Thread: Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear*strike

Originally Posted by Double Edge

As to why do they need as many ? Planning for overseas deployment ?

To the highest bidder maybe.

Its the primary objective that every nuke power cares about. Preservation of C&C is paramount, everything else is secondary.

USSR had more nukes then any other country. How it helped the regime?

They only time they threaten us if we cross their red lines.

Which are not hard to cross given the hostility towards India they support (terrorists for one).

Kashmir & Terrorist attacks in India as opposed to people in uniform like in the past ? Why rely on militants & kids when they could use pro's. They used to start wars, then they tried their hand at insurgency, then a border incident and now they are reduced to terrorist attacks. Why ?

What possible reason(s) can we ascribe to this reduction of ambition.

They lost in the past and are seeking a way where they can win or where the defeat won't be so obvious? Just a guess.
You can't retaliate since you will cross their red lines. Must be disturbing.

Otherwise Pakistan to date is very rational.

I couldn't draw that conclusion from the posts around.

Originally Posted by Doktor

To the highest bidder maybe.

No, Pakistan can never sell them to anybody.

How about renting them out, just pay what they ask for. Then station them in countries with dual key arrangements like in the cold war. How much hard currency would that bring in. How would that change the geopolitical scene. Will Pakistan be allowed to do so.

They're making in excess of what they require so there must be a plan.

Originally Posted by Doktor

USSR had more nukes then any other country. How it helped the regime?

Haha, so just as the USSR collapsed, so can Pakistan or any other nuke power for that matter.

This is an internal thing though isn't it. Nothing to do with foreigners taking over.

But in this context now everybody has an interest in not having Pakistan collapse. How fortunate. One more layer of deterrence added gratis..

This is the best argument i can think to counter the 'failed state' theory that was popular a few years ago. That Pakistan is failing, is going to fail & will fail. Stories about how the US had plans to go in and defuse their nukes. But its simpler & cheaper to just subsidise them so they never fail. Therefore the regime still survives or at least parts of it that control their nukes.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Which are not hard to cross given the hostility towards India they support (terrorists for one).

Depends on the response.

Originally Posted by Doktor

They lost in the past and are seeking a way where they can win or where the defeat won't be so obvious? Just a guess.
You can't retaliate since you will cross their red lines. Must be disturbing.

Very and at low cost. The cost to them decreased over time. Its a risky game though.

Originally Posted by Doktor

I couldn't draw that conclusion from the posts around.

What posts ? Go ahead and make the case that they are irrational.

I see them as very resourceful, they made themselves useful in the cold war and in GWOT.

What is their next gravy train , i wonder.

Originally Posted by hammer

I agree that these scenarios are far fetched and may never happen. The question is what should be the Indian response if and when Pakistanis decide to go nuclear ?

One thing I JUST learned about Indian strategic thinking. Don't try to cover everything. The Pakistanis cannot do a decapitating first strike, so don't worry about it. The Chinese can but they don't have a reason to and don't give them a reason to. Enemy specific doctrines rather than a single doctrine to cover everything. Fascinating.

I learned that we did pay some guy to think about how to defeat a Martian/Alien invasion but I can tell you honestly I never heard of it, let alone train to anything this guy came up with. This is along the same lines but with a much lower probability limit. The odds of China doing a decapitating first strike is far far greater than a Klingon invasion.

So, has India consider these possibilities? I'm sure she has. Are they active contingencies? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

We tested in '74 because Nixon threatened us in 1971.

I bet this is another of those ideas you bang your head against the wall getting others to accept. I remember it was Maj DCL and I who came up with it ... and it was such an "A-HA" moment. I'm sure we knock a few socks off the Indian members here until we gone into details. Mao Tse-Tung didn't pissed Indira Ghandi off. Richard Nixon did.

Originally Posted by hammer

Look at them mass producing nukes like Japanese cars.

This got to be taken in context. The Pakistanis are going for smaller but more numerous bombs. Their fissile material production has not gone up and the only way for the numbers that they have is smaller bangs, estimated to be the sub-10kt warheads.

