Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 11:47

shiv wrote:Refining weapon and tactics assumes that India is not going to retaliate as per the words of its own nuclear doctrine. If India is going to retaliate as per its doctrine all this tactical stuff will not work.

We don't know how that will be employed. Its clearly area denial. probably, the most like route of ingress to a vital target by IA. This could delay the strike and hence the surprise factor. IMO, any surprise package involving men in small formation with meaningful equipment can be addressed at 60 kms. Alternatively, they can block the second wave and try to manage the first one, killing the effectiveness. Also, Indian equipment will add up in case we are predicting a nuclear fallout. It may also mean that Indian strike element has to come in nuclear shielded environment. In case they are able to detect Indian assets in less populated area's, then it can be used. etc etc.

There could be so many possibilities. Whatever way, it may be, I potentially see partial or major ineffectiveness of a surprise strike.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 20 Apr 2011 11:50

But any nuclear strike be it football sized or megaton sized will lead to a full-scale response no? So irrespective of whether a strike formation is targetted or a populated area, our response might(will?) be the same. In such a situation, wouldn't that be a point against small nukes?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 20 Apr 2011 12:01

Paki's thinking is india will not retaliate with full scale attack

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2011 12:06

All this tactical nukes on indian armored spearheads reminds me of the response from General Paddy in the news conference during Op. Parakram.....I don't think anything has changed after that in Indian response. It does not matter if the nukes from TSPA come from some chinese re-painted missile or some SRBM crap.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 12:19

One of the finer points to be noted is that they are able to procure/produces system even before India can put together its doctrine. Even if the tac nuk has been considered, i suspect that it will again delay the formation of a stable cold start doctrine. This is an explicit message and not vague like intended response they had before.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Apr 2011 13:36

IMO, the message behind announcing this weapon-system is different - it is to hit at the premise of Cold-Start Doctrine. And that is, IA will lauch punitive strike using Pivot Corps based IBG and since, the objectives of these strikes will be such that they do-not cross the so called 'red-lines' for use of nukes by TSP (apart from mitigating internation pressure and manging the time-period window), Pakistan can be punished for its behaviour.

While India has the economic resources for implementing the CSD, TSPA has limited financial ability to counter the full-blown CSD in conventional arena. India can easily manage (only political will is required) an additional RAPID+(I) Armored Brigade+engineering equipment+extra arty brigade+rocket artillery (a powerful IBG) per Corps on western front - starting from 12 Corps in Rajasthan to 9 Corps in Pathankot. While TSPA is implementing resources with it's Pivot Corps for countering such assault and filling gaps in their souther Punjab and north and central Sindh, it cannot ensure a situation where it will not suffer serious reverses and will then need to bring in ARS and/or ARN.

By showcasing such a tac-nuke capability, it is sending out a message to the world that even in case of CSD, where India may have limited objectives, the battle can go into nuclear arena. You can expect articles from international press on how CSD is a destabalizing doctrine and how it may bring in tac-nukes and how then the whole affair may spiral into full blow nuclear catastrophe. It does not matter whether TSPA has the capability or not - what matters is the scare value of such an assumption.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 13:42

I think that there was a time, during the cold war, in Europe, when it was imagined that a tactical nuclear war could be fought. That means I nuke your tanks. You nuke my airfields. I get sulky and upset and nuke you local military HQ. You get teary eyed and nuke my tank formations etc until somehow you lose.

This is clearly nonsense.

India's nuclear doctrine is pretty explicit. You use one nuke on India be it a 60 km 1 kt Hatf ot a 20 kt on Delhi on a Ghauri - you will get nuked out of existence. Your cities and all you hold dear will be nuked. That is the only "nuclear war" that is going to occur no matter what "tactics" Pakistan uses. And they know it too.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 20 Apr 2011 13:51

By the time they can field these missiles in any decent number, our BMD shield should also be operational.

The only real risk here is the number of tactical nukes and their safety. The more the missiles, the more are the chances of terrorist getting their hands on them.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 20 Apr 2011 14:28

a naive question- is nasr a ballistic missile??

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 14:38

Kailash wrote:By the time they can field these missiles in any decent number, our BMD shield should also be operational.

The only real risk here is the number of tactical nukes and their safety. The more the missiles, the more are the chances of terrorist getting their hands on them.

