Deterrence

[nam]

India may abandon its 'no first use' nuclear policy: Expert - PTI

India will not do Counter Strike. It is not pratical, nor will it remove all nukes.

This has been floated to counter Pakis Nasr talk.

If Pakistan plans to use Nasr for a Indian conventional attack, Indian responds.. then Pakis. So why bother go in cycle & about second strike? India might as well tell Pakis, the next time we attack, the gatecrasher will be nukes.

Pakis in turn will stop wasting money on Nasr and start hiding their crown jewels to save them for second strike.

This is the usual mind game.

[Gagan]

Pakistan has a desperate need to refine it N weapons technology, after the failure of its tests. They are desperately looking to China to help them out with this. They are expanding their program to include Poo warheads, even try out boosting them.

We know how to extract tritium from the heavy water irradiated in the CANDU type reactors. Where are the Paks getting it?

Possible tritium extraction plant being built in Kushab
31°59'19.16"N 72°10'20.43"E

[Gagan]

They have a Heavy water plant there as well

31°59'35.49"N 72°11'53.90"E

[krishna_krishna]

Gaganullah, how does DC and Beijing wanted this all along bliss to explain. How does it suit them

[Gagan]

Everyone wants to take out Rogue Pakistan's Nuclear weapons program. That program and nation is an eyesore for a lot of nations
No one wants to bell the cat.

If India bites the bullet due to existential issues, they will all stand aside and happily clap at Pakistan's demise
If Pakistan harrasses India, in the meanwhile, they will all happily clap at india's discomfiture - people like china will actively encourage Pakistan. Make no mistake, China fully understands that the Pak Fauj and Intel agencies ARE sponsoring terrorism in Xinjinag - these whispers have even made it to the Paki talk shows now.

So, if India talks about taking out Pakistan's N weapons capability, or rescinding NFU, there won't be any rudaali anywhere in the world.

[sudeepj]

Chinese perfidy in supporting Pak must be paid back with interest. At an opportune time, India should conduct a second campaign of nuclear tests and position nuclear armed ships in SCS Indo-China Sea (ICS)/Taiwan straits.

[NRao]

India may abandon its 'no first use' nuclear policy: Expert - PTI

Follow on.

Speculation in Washington about nuclear doctrinal changes by India

A day after Business Standard reported a new approach in New Delhi strategic circles to India’s use of nuclear weapons (March 20, “Will India nuke Pakistani cities, or go for its nuclear arsenal?”), the influential Washington D.C. think tank, Carnegie Endowment, discussed the same issue --- the possibility of an Indian “first strike” to defang Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

At the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference on Monday, a prestigious annual event at which important strategic policy chances are often signalled, a discussion took place on whether India was moving away from massive counter-value retaliation (i.e. nuking towns and cities) to counter-force targeting (i.e. nuking enemy nuclear forces and command structures).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, Vipin Narang, outlined a scenario in which a Pakistan-backed terrorist strike on India killed scores of civilians. New Delhi mobilised its three strike corps and attacked Pakistan. With the armour-heavy 21 Corps bludgeoning along, Pakistan ordered a “demonstration” strike with tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) --- its short-range Nasr missile batteries --- as a nuclear warning to India. New Delhi’s response, according to traditional Indian nuclear doctrine would then be “massive counter-value retaliation against Pakistani cities, leaving aside how credible or incredible that might be.”

But then Narang sprung the surprise. “There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first. And that India’s opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off just Nasr batteries in the theatre, but a full ‘comprehensive counterforce strike’ that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in… tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction.”

Narang pointed out that this dramatic change did not surface from “fringe voices”, but from former national security advisor Shivshankar Menon in his new book; and former chief of India’s strategic forces command, Lieutenant General BS Nagal, both of whom have questioned India’s traditional “massive counter-value retaliation”.

