attacking India if attacked by the US comes from Mushraf in 2002. I realise now that it was a bluff. There is NO WAY for a country with a counervalue arsenal to ever start a nuke war. Only the US & Russia are capable of that. If the US ever decided to take out their nukes, feel that India would not play any role. It would only queer an already FUBAR situation even more.

Pakistan to continue to pursue policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence: NCA| Pakistan Today | Jul 14 2011 (http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/07/pakistan-to-continue-with-credible-minimum-deterrence-nca/)


To be fair on all of this, Chinese Field Marshall Nie Rongzhen was the first one who came up with the concept that deterrence is not warfighting. I do not how much influence he had, if any, on Gen K Sundarji. However, I do know that Gen K Sundarji examined the Sino-Soviet Communist split and came to as much the same conclusions as FM Rie.
What literature would you recommend so one can learn more about FM Ronghzen's ideas on deterrence ?

Its interesting that after the Soviet experience that China did not consider graduating from a counter-value to a counter-force arsenal. You mentioned that there is a large gulf seperating the two and costs would be very high.

In the end is it worth it.

The main goal that deterrence provides is it protects against attack by other nuclear powers. To go beyond this implies a determination to actually win a nuclear war. The big limiting factor here i think is the country's geography & footprint. If a country does not have bases worldwide then its not feasible

Officer of Engineers
17 Jul 11,, 19:23
Pakistan to continue to pursue policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence: NCA| Pakistan Today | Jul 14 2011 (http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/07/pakistan-to-continue-with-credible-minimum-deterrence-nca/)This supports an earlier quote by Pakistan that they have not pursued nuclear tipped missiles as a means of delivery.


What literature would you recommend so one can learn more about FM Ronghzen's ideas on deterrence ?Nothing that is in English that specifically deals with his thoughts. The only thing that would give you an idea is Dr Jeffery's paper, The Minimum Means of Reprisal: China's Search for Security in the Nuclear Age (http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/the_minimum_means_of_reprisal.pdf)

Cactus
18 Jul 11,, 18:20
It's often mentioned that the lack of a NFU gives some sort of advantage to Pakistan. I think it makes no difference because Pakistan is also using the same deterrence doctrine that India or China is using for that matter.

Think of nuclear warfare as part of a continuous spectrum of warfare, rather than as a separate level of warfare, and then you will be able to see the Pakistani advantage. At the lowest-level you have x-border terrorism, then focist insurgency, then conventional warfare, and finally nuclear warfare.

The Paks' rejection of nuclear NFU gives cover to conventional forces, who in turn give cover to x-border insurgents and terrorists -- and those insurgents and terrorists are active today, effectively giving the Paks the initiative and keeping the Indians reactive. This is totally different from the nuclear deterrence doctrine of India and China, which are geared towards minimally deterring nuclear warfare.

Cactus
18 Jul 11,, 18:29
It won't be part of the India-Pakistan scenario since neither party has the conventional superiority needed to attack each other's nuclear assets, at least not effectively.

The scenario is that a superior power launches a conventional attack on either Pakistani or Indian nuclear assets. Do they initiate a nuclear exchange when the attacking power has not crossed the line? If not, can they afford to suffer the loss of their nuclear assets under conventional attack.

It won't be part of the Indian scenario either: India has nuclear NFU policy, remember? It is exclusively a question for the nuclear powers without such a policy...

Cactus
18 Jul 11,, 18:56
MAD, by itself, is not assured deterrence. ... MAD would likely assure that neither the Soviet Union nor America, Great Britain and France would be targeted but, it's safe to say, W. Germany, E. Germany and possibly Poland/Czechoslovakia would be devastated. Such a scenario was generally unacceptable to the West Germans. ... Pakistan faces a similar problem. ... A meaningful nuclear deterrence only exists where a viable conventional defense is also possible.

S2,

In your explanation of the Cold War calculus, you make a distinction between an attack on the nuclear powers (US, UK, FR and SU) that would precipitate MAD versus an attack on the non-nuclear battleground states that wouldn't necessarily precipitate MAD. This is very different from Pakistan, which in itself is a nuclear power.

The Pakistanis, as soon as going openly nuclear in 1998, validated through their Kargil Fiasco that Indians will not escalate to wider conventional war once the nuclear environment was established. Indians threw men against mountains, rather than cross the LoC or IB in more favorable approaches. It was an illuminating, if unsuccessful, experience for the Paks.

As far as India is concerned, the Pakistanis quite rightly feel that the nuclear arsenal was their best investment ever -- otherwise they would really be eating grass trying to keep up a viable conventional defense (especially if India started allocating resources proportional to its size in other areas into the military). If the Paks have any reason for doubting the decision to go nuclear now, it is solely from the Dept of Unintended Consequences.

Double Edge
18 Jul 11,, 19:04
Think of nuclear warfare as part of a continuous spectrum of warfare, rather than as a separate level of warfare, and then you will be able to see the Pakistani advantage. At the lowest-level you have x-border terrorism, then focist insurgency, then conventional warfare, and finally nuclear warfare.

The Paks' rejection of nuclear NFU gives cover to conventional forces, who in turn give cover to x-border insurgents and terrorists -- and those insurgents and terrorists are active today, effectively giving the Paks the initiative and keeping the Indians reactive. This is totally different from the nuclear deterrence doctrine of India and China, which are geared towards minimally deterring nuclear warfare.
The only cover Pakistan has is our reluctance to counter back.

The concept of NFU is militarily redundant vis a vis other nuclear states because every state with a countervalue nuclear arsenal is by definition NFU. To declare a NFU policy is only for the benefit of non-nuclear neighbours. That Pakistan chooses not to do so isn't important to us as it gives them no military advantage.

Nukes won't prevent cross border terrorism nor conventional war therefore there is no real cover to hide under. That leads me to reconsider ruling out the presence of cold start or its equivalent. That the IA chief would come out denying it seems like disinformation. Yeah, maybe the IA don't call it that and maybe it isn't exactly what the think tanks make it out to be but that does not mean something with similar goals does not exist.

That means whatever cover Pakistan thinks it has is just an illusion. Their pro's defnitely know that but not their public nor ours and that's to their credit in crafting their narrative. In any case we don't plan to nuke them so there is no possibility for them to retaliate in a similar manner either. Any threats on their part to do so are nothing more than bluster & posturing.

Thats what 'deterrence is not warfighting' implies to me :)

Officer of Engineers
18 Jul 11,, 19:05
Think of nuclear warfare as part of a continuous spectrum of warfare, rather than as a separate level of warfare, and then you will be able to see the Pakistani advantage. At the lowest-level you have x-border terrorism, then focist insurgency, then conventional warfare, and finally nuclear warfare.

The Paks' rejection of nuclear NFU gives cover to conventional forces, who in turn give cover to x-border insurgents and terrorists -- and those insurgents and terrorists are active today, effectively giving the Paks the initiative and keeping the Indians reactive. This is totally different from the nuclear deterrence doctrine of India and China, which are geared towards minimally deterring nuclear warfare.
It won't be part of the Indian scenario either: India has nuclear NFU policy, remember? It is exclusively a question for the nuclear powers without such a policy...
S2,

In your explanation of the Cold War calculus, you make a distinction between an attack on the nuclear powers (US, UK, FR and SU) that would precipitate MAD versus an attack on the non-nuclear battleground states that wouldn't necessarily precipitate MAD. This is very different from Pakistan, which in itself is a nuclear power.

The Pakistanis, as soon as going openly nuclear in 1998, validated through their Kargil Fiasco that Indians will not escalate to wider conventional war once the nuclear environment was established. Indians threw men against mountains, rather than cross the LoC or IB in more favorable approaches. It was an illuminating, if unsuccessful, experience for the Paks.

As far as India is concerned, the Pakistanis quite rightly feel that the nuclear arsenal was their best investment ever -- otherwise they would really be eating grass trying to keep up a viable conventional defense (especially if India started allocating resources proportional to its size in other areas into the military). If the Paks have any reason for doubting the decision to go nuclear now, it is solely from the Dept of Unintended Consequences.Just to keep your posts from disappearing when I want to refer to it again.

Cactus
18 Jul 11,, 20:11
Thats what 'deterrence is not warfighting' implies to me :)

This is applicable only to nuclear NFU states, like India and China, which seek to deter nuclear war by nuclear means; it is meaningless to Pakistan, which seeks to deter conventional war by nuclear means.

The Pakistanis don't plan according to your self-imposed reluctance, but according to externally-imposable constraints they can place on you (in their narrative, they pay a heavy price when they trust you).

Double Edge
18 Jul 11,, 20:31
This is applicable only to nuclear NFU states, like India and China, which seek to deter nuclear war by nuclear means; it is meaningless to Pakistan, which seeks to deter conventional war by nuclear means.
You're still sticking to this NFU thing which i think is meaningless in relation to other nuclear states.

How could they deter conventional war by nuclear means ?

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, once one starts flyuing they all do, no way to stop it till the conclusion. Thats why you don't want to invite one in the first place.


The Pakistanis don't plan according to your self-imposed reluctance, but according to externally-imposable constraints they can place on you (in their narrative, they pay a heavy price when they trust you).
What constraints can they impose ? as far i see it, if we get close to overrunning them they let loose and not until that point. We don't plan to overrun that country anytime in the future. We do not want to occupy Paksitan nor rule them.

Our actions for the most part will be punitive if at all.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jul 11,, 20:40
This is applicable only to nuclear NFU states, like India and China, which seek to deter nuclear war by nuclear means; it is meaningless to Pakistan, which seeks to deter conventional war by nuclear means.That narrative is a confusing at best. The Kargil War saw this bluff in play in which they threaten a nuke strike if the Indians did not back off. Obviously, India did not back off and re-establish the LAC. It would be a fool's dream to think that Pakistan can start a conventional war and then to use the threat of nukes to keep her gains.

Double Edge
18 Jul 11,, 20:51
That narrative is a confusing at best. The Kargil War saw this bluff in play in which they threaten a nuke strike if the Indians did not back off. Obviously, India did not back off and re-establish the LAC.
An empty threat, we called their bluff. It would be surprising if we did not.


It would be a fool's dream to think that Pakistan can start a conventional war and then to use the threat of nukes to keep her gains.
Well, i'm under the impression that in addition to warfighting & deterrence there isn't a third way of dealing with nukes. You've not found any thinkers for that yet.

All we see is them trying make the case that conventional can be protected with nuclear. Well, if that were true India would have no cross border infilitration or foreign sponsored terrorism at all.

It still amazes me at the guts of the Pak military to pull off 26/11. We don't know to what extent it goes in their hierarchy but that was one hell of a call. Oh, well there's always a first time for everything.

Cactus
18 Jul 11,, 21:09
Colonel, the Paks did not threaten nuclear war to consolidate their gains in Kargil sector... they threatened escalation if Indian ground forces crossed the LoC to attack from other approaches, and they implicitly threatened escalation up to nuclear war if the International Border was breached. Indians had to go straight for the occupied peaks, instead of cutting off the logistics to the peaks and starving the occupiers out as Mountain Warfare 101 would instruct. The Pak bluff worked insofar as it prevented escalation of the war, forestalled any land-losses and made ops expensive for Indians, but failed to retain its land-gains and/or capitalize onto Siachen. This has been discussed here - even by those who were actually there - enough, right?

Double Edge
18 Jul 11,, 21:25
Bingo! our reluctance.

Heh, if we keep on acceding like this, might as well concede that their nuclear can protect their conventional. Here we clearly see the difference between theory & practice.

Excellent outcome for Pakistan :biggrin:

antimony
18 Jul 11,, 23:27
Think of nuclear warfare as part of a continuous spectrum of warfare, rather than as a separate level of warfare, and then you will be able to see the Pakistani advantage. At the lowest-level you have x-border terrorism, then focist insurgency, then conventional warfare, and finally nuclear warfare.

The Paks' rejection of nuclear NFU gives cover to conventional forces, who in turn give cover to x-border insurgents and terrorists -- and those insurgents and terrorists are active today, effectively giving the Paks the initiative and keeping the Indians reactive. This is totally different from the nuclear deterrence doctrine of India and China, which are geared towards minimally deterring nuclear warfare.

That is a very god point. However, if one reads their actions (no nuclear based training exercises, no separate command structure for handling the nuclear arsenal, unmated systems, delivery systems dedicated to conventional arsenal) and not just their words, then it seems that in practice they follow deterrence too.

antimony
18 Jul 11,, 23:48
That narrative is a confusing at best. The Kargil War saw this bluff in play in which they threaten a nuke strike if the Indians did not back off. Obviously, India did not back off and re-establish the LAC. It would be a fool's dream to think that Pakistan can start a conventional war and then to use the threat of nukes to keep her gains.

But India did not go in too aggressively either. Other fronts were not opened and the IAF was not allowed to cross the LOC. Whether is be international opinion or the Pakistani nukes, India effectively limited herself to the Kargil Action Area only.

Cactus' point in right, I think, that India threw men at the mountains rather than go at it fully. However, I also think that the signs are there that Pakistan is not doing much to actually flex her nuclear muscles and has not really moved beyond deterrence. India's inability or unwillingness to man up is not something that I understand.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 03:58
It is so nice talking with adults ... and frankly, all of you (Cactus, Double Eldge, and Antinomy) gave me a hell of a lot to think about. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is India centric ... but the response may not be Indian centric. Russia could care less if she took out Pakistan's arsenal and she still has 3000 nukes she is allowed by treaty to match the Americans.