Also to date, I have no seen any evidence that they have moved towards missile mounting warheads. They have publicly stated that they have forgo that development so not to increase tensions. That means that all their warheads are aircraft deliver ... and the limitations that it implies. Now, they may well have moved towards a missile mounted warhead arsenal but to date, we have not seen the fusing development nor the RV development needed.

India, however, is going for such an arsenal. Though we have seen some evidence of it, the open source materials whether this has been achieved is mixed. Therefore, within context, India has to go for bigger bombs simply because she has fewer delivery vehicles.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

No, Pakistan can never sell them to anybody.

How about renting them out, just pay what they ask for. Then station them in countries with dual key arrangements like in the cold war. How much hard currency would that bring in. How would that change the geopolitical scene. Will Pakistan be allowed to do so.

They're making in excess of what they require so there must be a plan.

Pakistan is not USA or USSR from the 60's - politically, economically, or military. Have I missed something?

Haha, so just as the USSR collapsed, so can Pakistan or any other nuke power for that matter.

This is an internal thing though isn't it. Nothing to do with foreigners taking over.

But in this context now everybody has an interest in not having Pakistan collapse. How fortunate. One more layer of deterrence added gratis..

This is the best argument i can think to counter the 'failed state' theory that was popular a few years ago. That Pakistan is failing, is going to fail & will fail. Stories about how the US had plans to go in and defuse their nukes. But its simpler & cheaper to just subsidise them so they never fail. Therefore the regime still survives or at least parts of it that control their nukes.

Reading you one might get an impression there wasn't a regime change in USSR.

Your point was nukes will keep the regime from change?

Depends on the response.

Given the low threshold, what are the available responses except doing nothing?

Very and at low cost. The cost to them decreased over time. Its a risky game though.

So far so good. Until the next game changer. I am sure they will find a way, again.

I see them as very resourceful, they made themselves useful in the cold war and in GWOT.

Cold war is over.
International presence in the region due to GWOT is soon to be over.
Harbored most wanted terrorist on Earth.
They chose to come with unreasonable demands for the withdrawal and got bypassed.
Seems India and China will focus on economy and relax tensions in the border regions.
What strategical value will Pakistan have?

What I don't get and why I see them irrational is, they got so much aid over the years and did nothing to improve the lives of the citizens. Instead they always looked how to inflict pain eastwards.

What is their next gravy train , i wonder.

You said they are about to explore the possibilities with their nukes.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Pakistan is not USA or USSR from the 60's - politically, economically, or military. Have I missed something?

If the destination country accepts then what can US or anybody else do about it. I've learnt here that NPT signatories are allowed nukes to be stationed on their territory.

Or are you referring to capability to deliver those nukes, Pakistan already has IRBMs. For countries that have no chance of developing their own and want to have them. This could be an option.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Reading you one might get an impression there wasn't a regime change in USSR.

Your point was nukes will keep the regime from change?

No, that nukes are to protect a regime from falling to a foreign force. That's it.

Pakistan has undergone internal change on a regular basis from dictatorship into democracy and back.

There will not be some arab spring like revolution there as they are more developed and past that.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Given the low threshold, what are the available responses except doing nothing?

Anything that has a low risk of escalating into a war.

This point was brought up soon after 26/11 but the PM shot it down.

Originally Posted by Doktor

So far so good. Until the next game changer. I am sure they will find a way, again.

Agree

Thing is terrorism has sort of petered out. After 26/11 there were one or two small incidents. Its been quiet for so long now that i'm beginning to wonder why that is. Is terrorism as a tactic not been successful in their grand plan. Are they busy with their own problems. Has India stopped giving them reasons to attack us. And so on.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Cold war is over.
International presence in the region due to GWOT is soon to be over.
Harbored most wanted terrorist on Earth.
They chose to come with unreasonable demands for the withdrawal and got bypassed.
Seems India and China will focus on economy and relax tensions in the border regions.
What strategical value will Pakistan have?

Good question

Let's say so long as Iran & US are at loggerheads, Pakistan has a niche.

This is why i'm an ardent supporter of breaking the ice between those two.

Originally Posted by Doktor

What I don't get and why I see them irrational is, they got so much aid over the years and did nothing to improve the lives of the citizens. Instead they always looked how to inflict pain eastwards.

