Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear*strike

**Yusuf** · 25 Jun 12,, 16:31

I wrote this on my blog some time back. Got the Colonels comments in PM exchange. Thought I'd put it up for all.

____________

India’s stated nuclear doctrine is that it’s “deterrent” is a no first use and for inflicting unacceptable damage in retaliatory strikes.

I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

Pakistans doctrine calls for use of nuclear weapons when
1) it looses a major chunk of its territory.
2) it looses a major chunk of its armed forces
3) there is severe economic and political hardship caused by ways of blockade.

Consider an all out war between India and Pakistan. Considering the above, it’s most likely to use nuclear weapons when Indian armed forces capture cities like Lahore, destroy a major portion of the Pakistani fighting force.

In this scenario, pakistan has lost already lost the war and our troops are already in control of a lot of Pakistani territory. We cannot nuke our own forces.

In the scenario that Paksitan goes in for a first strike without any provocation or way below its threshold, India should still not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

India should come out with political and military goals for the next war which is likely to happen in the future.

Political goals.

India has to dismember Pakistan. We know of Sindh, Baloch, Pakhtun and Balwaristan movements.

If Pakistan has already gone nuclear and say destroyed Delhi and mumbai, it gives Indian forces free license to use disproportionate fire power to subdue, kill any opposition that comes in its way and together with local sympathetic forces, help them break away from the current republic of Pakistan as it stands. It should install regimes inimical to it and act as guarantor of future security. This means cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there. Again any opposition can be brutally suppressed as we have already suffered population losses due to **** strike.

Military Objective.

Complete destruction of Paksitans war fighting capabilities. We capture/destroy their air assets and naval assets. With the break up of Sindh and Balocbistan, these assets can be provided to the new states under Indian protection.

There is the china factor in all this India clearly has to use the nuclear first strike threat against china for any interference and since we have already suffered a nuclear strike, it will not be prudent for china to interfere as it will have more to lose than India.

India retaliating in a “glass making” contest in a tit for tat attack will not help long term goals. We can kill those against us with guns and with all the brutality without bothering about human rights as we have already suffered population losses.

An Indian response to **** nuke attack really does not have to be nuclear.

Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike | Sarvatra Vijay

**Double Edge** · 25 Jun 12,, 17:37

it would seem the rationale for

Originally Posted by Yusuf

An Indian response to **** nuke attack really does not have to be nuclear.

Is really..

There is the china factor in all this India clearly has to use the nuclear first strike threat against china for any interference and since we have already suffered a nuclear strike, it will not be prudent for china to interfere as it will have more to lose than India.

Our nukes cannot be used to deter any interference. They are used to deter Chinese nukes against us as are Chinese nukes to deter any nuke attack on themselves.

If the Chinese respond in conventional manner then we will have to do the same. What will be the objective of such an interference. If its not directed at taking over New Delhi or occupying large tracts of land, then our nuclear bluff 'for any interference' will not work with the Chinese.

However there is still a quandary to solve in your scenario of all out war accompanied with a Pak first strike..

In this scenario, pakistan has lost already lost the war and our troops are already in control of a lot of Pakistani territory. We cannot nuke our own forces.

cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there.

Its clear here that the Pak deterrent failed to prevent an all out war. Our deterrent will not stop a Pak nuke because they have nothing to lose at this point. So we would have to be out of our frickin' minds to take a lot of Pakistani territory.

An alternative scenario is Pak launches and we march in as a result because 'We have already suffered population losses due to **** strike.' This means our deterrent failed to protect us from a Pak nuke.

If both our deterrents are deemed to be effective there should be no chance of an all out war to begin with. Its out of the question and is what i would consider the major flaw in the scenario. The most we can expect is a short conventional border war or limited surgical strikes and nothing more. Another flaw is that it assumes that Pak + India's nukes can be used as an offensive weapon. Not the case.

To put it another way, for your scenario to work requires the successive failures of the deterrents of three countries in tandem.

**Officer of Engineers** · 25 Jun 12,, 19:51

Originally Posted by Yusuf

India’s stated nuclear doctrine is that it’s “deterrent” is a no first use and for inflicting unacceptable damage in retaliatory strikes.

I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

The more I think about this, the more I find it extremely unlikely.