Narang pointed to a possible “decoupling” of Indian nuclear strategy vis-a-vis China and Pakistan. While retaining NFU and massive counter-value retaliation against China, New Delhi was considering a disarming counter-force strike against Pakistan.

Also in question was India’s longstanding “no first use” (NFU) policy, with Narang pointing out that it had been questioned at least four times already. First, India’s official nuclear doctrine, published in 2003, officially eroded the sanctity of NFU by invoking nuclear use against chemical or biological weapons. Second, in November, former defence minister Manohar Parrikar stated (later clarified to be in his personal capacity): “India should not declare whether it has a NFU policy”. Third, General Nagal, in his writings questioned the morality of NFU, asking whether it was possible for India’s leadership to accept huge casualties by restraining its hand well knowing that Pakistan was about to use nuclear weapons.

Fourth, Menon undermines NFU’s sanctity with this paragraph in his book: “There is a potential grey area as to when India would use nuclear weapons first against another NWS (nuclear weapons state). Circumstances are conceivable in which India might find it useful to strike first, for instance, against an NWS that had declared it would certainly use its weapons, and if India were certain that adversary’s launch was imminent.”

Said Narang at Carnegie: “Indian leaders can disavow all of this as personal opinions, but when a sitting defence minister, former Strategic Forces commander, and highly respected NSA all question the sanctity of NFU, it all starts to add up.”

Also quoted was Menon’s argument in his book that clearly indicates that strategy has shifted from counter-value targeting to counter-force strikes. Menon refers to counter-value targeting in the past tense, writing: “[T]he logical posture at first was counter-value targeting, or targeting an opponent’s assets, rather than counter-force targeting, which concentrates on the enemy’s military and command structures.”

Menon continues: “There would be little incentive, once Pakistan had taken hostilities to the nuclear level, for India to limit its response, since that would only invite further escalation by Pakistan. India would hardly risk giving Pakistan the chance to carry out a massive nuclear strike after the Indian response to Pakistan using tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons use [or imminent use] would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first strike against Pakistan.”

Bringing these views together, it might not be Pakistan that first resorts to a nuclear strike in South Asia. Rather it could be India, acting pro-actively when it believed Pakistan was about to cross the nuclear threshold.

So far, there has been no reaction from New Delhi. In the past, any questioning of NFU or “massive retaliation” has evoked a swift quasi-official rebuttal.

[RoyG]

If India wants to be a world power, counter force strategy is very stupid. You are risking destruction of entire cities like Mumbai and Delhi in response to a terror attack. There are many other ways to hit Pakistan which are less expensive and far more effective. Simply take the fight to Punjab itself like CIT-X and J did.

Dr. Narang just likes the attention. Unless there is some super duper joint US-Israeli-Indian operation, I highly doubt it will ever be seriously considered.

[ShauryaT]

Nuclear false alarm - Bharat Karnad

The latest edition of the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington that just ended featured American and foreign nuclear specialists chasing, as usual, the elusive nuclear catastrophe they are convinced is round the corner. There was also the obligatory alarm raised about South Asia. This year, the India-Pakistan “nuclear flashpoint” thesis was tweaked to claim that India has abandoned its No First Use (NFU) commitment and adopted a strategy, in case of an “imminent” launch, of a pre-emptive “comprehensive strike” against Pakistan. Such a course is being contemplated, it was argued, to spare the country the “iterative tit-for-tat exchanges” and prevent the “destruction” of Indian cities.

This hair-raising conclusion was not supported by other than extremely flimsy evidence — three unrelated statements by separate persons. Let’s examine and contextualise these statements in turn. The erstwhile defence minister Manohar Parrikar stated not long after taking office that India would “not declare one way or another” if it would use or not use nuclear weapons first. This was said expressly to inject ambiguity of response that is crucial for the credibility of the Indian nuclear posture. This credibility was lost in 1999 when the previous BJP government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee mindlessly made the draft-nuclear doctrine public, and later compounded the problem by replacing “proportional response” in the draft with “massive retaliation”. Incidentally, Parrikar’s avowal was in light of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political decision to not initiate a formal revision of the doctrine promised by the ruling party in its 2014 election manifesto.

