Exploring Pakistan’s Nuclear Thresholds – Analysis

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.