Yeah, Tinu, there are other nuclear powers who do not mind wasting Pakistan and Pakistan can do nothing about it.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 06:17
Thinking through, the Brigadier Ray was at Kargil and he couldn't care less about Pakistani nukes ... but let's think this through. There was more than one threat against Pakistani nukes aside from India. The other was expressed by the Director of ISI and the PM Musharraf at the time ... that the Americans were ready to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age. Whether true or not, it is extremely telling that Pakistan in general and the ISI in particular yielded to American demands instead of standing to her arsenal as a threat to the American onslaught.

ambidex
19 Jul 11,, 06:42
It still amazes me at the guts of the Pak military to pull off 26/11. We don't know to what extent it goes in their hierarchy but that was one hell of a call. Oh, well there's always a first time for everything.

They invented two new words bluff ''stateless actors'' at that time.
and now another sentence is in making ''They want us (stateless actors) to fight each other out''.

sorry for OT please carry on.

S2
19 Jul 11,, 08:18
"...Pakistan in general and the ISI in particular yielded to American demands instead of standing to her arsenal as a threat to the American onslaught."

Ummm...I'd prefer that they provided lip service. Pakistan immediately acceded to U.S. demands for airfield access, port and supply routes, intelligence sharing, etc.

Very reassuring. All's well. Good and reasonable chaps, they are. Let's reward them, eh?

More circumspect, however, was Pakistan's approach to their proxy allies. The Afghan taliban were NEVER abandoned. Two months after Mr. Armitage's discussion with the Pakistani Director, ISI, the afghan taliban government was in full collapse but knew immediately in which direction to head and seek assistance.

They found it too.

Pakistan cowed? Shivering in their boots? Chastened and humbled before the visible display of our mighty array of force able to crumble the afghan taliban in weeks?

Hardly.

Game on.

Musharraf's comments were for Pakistani public consumption,

"OWWW! They're TWISTING MY ARM!! MEAN evil AMERICANS! I've NO CHOICE".

Get busy and find Omar a nice abode in Quetta, won't you. Here-give him my phone number if he's any problems.

Tinu
19 Jul 11,, 11:04
The job is even easier then. We know where the nukes are going - to their delivery vehicles. Two birds, one stone.

No you don’t have that capability yet. Aside from the geosync sats efforts are going on to improve this capability however, there are limits which can’t cross yet, despite the billions that can be spend.

Two birds with one stone – you have a long long way to go.

No, you don't. I'm not going into this any further because you have thus far refused to even learn about what's available. Those drones flying over Pakistan. Their pilots are sitting in the US. That's how much bandwidth there are and that's how much bandwidth is being utilized. You have not even begun to understand the technology available to the US and you still insist on using obsolete Cold War techniques to compensate.

I can understand why you can’t go any further because it is quite apparent that you possess only rudimentary knowledge about this shmuck.

The take-off and landing of these drones is controlled by the base stations on ground. Only when they reach a certain height the control is taken over by pilots sitting in the US via sat-link.

The tier I and tier II UAVs normally do not use sat links due to the fact these can’t hold the size and weight of the antennas needed. They use line-of-sight, air-to-ground links for such types and therefore have a max range up-till which these can be controlled. It is only the tier III UAVs which generally are fitted with sat links. I don’t have time to go in to further details, which probably you won’t even understand.

The bandwidth you seem so familiar with is generally purchased from commercial sat links. Flying the UAV does not require much bandwidth, however, for certain types of UAVs or UAS’ the collection of information from a variety of onboard sensors at certain data rates would often demand an entire satellite transponder or even much more for one such UAV. Why commercial sat links are used because otherwise it’ll choke the existing defense network. Improvements are being made which will take some time to materialize with the increasing bandwidth demand.


Wrong. What is probable will also be targeted and that includes the C3, the NCA, and the LOCs.

Make no mistake, when Pakistan’s nuclear sites are attacked by any country, it would be responded by nuclear strikes and it would not be difficult to find varying targets within range of her weapon carrying platforms.

The resolve to respond nuclear is more than the confidence level of taking out all of Pakistan’s nukes – knowing of which is not possible and the experts agree to this fact. You are not an expert.

It's a known contingency and one that is regularly updated.

The contingency in Pakistan with regard to a response in case its nuclear sites are attacked is also being updated taking all aspects in mind.

It is a non-friendly, yet to be hostile, arsenal.

One wonder why a non-friendly, yet to be hostile, arsenal has been pronounced as major non-NATO ally.

This is not post 9/11 environment and the limits of US power has been well identified in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look back at 2001 when both your ISI and your PM stated that the US was ready to bomb Pakistan back to the stoneage if they didn't join the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You can bet your bottom dollar the first thing to be hit would be your nukes.

These days people don’t bet on your dollars which in any case is more owned by the Chinese than the US.

But you can bet your life on it that the response in such case would be nuclear.


You have a lot of work ahead of you.

Yes we are aware of it and we can do it alone without the help of not so stellar performance of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the technological advancement notwithstanding.

You've seen GM HUMMER SUVs.

Then you need to see this.
LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media (http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/18/media18/2008/Nov/27/LiveLeak-dot-com-254474-20081127102211ENLUS0156171312277813.jpg?d5e8cc8ecc fb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad6974d42 d3d04ade&ec_rate=300)

LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media (http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/18/media18/2008/Nov/27/LiveLeak-dot-com-254474-20081127102145ENLUS0156171212277813.jpg?d5e8cc8ecc fb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad6974d42 d3d04ade&ec_rate=300)


Your premise was that the Taliban has access to all American weapons which is a horse puckey stand to begin with.

Ok, some weapons – happy.

Pakistan demands to do that job alone and thus far, the results are less than stellar but I'm not going into it here. It is off topic from this thread.

Ok – in the similar manner the results of US actions are neither as stellar as you think.

What's bull-crap is your under-estimation of the enemy's determination and capabilities. They've reached the front gates in at least one time out of three.

Bull-crap again.

The explosion at so-called Kamra airbase which is a aircraft rebuild facility took place some meters away from the main thoroughfare and nowhere near the facility as was being propagated. I know Shaun Gregory and I wouldn’t believe him even if he tells me that he can see sunlight during the day.

Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex – the name says what it is and nothing more. You should know better. The suicide bomber exploded himself at the outer gate while the workers were coming out at the end of the shift.

PRITHVI was NEVER nuclear tested. At no time did India ever conducted a missile deliver nuke test. You seem to have a problem that just because a platform is nuclear capable, that it is automatically assigned to a nuclear role. That is not how things work.

You don’t need to test the nuclear missile with actual nuke to see if this is nuclear capable, you may do it through trigger assembly tests etc – I thought you were knowledgeable enough to understand this simple thing – alas your knowledge is limited.

No, I am right. The Order of Battle reflects my stand.

No you are dead wrong.


And the Indians told you of their intent. The Army, not the SFC, is raising these regiments.

Whosoever told me was certainly much more qualified and knowledgeable than you. You have no idea what I am talking about.

Do I have to teach you that as a professional you plan on the capability, while taking in to account the intent.

You are very wrong. No one and I mean no one go about nuclear packages half assed. If you are not trained for a nuke, you're not going to get authorized for a nuke, let alone getting a nuke.

How were the Americans and Russians and Chinese etc got trained. Were they born with nuclear brains?

And once again you are wrong. The last thing you want is to warn the Indians that you're about to toss a nuke only to have thing sitting looking pretty with no mushroom cloud. It would state that your nuclear arsenal is entirely useless and would egg the Indians on.

Yeah – tell that to the Indian officials.

Grow a back bone. The WAB is not your granny's knitting circle.

Neither yours.

Not the US. China.

Educate yourself – US also.

I thought it would be enjoyable discussing with you. Somewhere down the line you exposed your shallow knowledge base. Whereas, you may know certain things, but when you don’t know about many other things instead of acknowledging you start eating horse puckey. You need more for an intelligent intellectual discourse. Currently sir, you can’t even differentiate between your elbow and @$$ about many things which are being discussed here.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 11:41
There are engineers and an Indian Army brigadier here who's done the work you're BSing about. There are full of threads describing what they know and how this is done. In either case, your BS is intolerable. Go away, little boy. I have had enough of your BS and your BS assumptions.

Doktor
19 Jul 11,, 11:49
Tinu,

Engaging like this with anyone doesn't make you look good.

You came here few days ago and you are using strong words without back-up.

The only link you provided so far is from some entertaining website, and the video you claim to be there (Humvee with Talibans) is not on that page.

Either backup your claims or give up, but using such a tone wont bring you anywhere. Yelling at someone doesn't earn you respect, nor make your "facts" more believable.

Tinu
19 Jul 11,, 12:07
Tinu,

Engaging like this with anyone doesn't make you look good.

You came here few days ago and you are using strong words without back-up.

The only link you provided so far is from some entertaining website, and the video you claim to be there (Humvee with Talibans) is not on that page.

Either backup your claims or give up, but using such a tone wont bring you anywhere. Yelling at someone doesn't earn you respect, nor make your "facts" more believable.

Doktor,
I was trashed again and again by the Colonel for saying correct things. I am not a kid and I know what am saying and there's a way to conduct an intellectual discourse. Infact I was trashed by every Indian person here from a thousand mile radius. Till this post, I was responding respectfully, but there is a limit and many of you crossed it.

I didn't want to put a link here from a trashy jihadi web site and therefore the pics. I was very surprised that all links of this video were removed from you tube. However, you want the link, as long as it lasts - here it is:
Hakeemullah Mehsood driving captured American humvee (http://www.jhuf.net/showthread.php?9091-Hakeemullah-Mehsood-driving-captured-American-humvee)

I am sorry if had hurt someone's feelings but was anybody sorry for doing the same to me here, over the last so many days?

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:09
It won't be part of the Indian scenario either: India has nuclear NFU policy, remember? It is exclusively a question for the nuclear powers without such a policy...But would it stand to a punitive war? One of the things so disconcerting to Pakistan is the Cold Start doctrine aimed to cease actions before the NCA can even gather enough intel to make a decision. Cold Start doesn't exist but the operational thought behind it still prevails.

Also, obviously, the Indian Army couldn't care less about the Pakistani nuclear threat. It was the politicians who countermanded the cross of the IB to cut off the logistics. I cannot recall but wasn't there an airstrike against a Pakistani support base?

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:14
I didn't want to put a link here from a trashy jihadi web site and therefore the pics. I was very surprised that all links of this video were removed from you tube. However, you want the link, as long as it lasts - here it is:
Hakeemullah Mehsood driving captured American humvee (http://www.jhuf.net/showthread.php?9091-Hakeemullah-Mehsood-driving-captured-American-humvee)That HUMVEE was captured in Paksitan enroute to Afghanistan under Pakistani protection. Your point was that the Afghans have access to American systems. More BS.

Double Edge
19 Jul 11,, 12:23
The Paks' rejection of nuclear NFU gives cover to conventional forces, who in turn give cover to x-border insurgents and terrorists -- and those insurgents and terrorists are active today, effectively giving the Paks the initiative and keeping the Indians reactive. This is totally different from the nuclear deterrence doctrine of India and China, which are geared towards minimally deterring nuclear warfare.
So you are implying that Pakistan is currently somewhere between a countervalue & a counterforce or to put it another way in between deterrence & warfighting.

Thats a direct contradiction of 'deterrence is not warfighting' :)

Either i misunderstood something or the Paks are bluffing.

I think we need to learn more about warfighting.
- It requires a massive arsenal and the means to deliver a strike from different locations.
- There are always some nukes ready to go at all times.

What else ?


Not any more, though, at least for us who have gone through the previous thread. Stuff like "India/ Pakistan need tac nukes" or "limited nuclear war" will not go past our radar.
For a civvie there is no difference between warfighting & deterrence. They think if its possible to retaliate to a nuclear strike then it should also be possible to threaten one too. Therefore all this talk about various thresholds in Tinu's opener is very plausible. But I think its all bunk, only applies to warfighting states not deterrence states.

Only when one accepts that deterrence states cannot initiate a nuke attack then we begin to get a better understanding of how things are.

There is no nuclear blackmail. There is only self-defense.

And that can only be initiated just before the state is about to fall or as initially billed to deter anyone from using nukes to attack them.

Even NFU is pointless, a deterrence state cannot threaten use of nukes, period. So it will not even attack a non-nuclear state with nukes. The only exception to this of course is US & Russia.

And the key is that those two are unique and none of the reminaing nuclear powers are in their league.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:24
"...Pakistan in general and the ISI in particular yielded to American demands instead of standing to her arsenal as a threat to the American onslaught."

Ummm...I'd prefer that they provided lip service. Pakistan immediately acceded to U.S. demands for airfield access, port and supply routes, intelligence sharing, etc.

Very reassuring. All's well. Good and reasonable chaps, they are. Let's reward them, eh?

More circumspect, however, was Pakistan's approach to their proxy allies. The Afghan taliban were NEVER abandoned. Two months after Mr. Armitage's discussion with the Pakistani Director, ISI, the afghan taliban government was in full collapse but knew immediately in which direction to head and seek assistance.

They found it too.

Pakistan cowed? Shivering in their boots? Chastened and humbled before the visible display of our mighty array of force able to crumble the afghan taliban in weeks?

Hardly.

Game on.

Musharraf's comments were for Pakistani public consumption,

"OWWW! They're TWISTING MY ARM!! MEAN evil AMERICANS! I've NO CHOICE".