The second reference is to the former national security adviser (NSA) Shivshankar Menon’s observation in his recent book that the Indian nuclear strategy has “far greater flexibility than it gets credit for”. The doctrine drafters in the first National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) intended and so shaped the doctrine, especially Section 4, to make it “elastic”, to enable escaping the limitations of “minimum” deterrence imposed by the prime minister in his suo moto statement to Parliament on May 28, 1998, before the constitution of the NSAB. The NFU declaration makes for fine rhetoric, distancing India from the hair-trigger situation Pakistan strives for the world to believe exists in the subcontinent. It is in Pakistan’s interest to talk up Hindu animus and predatory India, because it justifies not just its nuclear arsenal but its emphasis on first use of tactical nuclear weapons. In the event, treating NFU as a conditional constraint is what Menon hints at.

The third piece of proof trotted out is the views of retired Lieutenant General BS Nagal, a former strategic forces command (SFC) commander, particularly his view that a democratically-elected government cannot morally risk the decimation of the Indian people by sticking literally to the NFU pledge. It was during Nagal’s tenure at the SFC, it may be recalled, when the then NSA MK Narayanan publicly revealed that the military was not in the know of nuclear arsenal details and, by implication, that the SFC was not in the nuclear loop. It may therefore be safely deduced that the views Nagal has developed was outside the SFC ambit.

However, certain developments in the nuclear weapons sphere do indeed make possible an Indian first strike. Such as the ongoing process of canisterising Agni missiles, including presumably the 700-km range Agni I meant for the Pakistan and Tibet-Chengdu contingencies. It, in fact, provides the country not only with a capability for launch-on-warning but also for striking pre-emptively should reliable intelligence reveal an adversary’s decision to mount a surprise attack.

Nuclear missiles in hermetically sealed canisters are ready-to-fire weapons and signal an instantaneous retaliatory punch to strongly deter nuclear adventurism. Thus, all nuclear weapon states keep a part of their strategic forces in ready state, there being no guarantees that a confrontation or conflict with another nuclear power will keep to a sub-nuclear script. Having the wherewithal for pre-emptive action and launch-on-warning then is only a reasonable precaution.

Whatever their capabilities to fight nuclear wars, the chances of either India or Pakistan initiating a nuclear exchange for any reason are remote for the very good reason that western governments and analysts rarely acknowledge, because most of them are unaware or wilfully ignore the social context of India-Pakistan tensions, namely, the fact, whether anybody likes it or not, of these South Asian countries being organically linked.

Divided communities, continuing kith and kinship relations, shared religion and culture, mean that the so-called India-Pakistan “wars” are less wars, more “riots” — short periods of hostilities in geographically constrained spaces, hence the famously apt description of these by the late Major General DK Palit, originally of the Baloch Regiment, as “communal riots with tanks”.

[shiv]

Nuclear false alarm - Bharat Karnad

Divided communities, continuing kith and kinship relations, shared religion and culture, mean that the so-called India-Pakistan “wars” are less wars, more “riots” — short periods of hostilities in geographically constrained spaces, hence the famously apt description of these by the late Major General DK Palit, originally of the Baloch Regiment, as “communal riots with tanks”.

Karnad has adopted a known line - that India-Pakistan tensions are like glorified communal riots. Sometimes they occur within India and sometimes at the border with Pakistan. In this article he uses this line of argument to falsify western nuclear scaremongering. Unfortunately this is only a rhetorical argument that misses the elephant in the room just as pathetically as the western commentators that Karnad is trying to out-argue. That elephant in the room is Islam. The west hasn't found out yet. Neither has Karnad, it appears.

[Kashi]

The west hasn't found out yet. Neither has Karnad, it appears.

Not found out or refused to acknowledge?