Are you implying that the Pakistan army do not behave like terrorists with regard to India or are you filled with American ideas about who is a terrorist and who is not?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 14:50

shiv wrote:I think that there was a time, during the cold war, in Europe, when it was imagined that a tactical nuclear war could be fought. That means I nuke your tanks. You nuke my airfields. I get sulky and upset and nuke you local military HQ. You get teary eyed and nuke my tank formations etc until somehow you lose.

This is clearly nonsense.

India's nuclear doctrine is pretty explicit. You use one nuke on India be it a 60 km 1 kt Hatf ot a 20 kt on Delhi on a Ghauri - you will get nuked out of existence. Your cities and all you hold dear will be nuked. That is the only "nuclear war" that is going to occur no matter what "tactics" Pakistan uses. And they know it too.

Compared to Europe, Pakis can be best described as irrational. Europe has some answerable acoounting system. TSPA is not considered rational, especially kargil showsthat they can go mindless.

TSP has more fissile material, box missiles (painted in green and cresent) that can reach most part of India. So, India claiming that it will wipe the terroristan out of existence is a huge order. Any such move is going to make India's food bowl, the North West as unliveable. IMO, they will use tac nuk and let in the intl pressure build in. They will be let gone with some punishment and then aid for reconstruction etc etc.

I am not saying Indians are dumb with no strategy at all. i am putting the other prespective.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 14:55

chackojoseph wrote:IMO, they will use tac nuk and let in the intl pressure build in. They will be let gone with some punishment and then aid for reconstruction etc etc.

In other words you believe that Pakistan is not convinced by India's statements of deterrence. That means deterrence is guaranteed to fail.

<edited to clarify meaning>

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2011 15:13

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:IMO, they will use tac nuk and let in the intl pressure build in. They will be let gone with some punishment and then aid for reconstruction etc etc.

In other words you are not convinced by India's statements about deterrence and believe that Pakistan thinks like this. That means deterrence has failed - or more precisely - it is guaranteed to fail.

More Worringly

Our Pussy Footing Political Leaders have convinced the GHQ Rawalpindi that our Nuke Doctrine will not be implemented and that a Tactical nuke attack on Indian Armed forces will go unpunished like Paki Terror attacks.

They probably have a feeling that Western leaders will prevail upon our leadership to restrain themselves.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 15:15

Aditya_V wrote:
Our Pussy Footing Political Leaders have convinced the GHQ Rawalpindi that our Nuke Doctrine will not be implemented and that a Tactical nuke attack on Indian Armed forces will go unpunished like Paki Terror attacks.

They probably have a feeling that Western leaders will prevail upon our leadership to restrain themselves.

With respect, may I point out that this is what you believe that the GHQ Rawalpindi think. If we really knew what they think then we could take corrective action. What corrective action do you think should be taken?

(This has all been discussed dozens of times before

)

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2011 15:22

Yes it is what I belive GHQ Rawalpindi Thinks.

An occasion overtly Jingoistic speech by MMS and public retieration and emphasis of our own Nuke doctrine and an odd disapropiontate response to Terror attack/ ceasefire violation would get the point. Like if BSF jawan dead/ injured in an unprovoked ceasefire violation, an Anti Tank missle fired against a congregation/ bunker where 10 Paki troops are present. or real action against Hurrirats and WKK brigade would also send a message.

When we went for full engagement of Pakis post Kargil in Operation Parakaram was when the Pakis realised the cost of the firing accross LOC since 1989 and they quickly downhill skied and came for thier ceasefire.

Till that time they were happy to start artillery duels accross the LOC/IB. And Yes those Denel anti-material rifles bought under Fernandes and whose contract was later cancelled by UPA in 2004 made a huge difference.

In the last 4 years I have seen many speeches/ critism from those in power/ media houses like Undie TV on Right wing opponents/ Hindu Terrorists in India but nothing but Lovefests with Pakis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 15:36

Aditya_V wrote: An occasion overtkly Jingoistic speech by MMS and public retieration and emphasis of our own Nuke doctrine

and an odd disapropiontate response to Terror attack/ ceasefire violation would get the point. Like if BSF soldier dead, an Anti Tank missle fired against a congregation/ bunker where 10 Paki troops are present. or real action against Hurrirats and WKK brigade would also send a message.

My view on your statement. I would personally endorse the statement that I have shaded blue. But the rest of it has no connection with nuclear war and would not, in my view, add to nuclear deterrence.

Let me try and clarify my views. There seems to be a general feeling that if someone acts tough in the conventional field, he will be automatically considered equally tough when it comes to nuclear war.