Get busy and find Omar a nice abode in Quetta, won't you. Here-give him my phone number if he's any problems.I don't think that they had that game plan already set to go. Like everything else, they waited and saw and exploited opportunities as they arise. I certainly found no information that the ISI told Omar to get out of Dodge. He was on his own whether to decide to fight or flee.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:31
I think we need to learn more about warfighting. It requires a massive arsenal and the means to deliver a strike from different locations. What else ?Training. A readied war-fighting arsenal (ready to launch on order instead of preparing on order) and a list of targets to be hit and the training needed to hit that list of targets.

Doktor
19 Jul 11,, 12:31
Doktor,
I was trashed again and again by the Colonel for saying correct things. I am not a kid and I know what am saying and there's a way to conduct an intellectual discourse. Infact I was trashed by every Indian person here from a thousand mile radius. Till this post, I was responding respectfully, but there is a limit and many of you crossed it.

I didn't want to put a link here from a trashy jihadi web site and therefore the pics. I was very surprised that all links of this video were removed from you tube. However, you want the link, as long as it lasts - here it is:
Hakeemullah Mehsood driving captured American humvee (http://www.jhuf.net/showthread.php?9091-Hakeemullah-Mehsood-driving-captured-American-humvee)

I am sorry if had hurt someone's feelings but was anybody sorry for doing the same to me here, over the last so many days?

Tinu,

It was your choice to join this forum, it's not like someone dragged you.

There are many military professionals in here and they all respect the Colonel and value his opinion. Go through the threads and you will notice that's a fact.

You bring a lot of information in here and the good Col is trying to prove you wrong, as he knows something you don't.

If you think he is wrong, bring some respectable source into the discussion and prove him wrong.

The thing is everyone here will have his word as granted rather then yours.

We don't know much about you and he is here like forever.

After all, you need initiation ;)

Double Edge
19 Jul 11,, 12:40
Colonel, the Paks did not threaten nuclear war to consolidate their gains in Kargil sector... they threatened escalation if Indian ground forces crossed the LoC to attack from other approaches, and they implicitly threatened escalation up to nuclear war if the International Border was breached.
Crossing the IB does not imply the state falls. That was an incredibly risky gamble on their part.

What if we called their bluff ?

They would have to come good. And then we would have replied.

Now they have fewer nukes to protect themselves.

Is this why they want to ramp up their numbers of nukes ? That if one has sufficient numbers then one can make the leap from deterrence to warfighting.

How can that be.

If one flies it can be very difficult to stop the others from flying too.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:46
Crossing the IB does not imply the state falls. That was an incredibly risky gamble on their part.

What if we called their bluff ?Musharraf stated that the nukes were not readied to be deploy. That fits. The 1998 tests revealed that their arsenal was full of duds. Kargil was way too soon for the fixes to go through the arsenal. Hell, it was way too soon for them even to come up with a fix yet.


Is this why they want to ramp up their numbers of nukes ? That if one has sufficient numbers then one can make the leap from deterrence to warfighting.

How can that be.

If one flies it can be very difficult to stop the others from flying too.At the proposed limit of 200 nukes (their production capacity to 2025), that's way too small for a warfighting arsenal.

Double Edge
19 Jul 11,, 12:48
Training. A readied war-fighting arsenal (ready to launch on order instead of preparing on order) and a list of targets to be hit and the training needed to hit that list of targets.
ok, and all indictors would show they have not yet made such a transition.

An essential part of 'deterrence is not warfighting' is that a transition to warfighting is a difficult step to make.

Is it really ?

Can Pakistan make that transition.

One has the impression that a state is either deterrence or warfighting, there is no in-between. If you have the intention to move to warfighting, you cannot behave that way UNTIL you actually achieve it.

Is it worth it.

Only two powers saw fit to make that jump and nobody else. In fact you could say the existance of minimal reprisal came up because other powers could not afford to make the jump and needed a stop gap to protect themselves.

Its better or cheaper to be able to deter a nuclear attack rather than trying to actually win a nuclear war.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 12:58
ok, and all indictors would show they have not yet made such a transition.

An essential part of 'deterrence is not warfighting' is that a transition to warfighting is a difficult step to make.

Is it really ?Yes but expensive as hell. Both the Brits and the French have at least 50% of their arsenals ready to launch. British SSBNs go on patrol with full loads and the French maintain their silo based missiles with warheads mated. All good and well except that the warheads have to be unmated after their stand-to order or the patrol is done. They have to be dismantled, maintained, and then put back together for the next round of deployments.

Such movements are extremely visible. Open source has revealed how China is doing this.

Double Edge
19 Jul 11,, 13:21
Yes but expensive as hell. Both the Brits and the French have at least 50% of their arsenals ready to launch. British SSBNs go on patrol with full loads and the French maintain their silo based missiles with warheads mated. All good and well except that the warheads have to be unmated after their stand-to order or the patrol is done. They have to be dismantled, maintained, and then put back together for the next round of deployments.
I see, so that means there are two more warfighting powers than i initially thought. Suppose this isn't surprising as France & UK were meant to be working in tandem with the US from the cold war days.

It would appear that the expensive bit is the maintenance of such a posture. Lots of extra activity that would not otherwise be required. How much more expensive ? 10x, 100x...

Otherwise it means should Pakistan have the determination to make this transition it can do so. The main limiting factor atm is they need more nukes. Your estimate says not until 2025, the time it would take to acquire 200 nukes.


Such movements are extremely visible. Open source has revealed how China is doing this.
China is doing this ?

Isn't this a contradition of their stated stance of minimal reprisal.

I don't think being visible is a problem. If one wants to maintain a perception of credible deterrence then you want the world to know that you have the determination to prevail.

The more important point is whether you do it or not. As this would signal a departure from a previous stance.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 13:40
I see, so that means there are two more warfighting powers than i initially thought. Suppose this isn't surprising as France & UK were meant to be working in tandem with the US from the cold war days.British and French arsenals are counter-value. Only the American and Russian arsenals are counter-force. You have to remember that Nie and Sundarji are Asian Generals. The concept that deterrence is not warfighting is foreign to the West. We follow the maxium Si vis pacem, para bellum - if you wish for peace, prepare for war. In this case, if you want to avoid nuclear war, prepare for nuclear war.

This being said, both Sundarji and Rie's ideas fit, despite the nuclear posture. Tuni's assertion notwithstanding, neither the UK nor France ever threaten nuclear war on anyone. The UK and France cannot take out anyone's nuclear arsenal. At best, they can hit the C3 nodes but more aptly, their target list is based upon a counter-value strategy. So, the UK and France cannot ensure that their interests, if not their homelands, will not receive a nuclear hit.

To put this in terms vis-a-vi Rie and Sundarji, there is no way for the UK and France to deliver a successful counter-force 1st strike.


It would appear that the expensive bit is the maintenance of such a posture. Lots of extra activity that would not otherwise be required.The Admiralty has at least began the debate whether to retire the nukes and use that money to buy HMS QE.


China is doing this ?

Isn't this a contradition of their stated stance of minimal reprisal.China is not mating warheads to missiles but what they are doing is to ensure the survival of their arsenal against a first strike. By this, they move their warheads from central storage to forward deploy bases on a rotational basis. Whatever increases the odds against a successful first strike increases their deterrence value.

However, the fact remains that the Chinese arsenal is extremely vulnerable to an American first strike and whatever survives must now pass against an American ABM system. Thus far, the Chinese have not expressed an interest in countering the American ABM system.

Vis-a-vi Pakistan, they have not mated warheads to missiles nor have they done any research into doing so. Again, I state that there is no evidence that the Pakistanis are working on nuclear missile fuses.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 13:50
One more thing to add. The way the Chinese are doing things are way cheaper than what the Brits and the French are doing.

tanker_jitty
19 Jul 11,, 14:11
Just to digress away from the discussion since the Colonel had mentioned the brilliance of Gen Sunderji, its a pity that he was not given his due by the Govt for annoying the First family on statements about the Bofor deal.I was in awe of this officer and his sharp wit.RIP.

Guys these are Nbombs we are talking about and not some toys .I think its time Pakistan should realise thay India has no intentions of destroying that country.We both are poor with millions of people living below the BPL in abject poverty.Lets get on and give every one a chance.Do you think a vast majority of our population give a damn on the option of a first strike or what MAD means?they want to know from where their next meal is coming.I think they would rather be vapourised by this BS.My Indian and Pakistani friends it time to drift away from this kind of talk as I am sure you both have seen poverty up close on our streets.

Sorry for the sermon as after all this years of hearing this rather shrill BS from both sides I am sick and tired.by god, I am not a pacifist.

Double Edge
19 Jul 11,, 14:43
British and French arsenals are counter-value. Only the American and Russian arsenals are counter-force. You have to remember that Nie and Sundarji are Asian Generals. The concept that deterrence is not warfighting is foreign to the West. We follow the maxium Si vis pacem, para bellum - if you wish for peace, prepare for war. In this case, if you want to avoid nuclear war, prepare for nuclear war.
OK, so for arguments sake lets say Pakistan also adheres to 'Si vis pacem, para bellum'.

You said to become warfighting one must have ....


Training. A readied war-fighting arsenal (ready to launch on order instead of preparing on order) and a list of targets to be hit and the training needed to hit that list of targets.
Is there more to this because the French & the UK already satisfy 50% of the requirement. Thing is there is no half way measure here. Either you are warfighting which implies, you can take out an opponents arsenal with a first strike or not. And the only way to do that is to have enough nukes.

What is the superiority in numbers of nukes one nation should have in that case.

Lets say the opponent is specifically India in this case. Now how many more nukes should Pakistan hold to be able to credibly initiate a nuke attack on India ?

We enter another realm here. where a state may be considered warfighting vis-a-vis another but not against bigger powers. Is this a valid argument ? No, because Stuart Slade says that said state would still be at risk from the bigger powers as there are fewer nukes available to deter them. This bolsters further that the line between deterrence & warfighting is a pretty clear one.

Also one of the tenets of deterrence is more numbers leads to decreasing returns. So there is no point in getting into a numbers game. There is an optimal point or enough. that is if one sticks to deterrence doctrine.


This being said, both Sundarji and Rie's ideas fit, despite the nuclear posture. Tuni's assertion notwithstanding, neither the UK nor France ever threaten nuclear war on anyone. The UK and France cannot take out anyone's nuclear arsenal. At best, they can hit the C3 nodes but more aptly, their target list is based upon a counter-value strategy. So, the UK and France cannot ensure that their interests, if not their homelands, will not receive a nuclear hit.

To put this in terms vis-a-vi Rie and Sundarji, there is no way for the UK and France to deliver a successful counter-force 1st strike.

The Admiralty has at least began the debate whether to retire the nukes and use that money to buy HMS QE.
ok, so even if Pakistan emulates France & UK its still not warfighting.


China is not mating warheads to missiles but what they are doing is to ensure the survival of their arsenal against a first strike. By this, they move their warheads from central storage to forward deploy bases on a rotational basis. Whatever increases the odds against a successful first strike increases their deterrence value.

However, the fact remains that the Chinese arsenal is extremely vulnerable to an American first strike and whatever survives must now pass against an American ABM system. Thus far, the Chinese have not expressed an interest in countering the American ABM system.

Vis-a-vi Pakistan, they have not mated warheads to missiles nor have they done any research into doing so. Again, I state that there is no evidence that the Pakistanis are working on nuclear missile fuses.
Good, so that implies they do not for now have missiles ready to go. Even having missiles ready to go by rotating them Chinese style does not mean anything more. As you said the only purpose is to increase survivablilty.

All this discussion does is make me think it would be very difficult for Pakistan to pretend to be warfighting when its position is still deterrence. It does not have the numbers of nukes to become warfighting no matter how much the desire because the ROI is not worth it.

Besides if they can get India to just believe their threats they attain their objectives without having to spend for it :)

Tinu
19 Jul 11,, 14:53
Colonel,
I tender my unconditional apology. I am sorry indeed.

However, I do reserve the right to disagree with you. :)

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 11,, 14:59
Just to digress away from the discussion since the Colonel had mentioned the brilliance of Gen Sunderji, its a pity that he was not given his due by the Govt for annoying the First family on statements about the Bofor deal.I was in awe of this officer and his sharp wit.RIP.Colonel,

I do envy you for serving under such a man. I can only get a sense of his brilliance through his writings but he must be one hell of an officer to serve under. He must have been inspiring to get you to think more and do more. God help you if you do less.

S2
19 Jul 11,, 15:08
Colonel,

"...I think its time Pakistan should realise thay India has no intentions of destroying that country..."

This has been argued and well-understood for some time now. The cost is high and the gain is little. Unfortunately it is exploitable at levels well below direct confrontation.

"...Lets get on and give every one a chance.Do you think a vast majority of our population give a damn on the option of a first strike or what MAD means?they want to know from where their next meal is coming.I think they would rather be vapourised by this BS.My Indian and Pakistani friends it time to drift away from this kind of talk as I am sure you both have seen poverty up close on our streets.

Sorry for the sermon as after all this years of hearing this rather shrill BS from both sides I am sick and tired..."

Well-said, sir.

1979
19 Jul 11,, 16:21
Is there more to this because the French & the UK already satisfy 50% of the requirement. Thing is there is no half way measure here. Either you are warfighting which implies, you can take out an opponents arsenal with a first strike or not. And the only way to do that is to have enough nukes.
What is the superiority in numbers of nukes one nation should have in that case.


Are you not forgetting who the enemy was back than ?
you know ...the ones with 10 thousand strategic warheads and 30 thousand small ones.

