Deterrence

[Manish_Sharma]

Shiv ji, if you see the result of posts from someone much-below-average-intelligence of BRF like myself, whether this Mr. Usuf's post or that pointy nosed submarine was that it provoked some very high knowledge discussion on BRF with yourself Indraneel, Jay and Vina ji making some deep insights. Reason? Even from my primitive level of brain intention to learn is there.

Same way about not retaliating porkis would have been a post by other people either karnad, bramha chellany or maroof raza I would have questioned.

That I wanted a certain article/post of Mr. Usuf here as I had seen his video was posted here and liked. Although I am guilty that I didn't watch it. It was just my intention to bring that view of his here for record.

At least some good manthan can happen here. In case I am the one who seen as a troublemaker then I won't post on this thread for some time and just read it. But hopefully some good discussion will happen.

You may not remember but it was at my query that provoked you to write that 50 kilo ton warhead on rawal pindi post.

Secondly right under your post I had posted map of pakistan with population density and number of warheads for "massive retaliation". The warhead numbers I had calculated in my pointy submarine type primitive calculation were 414.

Enqyoob ji had objected to my nuking them so much as the spread of radiation in Bharat. I had answered that this retaliation only happens after Bharat has been radioactivated by porkis.

In those pages it was also discussed that usually year long wind flows from west to east thus radiation will come to Bharat with the wind. And Poster Jhujar ji had quipped july-august monsoon is the time to make paki-popcorns.

I am not saying that each and every person in pakistan has to be killed, I am saying just massive retaliation should happen. Which both gurmeet kanwal and shaurya oppose in Bharat's doctrine.

As Amber ji has correctly pointed that posting wrong map could be troublesome otherwise its very easy to pick densest population areas. Experts can calculate that if they hit Chaklala airbase with 250 kt then radioactivity will kill rawalpindi and lahore too but not reach wagah border or they should just hit it with 150 kt.

As for land of Vedas, Lahore the city of Lord Rama's son. Now its taken over by asuras and the Tripurantak option needs to be used so they are exterminated. And in few hundred years nature will wash away radioactivity for Dharmiks to settle there again.

[RoyG]

he doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation.

Over the years I have tried desperately and mostly failed to bring to the attention of people who are starry eyed about nuclear weapons the fact that it is impossible to wipe out a population easily with nuclear weapons. You can kill millions but wiping out is not going to happen (without wiping yourself out) because the world is bigger than most people imagine.

Once again let me post a table that I have posted 10 times before - the damage from nuclear bombs of different yields
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... -table.jpg


If we assume that India uses only 200 kiloton bombs on Pakistan - we see that each 200 kt bomb causes heavy damage upto only 2.5 km radius where one can expect very heavy casualties (not 100%). 2.5 km radius is 20 square km. Pakistan has a land area of 800,000 sq km. If we assume that only 25% of the area (Pakistani Punjab's area) must be hit to kill all Pakis we will still need 200,000/20 = 10,000 bombs of 200 kiloton capacity. This is for Pakjab alone

With 50 to 100 bombs probably of less than 200 kt there is no way in which all Pakis can be eliminated. And I am not even talking about the radiation contamination that will kill most of our own Punjabis, Kashmiris, Rajasthanis and Gujaratis first before spreading to other areas. The idea that Pakjabis can be eliminated and then we can walk into Baluchistan actually reflects so much ignorance that it is not worth commenting upon.

If a war using nuclear weapons is fought - the maximum we can do is kill a few tens of millions of people. This is bad enough. Once again I will post my own article about the effects of one 50 kiloton bomb on Rawalpindi
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3JNY ... 2ZVWU9MQjA

Shiv,

Incinerating all of them isn't possible. Everyone agrees with you. But as your analysis shows, it is likely they will be prevented from picking up the pieces after full nuclear commitment. Many will die even years out post conflict. This is the what I'm trying to stress.

[Manish_Sharma]

Quoting a post from page 9 of this very thread :

Yes to hit economically like taking out refineries, few industrial cities, ports 10-20kt would be enough. To send them back 60-70 years economically.

Manish this could be made even more effective by lacing every single bomb with say Cobalt 60 that will keep the radiation high for 10,000 years.(or whatever - I am a physicist-nuke scientist with a degree in Wiki)

The lesson should be that if you so much as threaten destroy India with your nukes, your nation is not going to have its best areas livable ever again, You can go live in the Gobi desert.

If you'll see the map of pakistan or cheen both have similarities, Right(east) side is densly populated while western (baluchistan) sparsely. replace baluchistan with gobi desert and eastern cheeni coast.

[shiv]

Shiv ji, if you see the result of posts from someone much-below-average-intelligence of BRF like myself, whether this Mr. Usuf's post or that pointy nosed submarine was that it provoked some very high knowledge discussion on BRF with yourself Indraneel, Jay and Vina ji making some deep insights. Reason? Even from my primitive level of brain intention to learn is there.

Pleae feel free to educate yourself. because you respond to people whom you disagree with by harshly accusing them of misdeeds. You accuse Yusuf of being Pakistan pasand, you accused me and you accused Shaurya. Clearly these three people cannot be your teachers because they have all the faults that you accuse them of - and you're only a learner. I can only imagine how many faults can be seen by the really well informed people

[shiv]

Incinerating all of them isn't possible. Everyone agrees with you. But as your analysis shows, it is likely they will be prevented from picking up the pieces after full nuclear commitment. Many will die even years out post conflict. This is the what I'm trying to stress.