[shiv]

^^IMO the same thing.

[SSridhar]

Nuclear false alarm - Bharat Karnad

. . . . most of them are unaware or wilfully ignore the social context of India-Pakistan tensions, namely, the fact, whether anybody likes it or not, of these South Asian countries being organically linked.

Divided communities, continuing kith and kinship relations, shared religion and culture, mean that the so-called India-Pakistan “wars” are less wars, more “riots”

I am sure that whether there is a change in our nuclear doctrine, whether we will not allow Pakistan to strike us first by denuding them with a decapitation counter-force first strike, or whether that is a good tactic or stupid are all debatable; but, what Karnad reasons above is utterly not debatable. I hope that powers that be who make these decisions do not labour under the false narratives that Bharat Karnad has offered. Scenarios such as common culinary & culture, Return of the Prodigal Son etc have been proven thoroughly wrong so many, many times and yet are being pursued with?

[A_Gupta]

Now in the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/worl ... rikes.html

India may be rethinking nuclear first strike policy.

[sanjaykumar]

It would be a tragedy for any mass killings but it would be criminal and immoral for India to await a nuclear strike before launch of its own. A pre-emptive strike is paradoxically the more ethical. It will be interesting to see Pakistani Islamic buffoons like Khwaja Asif respond with more nuclear threats to this clarification.

[ShauryaT]

I am sure that whether there is a change in our nuclear doctrine, whether we will not allow Pakistan to strike us first by denuding them with a decapitation counter-force first strike, or whether that is a good tactic or stupid are all debatable; but, what Karnad reasons above is utterly not debatable. I hope that powers that be who make these decisions do not labour under the false narratives that Bharat Karnad has offered. Scenarios such as common culinary & culture, Return of the Prodigal Son etc have been proven thoroughly wrong so many, many times and yet are being pursued with?

Is that why PM Modi gets invited to and is willing to jump and attend a private ceremony of his counterparts almost impromptu? Does not happen with Barack in the same way, for either India or Pakistan?

Let us not confuse our individual "desires" of some who view Pakistan as an unconnected entity with India, which is probably true ONLY for the southern part of India. Islam has been around for over a 1000 years in the sub continent and has 500 million people in the area, a reality difficult to ignore or deny. The realities in most parts of the country amongst its polity and the people, in north and east is exactly as Karnad describes them. Pakistanis as the inscrutable other only helps prove Jinnah right with the 2NT. IMO, Karnad is less concerned about the theological aspects of Islam and is more vested into the game of geo-political power and what the real possibilities can be for India.Karnad discounts the animosity that was always there and has been exasperated further since partition.

Not counting on BOTH the animosities and our linkages that factor in the deterrence equations would be a big mistake, IMO. Many, many Indian military war planners discount Pakistani nuclear threats partly for these linkages between peoples, the shared geography and history, personal animosity and disdain for Islam notwithstanding.

PS: Distancing our personal analytical views and experiences with Islam and seeing the reality for what it is (in all dimensions) and not what one wants it to be, helps clarify.

[ranjan.rao]

Nuclear false alarm - Bharat Karnad

I am sure that whether there is a change in our nuclear doctrine, whether we will not allow Pakistan to strike us first by denuding them with a decapitation counter-force first strike, or whether that is a good tactic or stupid are all debatable; but, what Karnad reasons above is utterly not debatable. I hope that powers that be who make these decisions do not labour under the false narratives that Bharat Karnad has offered. Scenarios such as common culinary & culture, Return of the Prodigal Son etc have been proven thoroughly wrong so many, many times and yet are being pursued with?

I dont mind these strategies being pursued in the same spirit Pakis have use jhappi etc with us to keep us busy while fomenting terror in valley and encouraging terrorism everywhere. As g parthasararthi said "carry a big stick but do it silently". This takes it ever further, does it sweetly, the TFTA way of doing things. Raging wars in the name of democracy and hooman rights.