Tronic
20 Jul 11,, 12:09
Guys these are Nbombs we are talking about and not some toys .I think its time Pakistan should realise thay India has no intentions of destroying that country.We both are poor with millions of people living below the BPL in abject poverty.Lets get on and give every one a chance.Do you think a vast majority of our population give a damn on the option of a first strike or what MAD means?they want to know from where their next meal is coming.I think they would rather be vapourised by this BS.My Indian and Pakistani friends it time to drift away from this kind of talk as I am sure you both have seen poverty up close on our streets.

Sorry for the sermon as after all this years of hearing this rather shrill BS from both sides I am sick and tired.by god, I am not a pacifist.

Amen to that Colonel! Well said.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 09:33
All this discussion does is make me think it would be very difficult for Pakistan to pretend to be warfighting when its position is still deterrence. It does not have the numbers of nukes to become warfighting no matter how much the desire because the ROI is not worth it.

Besides if they can get India to just believe their threats they attain their objectives without having to spend for it :)This has been a bug in my thoughts for several days. We know that Pakistan bluffed during Kargil because they could not carry out their threats. Their arsenal was full of duds. But what if it was ready? Would Pakistan dare to carry out such a threat? Over Kargil?

Tellis states that Indian strategic thinkers have gone through lengths to determine that there is no issue with China or Pakistan that would require nukes. That any future conflicts could be contained. So, the decision to contain the Kargil War instead of escalation.

Pakistan threw in the NLI as the sacrificial lamb to appease Indian anger. They've lost an entire regiment. So, it was not exactly a get out jail card, the nuclear bluff.

What is certain though is that the Indian Army men could care less about Pakistani nukes. They were going to escalate with no 2nd thoughts (as I expect of any professional force). That essentially means that Pakistan will have to make the decision to throw nukes in a war that clearly she was in the wrong.

Even today, her nukes are aircraft delivered. What's the odds that such aircrafts could reach Dehli? Or any of the other deep interior cities of India? So essentially, the nuclear war would be fought over the border area and the airforces of both sides would be in a mail storm. India might have enough planes to blast her way to Islamabad but it would be a one way trip and would reduce her forces greatly, leaving open the skies for further Pakistani adventures.

So, essentially, the nuclear war would be restricted to the immediate penetration border areas. Plenty of targets still but the gain is negligible.

So, the question is why would Pakistan invite nuclear war over Kargil? The answer is that she didn't.

The lack of any new Kargil would also suggest that it is best not to set up any new invitation.

So, essentially, you are right. Pakistan is a deterrence state, not a warfighting one, and all the rules that apply.

How I love people who thinks things through and even gives me things to think things through. One of the beauties of this forum is no lack of thinkers.

Double Edge
21 Jul 11,, 11:51
What is certain though is that the Indian Army men could care less about Pakistani nukes. They were going to escalate with no 2nd thoughts (as I expect of any professional force). That essentially means that Pakistan will have to make the decision to throw nukes in a war that clearly she was in the wrong.
You've said in the past the last no-go is military. How about the last go ?

Is that civilian or military. I have to think it is civilian. The decison to use nukes, at all rests with civilians. If they say no, then it does not matter what the military thinks.


Even today, her nukes are aircraft delivered. What's the odds that such aircrafts could reach Dehli? Or any of the other deep interior cities of India? So essentially, the nuclear war would be fought over the border area and the airforces of both sides would be in a mail storm. India might have enough planes to blast her way to Islamabad but it would be a one way trip and would reduce her forces greatly, leaving open the skies for further Pakistani adventures.
They won't go for cities because we would retaliate. The harder part to answer is the border areas. If Pakistan declares breaching the IB is a redline and they will use nukes. Then that determination is tempered by our willingness or reluctance to counter. If reluctance wins, then they will be further emboldened.

The question of whether to retaliate if Pakistan does carry through with a nuke near the border on her side is difficult to answer. I say they were bluffing when they make this threat, they could just as easily reply we think you will not retaliate under certain circumstances.

What those circumstances are is the key ? Is such a situation possible. If civilians overrule the military maybe. Have to think this one through some more.


So, essentially, the nuclear war would be restricted to the immediate penetration border areas. Plenty of targets still but the gain is negligible.
Gains might be negligible but the other wars in a way were a stalemate of sorts except for 1971. Such an outcome is desirable as Pakistan survives in the end,


So, the question is why would Pakistan invite nuclear war over Kargil? The answer is that she didn't.

The lack of any new Kargil would also suggest that it is best not to set up any new invitation.
Yes, in theory.

But Pakistan is very good at playing poker.


So, essentially, you are right. Pakistan is a deterrence state, not a warfighting one, and all the rules that apply.

How I love people who thinks things through and even gives me things to think things through. One of the beauties of this forum is no lack of thinkers.
Thx, but you're the one that deserves the credit. You give us points that help to understand different scenarios. Any article that blurs the line between warfighting & deterrence wrt to Pakistan or any other country except the big two is suspect.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 13:30
You've said in the past the last no-go is military. How about the last go ?

Is that civilian or military. I have to think it is civilian. The decison to use nukes, at all rests with civilians. If they say no, then it does not matter what the military thinks.Do recall that 1st strike to Pakistan means a demonstration strike, not a strike against a live or a military valuable target. So, in essence, her crossing the line means no one dies but that she crossed that line. The next obvious thing that would happen is intensifying the air war in which India would seek to down the entire Pakistani AF in order to avoid the next nuke strike.

Actually, you know what? Even if India does back off, there would be immense pressure on Pakistan to disarm afterwards, even with a nod towards military action by the N5.

Double Edge
21 Jul 11,, 16:26
Right, that demonstration strike is where we have the two options.

Their idea would be to deter any further Indian advance. It would in essence be a bluff but with a bang. It would test our resolve and thats down to the cassus belli. For me thats a coin toss. The pressure not to escalate would be immense on our side. If we did continue on that might signal to Islamabad that were serious on marching all the way there. Even though that was not the intention. There are actions we could take that would directly signal that intent to their pros.

Otherwise why are you confident others would request Pakistan disarm and if so whether that call would indeed be successful ?

Pakistan could easily say they acted in self-defense and were justified. Both in having nukes & the demonstration strike.

Course we'll be kicking ourselves for having provided yet another fine display of Indian patience. The other side of this is what ultimate objective would our operation have served anyway ?

That we won't be cowed by nuclear blackmail or that we won't stand for unilateral strikes. There might be alternative non-miltary avenues available to achieve such.

That demonstration strike is something that we will think long & hard over. If we do not respond its a default PR win for Pakistan. The civvies will ensure we do not reach this stage.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 16:40
Otherwise why are you confident others would request Pakistan disarm and if so whether that call would indeed be successful ?Pakistan crossed the line. There's no uncrossing it. The next war, whomever it will be against, will ensure their use of nukes. While India might be blackmailed, the Russians and the Americans would not be. Thus, to ensure Pakistan would never use the nuke again, disarmament will be demanded.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 17:05
Course we'll be kicking ourselves for having provided yet another fine display of Indian patience. The other side of this is what ultimate objective would our operation have served anyway ?

That we won't be cowed by nuclear blackmail or that we won't stand for unilateral strikes. There might be alternative non-miltary avenues available to achieve such.

That demonstration strike is something that we will think long & hard over. If we do not respond its a default PR win for Pakistan. The civvies will ensure we do not reach this stage.Thinking this further, even with a demonstration strike, the next set of nukes would be not be ready to launch against a real target for a couple of days. Namely, you have to give time for both sides to calm down and access the situation. Units fighting for survival would not easily disengage. A corps takes 72 hours to execute its orders. So, even if India does decide to back off, there still would be 72 hours of fighting.

Now, here is where India is lacking. The propaganda war. You fought on for 72 hours and the original OPOBJs might still be achievable during that time. You announce your intent to cease hostilities after 72 hours ... and dare Pakistan to strike again.

Double Edge
21 Jul 11,, 21:50
Pakistan crossed the line. There's no uncrossing it. The next war, whomever it will be against, will ensure their use of nukes. While India might be blackmailed, the Russians and the Americans would not be. Thus, to ensure Pakistan would never use the nuke again, disarmament will be demanded.
But the demonstration was on their territory in response to India crossing the IB. They will call it an atmospheric test :)

If this is not acceptable then under what circumstances will the big two accept Pakistani nuke strikes ?

We do not intend to push as far as Islamabad.


Thinking this further, even with a demonstration strike, the next set of nukes would be not be ready to launch against a real target for a couple of days. Namely, you have to give time for both sides to calm down and access the situation. Units fighting for survival would not easily disengage. A corps takes 72 hours to execute its orders. So, even if India does decide to back off, there still would be 72 hours of fighting.
We don't back off and we don't retaliate with a nuke of our own. We just push on till our objectives are met. That is basically calling their bluff. No nukes, the civvies won't interfere.


Now, here is where India is lacking. The propaganda war. You fought on for 72 hours and the original OPOBJs might still be achievable during that time. You announce your intent to cease hostilities after 72 hours ... and dare Pakistan to strike again.
Right, this would probably be the end of the hostilities. Some territory will be gained or lost and we have the usual tradeoffs at the peace table like 48 or 65. They will say their demonstration nukes deterred us from disintegrating their country, we will say we never planned to do that in the first place and taught them a lesson blah blah.

What has this war achieved for India ? Nothing tangible. If it was a punitive expedition then that will be it. The only long term consequence and this is just a hope is that we will get to demonstrate that they cannot cover their conventional or infiltration with nukes.

But this was already the case anyway.

antimony
21 Jul 11,, 22:41
What has this war achieved for India ? Nothing tangible. If it was a punitive expedition then that will be it. The only long term consequence and this is just a hope is that we will get to demonstrate that they cannot cover their conventional or infiltration with nukes.

But this was already the case anyway.

It achieves two major objectives :

1. Humiliates the armed forces and military authorities as they have taken a beating on the conventional side and do have the big nuclear guns to play with. Hopefully this would give civil society an opportunity to mature
2. In the absence of the nuclear gun, urge towards future misadventures would be limited. Think back to the situation in the late seventies and early eighties with a potentially nuclear armed and conventionally stronger India and a relatively weaker, non nuclear Pakistan.

Both of these would be major achievements for India. On the Pakistani side, if they do cross the nuclear threshold, even China may not stand behind them and in that case anyway India should be aggressively wooing China at that point.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 23:02
But the demonstration was on their territory in response to India crossing the IB. They will call it an atmospheric test :)The intent is clear. Maybe this time the Indians would back off but the next time, they know a demonstration is no longer enough and an actual target is needed.


If this is not acceptable then under what circumstances will the big two accept Pakistani nuke strikes ?None. Hence, why Pakistan is a deterrence state. Use it once and you're now officially a target by the big 2.


But this was already the case anyway.Done without nukes and will no longer be done. If Kargil was successful, there would have been another one by now. There wasn't.

Double Edge
21 Jul 11,, 23:40
It achieves two major objectives :

1. Humiliates the armed forces and military authorities as they have taken a beating on the conventional side and do have the big nuclear guns to play with. Hopefully this would give civil society an opportunity to mature
This was my initial thought. Its going on developments after the OBL affair. Embrass their military at their own game and their public goes against them. But if you consider that '71 still wasn't enough to achieve this then i have doubts it can be achieved short of regime change which won't be on the cards for us. So I feel its highly unlikely we could change that status quo with force. They would spin everything to the hilt that their public would not be any wiser.

There appears to be a real lack of any strategic goals achievable from a punitive expedition. Hopes are not enough to launch a war especially one of short duration. This i would advance as the bigger reason for us not to attack them. We only get involved when core interests are involved and our threshold for that is pretty high, possibly more so after 26/11.


2. In the absence of the nuclear gun, urge towards future misadventures would be limited. Think back to the situation in the late seventies and early eighties with a potentially nuclear armed and conventionally stronger India and a relatively weaker, non nuclear Pakistan.
Am not convinced as yet that Pakistan will lose her nukes as OOE implies.


Both of these would be major achievements for India. On the Pakistani side, if they do cross the nuclear threshold, even China may not stand behind them and in that case anyway India should be aggressively wooing China at that point.
China stays out of this so long as Pakistan is not gravely threatened. This was my understanding for their stance during Kargil. We never crossed the IB there was no need to get involved. You could spin that as China not lifting a finger to help their all weather friend but what we did in Kargil was no comparison to what China did to Vietnam in '79.

Double Edge
21 Jul 11,, 23:41
The intent is clear. Maybe this time the Indians would back off but the next time, they know a demonstration is no longer enough and an actual target is needed.
Pakistan cannot do this because of deterrence. The demonstration strike is about the only exception i can think of in the current situation. They cannot initiate strikes against our cities or our forces right now let alone afterwards.


None. Hence, why Pakistan is a deterrence state. Use it once and you're now officially a target by the big 2.
Aren't they already a target because they are a nuke state ?


Done without nukes and will no longer be done. If Kargil was successful, there would have been another one by now. There wasn't.
Is it too early to say that.

There is no second Kargil because that kind of stunt did not produce the desired result. To what extent nukes played in this am not certain because Kargil came just after the nuke tests. Maybe Musharaf thought there was a small window to be exploited but then their stance was they were ready anyway. They had their test at Lop Nor in '91.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jul 11,, 23:50
Pakistan cannot do this because of deterrence. The demonstration strike is about the only exception i can think of in the current situation. They cannot initiate strikes against our cities or our forces right now let alone afterwards.But the point remains that after the demo strike, if the Indians did not back off, or the next time the Indians come forward, a demo strike is not enough. It will be ignored because the Indians took it into their calculations before embarking against an already demonstrated nuclear willingness. For the deterrent to remain in effect, they will have to strike an actual target. Hence, why they will never use a nuke. It reduces their deterrent value.