The entire basis of a deterrence debate for Indians revolves around what constitutes "massive retaliation".

Going further from there I would ask the following question. Imagine a nuclear war between India and Pakistan - and say Pakistan has taken out a couple of cities and India retaliates massively to finish off Pakistan as a functioning state. What is the meaning of that statement? Let us say we paralyse the Paki army's ability to age coordinated conflict by nuking their bosses and destroy 6-7 cities.

We will still be left with Pakistani soldiers, armoured columns that need to be mopped up. Let us assume that they are mopped up. After that are Indian forces going to be sitting on our side of the border allowing what is left of Pakistan to fend for itself? If so why did we fight the war?

Or are we going to put our people and forces deep inside Pakistan to install a new government? If we are going to do that, how are we going to deal with

1. Radioactive fallout affecting our own forces -safe food and water for our forces will have t be supplied from far far away
2. How do we deal with Pakistan dead and dying in millions - because our forces will have to be among the injured and dead to do their job of taking control.

[RoyG]

Below is a list of all Paki cities above 200,000 population taken from Wiki.

1. How many can we hit given an assumed arsenal of 80 nukes (reserving a few for China)
2. Which targets would most effectively Paralyse the Pakistani state as it is now
3. Which targets will affect India the least in terms if fallout if Indian occupation forces must enter

20 biggest population centers - 4 bumbs each.

First 1-7 (175kt X 2 + 50kt X 4)

Next 8-13 (175 X 1 + 50 X 3)

Remaining 8 (50kt X 2)

Total = 82

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think India's inventory is much larger than 120. This number has stayed the same for the past 10 years. It's probably 200+ by now. 50kt being the standard for Pakistan and China. 175/275 conservative/simulation debug high confidence design sprinkled on top.

I think 100 should be sufficient for Pakistan and 100 for China.

25 top population centers will be targeted and completely destroyed. Casualties = 40 million within the first 1 month. Maybe another 10-20 million from widespread famine and disease 1-2 years out. 50-60 million overall I think is a good rough estimate. Rapid decline of society will ensue b/c of decline in urea production and crop failure in the Punjab. This is going to be the killer. Pakistan as we know it will cease to exist.

[shiv]

The idea that we can nuke Pakistan and then wait 500 years for radioactivity to fade and dharma to take over does not sound like a solution to me. All Pakis will not die. Even if we kill 50 million today, 150 million will survive and they will not be overcome by dharma.

If India does not put our people on the ground there - "humanitarian" forces from USA, China, NGOs, Islamic and Christian religious charities etc will go in and then we will be further away than we are now.

But if we go in there we have to do the cleaning up. We have to protect our soldiers so that the radiation does not cause cancers for them or cause them to have deformed children.

So who has a plan?

[shiv]

Pakistan as we know it will cease to exist.

As mentioned in a separate post - where do we go after that how do we proceed to make the situation better for us in the years and decades after such a war

[RoyG]

Incinerating all of them isn't possible. Everyone agrees with you. But as your analysis shows, it is likely they will be prevented from picking up the pieces after full nuclear commitment. Many will die even years out post conflict. This is the what I'm trying to stress.

The entire basis of a deterrence debate for Indians revolves around what constitutes "massive retaliation".

Going further from there I would ask the following question. Imagine a nuclear war between India and Pakistan - and say Pakistan has taken out a couple of cities and India retaliates massively to finish off Pakistan as a functioning state. What is the meaning of that statement? Let us say we paralyse the Paki army's ability to age coordinated conflict by nuking their bosses and destroy 6-7 cities.

We will still be left with Pakistani soldiers, armoured columns that need to be mopped up. Let us assume that they are mopped up. After that are Indian forces going to be sitting on our side of the border allowing what is left of Pakistan to fend for itself? If so why did we fight the war?

Or are we going to put our people and forces deep inside Pakistan to install a new government? If we are going to do that, how are we going to deal with

1. Radioactive fallout affecting our own forces -safe food and water for our forces will have t be supplied from far far away
2. How do we deal with Pakistan dead and dying in millions - because our forces will have to be among the injured and dead to do their job of taking control.

I have a different take. I think the top 25 cities are going to go for sure. There is just know way population centers w/ more than 200k are going to stand. Full nuclear commitment doesn't involve us sending troops into the Punjab. I think we'll go into PoK and Sindh. That's it. Punjab post 1-2 weeks. Fallout will be minimal b/c of airbursting. The PA will melt away Shiv. They'll practically be torn to pieces and starve to death. The bulk of their finest officers are based in the Punjab which will be the worst hit.

[RoyG]

The idea that we can nuke Pakistan and then wait 500 years for radioactivity to fade and dharma to take over does not sound like a solution to me. All Pakis will not die. Even if we kill 50 million today, 150 million will survive and they will not be overcome by dharma.

If India does not put our people on the ground there - "humanitarian" forces from USA, China, NGOs, Islamic and Christian religious charities etc will go in and then we will be further away than we are now.

But if we go in there we have to do the cleaning up. We have to protect our soldiers so that the radiation does not cause cancers for them or cause them to have deformed children.

So who has a plan?

I understand. I think Sindh, and PoK first. PoK will be left virtually untouched and most of Sindh except for 2-3 cities will fine. I think the bulk of our forces should be sent into these two states. Radioactivity will be minimal b/c our nukes will be air burst.

It is the Punjab which will be the worst hit. 80% of our inventory allocated for them will be landing in this area. If radiation will be a problem it will be in this area.