[KLNMurthy]

Since Pakistan's nuclear position is so obviously an extension of China's, wouldn't it make sense for India to start thinkingof an integrated Sino-Pak nuclear policy, instead of a separate approach for China and Pakistan? That is to say, treat any hostile action by Pakistan as a hostile action by the combined Sino-Pak axis and target any response to the Sino-Pak combine?

Merge the China desk and Pakistan desk into a single Sino-Pak desk.

This shift should be the logical outcome of China's policy of blandly and obstinately protecting Pakistani terrorists who attack India. China needs to understand that it is mounting the nuclear escalation ladder with India.

[SSridhar]

PS: Distancing our personal analytical views and experiences with Islam and seeing the reality for what it is (in all dimensions) and not what one wants it to be, helps clarify.

Thank you.

[Singha]

A first strike on tactical nuke assets need not be nuclear...large caliber pgms delivered from manned platforms and missiles whether on bunkers or missile sheds have same end results.

The strategic weapons can be left alone. Cheen can be informed that tactical n weapons release means our retaliation with strategic n weapons first on tsp and then we drag cheen also into the next world with us

We are dealing with a cats paw. We have to hit the cat also

[Supratik]

No they should be separate becoz China and Pakistan have different reasons for their animosity towards India. In China's case it sees India as a challenger and wants to deny India that possibility. For China, Pak is just a useful tool to keep India down. Similar to pre-50s British strategy and post-50s American strategy towards India which has now relatively thawed. Paks opposition to India OTOH is theological, historical and geo-spatial. If you add irrationality to it then it is a volatile mixture. China will be a more rational player unless its interests are fundamentally challenged. However, it will not mind if India and Pak nuke each other to oblivion. Perhaps worry more about climate change. What BK and Shaurya are saying reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the theological basis of Islam and historical and geo-spatial basis of the genesis of Pakistan. To reduce it to "they are just like us" is a dangerous folly.

India doesn't want to get into a tit-for-tat escalatory exchange with Pak which will kill countless millions of Indians. It feels it can take out Paks war fighting ability with a comprehensive first strike. Second strike capability is for other players who may want to intervene. This change of policy suggests more confidence in warhead and delivery capability and also the ability to dictate terms.

[vasu raya]

^^^
+100

Dominating TSP will make China and US deal with us directly, maybe US has changed course, oh good, this is April fool's day!

[shiv]

PS: Distancing our personal analytical views and experiences with Islam and seeing the reality for what it is (in all dimensions) and not what one wants it to be, helps clarify.

This has got nothing to do with disdain for Islam. Disdain is a quaint word that has no meaning in a discussion such as this one. I must stress that what one considers "overall reality in all its dimensions" is also a form of self delusion where one's viewpoint is based on the information one has previously internalized. For example if we totally ignore all the massacres and devastation conducted in the name of Islam over 1000 years then we can arrive at the conclusion that the formation of Pakistan was a minor disagreement and wars are a glorified riot - all of which have no connection with the past or Islam. Bharat Karnad's view in this regard are hardly unbiased - more probably they are deeply ignorant and possibly aimed at making people look at his pet China "megatonne" threat rather than the reality of creeping Sunni re-Islamization of Pakistan.

That south India reference Shaurya was an ignorant one. While it was North India that was decimated by Islam to the extent of dhimmitude. It was the South that escaped partially albeit with massive damage and untold deaths (just like the North). Memories of what Islam can do are fresh and real in the South and are not going to be whitewashed with excuses of common culture and people - which is just indicative the level of mental defeat that has been inflicted by Islam on some people. Temples were simply erased in the north and are now lost from memory. Not so in the South where defaced monuments remain as a stark reminder of "minor communal riots". That shit makes me seethe. Bharat Karnad is an utter shame on the name Karnad - a pretentious Macaulayite. I do think his words need strong rebuttal.

When one country set up in the name of Islam prepares an "Islamic bomb" it is the utmost stupidity to take a secular view of that.