That's not irrational. Just unaccountable. Foreign policy is largely influenced by the Pak Army who do not stand for elections.

They build up the Indian bogey to create domestic support for their policies whose ultimate goal is to keep the army regime in power.

Originally Posted by Doktor

You said they are about to explore the possibilities with their nukes.

maybe or not. It will depend on developments over the next few years. As of now i cannot see anything.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Only question that matters is are we able when required.
Whether we operationalise depends on the environment, fortunately it isn't required to the full extent today but there is no guarantee about the future. We have to develop the potential.

Frankly I have not given much thought in that direction. Do we need an arsenal that covers the whole earth? Maybe strategic experts can answer that. I personally don't see India being that ambitious.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

This question wasn't fully answered in the pak tactical nuke thread.
As to why do they need as many ? Planning for overseas deployment ?
As far as India is concerned, the saving grace is Pakistans will continue to remain a counter value arsenal for a long time to come. They would need several thousand nukes to transition to counter force. They just don't have the fuel for that yet. They are not 'producing nukes like Japanese cars'.
They might have the same amount of nukes we do even a few hundred more, it still does not change the present equation.

Check OOE's post for 'Producing nukes like Japanese cars". They are producing "numerous" tactical warheads. Gives them a wide range of options in logistics, delivery and Targets.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Its the primary objective that every nuke power cares about. Preservation of C&C is paramount, everything else is secondary.
Adding ideological, religious & political layers on top won't change the basics.

That is what motivates them. Ideology and religion has pulled them down to where they are today. Any rational actor would've have given up OBL to the Americans, not protect him secretly. No rational actor would arm Haqqani's against the country that is giving them alms. No rational actor would stage a 26/11 on foreign soil (Abu Jindal's arrest finally proves the active participation of ISI). No country that wants to protect itself would send terrorists to attack a neighbors parliament. What if the target country snaps and decides enough is enough? And decides to finish them no matter what. All their actions have been suicidal. Not self-preserving.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

They only time they threaten us if we cross their red lines.
If we stay well below them then any threats they make are bluffs. Whether we have a leadership that has the stuffing to countenance that is another question entirely.

God knows, we have a million reasons to do just that. Cross their red lines and teach them a lesson, they wouldn't forget in a million years. Their nukes have been saving them their much deserved punishment in our hands. I agree with you. The day we have a leadership that is farsighted and bold enough to call their nuke bluff, we will have peace on sub-continent. Till then they will only mistake our patience for cowardice. Nobody should get carried away because of the lull in terrorist incidents. They have a bigger enemy on their west to consider. Once they leave, the Dhamaka's would start.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

They did not up the ante in Kargil. Disguised their light infantry as irregulars. Why not own up ?
Rational & responsible ? Only rational is necessary.
Kashmir & Terrorist attacks in India as opposed to people in uniform like in the past ? Why rely on militants & kids when they could use pro's. They used to start wars, then they tried their hand at insurgency, then a border incident and now they are reduced to terrorist attacks. Why ?
What possible reason(s) can we ascribe to this reduction of ambition.
All this country on a God's mission is grist for their masses. Colourful PR BS.

You do admit they have not given up their hostility and continuing their attacks in one form or other. That is not lack of ambition, just switching tactics. The point is without respite they are attacking us and training someone to attack us. A country that wants to survive and prosper wont act like this. They have been at war with us since their inception. Their attitude hasn't changed. Example "Ghazwa -E - Hind". It means Plans to conquer and convert the rest of India to Islam or some crap.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

The pope also thinks he had a hand in defeating the Soviets.

Hmmmm..... Not surprising. Religion gets people delusional.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

A religious nut job as army chief is a hypothetical. Whether their army will allow such a situation to develop. I've read reports that they house clean from time to time. To become chief means to have survived through all of them. It's unlikely. Zia is as close as they've come so far, could he be considered as a religious nut job.

Zia used religion to take his fight against India to whole new level. But then so did Jinnah (a secular person), whose rallying point was religion. Their faith unites them against us. Take it away, and they are just Punjabi's, Mirpuri's, Pathan's, Sindhi's and Balochi's. They won't have a reason to attack or be hostile to us.