Sindh, Punjab, and PoK are the three states which are doable for < 1 month imo. Not sure how we will be able to sustain any sort of presence in these areas for more than that.

[deejay]

^^^ So I am still not clear on what is being said here by some - Should we use nukes in retaliation to Paki nuke strike or not? Is it more important that we not become "genociders" or "bigots" by even trying to say we nuke Pakistan back or is it more important to actually hit back at Pakistan (or any nuclear attacker) as per our stated nuclear posture?

Are people arguing here on the fallouts of nuclear strike on Pakistan forgetting that we would have already been hit with that before we strike? Are those against use of nukes by India saying that we may have the technology but because we don't want to appear as genociders, mentally we are "nuke nude"?

[williams]

We need to realize there is a RAPE class elite in the Paki establishment, who have selfish and near cowardly attitude to protect their lives. It is the same in any totalitarian regimes. Chinese party leadership who are a bit more smarter belong to this same class. They may send their people for susai bombing and as cannon fodder, but will never risk their own lives. We can see evidence of it from the way they treat their own people. Deterrence need to work in a way that threatens these elites. Even pre-emptive scenarios should include massive risk to this cowardly class. India should develop intelligence network that can detect when these elite class is ready to bailout their assets. The moment we detect this we should know something is wrong.

Now this strategy will not work for the non-state actor, dirty bomb scenarios. The only way to prevent such scenarios is improving detection of nuclear materials in airports, train stations, ports etc. Improved security in our own labs that deal with nuclear/radiation materials and quick detection capability of signatures of foreign nuclear material will also help.

We can and should defeat the current asymmetric warfare of Paki-Chini combine by directly threatening the lives of the RAPE class elite, when we have non-state action inside India. We need to covertly punish this leadership and covert messages should be read to these elite leadership that they will be directly punished for such acts. Israelis and Russians have mastered such acts. They used overt deterrence where possible, but taught covert lessons to the elite class that did not follow the tenets of symmetric warfare. We need to learn from them and fight asymmetric enemies with with asymmetric tools. India has used such tools before after all our current NSA, Doval sir did not live in Pakistan for seven years to sell candy. India needs to build more capability in this area and use it more.

[RoyG]

^^^ So I am still not clear on what is being said here by some - Should we use nukes in retaliation to Paki nuke strike or not? Is it more important that we not become "genociders" or "bigots" by even trying to say we nuke Pakistan back or is it more important to actually hit back at Pakistan (or any nuclear attacker) as per our stated nuclear posture?

Are people arguing here on the fallouts of nuclear strike on Pakistan forgetting that we would have already been hit with that before we strike? Are those against use of nukes by India saying that we may have the technology but because we don't want to appear as genociders, mentally we are "nuke nude"?

Don't worry. Be happy. Everything will be fine.

Our response will be very cold and efficient if Pakistan gets any funny ideas.

They know it which is why they haven't tried anything.

Deterrence against Pakistan is beyond question.

I'm sure we have gamed for the aftermath as well in different scenarios.

Just focus on nation building. That's an even bigger deterrent in my view.

[shiv]

If India causes 50 million deaths in Pakistan after Pakistan nukes India, the world will never sit in judgement and say "India was right". There will be 75 million plus refugees/displaced people and India cannot handle that many. If the "world" judges that India was wrong (as they typically would), India will be under severe sanctions - so were are not going to have spare food and medicines for refugees. We are going to have to spare every paisa for our own sick and injured.

The point I am getting at is this: "What is the minimum damage that has to be done to Pakistan to make its army collapse and yet allow India to get away and control the area?"

I think that the idea that we must inflict "maximum possible damage" on Pakistan is attractive but comes with consequences to India and Indian forces that we must try and mitigate. On the one hand is the emotionally satisfying thought of "nuking the crap out of mofo religion of piss Pakistanis". But we must consider what we can do to control events after a conflict. I don't know if it is possible, but the whole idea of a discussion is to see if we can get away with something different without accusing each other of desiring to save the lives of Pakistani Muslims as has been alleged (not by you).

In other words I am trying to say what people tell me that I must not say - how to fight a nuclear war and win.

[shiv]

^^^ So I am still not clear on what is being said here by some - Should we use nukes in retaliation to Paki nuke strike or not? Is it more important that we not become "genociders" or "bigots" by even trying to say we nuke Pakistan back or is it more important to actually hit back at Pakistan (or any nuclear attacker) as per our stated nuclear posture?

Are people arguing here on the fallouts of nuclear strike on Pakistan forgetting that we would have already been hit with that before we strike? Are those against use of nukes by India saying that we may have the technology but because we don't want to appear as genociders, mentally we are "nuke nude"?

As I see it - no harm in discussing all possibilities and opinions and options for the following reasons:
1. It gets more people aware of what can and cannot be done
2. It is seen by many lurkers and removes the idea that Indians are turdworlder dumbasses who have nukes but are not so intelligent and civilized as the west who have discussed all these issues in great detail and only want to show how long and thick their dingdongs are
3. It will have little effect on our actual nuclear doctrine in the short term at least

[RoyG]

If India causes 50 million deaths in Pakistan after Pakistan nukes India, the world will never sit in judgement and say "India was right". There will be 75 million plus refugees/displaced people and India cannot handle that many. If the "world" judges that India was wrong (as they typically would), India will be under severe sanctions - so were are not going to have spare food and medicines for refugees. We are going to have to spare every paisa for our own sick and injured.

The point I am getting at is this: "What is the minimum damage that has to be done to Pakistan to make its army collapse and yet allow India to get away and control the area?"