[Supratik]

For BK and others of similar thought.

To understand Pakistan you have to read sub-continental Islamist literature right from the collapse of Mughal rule. It was a catharsis for them for three reasons - loss of empire, loss of the vision of an Islamic India and the inability to comprehensively defeat the Hindus. The Islamic nationalists who initiated the Pakistan movement inherited those memes. Pakistan was not like Israel i.e. a sanctuary for a persecuted religious group. It was a tactical retreat from impending subjugation and a base for re-initiating the strategic goal of Islamic imperialism. Therefore, for example giving up Kashmir to Pakistan will not usher in peace or end the matter. It will only be tactical victory for them in a strategic game. China doesn't have this baggage and hence the China problem is fundamentally different.

[sanjaykumar]

The great problem with Pakistan is that they have equated it to the citadel of Islam. Thus india's convincing and accelerating dominance and pakistan's state failure is demonstrative of the bankruptcy of Islam, in pakistan's estimation.


When India has a $10,000 per capita income and military bases in orbit, and pakistan's continuing achievement is in general fecundity and culling minorities, this dichotomy will need to be addressed. The cognitive dissonance will need to collapse. 800 years of Islam in India will be exposed as being mindless.

Pakistan will beg to return to the fold or accept its subjugated status or launch nukes. By present indications I believe it will exercise the last option. Perhaps people like Shin Shanker Menon have also concluded the same, hence they are now uncovering the shape of things to come.

[Supratik]

For the Chinese communist dictatorship a successful, prosperous, democratic, free and powerful India is a challenge to both in keeping their domestic population subjugated and their ability to maintain geo-political hegemony at least in the Asian context. They have swallowed one pill by giving their people economic prosperity through controlled market economy as otherwise there would be internal revolt like in the former Soviet Union. But a democratic, free India still remains a challenge. If another large, populous Asian country can have freedom and still be successful why can't the Chinese, the Chinese people may ask. Hence, the propensity to put down India and Indians. The second motive is the reason for all their problems with neighbors - India included and the US and there no evidence they have abandoned that path. Hence, their obsession with using Pak against India. So basically both Pak and China are using each other against India but for different purposes and reasons. BK is too intellectually lazy to understand that.

[ranjan.rao]

For BK and others of similar thought.

To understand Pakistan you have to read sub-continental Islamist literature right from the collapse of Mughal rule. It was a catharsis for them for three reasons - loss of empire, loss of the vision of an Islamic India and the inability to comprehensively defeat the Hindus. The Islamic nationalists who initiated the Pakistan movement inherited those memes. Pakistan was not like Israel i.e. a sanctuary for a persecuted religious group. It was a tactical retreat from impending subjugation and a base for re-initiating the strategic goal of Islamic imperialism. Therefore, for example giving up Kashmir to Pakistan will not usher in peace or end the matter. It will only be tactical victory for them in a strategic game. China doesn't have this baggage and hence the China problem is fundamentally different.

While your assessment about napakis is spot on. Where i slightly differ with you is regarding China. China knows all of this very clearly as they too have this problem their backyard. Yet they are exploiting this to their advantage and propping pakistan against india. If we dont do anything, Pakistan will be 35th province of china. In light of that our nuclear posturing, and deterrent should be jointly addressed to ChiPak. Keeping 100-150 Nukes wont be enough for us.

[Supratik]

A better strategy of war is to divide your opponents. If you assume at the outset that you are going to target them together you are asking them to collude even more. As I said China is a sly operator. It is going to continue to use Pak as a proxy just like US was using it before. Did we threaten to nuke US? No, using geo-political events we have made them less willing to take us on. The last time the US thought of nuking us openly was in 1971. Similarly I don't see China wanting to nuke us in favor of Pak anytime soon. But they will continue to have fun by arming Pak unless we make the cost high. I think this is a good strategic move to go for comprehensive first strikes against Pak. This will lock Pak and its backers into a fierce arms race. Coupled with proper sub-national insurgencies (we have great experience with the Mukti Bahini and LTTE but we haven't really tried say with the Baloch) this has potential to cripple Pak as we keep on raising the cost for their forefathers.