If that were widely accepted as true then Pakistan has no need to make any threatening noises. They are acting so tough on the conventional front - Kargil, terrorism etc that they should be able to assume that India is even more afraid of their nukes. But Pakistan is clearly not satisfied that its own nuclear deterrent is convincing enough for india. So they keep making noses and talking about their latest nuclear capability.

How come China has no need to talk much about its nuclear capability? How come the US clearly indicates its reluctance to attack a nuclear armed power, but still the Pakis don't feel that is convincing enough and need to make noises to threaten others and presumably reassure themselves?

The point I am getting at is that if you have a sound nuclear deterrent and retaliatory posture in place, there is no need to keep on making threats. All the noisemaking and reminders become necessary when you want to remind everyone that you have nukes because you are worried that they may have forgotten or have not noticed or are not bothered. It is possible that Pakistan is less sure of its deterrence than India.

In the last 4 years I have seen many speeches/ critism from those in power/ media houses like Undie TV on Right wing opponents/ Hindu Terrorists in India but nothing but Lovefests with Pakis.

In India the nuclear threats come with government permission from senior armed forces people. Both Deepak Kapoor and another COAS have said things that caused great takleef to Pakis and their two prime brothel customers.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2011 15:50

Point taken... But with Pakistan which has so much hatred for India, its always make contingency plans for the worst and Hope for best. Also, the US think tank statements in media about Paki Nuke deterrent higher in number without any concern from Western/ Chinese noises in the last 10 years regarding Indian Nuke numbers going up rapidly leads one to occasionly fear that may be, just may be we are lulled into a case where our leadership belives Nuclear war will never happen and detterent not strong enough

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Apr 2011 15:56

The HATF-IX, Nasr, is being touted as a delivery system for TNWs that will take care of Indian Cold Start. It is being assumed that Cold Start will involve brigade level attacks into Pakistan that will then advance to shallow depths across a wide India-Pakistan border inside Pakistan that will not therefore cross the Pakistani nuclear Red Line of significant loss of territory. Meanwhile, the Strike Corps will be mobilized, just in case. Nobody knows for sure if this is indeed the strategy. We do not know where this intrusion will take place, if at all. If it is in the Punjab sector, then Pakistan has a problem in attacking the advancing Indian Battle Groups with TNWs because its own territory may be laid to waste. With NBC-hardened Battle Groups and overwhelming firepower, Nasr may not cause a significant damage, but India can also use TNWs well inside Punjab without resorting to Prithvis or Agnis. Indian retaliation with the TNWs will be widespread, make no mistake about that. Cold Start is being described as conventional war without escalating to nuclear realms. However, it may be that some nuclear component may still be involved in the form of TNWs but without escalating in the nuclear ladder to bombs of higher yields.

Sabyasachi · Post by **Sabyasachi** » 20 Apr 2011 16:30

Plenty of fear mongering!

Why would you let your deterrence and doctrine fail once you decide to punish Pakistan? Won't you be considering all options before launching desired attack, after getting green signal from civilian govt? Deterrence and doctrine stand valid and may be further lowered to more sensitive thresholds.

India’s Draft Report of the National Security Advisory Board on the Indian Nuclear Doctrine does address the issue of India’s possible response to tactical nuclear weapons use by an adversary though not very explicitly—and probably purposefully and rightfully so, to maintain ambiguity regarding India’s resolve to escalate in a crisis. The draft doctrine states that India’s ‘peacetime posture aims at convincing any potential aggressor that … any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor’ [emphasis added]. The phrase ‘any nuclear attack’ obviously includes a tactical nuclear attack.

(Do not know how to embed link)

Thinking vis a vis CSD?

You counter tactical nukes by not deploying IBG with high force concentration. Air drop of an overwhelming force can do more damage. Or You punish them staying away from the border. Even Smerch can punish them; like you wanted with CSD (not to take ground but to destroy the enemy force). You just have to bring them out.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 16:58

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:IMO, they will use tac nuk and let in the intl pressure build in. They will be let gone with some punishment and then aid for reconstruction etc etc.
In other words you believe that Pakistan is not convinced by India's statements of deterrence. That means deterrence is guaranteed to fail.

<edited to clarify meaning>

Nope, IMHO. I have explained the reasons in the reply above.

I will tell you personally what I think that they think.