I think that the idea that we must inflict "maximum possible damage" on Pakistan is attractive but comes with consequences to India and Indian forces that we must try and mitigate. On the one hand is the emotionally satisfying thought of "nuking the crap out of mofo religion of piss Pakistanis". But we must consider what we can do to control events after a conflict. I don't know if it is possible, but the whole idea of a discussion is to see if we can get away with something different without accusing each other of desiring to save the lives of Pakistani Muslims as has been alleged (not by you).

In other words I am trying to say what people tell me that I must not say - how to fight a nuclear war and win.

Valid point.

We should look into the Bengal famine episode and Syria and try to derive some lessons from them.

What about the Afghans and Iranians? We won't have to worry about Balochistan and NWFP. They will be taken by the Iranians and Afghans.

We will be focusing our efforts on 3 states.

PoK and Sindh will be the easiest to manage.

Punjab is really the tough one but we will have to do it somehow.

If we preemtively hit them we can maybe manage to hit select cities in the single digits and then graduate if we have to.

If we are responding, it will be far worse for them.

[shiv]

Let me simply throw a couple of "ideas" in the air. They don't sound all that great and flawless to me - but I post them nevertheless

1. Let there be a secret policy unknown to the Pakis that we will obliterate Rawalpindi and Islamabad and nearby military towns but spare Lahore and Karachi. Obviously, if Pakis get wind of this as an option they will start moving out the most valued assets from Rawalpindi/Islamabad and actually sit in Karachi/Lahore

2. Alternatively, make a public policy that we will not harm Lahore and Karachi in war and when Pakis nuke us we do whatever we like depending on the situation and not worry about any policies or promises we made earlier

The idea is to have "safe zones" for Pakistanis that will not be nuked as long as Paki army/air force targets are not inside them. We could also use those safe zones.

[deejay]

...
As I see it - no harm in discussing all possibilities and opinions and options for the following reasons:
1. It gets more people aware of what can and cannot be done
2. It is seen by many lurkers and removes the idea that Indians are turdworlder dumbasses who have nukes but are not so intelligent and civilized as the west who have discussed all these issues in great detail and only want to show how long and thick their dingdongs are
3. It will have little effect on our actual nuclear doctrine in the short term at least

Doc Sa'ab, our deterrent posture is "Massive Nuclear Strike" if we have been attacked first. What surprised me was the use of terms like "genocider" for people discussing in their view what would be a "massive nuclear strike"? I guess if those discussing these possibilities are "Genociders" then those who framed our policy of "Massive Nuclear Strike" are also "Genociders".

Game Theory positions are appreciated but there is one thing that is needed in the pursuit of Indian Happiness is the destruction of Pakistan. Ideally this would be achieved without firing a bullet. In case that is not possible, we will fire minimum number of bullets, if this also does not happen we will fire few rockets too, if this also fails, we fire arty - bullets -rockets-mortars-bombs-missiles, etc. Nuke war is not on table from our side.

We have kept the fighting to minimum reqd in '48, '65, '71, '99. In '02 we left the barracks but never fought. In '08 we did not even leave our barracks. What do we Indians need to do to convince the world that we are evolved "Pacifists" and not "turdworlder dumbasses"? Our actions speaks louder than words (IMHO please).

If labels like "genocider" are going to be applied for discussing our stated posture too then effectively this line of labeling is stifling discussions in support of our official POV.

[RoyG]

Let me simply throw a couple of "ideas" in the air. They don't sound all that great and flawless to me - but I post them nevertheless

1. Let there be a secret policy unknown to the Pakis that we will obliterate Rawalpindi and Islamabad and nearby military towns but spare Lahore and Karachi. Obviously, if Pakis get wind of this as an option they will start moving out the most valued assets from Rawalpindi/Islamabad and actually sit in Karachi/Lahore

2. Alternatively, make a public policy that we will not harm Lahore and Karachi in war and when Pakis nuke us we do whatever we like depending on the situation and not worry about any policies or promises we made earlier

The idea is to have "safe zones" for Pakistanis that will not be nuked as long as Paki army/air force targets are not inside them. We could also use those safe zones.

I think the most likely scenario is gradually the Pakjabis lose control over Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP, and PoK.

Recall their nukes from those provinces into Punjab and establish some sort of deal between US and India.

No nuclear exchange of any kind.

India shifts its nuclear assets to the N and NE along w/ the bulk of its conventional forces.

[shiv]

We have kept the fighting to minimum reqd in '48, '65, '71, '99. In '02 we left the barracks but never fought. In '08 we did not even leave our barracks.

No argument against this - the stark truth..

But I want to look at it from another perspective. What were the objectives in each of the earlier occasions? To cut a long story short we have no objectives. When Pakistan attacks us our objective has been to "vacate them" from what we call our territory - into what we accept is "their territory"

Nuclear war is an added factor here and when we start with the knowledge that we have no objective with regard to Pakistan and look at our nuclear doctrine we see that even the doctrine has no objective other than massive retaliation as a reaction to an attack which Pakistan initiates. Nothing further. Now one can cook up a good excuse for having no objective other than massive nuclear retaliation - the excuse is that the doctrine is a deterrent - meant to scare the Pakis into actually searching under their balls for a brain and booting it up.

At least you have come up with an objective:

there is one thing that is needed in the pursuit of Indian Happiness is the destruction of Pakistan

One of the things I want to talk about is objectives. What do we seek to achieve? Maybe this question should not be in this thread at all but it finds a place because nuclear weapons offer a good prospect of devastating Pakistan and Pakis and simply bringing them to their knees.

