Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

OoE Reply

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I am back next fanboy to get out of line gets a week's free vacation from WAB....


any takers?

[Double Edge]

Z, about time you made an appearance :)

Give us your thoughts on the last five pages.

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Antimony Reply

"...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.