Aren't they already a target because they are a nuke state ?There's a difference between a reserved contingency to an active one. Like China, Pakistan would be subject to a more intense surveillance and target plotting. Like I said, the military options would be ramped up.


There is no second Kargil because that kind of stunt did not produce the desired result. To what extent nukes played in this am not certain because Kargil came just after the nuke tests. Maybe Musharaf thought there was a small window to be exploited but then their stance was they were ready anyway. They had their test at Lop Nor in '91.Yeah, that's the assumption, one that I'm not going to challenge but also one that I am extremely uncomfortable with. The two people making the claims also claimed several other things that has no proof. That the US provided nuclear weapons help to Israel for one and China tested a French design for France.

But be that as it may, 1998 showed that their entire arsenal was full of duds. It really didn't matter what 91 said, 98 said their nukes won't work.

Doktor
21 Jul 11,, 23:57
If everyone knows/thinks ALL the nukes are duds, a) how is that deterrence b)imv the holder is safer if they claim they go non-nuclear (something Ukraine did)?

Officer of Engineers
22 Jul 11,, 00:03
If everyone knows/thinks ALL the nukes are duds, a) how is that deterrence b)imv the holder is safer if they claim they go non-nuclear (something Ukraine did)?It was a dual hoax by both Pakistan and India. Non-South Asian data suggests that the nuke tests did not lived up to claim yields. Indian scientists challenged those claims (which they later admitted just after 123 Agreement that the non-South Asian data was correct). But then, they cannot very well claim that the data was correct for Pakistan but incorrect for India. Thus, both helped each other to bolster each other's false claims.

Doktor
22 Jul 11,, 00:07
Colonel, all due respect, but if you know/think their nukes are duds someone in IA should know that, too.

What you state above is propaganda addressed mainly for home users.

Again, if there is a possibility that 99% of the nukes are duds how is that a deterrence?

Double Edge
22 Jul 11,, 00:13
But the point remains that after the demo strike, if the Indians did not back off, or the next time the Indians come forward, a demo strike is not enough. It will be ignored because the Indians took it into their calculations before embarking against an already demonstrated nuclear willingness. For the deterrent to remain in effect, they will have to strike an actual target. Hence, why they will never use a nuke. It reduces their deterrent value.
Good, then that nixes the idea of a demonstration strike. We'd call the bluff, push on anyway and not reataliate with our own.


There's a difference between a reserved contingency to an active one. Like China, Pakistan would be subject to a more intense surveillance and target plotting. Like I said, the military options would be ramped up.
So they would save their nukes for the only one & most important threshold. One we will never cross.


Yeah, that's the assumption, one that I'm not going to challenge but also one that I am extremely uncomfortable with. The two people making the claims also claimed several other things that has no proof. That the US provided nuclear weapons help to Israel for one and China tested a French design for France.

But be that as it may, 1998 showed that their entire arsenal was full of duds. It really didn't matter what 91 said, 98 said their nukes won't work.
Then India did not push across for the sake of nukes, it was something else. Maybe no achievalbe strategic goal. 'Vacate the intruders' was what the PM said and that was it.

Doktor
22 Jul 11,, 00:14
I have another question that's bothering me for a while.

If both states were never even close to use their nukes, and their conventional forces cannot provide decisive victory, what's the point in having the nukes? They are more like a burdain. The way I see it, if one of these goes non-nuclear I am sure they will have better deterrence then the one they have now.

Instead of owning, maintaining, enhancing, whatever ~200 nukes (best case) they will have big two's arsenal as a deterrence ;)

Officer of Engineers
22 Jul 11,, 00:27
Colonel, all due respect, but if you know/think their nukes are duds someone in IA should know that, too.There is a difference between the Indian tests and the Pakistani ones. The Indian tests were all test devices. They were designed that way to test for results and the designed the sensors around the site to get those results. The Indians carefully planned their tests. Now, even if there were duds, the smart bet would have been that they've collected enough data to know where they went wrong.

That is not the case with Pakistan. Their tests was in a direct response to the surprise Indian tests. Thus, the only devices that they had were the ones from their arsenal. This was a hurried job with not enough time to plant the proper sensors and design the tests properly. The Pakistanis claimed six tests, only 3 were registered, none to desired yield and they claimed the other 3 to be sub-kiloton while ours registered nothing. The Pakistanis claimed our data to be faulty when in fact, we registered the North Korean's sub kiloton test (another dud). So, based on our data, half of the Pakistani nukes did not even initiate.

After saying all this, this does not mean that Pakistan cannot fix what went wrong but it took time and effort ... and maybe even some outside clandestine Chinese help (no evidence of this whatsoever, just throwing it out there). Most certainly, Pakistani nukes were not ready by 2001, maybe 2008.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jul 11,, 00:40
If both states were never even close to use their nukes, and their conventional forces cannot provide decisive victory, what's the point in having the nukes? They are more like a burdain. The way I see it, if one of these goes non-nuclear I am sure they will have better deterrence then the one they have now.Their strategic outlook is at times hard to understand and I am not sure I completely understand it.

There is no doubt that the Indian nuclear posture is China centric though the initial 1974 test was aimed at the Americans. However, Sundarji himself has stated that a China can be persuaded that the Indian nuclear arsenal is no threat to China. He even expected a Pakistani reaction that with careful dialog and management, can even have a decent enough of an arsenal not to feel a threat.

What is clear from the Indian stance though was that as soon as China got the bomb, India must follow, not necessarily an arms race but an arms peace. Thus Sundarji's view that it is way too late to make Asia nuclear free but they can make it nuclear safe.

Pakistan feels threatened by India and even Sundarji acknowledges that Pakistan must be allowed a nuclear arsenal to maintain the nuclear safe option. Once Pakistan feels safe from India, then both can move on to a more mature relationship, one on par with the superpower's detente.

Unfortunately, events took over Sundarji's views. The US-USSR left detente behind and embarked on a full Cold War.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jul 11,, 21:37
The first demo strike is a read herring. It doesn't exist. Stuart Slade is right. If one flies, they all fly. It doesn't matter if that one is a demo strike or not.

Reason being.

1) The Pakistanis can never be sure if their fixed nukes work or not, at least not without another test. That means, they have to double or even triple up the demo strike ... and that is just plain too much for India not to assume a full blown nuclear war.

2) If we know about the demo strike, so should India. In short, it's already within their calculations. If they do decide on future military action, the demo strike or a 1st strike would be no surprise and they have already planned for it.

S2
24 Jul 11,, 06:08
Colonel,

"The first demo strike is a read herring...

Reason being.

1) The Pakistanis can never be sure if their fixed nukes work or not, at least not without another test. That means, they have to double or even triple up the demo strike ... and that is just plain too much for India not to assume a full blown nuclear war.

2) If we know about the demo strike, so should India. In short, it's already within their calculations. If they do decide on future military action, the demo strike or a 1st strike would be no surprise and they have already planned for it."

This is perfectly reasonable if such a lack of confidence exists among the Pakistani military in their nuclear weapons. They simply cannot afford a malfunctioning warning. As you suggest, this requires the use of multiple weapons to assure the message is delivered.

Unfortunately, should multiple detonations occur there'll be no functional differentiation made by the Indian command. In effect, the warning would be lost.

Double Edge
24 Jul 11,, 12:54
I really do not like the idea of demonstration strikes because it totally mucks with the line 'deterrence is not warfighting'. If you can make demonstrations then there can be more instances where nukes can be used. We get into the same realm that Tinu's article mentions of these differering thresholds and tactical nuke bollocks.

Am assuming that there is 100% confidence with Pakistan's nukes. Using them in a demonstration strike reduces their deterrent value if the other side just ignores them and continues their advance without retaliating.

That to me is a sound reason not to waste nukes in such a manner.

tanker_jitty
24 Jul 11,, 14:02
Imagine, an indian bridge head over one of the canals in south central pakistan, Pakistani CA forces have been effectively blocked and the indians have a clear run into the hinder land .The build up is in full swing and the break out has commenced with the guns and follow up forces in the bridge head.

Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory!A demo stike?

Double Edge
24 Jul 11,, 14:25
Imagine, an indian bridge head over one of the canals in south central pakistan, Pakistani CA forces have been effectively blocked and the indians have a clear run into the hinder land .The build up is in full swing and the break out has commenced with the guns and follow up forces in the bridge head.

Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory!A demo stike?
Well, what are our operational objectives ? What are our strategic goals ?

We do not advance. We give clear signs of NOT going into their hinterland. We do NOT make moves that indicate we are making a beeline to Islamabad.

Otherwise we invite a nuke. Applies just as much to us as it does them. This appears to be a case of op objs clashing with strategic goals.

Deterrence is a two way street ;)

Officer of Engineers
24 Jul 11,, 14:54
Am assuming that there is 100% confidence with Pakistan's nukes.There isn't. Even the superpowers target 3 nukes per target, not because the targets needs 3 nukes to kill but because one or two might now reach there or initiate.


Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory!A demo stike?India has already stated that such a scenario tantamounts to a strike on its own forces and would invite a nuclear response.

Double Edge
24 Jul 11,, 15:01
There isn't. Even the superpowers target 3 nukes per target, not because the targets needs 3 nukes to kill but because one or two might now reach there or initiate
What i wanted to say is that an anxiety over successful detonation shouldn't be a barrier to deciding to use them. For all intents & purposes Pakistans nukes are operational and hence have credible deterrence value.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jul 11,, 15:09
What i wanted to say is that an anxiety over successful detonation shouldn't be a barrier to deciding to use them. For all intents & purposes Pakistans nukes are operational and hence have credible deterrence value.What I was trying to say is that for a demo strike to be effective, as Steve so eloquently puts it, you need multiple nukes and multiple detonations defeats the purpose of a demo strike and would invite an Indian nuclear response.

zraver
25 Jul 11,, 01:12
I am back next fanboy to get out of line gets a week's free vacation from WAB....


any takers?

Double Edge
25 Jul 11,, 01:28
Z, about time you made an appearance :)

Give us your thoughts on the last five pages.

Officer of Engineers
25 Jul 11,, 02:28
Actually, I am extremely glad for this thread. We have worked out some very good details despite the original poster's intent. I will give you a projection. Within a year, some official think tank (with government backing) somewhere will echo what we have discover today.

BTW, this is how CDF became respected. We argue. Fanboys started it but the thinkers took over, ie what if the fanboys are true, then we start working it out. The fanboys are false but enough deduction comes along that we start going on without the intent.

With the nuclear issues, this is the 2nd time this happened here at WAB. The first is Zraver's Law (and I am becoming more and more convinced that he is right) and the 2nd (which adds to Zraver's convictions) is that the 1st strike demo is a red herring.

Gentlemen, you should be proud.

antimony
25 Jul 11,, 02:35
Imagine, an indian bridge head over one of the canals in south central pakistan, Pakistani CA forces have been effectively blocked and the indians have a clear run into the hinder land .The build up is in full swing and the break out has commenced with the guns and follow up forces in the bridge head.

Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory!A demo stike?

Colonel Tanker_jetty and Colonel Wu,

Is this a valid scenario? With the type of conventional/HE munitions available today, why would you need a tac nuke for this job? With conventional munitions you can use as much as you want/need without inviting nuclear repercussions here.

Officer of Engineers
25 Jul 11,, 02:54
Is this a valid scenario?Antimony, btw what is your nickname because I refuse to believe your friends call you antimony, it sounds way too much like alimony.

But seriously back to your question, yes it is. Conventional arms will not force a pause. A nuclear strike will. It forces the theatre commander to decide which forces next are vulnerable to a nuke strike and which units can carry on despite a nuke strike.

Despite conventional thinking, combat operations do not stop because of a nuke strike. Some units will stop and prepare themselves to receive a nuke strike while others will press on nuke strike or not. It is upto the theatre commander to decide that ... and also where to deliver his nuke strikes.

tanker_jitty
25 Jul 11,, 05:12
Colonel Wu? Who? Jokes aside,Bang on .Agree with the Colonel in toto.Do remember that a tac nuc war head can create havoc many times more than conventional weapons. I am sure all commanders at tactical and strategic levels would have worked out a contigency as was prevalent in the NATO/waRSAW backdrop.I am sure NATO commanders would have worked out something to counter Soviet strikes in the plains of Europe.

S2
25 Jul 11,, 05:37
"...With the type of conventional/HE munitions available today, why would you need a tac nuke for this job? With conventional munitions you can use as much as you want/need without inviting nuclear repercussions here."

Not necessarily. There are a lot of mitigating techniques available to the bridging force. If we assume that a bridgehead has been established then that also suggests that both width and depth has been added to the opposing shoreline. With that comes additional bridges.

Secondly, bridging forces will avoid to the greatest extent possible creating bottlenecked forces. Additional bridges help. So too dispersal of units designated to cross along with those already within the bridgehead. No bridgehead becomes truly viable until breadth and (more importantly) depth have been achieved.

Finally, traditional methods (smoke and camoflauge) exist to further diminish available targets. All of these aforementioned methods mitigate against conventional munitions.

Not saying that conventional munitions won't be used nor effectively but there's no guarantee quite like a tactical nuke strike on a bridgehead possessing strategic implications.

Double Edge
25 Jul 11,, 11:36
Colonel Wu? Who? Jokes aside,Bang on .Agree with the Colonel in toto.Do remember that a tac nuc war head can create havoc many times more than conventional weapons. I am sure all commanders at tactical and strategic levels would have worked out a contigency as was prevalent in the NATO/waRSAW backdrop.I am sure NATO commanders would have worked out something to counter Soviet strikes in the plains of Europe.
Ah, but we cannot compare ourselves to NATO & Warsaw pact because those two are warfighting powers.