But I think we must go further than simply devastating them or bringing them to their knees. If the Pakistani state survives the next war it will be declared yet another victory like all the Pakistani victories of 1948, 65, 71 and 99. I can find no Pakistani who acknowledges defeat. So if we sit tight after nuking the crap out of them in retaliation for an attack on us, it will do nothing if we don't follow it up and dissolve the state.

Dissolving the Pakistan state requires certain actions that involve putting our men on the ground in Pakistan. Pakis realize this perfectly well and their idea of nuking Indian attacking Indian forces is just to thwart such an eventuality. Our promise of hitting back sounds good on paper, but we still have to wait for them to attack and after they attack, our objective like 1999 will be limited to getting them out and hope that their fear of nukes keeps the fighting conventional. This is no good. There has to be a plan of either splitting Pakistan or at least taking PoK at any cost - even if a nuclear war is fought. Freeing Baluchistan could be an added idea. Nuking Pakistan to oblivion should only be step 1. Step 2 is wiping out the cancer.

I think these have to be openly discussed in the public domain by the public and anyone else from the "strategic community" who cares to join so that our largely ignorant moorkhs of Indian "civil society" and polity also start thinking about these issues. Particularly because these actions will invite the possibility of nuclear war and if we must take a nuclear hit Pakistan must be finished off once and for all time.

[adityadange]

Doc Sa'ab, our deterrent posture is "Massive Nuclear Strike" if we have been attacked first. What surprised me was the use of terms like "genocider" for people discussing in their view what would be a "massive nuclear strike"? I guess if those discussing these possibilities are "Genociders" then those who framed our policy of "Massive Nuclear Strike" are also "Genociders".

Game Theory positions are appreciated but there is one thing that is needed in the pursuit of Indian Happiness is the destruction of Pakistan. Ideally this would be achieved without firing a bullet. In case that is not possible, we will fire minimum number of bullets, if this also does not happen we will fire few rockets too, if this also fails, we fire arty - bullets -rockets-mortars-bombs-missiles, etc. Nuke war is not on table from our side.

We have kept the fighting to minimum reqd in '48, '65, '71, '99. In '02 we left the barracks but never fought. In '08 we did not even leave our barracks. What do we Indians need to do to convince the world that we are evolved "Pacifists" and not "turdworlder dumbasses"? Our actions speaks louder than words (IMHO please).

If labels like "genocider" are going to be applied for discussing our stated posture too then effectively this line of labeling is stifling discussions in support of our official POV.

Exactly my feeling too. If someone has taken nuclear hit and respond back by nuclear hit how on earth that classifies as genosider? in fact people will laugh at us saying these indians are really loosers. they cannot even respond nuke strike when they have their own nukes!!! i think this is gandhigiri at its peak. what should we do? turn other cheek by withdrawing our s-400s from our cities?

coming to nuclear fallour on indian cities, i am pretty much sure that our forces have already calculate that risk and at certain stage it is acceptable. we also have small nukes which we can drop near our border areas to keep the fallout to minimum level.

i also think we dont need to wipe out each and every pakistani. as already discussed that we can skip pok, baluchistan, nwfp and sindh to some extent. hitting pakjab and paki army establishment would be sufficient to incapacitate pakistan.

[SSridhar]

There is a difference in the India-Pakistan situation than between other nuclear rivals, such as China-US or US-Russia. We are both neighbours and one of the countries, Pakistan, is not only irredentist but also does not mind a reckless n-war while the other country, us, wants to dismantle an incorrigible, troublesome jihadi-fountainhead so that future generations of Indians (and other neighbours) can live more peacefully and prosperously. Pakistan’s n-threshold are deliberately low while we do not want to use n-weapons at all unless of course pushed to the very brink. We may never know if the low thresholds of Pakistan are genuine due to fear and insecurity or are set deliberately. Going by the fact that the paranoia about India is carefully manufactured and nurtured by the Establishment in Pakistan, we can conclude safely that the threshold are deliberate in nature. Pakistanis are impatient revisionists while we are staid status-quoists.

The closest to this situation in the Cold War era was the Western European theatre between NATO and USSR WarsawPact. We can learn from what they went through. In terms of nuclear posture, NATO was somewhat like Pakistan, hugely disadvantaged by the massive Soviet plus Warsaw Pact conventional forces and very insecure against them. Reaction times were short and TNWs were deployed at least by the numerically disadvantaged NATO just as Pakistan has done. The NATO wanted to counter the Soviet army through its tactical nuclear superiority. The assumption was that the use of theatre n-weapons would not lead to a strategic response. The exchange of strategic strikes between the US and the USSR was meant to be averted through other means which included arms limitation talks and superiority of US weapons and delivery systems demanding second thoughts by the USSR. But then, the Russians deployed counterforce SS-20 IRBMs and the NATO had to find more effective counter punch than merely TNWs, artillery shells etc.

But, the issue bothering the West European nations was damage to the self after using a nuke, even a tactical weapon, on one’s own soil or nearbouts. It is then that ‘damage-limiting’ nuclear weapons such as the ERW (Enhanced Radiation Warhead or Neutron Bomb) came into play so that NATO forces didn’t suffer much even after these weapons were used against advancing Russian forces even on their own soil. However, the ERW project was given up by the US later on. The Americans instead went for Long Range Theatre Nuclear Force (LRTNF) like Pershings & GLCMs to deter the Russian SS-20s until SALT-II eliminated or limited all these. These were counterforce weapons capable of evading Soviet defences and reaching long ranges to rear-located Soviet forces in East European countries. Though the US removed/reduced these theatre missiles, NATO was secure that the n-weapons & missiles of the UK & France remained intact in the European context, an advantage not available to the USSR.