First some clarifications are in order. Being an outsider, I have absolutely no say in Indian decision making. Therefore, I have no dog in "this India should do this/should not do that" fight. I'm merely trying to understand it ... which is hard enough to do but has anyone tried to explain "Deterrence is not warfighting" to a fanboy?

That being said, this is not a plausible scenario mainly because it has not come from Indian military circles. Now, I don't doubt that they have such a contingency but they're not training for it. More than that, I have seen zero indications that India is prepared to absorb a nuke.

To not retaliate would have to imply that you can keep absorbing whatever the Pakistanis throw at you. I just can't see it. There's no civil defence drills. No civil defence planing. And most certainly no exercises whatsoever about absorbing a nuke strike.

I don't see that prep work but then, I still can't figure out why Chinese boomers go on patrol without nukes.

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 09:53

My Two cents. So far, Pakistanis have successfully managed to blackmail us with nuke strikes. But I don't think anybody has really thought about what to do if they finally decide to nuke us. I sort of agree with Yusuff.

Why nuke them back? Occupy Pakistan, castrate the men and take the women to our "harems". Rename Islamabad as New Delhi and Karachi as Mumbai. Turn their mosques into our temples. Relocate "Wagah" to Afghanistans border. In short, just Go "medieval" on them. Announce this as Pakistan centric nuclear policy. Lets see, if Pakistanis would ever mention "nuke strikes" again.

**Double Edge** · 26 Jun 12,, 10:57

Originally Posted by hammer

My Two cents. So far, Pakistanis have successfully managed to blackmail us with nuke strikes. But I don't think anybody has really thought about what to do if they finally decide to nuke us. I sort of agree with Yusuff.

Our arsenal is supposed to deter a strike from any of the P5. Therefore how can Pak 'finally decide to nuke us ' presumably as an offensive or first strike. It implies our deterrent no longer works.

Or to put it another way the person asking the question does not believe 'minimum credible deterrent' can work. So far i found this is a belief in Israel.

It implies that the nuke key holders are inherently irrational. In which case what good are nukes at all as they cannot prevent war, just make it more worse.

Accidental launch & irrational state actors are key arguments used by the disarmament lobby that would like to see ZERO nukes everywhere.

Originally Posted by hammer

Why nuke them back? Occupy Pakistan, castrate the men and take the women to our "harems". Rename Islamabad as New Delhi and Karachi as Mumbai. Turn their mosques into our temples. Relocate "Wagah" to Afghanistans border. In short, just Go "medieval" on them. Announce this as Pakistan centric nuclear policy. Lets see, if Pakistanis would ever mention "nuke strikes" again.

Cheaper and less risky than what you described here.

Do we really ever want to occupy that country at all ? at the cost of Delhi and/or Bombay.

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 13:31

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Our arsenal is supposed to deter a strike from any of the P5.

In the current scenario, the P5 have no reason to nuke us. And even if they strike us, how many of those countries are within our range? two ? three?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Therefore how can Pak 'finally decide to nuke us ' presumably as an offensive or first strike. It implies our deterrent no longer works.
Or to put it another way the person asking the question does not believe 'minimum credible deterrent' can work. So far i found this is a belief in Israel.
It implies that the nuke key holders are inherently irrational. In which case what good are nukes at all as they cannot prevent war, just make it more worse.
Accidental launch & irrational state actors are key arguments used by the disarmament lobby that would like to see ZERO nukes everywhere.
Cheaper and less risky than what you described here.
Do we really ever want to occupy that country at all ? at the cost of Delhi and/or Bombay.

We don't need a nuclear deterrent against Pakistan. Why do we need a nuke when we can win them in a conventional war. There may be a thousand reasons why we built nukes, but Pakistan definitely isn't one of them. Its the Pakistanis who need a nuke deterrent against us. And they don't have a "no first use" policy.

So if the Pakistanis decide to take us down with them (due to whatever scenario that is possible), they have a hundred plus nukes which they can launch at us. Lets assume they will take out 5-10 cities in the North and Central India. In which case, there is no point in nuking them back! That is what they are expecting us to do. Instead threaten them that they will be our b*tches forever. The next generation of Pakistanis will be Hindus/Sikhs/Jain/Buddhists/whatever. They will be more scared of that they would ever be of death. At least they get an Islamic heaven if they die fighting Kafirs .