And Yeah, you are right and thank god for that. But can you guarantee that given the present social environment in Pakistan and constant infiltration of Tablighi's and Jamaati's into Pak army, religious nut job army chief will never become reality?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Otherwise Pakistan to date is very rational.
Our media likes to paint them as if they are some existential threat
A better word to describe the above is perhaps perfidy.

Otherwise ? I appreciate your optimism. They have never been an existential threat to us. But they sure ain't rational. Just wait till after the Americans leave Afghanistan. ;-) . They will take the word rational to a whole new level.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Thing is terrorism has sort of petered out. After 26/11 there were one or two small incidents. Its been quiet for so long now that i'm beginning to wonder why that is. Is terrorism as a tactic not been successful in their grand plan. Are they busy with their own problems. Has India stopped giving them reasons to attack us. And so on.

The third point is pretty interesting! Has India stopped giving them reasons to attack us? Can you elaborate on that.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

One thing I JUST learned about Indian strategic thinking. Don't try to cover everything. The Pakistanis cannot do a decapitating first strike, so don't worry about it. The Chinese can but they don't have a reason to and don't give them a reason to. Enemy specific doctrines rather than a single doctrine to cover everything. Fascinating.
So, has India consider these possibilities? I'm sure she has. Are they active contingencies? I don't think so.

Sir,
I am sure Indian strategic thinking will be evolved and mature and would have appropriate responses for the threats we face. Unlike us fanboys. . But my only grouse is that they haven't found a suitable response for their nuclear blackmail.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

This got to be taken in context. The Pakistanis are going for smaller but more numerous bombs. Their fissile material production has not gone up and the only way for the numbers that they have is smaller bangs, estimated to be the sub-10kt warheads.

Also to date, I have no seen any evidence that they have moved towards missile mounting warheads. They have publicly stated that they have forgo that development so not to increase tensions. That means that all their warheads are aircraft deliver ... and the limitations that it implies. Now, they may well have moved towards a missile mounted warhead arsenal but to date, we have not seen the fusing development nor the RV development needed.

India, however, is going for such an arsenal. Though we have seen some evidence of it, the open source materials whether this has been achieved is mixed. Therefore, within context, India has to go for bigger bombs simply because she has fewer delivery vehicles.

Sir,

So it basically gives them a range of options when it comes to delivery and targets to choose from, but only tactically? They should have reserved a few big ones for the cities as well. or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Let's say so long as Iran & US are at loggerheads, Pakistan has a niche.
This is why i'm an ardent supporter of breaking the ice between those two.

Very good point! I agree 100%. But I don't believe it will happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by hammer

Very good point! I agree 100%. But I don't believe it will happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

Been a long time now. Guess you can wait till November

Originally Posted by hammer

I am sure Indian strategic thinking will be evolved and mature and would have appropriate responses for the threats we face. Unlike us fanboys. . But my only grouse is that they haven't found a suitable response for their nuclear blackmail.

It's only blackmail if you let it. Seriously, is Pakistan going to go nuke over a bunch of baby burners? Just like Cold Start, if your demands are extremely specific backed by extremely specifically stated military actions, ie your punitive expeditions are aimed at the destruction of enemy border camps only ... even if they are defended by the Pakistani Army, then would Pakistani Generals risk their villas over them, especially when they know that you will retreat once you've accomplish your OPOBJS?

Originally Posted by hammer

So it basically gives them a range of options when it comes to delivery and targets to choose from, but only tactically? They should have reserved a few big ones for the cities as well. or am I wrong?

The largest design to date is 12kts. I am not aware of anything bigger. And there are no such thing as tac nukes. And numerous got to be taken in context. We're talking about ~100 nukes, same as India. India may have 10-20 less. Nowhere close to the 1000s of the big 2.

As for going for the cities. Hate to say this but Pakistani planes will get through to one or two, maybe even Dehli. You don't have the planes to maintain a complete net, especially if some of them are hunting in Pakistani skies. And you certainly don't maintain airborne radars 24/7 with their look down technologies.