Two lessons I see in this narrative as far as India is concerned are: one, we have to have counterforce weapons to counter the TNWs, we have to hit deep and decimate the enemy’s war-fighting capabilities such as military leadership, reserve forces, ordnance factories, bases thereby avoiding collateral damage for advancing Indian forces but breaking the ability and resolve of the enemy to pursue his agenda against us with least cost collateral damage to our own forces or populations along the border. We can skirt countervalue targets and allow the centrifugal forces, which are aplenty in Pakistan, to do the favour of dismantling the state in the fog of great confusion and loss of morale. Advancing Pakistani forces can be handled through conventional means. I do not think we should be interested in seizing Pakistani cities like Lahore because that would tie down massive forces to manage these cities and limit other operations.

[Raghz]

One of the things I want to talk about is objectives.

Before we talk about objectives, I think we need to understand where we are and what our goals as a nation are. Let me elaborate... If I can categorize nations according to Maslow's pyramid, I think India would probably fit into the second rung at best. There are significant number of citizens who are very much in the first rung. It is just 70 years since we have got our independence. We are all well aware of the state we were in at the time of independence. In 70 years, we have managed to achieve food security. Energy security is still some decades away. We are having glimpses of "esteem" and "self actualization" areas. On the whole, we are somewhere between first and second rung and know where we were a millennia ago. We are also aware of our potential, we want time to get there.

In my opinion, our objectives are very much reflective of our reality. We do not have grandiose objective to occupy foreign land. Our objectives are more towards, "How do I prosper peacefully?", "Are there anything which my neighbours can do, which will be against my progress?" If so, how do I protect my interest?. For example, if China does something to divert rivers flowing into India, how do I counter it? I do not think we have any secret objective as to "How to free Tibet from Chinese occupation and install the Dalai Lama there?"

The same is applicable with Pakistan I feel. If Pakistan stops bothering India, I do not think we will have any interest in Pakistan at all. We have enough things to do and will concentrate on that.

Our "No first use" and "Massive retaliation when attacked" are reflective of our reality.

"No first use" - We do not want war, we do not want to harm you unprovoked.
"Massive retaliation" - You will cease to be a problem to us anymore. We do not want to occupy your territory and make your problem as our problem. We have enough already.

[Manish_Sharma]

Here I have taken the population density map of porkistan and removed the occupied areas, in fact a little bit extra for care.

What is being calculated about nukes hitting pakistan and later spreading its radioactivity to Bharat, isn't bothering about the scenario that already this radioactivity is moving from Delhi to UP to Bihar and so on...

from Mumbai to Pune to Latur to Nanded to Chhatisgarh to Odisha...

I don't think Punjab and Haryana will not be effected by porki warhead bursting on Delhi. So the idea that our warheads on porkistan will bring radioactivity here is being completely rejected here.

Now all we need to do is burst our warheads on the borders of deep chocolate color areas and coffee colored areas, here is the same map with :

WHITE WARHEADS 450 KILOTON
YELLOW 250 KILOTON
PURPLE 50 KILOTON



Just to help the debate about spread of radioactivity.

WHITE ONES I TOOK FOR ARMY AIRBASES AND SILOS.

Just to help the debate.

[Amber G.]

Dupe removed.

[Amber G.]

Just a small comment (and something to think about deeply) for too many comments like:

extermination of vermins is not genocide. Its pest control.

The idea that we can nuke Pakistan and then wait 500 years for radioactivity to fade and dharma to take over does not sound like a solution to me. All Pakis will not die. ..

If good humans are being killed, vermin's extermination may not matter much(even if one does not care about pests)..
Besides cockroaches and other pests - even the paki kind - will survive radiation long after humans are gone.

Just saying ...
(MAD type scenarios are for *sane/rational* enemy where a threat can prevent *our* massive loss. Irrational use is useless as even killing *ALL* will not compensate loss of even one city like Delhi. There is *no* doubt (and any semi-rational Paki general must be convinced of that) that *any* nuke strike on any city in india will effectively result in wiping Pak of the map, (Wiping does not mean killing everyone but it does mean *unaccepted* result by Paki side). For irrational types we still have to be on our guard and do everything possible to denuke Pak.

[rsingh]

There are many factors you need to consider
- wind in Northen India is East West from July- Oct and West East from Oct to July. If India drops AB during winter or early summer we risk of getting major fallout on Indian Soil.
-Temperature and wheather conditions (rain,thunderstorm,strong unusual winds etc).

[rsingh]

Dupe removed.

Pardone moi cet qui le "dupe"?

[Amber G.]

Dupe removed.

Pardone moi cet qui le "dupe"?

Pardone MOI, je voulais dire "Duplicate" ! (as in "duplicate post" )

[Amber G.]

In my opinion, our objectives are very much reflective of our reality. We do not have grandiose objective to occupy foreign land. Our objectives are more towards, "How do I prosper peacefully?", "Are there anything which my neighbours can do, which will be against my progress?" If so, how do I protect my interest?. For example, if China does something to divert rivers flowing into India, how do I counter it? I do not think we have any secret objective as to "How to free Tibet from Chinese occupation and install the Dalai Lama there?"