'deterrence is not warfighting' implies that there will be no tact nuke or demo strike. Now if it happens that will be an extremely bad call by the other side and i seriously doubt they would willingly diminish the deterrence value of their nuke arsenal.

Double Edge
25 Jul 11,, 11:41
Secondly, bridging forces will avoid to the greatest extent possible creating bottlenecked forces. Additional bridges help. So too dispersal of units designated to cross along with those already within the bridgehead. No bridgehead becomes truly viable until breadth and (more importantly) depth have been achieved.
In effect creating many 'easy' targets.

Nukes here for a deterrence power would be a waste as secondary reason not to use them.

dave lukins
25 Jul 11,, 22:48
What i wanted to say is that an anxiety over successful detonation shouldn't be a barrier to deciding to use them. For all intents & purposes Pakistans nukes are operational and hence have credible deterrence value.

It would be interesting to know just how operational their nukes are with the fear of home grown Terrorist having their eye on them ;)

snapper
26 Jul 11,, 02:04
Dave; tactical nukes only.

antimony
26 Jul 11,, 03:34
Officers,

Thanks for the explanations, the scenario becomes clearer now. I can now see why militarily it makes sense, even though politically it still does not. However, since in Pakistan (at least in practice) the military lords over politics, it does take on a scarier angle.:frown:

Now for my chosen nickname, you guys ready for this?

Here goes : my initials are SB, which is the chemical symbol for Stibium, which is the Latin name for the element Antimony.

Now was that geek overload or what???:Dancing-Banana::biggrin:

tanker_jitty
26 Jul 11,, 08:00
Not at all. I am most happy that an a indian geek has such intrest in matters military !

nvishal
26 Jul 11,, 11:04
Actually, I am extremely glad for this thread. We have worked out some very good details despite the original poster's intent. I will give you a projection. Within a year, some official think tank (with government backing) somewhere will echo what we have discover today.
The assessment was already established by the indian side; a conclusion resulted probably after kargil, made public by the army chief himself. Yet, the WCS has to considered. And to be prepared for.

It has to be understood that India is not going to diminish ANY part of itself to settle its issues with pakistan once and for all; especially not for a country like pakistan. The confusing part for the world is to understand that pakistan's survival serves indian interests. Pakistan HAS to survive even if it fragments.

ambidex
26 Jul 11,, 11:57
Response to strike from Pak will be very heavy: IAF chief - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Response-to-strike-from-Pak-will-be-massive-IAF-chief/articleshow/9370406.cms)

Double Edge
26 Jul 11,, 20:13
Here's what's odd about that article..


The IAF chief's statement came following the news report that Pakistan planned to add 24 nuclear-capable, short-range missiles capable of hitting all major Indian cities to its arsenal this year.

but..


Pakistan recently successfully tested 'Nasr', a short-range nuclear capable ballistic missile which can hit targets in the range of 60 kms.

So can they hit all major Indian cities or not ? no its just short range.
Why they use such a short range missile with nukes ? nothing indicates they will its just capable of carrying a nuke.


Naik was responding to a query on the new Pakistani tactical nuclear missile 'Nasr' which is touted to be a 'game-changer' in future warfare.

He did not agree that the new missile will be a 'game-changer'.
Yeah, because they still can't make any threats given their deterrence position.


Pakistan recently successfully tested 'Nasr', a short-range nuclear capable ballistic missile which can hit targets in the range of 60 kms.
Looks like they've got an operational conventional short range missile :)

ambidex
26 Jul 11,, 22:34
I think he was responding to this \/deliberate leak by PA to media (otherwise PA like to keep it tight).

Pak plans to add 24 nuclear-capable missiles to its arsenal, IBN Live News (http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/pak-plans-to-add-24-nuclearcapable-missiles-to-its-arsenal/763784.html)

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 11,, 22:44
I got a headache just reading this.


Pak plans to add 24 nuclear-capable missiles to its arsenal, IBN Live News (http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/pak-plans-to-add-24-nuclearcapable-missiles-to-its-arsenal/763784.html)

The air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles will be able to hit targets at a distance between 700 km and 1,000 km, thus putting nearly all major Indian cities within their range, the report claimed.

ambidex
26 Jul 11,, 23:30
There is hardly any expert in sub continent media to understand technical aspects of defence while reporting. I have learnt to filter out what they are trying to say without nitpicking from their dumb articles. What IAF chief has mentioned without naming any country is more important that 'Tactical or strategic doesn't make a difference'. 'As per Indian doctrine the response after first strike will be massive/violent'. If Pakistan has tested SRBM and leaked the number of missiles in (per annum) production then i think its a significant piece of Information. They touted it as game changer which IAF chief do not believe.

The test of NASAR triggered a debate in India on how InA will respond to tactical nukes thrown at them. The same question was asked by a journalist; IAF chief responded, as reported.

Double Edge
27 Jul 11,, 00:08
The test of NASAR triggered a debate in India on how InA will respond to tactical nukes thrown at them. The same question was asked by a journalist; IAF chief responded, as reported.
The tactical nuke assertion by the Pak chief is bunk. The Pak chief is making statements for domestic consumption. Its good timing given the loss of face they recently had. Why else the leak. Just PR.

Course the IAF chief has to respond for the same reason in India.

A short range missile with a conventional warhead should prove useful if they don't have one in their arsenal. That is all the news there is. They are just making hay with the fact that they can put a nuke on it but that ain't gonna happen.

ambidex
27 Jul 11,, 00:20
The tactical nuke assertion by the Pak chief is bunk. The Pak chief is making statements for domestic consumption. Its good timing given the loss of face they recently had. Why else the leak. Just PR.

Course the IAF chief has to respond for the same reason in India.

A short range missile with a conventional warhead should prove useful if they don't have one in their arsenal. That is all the news there is. They are just making hay with the fact that they can put a nuke on it but that ain't gonna happen.

How would we know if a SRBM detected on the radar is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead. Even if there is any mechanism Pakistani 'Just PR' is not any help for Indians; not to trade the same PR in return i.e. talk of massive nuclear retaliation in any case.

zraver
27 Jul 11,, 00:27
Imagine, an indian bridge head over one of the canals in south central pakistan, Pakistani CA forces have been effectively blocked and the indians have a clear run into the hinder land .The build up is in full swing and the break out has commenced with the guns and follow up forces in the bridge head.

Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory!A demo stike?

With the aquisition by the PA of the A-100 MLRS system the chances of an Indian breakthrough are remote given the A-100's range (Chinese SMERCH) allows it to kill box any bridge the IA throws up. Thats if the IA reaches the canals at all.

Let us look at the facts...

1. The Strike Corps will never mobalize faster than the PA frontier corps and so will face a large atgm threat.
2. The A-100 negates the IA's SMERCH, if India pushes the SMERCH batteries forward to pound the canal areas she risks counter battery fire. If she doesn't then she risks having the strike corps slaughtered the way she planned to do to the PA.
3. The PA has an impressive edge is SPA- the M109 can deploy both fascam and DPCIM.
4. Each strike corps can only cross the border along an easily predicted path. Plus each stage of the Indian advance is predictable based on the previous movements. Each unit has a radius of movement it can travel each day.
5. International pressure including Chinese demonstrations, demands and inuendo will tie down a large part of the IAF.
6. The T-90 offers no significant advantage over the Al Khalid, even if the T-90's are likely immune to American and Chinese supplied TOW missiles, the supporting infantry, artillery, engineer and support units are not. Ambush an IA bridging unit east of the canals and you stop the advance of every unit depending on that bridge. At NTC in Ft Irwin, California the Op-For left behind scouts and ambush teams in the barren desert and it often took an entire company of dismounted infantry to flush them out, after they revealed themselves via an attack.

If the IA does penetrate each KM travelled equals attrition as flankers have to be detailed off, as well as masking units to cover large population centers. The real race is can the IA's strike corps move faster than the PA can mobalize to chop them up.

The answer India's general staff has decided on so far is NO. Until India is confident that she can bust the border wide open and keep it open then Pakistan retains her free hand to do as she will.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jul 11,, 00:53
How would we know if a SRBM detected on the radar is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead.Like everybody else on this planet. Upon impact.


Even if there is any mechanism Pakistani 'Just PR' is not any help for Indians; not to trade the same PR in return i.e. talk of massive nuclear retaliation in any case.Until both sides starts training, ie even mounting dummy warheads, it's just pure bluster.

Double Edge
27 Jul 11,, 01:24
How would we know if a SRBM detected on the radar is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead.
Get one thing straight, they are not going to lob a nuke at us unless we march to Islamabad. We ain't ever going to do that.


Even if there is any mechanism Pakistani 'Just PR' is not any help for Indians; not to trade the same PR in return i.e. talk of massive nuclear retaliation in any case.
There is NO indian debate about Pak tactical nukes because Pakistan cannot use such unless they want go to the very end and we won't press them that far.

Anyway, thats not why OOE made the comment. IIANM, he does not think their missiles are ready to carry nukes as yet. So the comment stating that cities in India can be targeted with missiles is premature at best.

Pakistan's main delievery of nuclear weapons remains their aircraft. Because the bulk of their arsenal is HEU. To put nukes on missilies would require furhter minaturisation of the warhead and only Pu will allow that. Its unclear to me whether they have that capability as yet ie whether they actually have Pu nukes in their arsenal. So creating these missiles is actually easier than sticking a nuke small enough to fit on top of them. However they are trying to make Pu in the Chashma reactor so its only a matter of time.

The latest nuclear notebook for Pakistan is just out but it does not shed more light in this area.

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 01:29
It depends on what the objective is. Out of curiosity, if the point is to punish Pak for militant camps, what about a naval blockade? Something along the lines of Operation Python in '71. Once the oil starts drying up, from that point it reaches to which government outlasts the pressure; GoI facing international pressure, or Pak facing domestic pressure. Strike PAF's assets aswell. Is that not more feasible than a land assault? Also, less of an incentive to push for the nuke as their territorial integrity will be intact.

zraver
27 Jul 11,, 03:10
The one area where India does have an absolute edge is at sea.... once NATO leaves A-stan that is. In a defensive war, the IA ain't got the time, in the air India has the most modern and second largest air force in the region but its a lot less more modern than it is smaller than the biggest air force. These two factors constrain the most popular what ifs... But at sea the PN is a joke and until the PLAN is big enough and bad enough to challenge the IN in the Indian Ocean a post-NATO blockade leaves Pakistan few options short of war.

ambidex
27 Jul 11,, 03:27
DD

I have read such threads on WAB religiously. There isn't a point to best of my information that i haven't understood and i am quite confident about that. It's really good I mean.

What was more important for me in the link i posted, what IAF chief has quoted from India's draft nuclear doctrine. He said what is already there and what we all ready know or should be as it is.

Oh...one point, If any possible would be nuclear war is impossible then even conventional war should be impossible. Why? Here are my points.

The question about how to detect conventional strike or nuclear strike is important given Pakistani rhetoric/hype/propaganda about nuke, their nuclear weapons as corner stone of their security etc. and their nuclear doctrine.

The conventional strike via BM's or F16s (they are capable to do, not bluff) can be easily mistaken as a nuclear strike. The way Pakistanis are selling their nuclear bluff is reducing Indian nuclear strike threshold, not opposite.

I would say that BMs or using F16s as method of delivering conventional strike is a dangerous bet for Pakistan as well. Therefore investing heavily in BM technology is a waste or non starter?

Now what we or you people have discussed here is well thought off but one thing is missing that is heat of the real war. If both have duds but they have restored to targeting each other's cities with conventional BM packages or even cruise missiles (nuclear capable as boasted by Pakistan). What would be the response of American battle group witnessing the war with endo/exo atmospheric blips on their own radars.

I think with this logic nuclear deterrence should be no war fighting; both nuclear and conventional?

ambidex
27 Jul 11,, 03:44
The one area where India does have an absolute edge is at sea.... once NATO leaves A-stan that is. In a defensive war, the IA ain't got the time, in the air India has the most modern and second largest air force in the region but its a lot less more modern than it is smaller than the biggest air force. These two factors constrain the most popular what ifs... But at sea the PN is a joke and until the PLAN is big enough and bad enough to challenge the IN in the Indian Ocean a post-NATO blockade leaves Pakistan few options short of war.

Blockade and good punitive strikes to Pakistani naval assets may not be good enough to bring Pakistan on terms. India will waste heaps of time out scouting, out maneuvering or hunting down Pakistani submarines. Stealth attack in littoral waters and then invasion of shores would definitely stretch PA in InA advantage. India has amphibious capabilities but still lacks dedicated naval component to overwhelm Pakistani shores for the same purpose.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jul 11,, 05:11
GOOD GOD! THE CHINESE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING?

In her entire history, China only offered her nuclear umbrella to one country and one country alone - North Korea. North Korea refused.

In her entire history, China was asked by one country and one country alone to come under her nuclear umbrella - Pakistan. China refused.