I wasn't serious when i mentioned the "solution" above. It was just a whacky "what if" kind of solution.
Not to be taken seriously of course.

**Double Edge** · 26 Jun 12,, 14:56

Originally Posted by hammer

In the current scenario, the P5 have no reason to nuke us. And even if they strike us, how many of those countries are within our range? two ? three?

Chandrayaan-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can deliver a package to the moon and get it to land on the south pole on our own steam. The day isn't far off when we have the capability to target any of the P5. We are well on our way to developing the triad capability our posture dictates. Whether the P5 want to target us or not today is irrelevant, once we have the capability the question is moot.

Originally Posted by hammer

We don't need a nuclear deterrent against Pakistan. Why do we need a nuke when we can win them in a conventional war. There may be a thousand reasons why we built nukes, but Pakistan definitely isn't one of them. Its the Pakistanis who need a nuke deterrent against us. And they don't have a "no first use" policy.

We tested in '74 because Nixon threatened us in 1971. Though the process itself had been in the works decades prior. The goal of our nukes is to deter any nuke power. We tested a second time in '98 to validate that deterrent.

It is better to avoid the possibility of a Pak nuke on any of our cities than to defeat them in a conventional war. By not crossing Pak red lines they have no incentive to unleash their nukes on us. They're not going to lash out on their own without us going there. I don't subscribe to the alarmist stories of non-state actors getting hold of Pak nukes.

Originally Posted by hammer

So if the Pakistanis decide to take us down with them (due to whatever scenario that is possible), they have a hundred plus nukes which they can launch at us. Lets assume they will take out 5-10 cities in the North and Central India. In which case, there is no point in nuking them back! That is what they are expecting us to do. Instead threaten them that they will be our b*tches forever. The next generation of Pakistanis will be Hindus/Sikhs/Jain/Buddhists/whatever. They will be more scared of that they would ever be of death. At least they get an Islamic heaven if they die fighting Kafirs .

What makes you so sure that we even want to occupy & rule their country ?

Isn't it ridiculous to sacrifice 5-10 of our cities for that questionable 'privilege'.

There seem to be some tinges of 'undivided india' yearning in there. You guys in the north suffered a great deal more as a result of partition than those of us in the south. Our land did not get divided the way Punjab did.

Their nukes are to protect their regime from falling, that's the only thing they care about. They could care less what happens to their people after.

Originally Posted by hammer

I wasn't serious when i mentioned the "solution" above. It was just a whacky "what if" kind of solution.
Not to be taken seriously of course.

Fine, only pointing out what i consider to be the flaws in it. Two years back i would not have been able to do so.

If you don't believe in deterrence & rational actors then its possible to come up with any number of wacky as well as alarmist scenarios. From what i have heard & read to date that's the inherent common pattern.

**Yusuf** · 26 Jun 12,, 15:34

DE, the talk is anot about failure of deterrence but the options after a first strike. Objectives of the war, the next war with Pakistan cannot be allowed to end like the previous ones with status quo of the boundaries.

**Double Edge** · 26 Jun 12,, 15:37

Originally Posted by Yusuf

DE, the talk is anot about failure of deterrence but the options after a first strike.

Trouble is what are the actions that lead up to that first strike.

I'm not sure you can seperate it out the way you have and come up with a cookie cutter answer.

And Pak deterrence has failed as they would not have had to resort to a first strike to begin with isn't it.

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Jun 12,, 15:39

Hehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!! Medic!!!! I crack a rib!!! Hehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!

<- Hammer's avatar

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Jun 12,, 15:42

Originally Posted by Yusuf

DE, the talk is anot about failure of deterrence but the options after a first strike. Objectives of the war, the next war with Pakistan cannot be allowed to end like the previous ones with status quo of the boundaries.

I agree with DE. If the InA embarks on the campaign you speak of, it immediately invites a Pakistani nuke strike. It's not a question of what to do after a Pakistani nuke strike. Your campaign invites it. No Indian strategic planner would fail to take that into account.