The same is applicable with Pakistan I feel. If Pakistan stops bothering India, I do not think we will have any interest in Pakistan at all. We have enough things to do and will concentrate on that.

Our "No first use" and "Massive retaliation when attacked" are reflective of our reality.

"No first use" - We do not want war, we do not want to harm you unprovoked.
"Massive retaliation" - You will cease to be a problem to us anymore. We do not want to occupy your territory and make your problem as our problem. We have enough already.

Nicely put.

[ramana]

SSridhar, Brilliant analogy. I once read a book written in the 1980s "Future of Land Warfare" by Chris Bishop. And on the chapter on Indian sub-continent among the numerous refs were many papers by TSPA officers on utility of TNWs, to counter IA numbers. And the thinking was based on NATO doctrine. So you do have some validation here.

Also in totalitarian regimes its the leadership chain that should be put at risk and not people for they don't care.

If you recall there was hue and cry when some new report claimed that Prithvi was being ungraded with earth penetrating payloads.

[RoyG]

I think this conversation is beginning to escape reality.

Pre-emptive nuclear options are not a practical strategy at this time.

I would be surprised if Pakistan and China didn't work together to put in place a system to ensure that there will be a response even if the leadership is taken out.

Deterrence is psychological more than anything else.

We'll just have to improve the quality and quantity of our systems while investing in technology and national comprehensive strength.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe another thread should started on asymmetric strategies against Pakistan.

We should be focusing on economic/finance, cyber, special forces, energy grid, naval blockade, etc.

[JayS]

"What is the minimum damage that has to be done to Pakistan to make its army collapse and yet allow India to get away and control the area?"

While reading this I thought of something, and then I saw SSridhar has pretty well said the same.

I think our target for next war should be dismemberment of Pakistan in 4 pieces nukes or no nukes. In case we are fired upon nukes, I don't think we should go for complete annihilation of Pak. As much as I would like it, I think its physically impossible and we will end up with lot of refugees (agree with Shiv there), of which we should take none, bar Hindus. How about this - We only focus n obliterating Pakjab. we nuke the hell out of Pakjabi Army and all important installations like power stations etc enough to send Pakjab to stone age. We ask Baloch, Sindh and Pakhtun people to declare war against Paki army and get themselves free and we spare those areas given locals there sanitize it of all anti-India elements for us (only military installations be bombed there). Of coarse we sanitize POK and take it back.

We have to make sure that the idea of Pakistan - an Islamic state - is obliterated. We can't let the new regions Sindh Baloch et al go BD way.

[ShauryaT]

On Objectives:

It will be incredibly stupid of us to conduct nuclear war and not have any objectives beyond leave me in peace, I am good boy only. We do not want our progeny cursing us to leave this entity called Pakistan to rise up again in another 50-100 years and start the whole story again. How selfish the unfortunate generation that may see this can be to kick the issue further downstream after managing nuclear war upon themselves. I hope this stupidity is not of our generation. Nuclear war at the very minimum has to achieve one goal. It has to end the two nation theory decisively. If even that minimum cannot be achieved, Lutyen's Delhi has no right to exist.

How many targets and what type of targets are needed to achieve that objective is a veritably debatable topic. The WMD damage can be supplemented by other tools including psychological to hasten that point. Whatever that point is, at that point Pakistanis cease to be Pakistanis and killing has to stop.

I do not think the scenario of a couple of targets in India attacked and we do MR in retaliation although plausible is a likely scenario, in actual war. It is far too predictable and the predictability of it by itself makes it less likely. E.g: I will bet that NFU would be ignored, if we think a nuclear launch is imminent. Meaning we are not going to wait to absorb but will pre-empt.

From a Pakistani stand point, If they know MR is a certainty, they will also know that Pakistan will cease to exist is also certain. At this point, their best bet is to build capabilities to inflict a level of harm on India that can threaten India's existence or at least maul India so severely that she will take a long time to recover. Building such capabilities entails costs, and I believe Pakistan is on that trajectory.

Have our planners, really thought through much about the aftermath? Who's job is it? MoD, the services, PMO nuclear cell? This is where we do not have institutionalized answers.

The warriors of MAD had to think through how to survive MAD and come out on top. The objective was to survive. It will be a shame, if Pakistan is allowed to build up to a point where it can seriously threaten almost the entire Indian land mass.

[SaiK]

RoyG, I agree on your strategic thoughts and I am not arguing about how tos.., but this is "deterrence" dhaaga. no?

It is a valid deterrence doctrine that will pass muster.

[RoyG]

RoyG, I agree on your strategic thoughts and I am not arguing about how tos.., but this is "deterrence" dhaaga. no?

It is a valid deterrence doctrine that will pass muster.

True. That's why I said perhaps another thread may do.

As far as preemptive strike options are concerned, like someone already mentioned - All of Pakistan isn't worth losing a single major Indian city like Delhi or Mumbai.

The only real strategy is salami slicing Pakistan while constantly upgrading and expanding our strategic arsenal.

It's a psychological weapon to keep them from getting any ideas.

[SSridhar]

I once read a book written in the 1980s "Future of Land Warfare" by Chris Bishop. And on the chapter on Indian sub-continent among the numerous refs were many papers by TSPA officers on utility of TNWs, to counter IA numbers. And the thinking was based on NATO doctrine.

If the book was in the 80s and PA officers had written about these things so far in advance, I won't be surprised if they had the benefit of American inputs in developing their nuclear doctrine. The parentage of the Pakistani blueprint!