[Supratik]

Also all of us on BRF know that India has a two theatre war strategy. It is likely to be both conventional and strategic. That is why we have Agni3,4,5 and the K-series. With China it is just not stated. This is probably a selective leak to up the ante against Pak and its backers without any official change of doctrine.

[Gagan]

A first strike on tactical nuke assets need not be nuclear...large caliber pgms delivered from manned platforms and missiles whether on bunkers or missile sheds have same end results.

The strategic weapons can be left alone.

All of Pakistan's tactical / strategic weapon depots, deployed sites at the following locations are within Brahmos strike range. Brahmos has regularly hit targets that are less than 1 meter in size after zig-zagging and traveling 250-300 Kms. Now the range is already 450 Kms and we are talking of even higher ranges to effectively cover every inch of pakistan and beyond.
Their main storage sites are:
1. Havelian
2. Gujaranwala
3. Okara
4. Multan
5. Jhang
6. Pano Aquil
7. Dera Nawab Shah
8. Khuzdar
9. Petaro
10. Karachi

All within Brahmos range onlee

[Gagan]

The question is this:
How do you take out an ammo dump like this in Okara. Located at 30°41'12.33"N, 73°19'15.80"E

- Do you ask the IAF to take out one bunker at a time, using a PGM, risking plane and pilot
- Do you take out one bunker at a time with a Precision guided missile strike - one VERY expensive missile against a possible empty bunker or one used for animal husbandry
- Do you take the whole place out with a tactical nuke or a MOAB type device or a Big Fuel-Air bum?

[SSridhar]

Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine - G. Balachandran and Kapil Patil, IDSA

(This Comment was first published on June 20, 2014 and is being reposted with minor editorial corrections due to the recent revival of controversy in this regard.)

[KLNMurthy]

No they should be separate becoz China and Pakistan have different reasons for their animosity towards India. In China's case it sees India as a challenger and wants to deny India that possibility. For China, Pak is just a useful tool to keep India down. Similar to pre-50s British strategy and post-50s American strategy towards India which has now relatively thawed. Paks opposition to India OTOH is theological, historical and geo-spatial. If you add irrationality to it then it is a volatile mixture. China will be a more rational player unless its interests are fundamentally challenged. However, it will not mind if India and Pak nuke each other to oblivion. Perhaps worry more about climate change. What BK and Shaurya are saying reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the theological basis of Islam and historical and geo-spatial basis of the genesis of Pakistan. To reduce it to "they are just like us" is a dangerous folly.

India doesn't want to get into a tit-for-tat escalatory exchange with Pak which will kill countless millions of Indians. It feels it can take out Paks war fighting ability with a comprehensive first strike. Second strike capability is for other players who may want to intervene. This change of policy suggests more confidence in warhead and delivery capability and also the ability to dictate terms.

The question is, does it make sense as a strategic doctrine, for India to lump Pakistan and China together? In other words, an attack by Pakistan on India will be treated as an attack by China on India. It would mean being ready to inflict unacceptable damage on China, but it could also mean that China might exert a moderating influence on Pakistan to avoid a fatal confrontation with India.

[ranjan.rao]

The question is this:
How do you take out an ammo dump like this in Okara. Located at 30°41'12.33"N, 73°19'15.80"E

- Do you ask the IAF to take out one bunker at a time, using a PGM, risking plane and pilot
- Do you take out one bunker at a time with a Precision guided missile strike - one VERY expensive missile against a possible empty bunker or one used for animal husbandry
- Do you take the whole place out with a tactical nuke or a MOAB type device or a Big Fuel-Air bum?