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 05:23
The one area where India does have an absolute edge is at sea.... once NATO leaves A-stan that is. In a defensive war, the IA ain't got the time, in the air India has the most modern and second largest air force in the region but its a lot less more modern than it is smaller than the biggest air force. These two factors constrain the most popular what ifs... But at sea the PN is a joke and until the PLAN is big enough and bad enough to challenge the IN in the Indian Ocean a post-NATO blockade leaves Pakistan few options short of war.

zrav, the IAF has just as big of an edge against its adversary as the IN. PLAAF may be a large force, yet their modern capable aircraft are still yet fewer than the 4+ gen birds that the IAF can put up in the air; and moreover a lot of those assets will be reserved for the Taiwan strait. PRC simply will not throw its whole weight to its southwest as it needs to keep up its force projection on its other borders. Also, history has shown that the PRC has little interest in fighting Pakistan's wars. As the Colonel put it, China will fight India down to the last Pakistani.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jul 11,, 05:37
As the Colonel put it, China will fight India down to the last Pakistani.I will never live down that quote. And I suspect that in someway I had an influence on the Indian General Staff with that one single quote. When the Brigadier Ray laughed his head off at this quote and then found it surprising, I suspect that he passed it on.

It was something so obvious that it took an outsider, ie a Canadian, to make sense of the issue.

The nationality will change but not the quote ... and it will be forgotten that I came up with it.

indian
27 Jul 11,, 05:47
I will never live down that quote. And I suspect that in someway I had an influence on the Indian General Staff with that one single quote. When the Brigadier Ray laughed his head off at this quote and then found it surprising, I suspect that he passed it on.

It was something so obvious that it took an outsider, ie a Canadian, to make sense of the issue.

The nationality will change but not the quote ... and it will be forgotten that I came up with it.

Respected sir,no one is going forgetting you or the quote anytime soon here in India ...You were the first person to give the most sober asessment about the state of the nukes in the Indian sub-continent and You are more famous here than you think you are..you simply don't know it

zraver
27 Jul 11,, 08:33
zrav, the IAF has just as big of an edge against its adversary as the IN. PLAAF may be a large force, yet their modern capable aircraft are still yet fewer than the 4+ gen birds that the IAF can put up in the air; and moreover a lot of those assets will be reserved for the Taiwan strait. PRC simply will not throw its whole weight to its southwest as it needs to keep up its force projection on its other borders. Also, history has shown that the PRC has little interest in fighting Pakistan's wars. As the Colonel put it, China will fight India down to the last Pakistani.

India has fewer modern fighters than China so you might want to recheck your numbers. India's strategic problem vs Pakistan is China and to a lesser extent the US. If both are wanting to put pressure on India to back off the Taiwan strait is a non-issue during the crisis. This lets China demonstrate and forces an Indian counter, sure China might be willing to fight India to the last Pakistani, but then again she might be willing to fight India to a few less Chinese as well. India has to keep a certain number of birds east away from Pakistan just in case, the bigger the Chinese demonstration the more birds get held back.

At any rate at least a third of India's best birds have to be kept back, and that seriously evens the playing feild over the Indo-Pak frontier. Especially if the reports of Pakistan getting the FD-2000 are correct and India's AWACS get pushed back (ditto for PAF). No the IAF does not enjoy just as big of an advantage as the IN.

indian
27 Jul 11,, 09:05
India has fewer modern fighters than China so you might want to recheck your numbers. India's strategic problem vs Pakistan is China and to a lesser extent the US. If both are wanting to put pressure on India to back off the Taiwan strait is a non-issue during the crisis. This lets China demonstrate and forces an Indian counter, sure China might be willing to fight India to the last Pakistani, but then again she might be willing to fight India to a few less Chinese as well. India has to keep a certain number of birds east away from Pakistan just in case, the bigger the Chinese demonstration the more birds get held back.

At any rate at least a third of India's best birds have to be kept back, and that seriously evens the playing feild over the Indo-Pak frontier. Especially if the reports of Pakistan getting the FD-2000 are correct and India's AWACS get pushed back (ditto for PAF). No the IAF does not enjoy just as big of an advantage as the IN.

Sir,If I can recall what the Colonel said about Airforce its virtually useless in the Himalayas as there are atmost only 30-60 days of good weather in the Himalayas and the pilots must fight the weather as much as their opponents (even during days of good weather).Now the geography of Himalayas is a wall between India and China .The PLA would rather have its conventional missile regiments do the job so neither the PLAAF or IAF would be too much enthusiastic in the Himalayan theatre I think.

In that case will the CCP aim all her conventional missile forces towards India in case of an Indo-pak conflict.

Somebody please correct me If Iam wrong here

Double Edge
27 Jul 11,, 10:27
I have read such threads on WAB religiously. There isn't a point to best of my information that i haven't understood and i am quite confident about that. It's really good I mean.
ok


What was more important for me in the link i posted, what IAF chief has quoted from India's draft nuclear doctrine. He said what is already there and what we all ready know or should be as it is.
What the IAF chief said is a customary rebuttal for our benefit because he was forced to make that reply. I do not see anything more in it certainly nothing of importance. A NFU doctrine is redundant for a deterrence power vis-a-vis another.


Oh...one point, If any possible would be nuclear war is impossible then even conventional war should be impossible. Why? Here are my points.
A conventional war is very possible, if you think it isn't then you've not understood what was discussed here.


The question about how to detect conventional strike or nuclear strike is important given Pakistani rhetoric/hype/propaganda about nuke, their nuclear weapons as corner stone of their security etc. and their nuclear doctrine.
As OOE said we launch on impact, not warning. They can use their BM's or aircraft with conventional warheads.


The conventional strike via BM's or F16s (they are capable to do, not bluff) can be easily mistaken as a nuclear strike. The way Pakistanis are selling their nuclear bluff is reducing Indian nuclear strike threshold, not opposite.
There is no question of anything being mistaken. They launch, we observe & vice versa. The moment a nuke goes off the picture changes. The working assumption is they will be conventional. Both sides know this and will continue with operations.


I would say that BMs or using F16s as method of delivering conventional strike is a dangerous bet for Pakistan as well. Therefore investing heavily in BM technology is a waste or non starter?
No, it isn't because one day they hope to stick a nuke on it. It doesn't change anything we discussed btw here, 'deterreence is not warfighting' still holds because it assumes the worst case already that is to say their nukes are operational and even if they have a fuly working triad.


Now what we or you people have discussed here is well thought off but one thing is missing that is heat of the real war. If both have duds but they have restored to targeting each other's cities with conventional BM packages or even cruise missiles (nuclear capable as boasted by Pakistan). What would be the response of American battle group witnessing the war with endo/exo atmospheric blips on their own radars.
If it remains conventional and chances are good that it will, i think they would give us a little time to have some fun then put a stop to it.


I think with this logic nuclear deterrence should be no war fighting; both nuclear and conventional?
Wrong, you've not got it. 'Deterrence not warfighting' will only stop nuclear war, not conventional or cross-border terrorism.

Cactus
27 Jul 11,, 12:49
It depends on what the objective is. Out of curiosity, if the point is to punish Pak for militant camps, what about a naval blockade? Something along the lines of Operation Python in '71. Once the oil starts drying up, from that point it reaches to which government outlasts the pressure; GoI facing international pressure, or Pak facing domestic pressure. Strike PAF's assets aswell. Is that not more feasible than a land assault? Also, less of an incentive to push for the nuke as their territorial integrity will be intact.

Destruction of the Karachi Port will be tantamount to economic strangulation (http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/ArticleByAdmAP03aug10.pdf):


In elaboration of the last statement, he (Kidwai, Director of Pak SPD) outlined four scenarios which have now come to be known as the “Red Lines”:

• India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory.
• India destroys a large part either of its land or air forces.
• India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan.
• India pushes Pakistan into political destabilization or creates a large scale internal subversion in Pakistan.

Cactus
27 Jul 11,, 12:54
Boom. A tac nuke strike to destroy the bridge head.For the world,the fate of the country at stake and purely a defensive action in own territory! A demo stike?

No, sir, to understand a Pakistani demonstration-of-will think along the lines of the Sehjra Option (as posited by Col Ali at IDSA). The premise of the option makes no sense to me, but then again much of Indo-Pak relations makes no sense to me either.

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 16:04
Destruction of the Karachi Port will be tantamount to economic strangulation (http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/ArticleByAdmAP03aug10.pdf):

Cactus, am aware of that, but someone has to give them that option and see how they proceed with it. Economic strangulation, or total destruction? The fact that they were playing around with a demo strike means they are not too enthusiastic about total destruction either. So, I would say go for the economic strangulation and dare the Pakistanis to press the nuke option. India can call out their bluff on that one.

Cactus
27 Jul 11,, 17:19
Tronic,

IIRC Col Ali is Indian Army and a scholar at IDSA... and he is projecting a hypothetical option the Paks may use. AFAIK, the Paks have given no indication that they want to do a demonstration-of-will in the run-up to hostilities.

Disclaimer: I am naturally prejudiced to believe that the Paks will strike first, and try to strike hard and strike deep into India (a la OP Chengiz Khan in '71, with nukes); so such demo-strikes or the RAND-proposed defensive strikes on Pak soil make no sense to me. India's only margin-of-error is the difference between what the Paks want to do versus what they can actually do plus what India can do to frustrate them (OP CK was modeled after OP Focus, outcome was very different).

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 17:27
India has fewer modern fighters than China so you might want to recheck your numbers.

Depends on what you consider modern. A PLAAF J-11 has more or less the same capabilities as an Indian Bison.


India's strategic problem vs Pakistan is China and to a lesser extent the US. If both are wanting to put pressure on India to back off the Taiwan strait is a non-issue during the crisis. This lets China demonstrate and forces an Indian counter, sure China might be willing to fight India to the last Pakistani, but then again she might be willing to fight India to a few less Chinese as well. India has to keep a certain number of birds east away from Pakistan just in case, the bigger the Chinese demonstration the more birds get held back.

Yet this Chinese threat never once stopped the IA from rolling into East Pakistan; nor did a USN carrier group force it to turn back. And that was a time the US was begging China to intervene against India. What is so different now?


At any rate at least a third of India's best birds have to be kept back, and that seriously evens the playing feild over the Indo-Pak frontier. Especially if the reports of Pakistan getting the FD-2000 are correct and India's AWACS get pushed back (ditto for PAF). No the IAF does not enjoy just as big of an advantage as the IN.

India has permanent squadrons deployed on the China front, has been the case since '62. It does not need to divert anything extra; no one is going to try to punch through the Himalayas without bleeding heavily.

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 17:43
Tronic,

IIRC Col Ali is Indian Army and a scholar at IDSA... and he is projecting a hypothetical option the Paks may use. AFAIK, the Paks have given no indication that they want to do a demonstration-of-will in the run-up to hostilities.

Disclaimer: I am naturally prejudiced to believe that the Paks will strike first, and try to strike hard and strike deep into India (a la OP Chengiz Khan in '71, with nukes); so such demo-strikes or the RAND-proposed defensive strikes on Pak soil make no sense to me. India's only margin-of-error is the difference between what the Paks want to do versus what they can actually do plus what India can do to frustrate them (OP CK was modeled after OP Focus, outcome was very different).

Cactus, Which Pak general would be stupid enough to believe that if he Nuke strikes India first, he would have taken out India's capability to strike back? Unless they truly believe that, as they did during Op Chengiz Khan, I don't believe their nuclear red lines are as low as they say they are. Its a bluff.

Double Edge
27 Jul 11,, 17:47
Cactus, am aware of that, but someone has to give them that option and see how they proceed with it. Economic strangulation, or total destruction? The fact that they were playing around with a demo strike means they are not too enthusiastic about total destruction either. So, I would say go for the economic strangulation and dare the Pakistanis to press the nuke option. India can call out their bluff on that one.
They'll hit us conventionally. I'd imagine they go with something that will scare the civvies. Because the civvies control the govt. If you think terrorists are bad just think what trained pro's can do. Lots of options for them there. How's about what Saddam did to Israel in the first gulf war. Oh each time they landed they wondered whether there were any chemicals in them.

And then say, the first one was conventional but the next one won't be. Course a bluff, but i bet that message will get the desired attention.

This conflict will not be restricted to the borders it could go beyond.

Now how do we respond. Remember its all conventional.

I still want to know what the strategic goal of blockading Pakistan is ?

Punishment for militant camps is kinda futile. They'll just reconstitute them back afterwards. Then what do we do. How effective were we. So this is a useless goal to aim for. Has to be something more concrete.

The problem with your scenario is our repsonse is entirely dependent on what the cassus belli was and it will dictate our response.

Tronic
27 Jul 11,, 17:52
They'll hit us conventionally. I'd imagine they go with something that will scare the civvies. Because the civvies control the govt. If you think terrorists are bad just think what trained pro's can do. Lots of options for them there. How's about what Saddam did to Israel in the first gulf war. Oh each time they landed they wondered whether there were any chemicals in them.

And then say, the first one was conventional but the next one won't be. Course a bluff, but i bet that message will get the desired attention.

This conflict will not be restricted to the borders it could go beyond.

Now how do we respond. Remember its all conventional.

I still want to know what the strategic goal of blockading Pakistan is ?

Punishment for militant camps is kinda futile. They'll just reconstitute them back afterwards. Then what do we do. How effective were we. So this is a useless goal to aim for. Has to be something more concrete.

The problem with your scenario is our repsonse is entirely dependent on what the cassus belli was and it will dictate our response.

You believe that the civilian response to such strikes will be to make amendments with Pakistan?

zraver
27 Jul 11,, 18:45
Depends on what you consider modern. A PLAAF J-11 has more or less the same capabilities as an Indian Bison.

stress on less..... The Mig 21 is a good bird but old and worn out with limited range, armament and all weather capability. Her nose is too small for a radar really capable of allowing true BVR combat or all weather operations. Also how modern is India's supply of AAM's? The Astra isn't in service yet so I am guessing its older Soviet and western kit that is likely near the end of its shelf life. Not so with the Chinese missiles.