They know, India will "if at all" nuke, then it will be punjabi (why they call themselves that) dominant areas. Bombing Balochistan, sindh etc is counter productive. Pretty meaningless. On contrary, Balochs etc will be wanting to link up with the Indian Army cold chains. India will be treated as a liberation Army. They themselves want to get out of Paki state. Bombing Paki Punjab's means bringing the radiation home. India will be limited to some limited area containing exercise. This is why Pakis are working on tactical nukes. their trigger point starts from gates of lahore. India can drop a symbolic nuke, but, need to be extremely low damage or some kind of air burst or something else.

As for Pakis, they can mop us good part of mid and southern India, without causing issues in neighborhood. or at least, some places, and the rebel places can put up a fight for themselves. or They would like to aim at places far away from Mumslim dominates, like Hyderabad, UP, MP etc.

IMO, if Paki Punjab is lost for pakis, then they have lost the entire war.

This is exactly why Pakis stick closer to the eastern border. Right from the time you step in, its Paki Punjab and then it ends after paki punjab.

And as Aditya_V says, our soft spoken sardar may not do anything.

One plus point what I see from the Indian side is the :ambiguity" in the Indian doctrine on the response. I hope they have thought of something for this. hence, I am not "fear mongering" as someone puts in.

As I said before, the particular system is not to be taken in vacuum. It is definitely a component of response.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2011 17:10

chackojoseph wrote: As for Pakis, they can mop us good part of mid and southern India, without causing issues in neighborhood. or at least, some places, and the rebel places can put up a fight for themselves. or They would like to aim at places far away from Mumslim dominates, like Hyderabad, UP, MP etc.

Sorry, for Pakis all Indians are Hindus, many especially in the TSP armed forces do not consider Indian Muslims as part of thier Religion and will happily Nuke them. There Bomb and Terror attacks have been impartial as far as victims are concerned.

nits · Post by **nits** » 20 Apr 2011 17:15

When Vajpayee opposed resuming the nuclear programme

Very Nice and informative Article; its a interview of strategic guru K Subrahmanyam. where he talks about Indian Nuclear Journey v/s Pakistan (and China) and how every Prime Minister reacted and handled it... Gives many inside information. A Gem to read

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 17:18

^^^^ If you read the Jinha's blue print, they would like an islamic state over India. They would like to link up with them. consider this one of my theories and one of my scenarios. Even looking at the terror map, Pakis are following the same places.

As, mentioned above, its one of the possibilities.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Apr 2011 17:35

This is totally reminiscent of NATO keeping Lance missiles in germany and the soviets positioning Frog-7s in

Cuba to deter an invasion.

Nasr is not an ATACMS or LORA.given its explicit deterrence role I don't think too much would have been spent in honing its homing capability. it is fin stabilized and probably has spin motors as well.

The 60 km range restriction could imply that they have some heavy lens implosion type weapon. I don't see the Pukes coming up with a true blue neutron bomb for this mijjile.

Moreover the angled launch may imply that it has to be aligned with the target. forget about trajectory shaping.

nits · Post by **nits** » 20 Apr 2011 17:36

Second installment of this interview - Click

Again tons of informative information...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 17:38

I just want to pre-empt some conversation.

India began nuclear (weapons) program for Chinese. Because it s larger and has volumes that need to be destroyed. OTOH, Paki space is quite small to be considered to nuke (this end of paki punjab to the other end of the paki punjab). Whereas, Pakis stated logic (I don't agree with them) is the same as we have on China. Also, Pakis don't have strategic depth and with the longer delivery vehicles, they have restricted ours too.

So, a nuke is not paki specific, and it is never stated that it is paki specific. When we realised that Pakis have acquired a capability, we began diverting limited attention on them.

The primary (indirectly understood) target for India is China.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Apr 2011 17:45

ambidex wrote: (Do not know how to embed link)

Thinking vis a vis CSD?

You counter tactical nukes by not deploying IBG with high force concentration. Air drop of an overwhelming force can do more damage. Or You punish them staying away from the border. Even Smerch can punish them; like you wanted with CSD (not to take ground but to destroy the enemy force). You just have to bring them out.

ambidex, welcome to BR. The IBGs are not to be deployed to counter the TNWs. It is the other way about. It will be Pakistan which will deploy TNWs to attack Indian IBGs which have been deployed due to reasons such as another terror attack etc. There is not much information on CSD but it does seem to involve ingressing into Pakistan or Pakistan occupied territory.

Whether we move into Pakistani land space or punish them with standoff weapons, the critical point is how we manage escalation. It is in this context that a TNW attack on an advancing column of IBGs in Pakistani Punjab, which does not threaten Lahore or even Sialkot for example, would be worthless for the Pakistanis because it will invite punishing retaliation from us.