Gagan, in that Su30-(Sudarshan and Brahmos A) in addition to Nirbhay will come useful. The cost of a VERY EXPENSIVE missile will always be less than a nuke detonating over our cities or IBGs

[ranjan.rao]

A first strike on tactical nuke assets need not be nuclear...large caliber pgms delivered from manned platforms and missiles whether on bunkers or missile sheds have same end results.

The strategic weapons can be left alone.

All of Pakistan's tactical / strategic weapon depots, deployed sites at the following locations are within Brahmos strike range. Brahmos has regularly hit targets that are less than 1 meter in size after zig-zagging and traveling 250-300 Kms. Now the range is already 450 Kms and we are talking of even higher ranges to effectively cover every inch of pakistan and beyond.
Their main storage sites are:
1. Havelian
2. Gujaranwala
3. Okara
4. Multan
5. Jhang
6. Pano Aquil
7. Dera Nawab Shah
8. Khuzdar
9. Petaro
10. Karachi

All within Brahmos range onlee

More than the static sites, it will be the missile sites adn mobile Nasr batteries. For tracking them we need the capabilities to hound them and other aspects in Real time. Not much is there in public domain, but i am sure Khan would be watching to have a mushroom curry over cashmere

[Supratik]

@KLNM,

We don't have comprehensive first strike capability against China but very potent second strike. So China will be left unstated. There are other ways to force China to abandon using Pak as a proxy. The primary one being arming China's adversaries. For that you need a strong MIC and have products. India now has several products but has been reluctant to sell them e.g. we have been selling Brahmos to Vietnam for the last 15 yrs and Akash last 10 yrs. I frankly don't understand why India hasn't taken that path. This is the only way out.

[KLNMurthy]

@KLNM,

We don't have comprehensive first strike capability against China but very potent second strike. So China will be left unstated. There are other ways to force China to abandon using Pak as a proxy. The primary one being arming China's adversaries. For that you need a strong MIC and have products. India now has several products but has been reluctant to sell them e.g. we have been selling Brahmos to Vietnam for the last 15 yrs and Akash last 10 yrs. I frankly don't understand why India hasn't taken that path. This is the only way out.

Seems to me comprehensive first strike capability against China should be a goal for us, over and above working with China's adversaries.

At any rate, our present passive policy is something which we will come to regret when it is too late.

[shiv]

Gagan these should do but more than 1 will be needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYrE2EMzN4Y

[ramana]

@KLNM,

We don't have comprehensive first strike capability against China but very potent second strike. So China will be left unstated. There are other ways to force China to abandon using Pak as a proxy. The primary one being arming China's adversaries. For that you need a strong MIC and have products. India now has several products but has been reluctant to sell them e.g. we have been selling Brahmos to Vietnam for the last 15 yrs and Akash last 10 yrs. I frankly don't understand why India hasn't taken that path. This is the only way out.

Seems to me comprehensive first strike capability against China should be a goal for us, over and above working with China's adversaries.

At any rate, our present passive policy is something which we will come to regret when it is too late.

This will make India enemy number one for China.
Right now its not.

[Gagan]

Gagan these should do but more than 1 will be needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYrE2EMzN4Y

This is what I meant by risking pilot and plane for a job like this.
The 20th century way of dealing with an ammo dump like this was Sudrshan/KAB-500 like TV guided bomb, one on each target. The pilot fires one off, then hangs around until the bomb hits the target, because he has to lase the target too.

What is needed is one fat ballistic missile with a few dozen conventional MIRVs/MARVs, with extremely small CEP, each of which will take out one bunker
Or an air delivered munition, that has half a dozen smaller bomblets, each targetable, and capable of penetrating such a reinforcement and flattening the whole ammo dump in just one pass of a strike group of fighters.

For a nation like Pakistan, should war break out, a strike by upwards of a 1000 projectiles, across the length and breadth of that nation, in a few hours should be planned for. All this without risking any soldier yet.

Imagine the deterrent impact of this...