Yet this Chinese threat never once stopped the IA from rolling into East Pakistan; nor did a USN carrier group force it to turn back. And that was a time the US was begging China to intervene against India. What is so different now?

Oil, economic access, and global image- India is now a modern up and coming global power. Any serious chill and attendent delay will cost her far more lives (not raised from poverty) than Pakistan ever can via jihadist attacks. India is in a dangerous place right now and will be until her economy is fully meshed globally say 10-20 years. Once she becomes a true industrialized state and/or gets a P5+ seat then she is sanction proof but until then she remains vulnerable.


India has permanent squadrons deployed on the China front, has been the case since '62. It does not need to divert anything extra; no one is going to try to punch through the Himalayas without bleeding heavily.

And China has known about those squadrons since 62, not hard to scramble up an overmatch. Because lets face it, China has claims on AP and part of Kashmir. China also needs to make sure the last pakistani doesn't bleed- at least not to death. A dead horse is a dead horse not a future tool. A victorious or moderately chastized Pakistan is good for China's strategic picture- a humilated Pakistan is not.

nvishal
27 Jul 11,, 19:37
I am naturally prejudiced to believe that the Paks will strike first, and try to strike hard and strike deep into India (a la OP Chengiz Khan in '71, with nukes); so such demo-strikes or the RAND-proposed defensive strikes on Pak soil make no sense to me.
I believe in cost-benefit. The primary need is to survive.

If the west does come in to take control of their manhood, they'll give it away without a fight. Refusal to do so will get the ruling class convicted and on the run. If they choose to co-operate, they choose to survive. And rule pakistan.

Some form of pakistan will still exist if and when it splinters.

Till recently, I believed they'll go out guns blazing which was a very illogical assessment. Now I believe they'll broker a deal in the end. It is what they did and how they survived until they came out guns blazing in 1857. It is why they choose to settle with a moth eaten pakistan instead of no pakistan at all.

Double Edge
27 Jul 11,, 19:55
You believe that the civilian response to such strikes will be to make amendments with Pakistan?
Hehe, i don't know. Could easily backfire :biggrin:

Am not sure what goal a blockade would serve however ?

Its an invitation to a fight.

Tronic
28 Jul 11,, 02:09
stress on less..... The Mig 21 is a good bird but old and worn out with limited range, armament and all weather capability. Her nose is too small for a radar really capable of allowing true BVR combat or all weather operations.

Point I was trying to make is that even a Bison can stack up against a J-11 in some important aspects such as BVR engagements. You are only taking the airframes to count, not the avionics of the planes nor their weapons packages.



Also how modern is India's supply of AAM's? The Astra isn't in service yet so I am guessing its older Soviet and western kit that is likely near the end of its shelf life. Not so with the Chinese missiles.

zrav, the IAF wouldn't spend billions upgrading its birds (with avionics and new weapons suites) and not buy weapons for them. Indian Mirages alone, after their 2000-5 upgrade, outclass most of the birds PLAAF can put up in the air.

Ofcourse, all this is aside of the fact that the PLAAF is shaped on a totally different doctrine. It is easier to pull away planes from the Taiwan strait, but how do you convert aircraft which are primarily designed for an anti-shipping role to try and fight for air dominance over a foreign country not only going up against more advanced birds but also slugging it out against an AD network? PLAAF is not a major threat for the IAF, and nor do they intend to be. It is the Chinese conventional missile batteries which are the threat.



Oil, economic access, and global image- India is now a modern up and coming global power. Any serious chill and attendent delay will cost her far more lives (not raised from poverty) than Pakistan ever can via jihadist attacks. India is in a dangerous place right now and will be until her economy is fully meshed globally say 10-20 years. Once she becomes a true industrialized state and/or gets a P5+ seat then she is sanction proof but until then she remains vulnerable.

We totally agree here. I think the Indian leadership realizes this quite well too.



And China has known about those squadrons since 62, not hard to scramble up an overmatch.

That overmatch didn't materialize in '67 (Nathu La clash and Chola incident). Nor did it materialize in 1987, which was the closest they ever got to war since '62. Infact, I think it was the IAF and IA which scrambled up an overmatch in '87, not China.


Because lets face it, China has claims on AP and part of Kashmir. China also needs to make sure the last pakistani doesn't bleed- at least not to death. A dead horse is a dead horse not a future tool. A victorious or moderately chastized Pakistan is good for China's strategic picture- a humilated Pakistan is not.

True, yet history tells us a different story. China has claims on AP, yet India granted full statehood to AP in '87 and was fully willing to go to war with China over it. After initial military posturing, China backed down. Ofcourse, the Chinese have since than dramatically increased their infrastructure on the LAC, so I'm not saying that the IA can repeat its quick airborne deployments against the Chinese as it did in '87; but it is a back and fourth game. Internally there is much noise about the Chinese logistical improvements along the LAC, and now you see the same going on on the Indian side.

btw, China already holds that part of Kashmir (Aksai Chin), it is India which has a claim on it.

Tronic
28 Jul 11,, 02:10
Am not sure what goal a blockade would serve however ?

Its an invitation to a fight.

Economic punishment.

And as for invitation to a fight, it depends on perception. Why is Pakistan's proxy war not an invitation to a fight?

Double Edge
28 Jul 11,, 11:16
Economic punishment.
And how long does it have to go on for ?

Look at Libya or Iran or Saddam, how many years did it require for sanctions to punish those countries economically.

We would not have more than a few weeks, so its not going to do much punishment.


And as for invitation to a fight, it depends on perception.
From an intl law pov, a blockade of another country is an act of war. Especially when there are zero disputes between us over territory where the blockade would ensue.


Why is Pakistan's proxy war not an invitation to a fight?
Proxy wars are indirect, a blockade is direct unless we get somebody else to do it for us. Proxy war these days is nothing in comparison to the 90s. It blew up big time then. what was the result for Pakistan, nothing, we countered it in time.

Tronic
28 Jul 11,, 18:13
And how long does it have to go on for ?

Look at Libya or Iran or Saddam, how many years did it require for sanctions to punish those countries economically.

We would not have more than a few weeks, so its not going to do much punishment.

What those nations have in abundance is oil, which Pakistan does not have. Any blockade will hurt Pakistan badly. And the blockade does not need to go on for too long. A few weeks is more than enough to dent Pak economy. Than pull back. If Pakistan continues its terror policy, blockade again and pull back after a week or two. Point is that Pakistani people should realize that their government's policy against India will have repercussions for them. Right now, they do not realize this and continue to fund terror organizations (government aside, the people themselves donate money to terror groups for the "Kashmir Jihad"). So they should feel some punishment for their actions.



From an intl law pov, a blockade of another country is an act of war. Especially when there are zero disputes between us over territory where the blockade would ensue.

It is an act of war, no doubt. Do we have a casus belli for war? Yes.


Proxy wars are indirect, a blockade is direct unless we get somebody else to do it for us. Proxy war these days is nothing in comparison to the 90s. It blew up big time then. what was the result for Pakistan, nothing, we countered it in time.

Well, that is India's response to it. If India showed more intolerance for proxy wars, Pakistan would need to recalculate their strategy. How do you think China would response to a proxy war?

Double Edge
28 Jul 11,, 20:15
What those nations have in abundance is oil, which Pakistan does not have. Any blockade will hurt Pakistan badly. And the blockade does not need to go on for too long. A few weeks is more than enough to dent Pak economy. Than pull back. If Pakistan continues its terror policy, blockade again and pull back after a week or two. Point is that Pakistani people should realize that their government's policy against India will have repercussions for them. Right now, they do not realize this and continue to fund terror organizations (government aside, the people themselves donate money to terror groups for the "Kashmir Jihad"). So they should feel some punishment for their actions.
How do we interdict internationally flagged ships heading for Karachi ?
Aren't there laws of the sea that the countries concerned could apply on us.

Doesn't Pakistan have a strategic oil reserve. Ideally that should tide them over for a month at least if not longer. China could always help with supplies via Iran.

They will throw everything they can at the blockade. So we will have to defend the ships. How many ships are you willing to lose in this exercise :)


It is an act of war, no doubt. Do we have a casus belli for war? Yes.
Depends on the attack. An attack with thousands of casualties is a bigger argument than one in the low hundreds. Though given we did not respond last time some would say we don't quite have to meet that criteria.

One thing i did not understand about 26/11 is how likely it is that another can occur. What are the circumstances that allowed such an attack to happen. yes, we can tighten things up on our end but there still has to be somebody on their end that gives the green light. The impression i'm left with is that its low cost, and easy, that it can certainly happen again. Is this true though ?


Well, that is India's response to it. If India showed more intolerance for proxy wars, Pakistan would need to recalculate their strategy.
Or we could show that they cannot prevail as we've done in the past. Thing is there is more than one kind of response available. Do they seriously think they can try what they did in the 90s' ? doubt it. Where else are going to try ? can't think of any other place.

Terror attacks is about it.


How do you think China would response to a proxy war?
Don't know. when was the last time they responded to such an event. There is '62 but thats a bit fuzzy.

Tronic
29 Jul 11,, 05:52
DE, since the topic is drifting away from the nuclear response angle, I've PM'ed you my response.

Deltacamelately
29 Jul 11,, 11:28
Disclaimer: I am naturally prejudiced to believe that the Paks will strike first, and try to strike hard and strike deep into India (a la OP Chengiz Khan in '71, with nukes); so such demo-strikes or the RAND-proposed defensive strikes on Pak soil make no sense to me. India's only margin-of-error is the difference between what the Paks want to do versus what they can actually do plus what India can do to frustrate them (OP CK was modeled after OP Focus, outcome was very different).
Cactus,

In the last three days odd, I went through this entire thread and as I enjoyed reading some very interesting perspectives, both from the professionals as well as the others, I was also amused by Mr. Tinus's views. The very assertion that along with the PA, the InA also has operational units tasked and in possesion of tactical nukes makes a very amusing reading. I am not sure what are his sources, but our intel have yet to suggest such. The logic is still not there to suggest that the PA's ORBAT is in place for deep/shallow nuclear strike inside the Indian mainland. They would most probably try conventional salvos, but nukes? In any case, the numbers aren't there yet and I do not believe that they can manage to deploy thousands of CSS-7 type short range misiles against us.

Bhaarat
27 Aug 11,, 14:02
Cactus, am aware of that, but someone has to give them that option and see how they proceed with it. Economic strangulation, or total destruction? The fact that they were playing around with a demo strike means they are not too enthusiastic about total destruction either. So, I would say go for the economic strangulation and dare the Pakistanis to press the nuke option. India can call out their bluff on that one.

In a way the bluff was called during Kargil conflict but one could argue that they might not have had delivery systems ready and components assembled by then.
So another limited conflict (not that I want one) would be sufficient to call the bluff or atleast reduce the threat's credibility. IMO the neighbors real thresh hold would be known then.

Regards,
Virendra

Officer of Engineers
27 Aug 11,, 17:14
And China has known about those squadrons since 62, not hard to scramble up an overmatch. Because lets face it, China has claims on AP and part of Kashmir. China also needs to make sure the last pakistani doesn't bleed- at least not to death. A dead horse is a dead horse not a future tool. A victorious or moderately chastized Pakistan is good for China's strategic picture- a humilated Pakistan is not.My apologies coming back to this late point but the lessons of Sino-VN relationship comes to play here. China does not want a victorious Pakistan. In fact, she wants Pakistan to bleed. A victorious Pakistan would discover just how much more they have in common with the Xinjiang rebels than they do with the Han ruled Beijing.

Vietnam's distaste for China's actions kept Vietnamese hostilities at bay when Hanoi still needed Chinese rise against American bombing. Once the American bombing stopped, Vietnamese military attention turned against the Chinese and her allies.

Officer of Engineers
28 Aug 11,, 03:23
In a way the bluff was called during Kargil conflict but one could argue that they might not have had delivery systems ready and components assembled by then.
So another limited conflict (not that I want one) would be sufficient to call the bluff or atleast reduce the threat's credibility. IMO the neighbors real thresh hold would be known then.

Regards,
VirendraYou only get to bluff once. If you have followed the thread, the deduction has been made that Pakistan holds a deterrence arsenal, not a warfighting one.

ambidex
05 Nov 11,, 04:57
I hope its relevent to this thread.

The Ally From Hell (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/8730/?single_page=true)


But nuclear experts issue a cautionary note: it is not clear that American intelligence can identify the locations of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, particularly after the Abbottabad raid. “Anyone who tells you that they know where all of Pakistan’s nukes are is lying to you,” General James Jones, President Obama’s first national-security adviser, has said, according to a source who heard him say it. (When asked by the authors of this article about his statement, General Jones issued a “no comment.”) Another American former official with nuclear expertise says, “We don’t even know, on any given day, exactly how many weapons they have. We can get within plus or minus 10, but that’s about it.”

Pakistan’s military chiefs are aware that America’s military has developed plans for an emergency nuclear-disablement operation in their country, and they have periodically threatened to ally themselves with China, as a way to undercut U.S. power in South Asia. In a recent statement quite obviously meant for American ears, Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, described the Pakistani-Chinese relationship as “higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, and sweeter than honey.” But China, too, is worried about Pakistan’s stability, and has recently alleged that Pakistan has harbored Uighur separatists operating in western China. According to American sources, China has, in secret talks with the U.S., reached an understanding that, should America decide to send forces into Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, China would raise no objections. (An Obama-administration spokesperson had no comment.)