By the way, use the URL tag to embed a web link.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 18:11

D Roy wrote: The 60 km range restriction could imply that they have some heavy lens implosion type weapon. I don't see the Pukes coming up with a true blue neutron bomb for this mijjile.

Moreover the angled launch may imply that it has to be aligned with the target. forget about trajectory shaping.

Forget neutron bum - I bet my left testimonial that they don't even have a 30 cm diameter theater nuke. That takes some serious engineering capability AND testing. The US achieved 25 cm with some difficulty and that is the absolute limit.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2011 18:13

nits wrote:Second installment of this interview - Click

Again tons of informative information...

So both these Interviews show
1) Pakis had the weapons First, Chinese helped and even tested it for them in 1990. Started Kashmir Insurgency thinking with India being Nuke Nude they could walk in. So basically they will try to acquire weapons no matter what we do?

2) Pakis were ready to Nuke us in 1990 and if the US had not informed them that we have assembled some Nukes in a Hurry.

3) Huge strategic blunder on our part to discontinue our programme from 1979-1989.

Notice how the first 2 points have never been Highlighted by both Western and Indian Media
3) So all those intellectual comments in UNdie TV 1998 critising the Nuke tests saying now Pakis have Nukes which they did not have before is utter rubish?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Apr 2011 18:30

1. I am 400% certain that Pakistan does not have the technology level to put in a tactical nuke in a 300-400mm diameter MBRL rocket. Pakistan claiming that they can use this with a tactical nuke amounts to zilch IMHO.
2. China won't give them tactical nuke capability. Specially in a situation where the US is really really worried that the next 9/11 level terrorist attack on US soil might be with Nuclear Weapons, and Al Qaida has been giving out Fatwas that it is 400% allowed per sharia to nuke a powerful enemy etc etc.
3. Tactical nukes of that dimension means that a field commander has them, and pakistan's field commanders are not people that the Pakistani military high command will entrust nukes with. Nuclear weapons outside of the Strategic Plans Division are a HUGE proliferation risk and Pakistan, its 3.5 boyfirends and their nannies know it.
4. Huge difference between claiming to possess a capability and it actually having been tested, certified and deployed.

Our DDM reporters ask the DRDO chief all the time if Akash, Nag, Pinaka are nuclear capable. The DRDO chief and his colleagues somehow suppress the guffaws, and reply with a straight face that yes they have that capability. (Provided BARC can actually make a nuke that small)

The NASR is more of a precision guided MBRL round. No one has yet commented on its nose mounted control fins. It is similar to the US's steel rain systems with similar control fins. The attempt is precison terminal guidance. (And you don't need precision terminal guidance for a tactical nuke). The aim of the Chinese and the Pakistanis is to target a tank or an armoured formation, a bridge etc.

As always, Pakistan's problem will be:
1. Getting the technology right - the gestation period inspite of chinese hand holding has been immense, quality control is a problem.
2. Getting the numbers into active service. Pakistan is bankrupt. I know that this is a relatively cheap piece of hardware, but I 400% doubt if the pakistanis can actually deploy this in the needed numbers to actually stop an Indian Battle Group dead in its tracks.
3. It is easy to counter such a system with an Iron Dome type of a readily available solution, which I understand that India has expressed a keen interest in procuring some time ago.

The Damn thing is just a conventional precision guided MBRL.

JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Apr 2011 18:41

The Americans gave the Pakistanis "Copperheads" during the 80s.
India's deployed the Krasnopol (and the Excalibur) a decade later.
These were artillery precision rounds.

Now the Pakistanis have deployed precision MBRL rounds, India will do the same. Except that India will deploy them in huge numbers, and Pakistan a little more than a handful.

I am sure that there is a file gathering dust, somewhere in the cavernous labyrinths of the MoD, where the Army has asked for Precision MBRL rounds to be procured. Now NASR will light a fire under the netas and babu's musharrafs and that file will be dusted and will start to move, as also the Iron Dome acquisition.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 20 Apr 2011 19:23

shiv wrote:Both Deepak Kapoor and another COAS have said things that caused great takleef to Pakis...

Right, and please note that the current COAS, Gen. VK Singh, has had to unsay many of those things and salvage the situation diplomatically. One of those things being, there is no such thing as the Cold Start Doctrine. This was not specifically directed at shiv (he was talking about nuclear doctrine in this quote), just saying...