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 16:46

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Chandrayaan-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We can deliver a package to the moon and get it to land on the south pole on our own steam. The day isn't far off when we have the capability to target any of the P5. We are well on our way to developing the triad capability our posture dictates. Whether the P5 want to target us or not today is irrelevant, once we have the capability the question is moot.

Ahh... you mean the PSLV's and GSLV's. Okay you gotta point. Let say we do have the capability to target P5. I don't think India is going to invest heavily in targeting countries way off our "strategic radar", if you what I mean. Not in the near future atleast.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

We tested in '74 because Nixon threatened us in 1971. Though the process itself had been in the works decades prior. The goal of our nukes is to deter any nuke power. We tested a second time in '98 to validate that deterrent.
It is better to avoid the possibility of a Pak nuke on any of our cities than to defeat them in a conventional war. By not crossing Pak red lines they have no incentive to unleash their nukes on us. They're not going to lash out on their own without us going there. I don't subscribe to the alarmist stories of non-state actors getting hold of Pak nukes.

Exactly, the process started long before that. And I didn't claim non-state actors scenario as well.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

What makes you so sure that we even want to occupy & rule their country ?
Isn't it ridiculous to sacrifice 5-10 of our cities for that questionable 'privilege'.
There seem to be some tinges of 'undivided india' yearning in there. You guys in the north suffered a great deal more as a result of partition than those of us in the south. Our land did not get divided the way Punjab did.
Their nukes are to protect their regime from falling, that's the only thing they care about. They could care less what happens to their people after.

Okay, lets get some things straight. We don't want to occupy or rule their country. We really don't want to lose 5-10 of our cities. I am not from North. Don't have dreams about 'undivided India'. I really don't buy into their sob story that they have nukes, only to deter big bad India from clobbering them. Look at them mass producing nukes like Japanese cars.

Excuse me if I don't buy the "protecting the regime from falling" theory. They have very strong feelings about Islam, muslims, ummah.. etc etc. Their faith is the one and only reason for their existence as a separate sovereign country. They would've been like Syria/Egypt/NK, if they had had the "save the regime" mentality. They of course care very much about the existence of the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

If in case such a scenario arises where they attack/threaten us with nukes, then we have to retaliate/threaten to cause "unacceptable damages" to them. Why give them the satisfaction of dying a "martyrs" death? What is unacceptable to them ? A "Hindu" Pakistan!!! lol.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Fine, only pointing out what i consider to be the flaws in it. Two years back i would not have been able to do so.
If you don't believe in deterrence & rational actors then its possible to come up with any number of wacky as well as alarmist scenarios. From what i have heard & read to date that's the inherent common pattern.

I really would like to believe you. I would like Pakistan to be a rational actor and a responsible nuclear power.

Kashmir, Terrorist attacks in India, Kargil, 26/11.. etc etc.. Yeah right "rational actor" my ass. They are very aggressive/deluded and believe in some country on God's mission crap. They still boast that they defeated "Atheist" Soviet Union. All the country needs is a closet "religious nut job" as the Army chief. Our worst nightmares would come true.

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 16:48

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!! Medic!!!! I crack a rib!!! Hehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!

I take it you like Mr.Bean Laden. :-D

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 16:53

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I agree with DE. If the InA embarks on the campaign you speak of, it immediately invites a Pakistani nuke strike. It's not a question of what to do after a Pakistani nuke strike. Your campaign invites it. No Indian strategic planner would fail to take that into account.

Sir,
Shouldn't we also consider other possibilities?
1. US gets pissed off, decides to take out Pakistani nukes. Pakistanis decide to lob a few towards east and go down with a bang.
2. Pakistan army gets a new chief who believes in the ways of bin laden.
3. Pakistan fails as a nation and decides to give away nukes to their terrorist pets. Nothing to lose scenario.

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 ?

**hammer** · 26 Jun 12,, 17:20

Originally Posted by Double Edge

It is better to avoid the possibility of a Pak nuke on any of our cities than to defeat them in a conventional war. By not crossing Pak red lines they have no incentive to unleash their nukes on us. They're not going to lash out on their own without us going there. I don't subscribe to the alarmist stories of non-state actors getting hold of Pak nukes.

Sorry, I missed this one. They are not going to lash out without us going there? Yeah.. they haven't fired nukes on us, but have done everything a terrorist state can possibly do.