[ShauryaT]

Two lessons I see in this narrative as far as India is concerned are: one, we have to have counterforce weapons to counter the TNWs, we have to hit deep and decimate the enemy’s war-fighting capabilities such as military leadership, reserve forces, ordnance factories, bases thereby avoiding collateral damage for advancing Indian forces but breaking the ability and resolve of the enemy to pursue his agenda against us with least cost collateral damage to our own forces or populations along the border. We can skirt countervalue targets and allow the centrifugal forces, which are aplenty in Pakistan, to do the favour of dismantling the state in the fog of great confusion and loss of morale. Advancing Pakistani forces can be handled through conventional means. I do not think we should be interested in seizing Pakistani cities like Lahore because that would tie down massive forces to manage these cities and limit other operations.

At what point does Counterforce become unacceptable to the other party that it indeed escalates? Do we need counterforce weapons to do targeted assaults? Is a tit for tat answer the best answer to TNW's? Tactical weapons worked to some extent due to the geographical distance of the two main protagonists. The Europeans quickly realized that this was a bad bargain for them, as all these weapons would be used on their land, on their people and hence the stiff opposition to nuclear weapons on tactical missiles and the subsequent INF treaty . One of the key focus areas has been to ban tactical weapons. Everything I know about India's thinking on this matter is to move AWAY from tactical nuclear weapons.

In our context, the geography and population densities involved do not allow for this luxury. In most war games, those assumptions on limited theater use went awry quite rapidly and would be pronto in our case. We have our conventional forces to eliminate TSP war fighting capabilities. As data will show to you, one would need dozens of TNW's to make an armored division inoperable and this is without hardening and most of our tanks have been NBC enabled.

I remain unconvinced about counterforce as an appropriate approach for Indian end goals. If you break the state you will own the pieces. We somehow imagine that the provinces of Pakistan can be stable states by themselves, hard data on economic, demographics and power dynamics will show not to be so. If there is a case, it probably is for a greater Afghanistan. Anyways, those parts ore OT for the thread.

The approach that serves Indian interests best is to look at the issue from the prism of a ceded territory that needs governing. It is not an alien territory or people. The only question is, will India be up to it. The answer is in the negative for now.

[SaiK]

Roy, Last week, I happened to hear a fellow-green-tea drinker Chinese near coffee machine dhoti shibbering on ISRO's capability to launch 20 satellites. He keeps thinking it is a dual use vehicle and each satellite is actually an MIRV. He wouldn't accept India will not use ISRO's capability.

what say?

[shiv]

Ve-ery interesting.

We have three different viewpoints from three thinking members whose views I have valued over the years. These posts must be considered as valid and significant "Indian viewpoints" which thinking and well informed Indians at large are likely to have - so I cannot personally dismiss any of these views as untenable. In our country people have different views and what finally happens depends on what views prevail at the time of conflict. That is why it is important to discuss this topic and keep it within public consciousness so we eventually work towards some consensus that is best for the future of our nation.

I will state/restate my own view in a separate post

1.

Two lessons I see in this narrative as far as India is concerned are: one, we have to have counterforce weapons to counter the TNWs, we have to hit deep and decimate the enemy’s war-fighting capabilities such as military leadership, reserve forces, ordnance factories, bases thereby avoiding collateral damage for advancing Indian forces but breaking the ability and resolve of the enemy to pursue his agenda against us with least cost collateral damage to our own forces or populations along the border. We can skirt countervalue targets and allow the centrifugal forces, which are aplenty in Pakistan, to do the favour of dismantling the state in the fog of great confusion and loss of morale. Advancing Pakistani forces can be handled through conventional means. I do not think we should be interested in seizing Pakistani cities like Lahore because that would tie down massive forces to manage these cities and limit other operations.

2.

In my opinion, our objectives are very much reflective of our reality. We do not have grandiose objective to occupy foreign land. Our objectives are more towards, "How do I prosper peacefully?", "Are there anything which my neighbours can do, which will be against my progress?" If so, how do I protect my interest?. For example, if China does something to divert rivers flowing into India, how do I counter it? I do not think we have any secret objective as to "How to free Tibet from Chinese occupation and install the Dalai Lama there?"

The same is applicable with Pakistan I feel. If Pakistan stops bothering India, I do not think we will have any interest in Pakistan at all. We have enough things to do and will concentrate on that.

Our "No first use" and "Massive retaliation when attacked" are reflective of our reality.

"No first use" - We do not want war, we do not want to harm you unprovoked.
"Massive retaliation" - You will cease to be a problem to us anymore. We do not want to occupy your territory and make your problem as our problem. We have enough already.

3.

It will be incredibly stupid of us to conduct nuclear war and not have any objectives beyond leave me in peace, I am good boy only. We do not want our progeny cursing us to leave this entity called Pakistan to rise up again in another 50-100 years and start the whole story again.
<snip>
From a Pakistani stand point, If they know MR is a certainty, they will also know that Pakistan will cease to exist is also certain. At this point, their best bet is to build capabilities to inflict a level of harm on India that can threaten India's existence or at least maul India so severely that she will take a long time to recover. Building such capabilities entails costs, and I believe Pakistan is on that trajectory.

Have our planners, really thought through much about the aftermath? Who's job is it? MoD, the services, PMO nuclear cell? This is where we do not have institutionalized answers.

The warriors of MAD had to think through how to survive MAD and come out on top. The objective was to survive. It will be a shame, if Pakistan is allowed to build up to a point where it can seriously threaten almost the entire Indian land mass.
Top