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Apr 2011 19:31

VK Singh had to say that because the Americans had started to ask MMS if Cold Start was something they were planning if the next terrorist attack happened.
The Pakistanis were giving the excuse that India has the Cold start and they can't redeploy to the west.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Apr 2011 19:52

ParGha wrote:
shiv wrote:Both Deepak Kapoor and another COAS have said things that caused great takleef to Pakis...
Right, and please note that the current COAS, Gen. VK Singh, has had to unsay many of those things and salvage the situation diplomatically. One of those things being, there is no such thing as the Cold Start Doctrine. This was not specifically directed at shiv (he was talking about nuclear doctrine in this quote), just saying...

In fact the term cold start was not mentioned by the Army at all. So there is no such thing as Cold start. I would be glad to be corrected. The army had some ideas. Someone (media?) called it cold start. So there is no Indian Army Cold start doctrine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Apr 2011 19:59

the pinaka already has terminal trajectory correction using a device from israel. not sure if all rockets have it or a subset.

but the problem is we need to produce pinaka in large nos to make a difference , and we have not yet !

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Apr 2011 20:13

We need a larger diameter tube artillery than the Pinaka.
Pinaka is 214mm. with a 40Km range. (There is a 120 Km range version in development)

We need a 300mm or larger dia MBRL with 120-150Km range ready and deployed like yesterday.

Only a subset of Pinakas would have the precision guided kits.
There are a variety of munitions that are deliverable by these MBRLs and precision guided ones are one type.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Apr 2011 20:17

let us see, if this is a PDM job or not.

Sabyasachi · Post by **Sabyasachi** » 20 Apr 2011 20:30

SSridhar wrote:
ambidex wrote: (Do not know how to embed link)

Thinking vis a vis CSD?

You counter tactical nukes by not deploying IBG with high force concentration. Air drop of an overwhelming force can do more damage. Or You punish them staying away from the border. Even Smerch can punish them; like you wanted with CSD (not to take ground but to destroy the enemy force). You just have to bring them out.
ambidex, welcome to BR. The IBGs are not to be deployed to counter the TNWs. It is the other way about. It will be Pakistan which will deploy TNWs to attack Indian IBGs which have been deployed due to reasons such as another terror attack etc. There is not much information on CSD but it does seem to involve ingressing into Pakistan or Pakistan occupied territory.

Whether we move into Pakistani land space or punish them with standoff weapons, the critical point is how we manage escalation. It is in this context that a TNW attack on an advancing column of IBGs in Pakistani Punjab, which does not threaten Lahore or even Sialkot for example, would be worthless for the Pakistanis because it will invite punishing retaliation from us.

By the way, use the URL tag to embed a web link.

Thanks SSridhar for the welcome and link embedding tip.
Little intro: I am a physician and BRF fan for last 3 years.

If you decide to punish them then you have to add complexities i.e limited war under possible nuclear overhang or full scale war. The pressure will be on the one who has lowered its nuclear threshold not on the one with NFU. If we can not decide then Pakistan can claim many bluffs she wants.

My previous post was suggesting that to avoid TNW attack we have many other options. However i would like to discuss/read more on how things work when tossing TNW, before calling it Pakistani bluff. Its mandatory for everyone in Pakistan to say nuclear power, nuclear power many times in a day these days BTW.

Also my response was to address ongoing negative tempo in this very thread page (which is worth of concern). But given Pakistani threshold we can not afford to let our deterrence fail at times when we have decided (always at civilian govt. whim) to punish them the way we want (CSD or by rapid thrusting two Corps or air dropping over whelming force etc.).

Though deterrence is not war fighting, it may fail without going to war but as far as testing of this NASR is concerned then our current doctrine addresses it very well. There is nothing new about this SRBM as Pak already have SRBM hatf I with 70 odd km range capable of carrying 500 kg warhead.

I agree with rest of your points.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Apr 2011 20:31

we have some 300mm smerch @ 90km range but thats quite expensive. need a desi soln with ranges from say 60km out to 300km using various rocket sizes. no such is under development yet.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 20 Apr 2011 23:37

Gagan wrote:VK Singh had to say that because the Americans had started to ask MMS if Cold Start was something they were planning if the next terrorist attack happened. The Pakistanis were giving the excuse that India has the Cold start and they can't redeploy to the west.

Nope. The general clarified that India maintains a range of military options for responding to Pakistani provocations, but that there was no doctrine called the CSD. It was a simple statement on capabilities and intentions. The military doctrine is still based on the principles of active defense: defend at the point of incursion, couner-attack at at a corresponding point of vulnerability.