Deterrence

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 19 Sep 2016 23:53

Exactly, keep hitting pakjab and anything and everything that funds paki army.

rgosain · Post by **rgosain** » 19 Sep 2016 23:57

Bheeshma wrote:Exactly, keep hitting pakjab and anything and everything that funds paki army.

Which is why the pretext for any form of retaliation should be for 26/11 as it undercuts the entire Kashmir nuclear flashpoint gambit.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 20 Sep 2016 00:54

Deterrence is a word coined by western people when there were no suicide bombings. Suicide bombings, non-state actors with miniaturized nukes totally changed the equation. Deterrence does not work any more!!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 20 Sep 2016 00:57

Bakis will keep on upping the ante and at least citizens if they keep on accepting will have another norm of "Bareilly or charkhi dadri or some small town gets destroyed by a nuke detonated by a non-state actors" and with lots of dossiers by government and "geedar babkhi" and asking other states to help these small towns.

All the non-nationalistic journalists like Bakra, etc are working towards this narrative where the state of Bakistan is kept alive and non-state actors are roaming around with nukes detonating when wanting to meet their 72s.

Give peace a chance destroy state and non-state actors from Pakistan now!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Sep 2016 11:40

Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Sep 2016 12:25

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

The Americans have started . . .

habal · Post by **habal** » 20 Sep 2016 12:28

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

kissinger's wet dream then, why do they fake alarm ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Sep 2016 12:57

Deterrence does not work any more for India!! It is working for Pakistan against rest of the world especially first world countries!!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 20 Sep 2016 16:50

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

12 million huh. Not even one percent of our population. Then how will our country get destroyed. Nuclear weapons are the most overrated weapons ever. Lets move on.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Sep 2016 16:59

Madam-ji who wrote that article is probably reading about N wepons in such detail for the first time in her life. She is obviously very concerned about the smoke it will generate as also in true environmentalist spirit, the damage to the ozone layer

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Sep 2016 17:07

She is deterring herself. Only a fear can trigger that article, and none other than pakis are on "shibber alert"! [bluffers]

A first would be no-nuke attack by ensuring CPEC doesn't happen

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 20 Sep 2016 18:32

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

I still dont get it how can India be Destroyed. Pakistan yes but India no. We have come back from worst disasters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2016 19:17

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Poorly researched article..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Sep 2016 20:06

Madam-ji has just copy pasted from the internet and jerry rigged a sort of an article, and here we are discussing this piece of crap

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Sep 2016 20:52

"Shreya Bishwas". Some totally deracinated, sickular Xaviers/St.Stephen's type whose portfolio of timepass articles includes "India's Affair with Rock Music" and some nonsense about "The Hunger Games". Ack-thhoooo.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Sep 2016 22:33

Have people seen this 650 page book?

Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition (Published by USDOD and ERDA)

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 20 Sep 2016 22:56

matrimc wrote:Have people seen this 650 page book?

Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition (Published by USDOD and ERDA)

Matrimc ji, why read the book? The best way to understand nuclear weapons effects is to conduct Practicals directly.

Trust me more people will survive a nuclear explosion than reading 650 page technical ebook. US DOD can shove it up their @**

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Sep 2016 00:01

Matrimc: Thanks for sharing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2016 00:10

If China intervenes there is possibility of Buddha smiling again.

rgosain · Post by **rgosain** » 21 Sep 2016 00:15

If you accept that NK is conducting tests by proxy for the PRC/Pak then it becomes plausible. I actually think the appropriate response to URI is to restart the A5 tests as this will firm up the MIRv capability. It is interesting that this recent outrage came soon after the NK tests and the NSG meeting.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Sep 2016 01:38

Yes, each time NoKo tests, there is renewed confidence in Pindi.
The pakistanis have even this year, in 2016, shipped centrifuge parts to NoKo. There are satellite pics showing this.
No sanctions on Pak for this have been initiated.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 21 Sep 2016 02:19

ramana wrote:If China intervenes there is possibility of Buddha smiling again.

I've been saying this for some time. It's coming.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2016 02:30

darshan, it is not about surviving a nuke, but how you live after.

if china.. we should ask Krishna to come over and smile.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Sep 2016 04:30

Austin wrote:Apocalypse alert: How India-Pakistan nuclear war will kill 12 million, destroy two countries

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 67919.html

Christine Fair has a point :

India shouldn't fear nuclear reprisal on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism:
Defence expert Christine Fair

Criticising Pakistan-sponsored terror against India, Fair said, "I have never heard any Pakistani say they will not send a terror team because India has nuclear weapons."

IndiaToday.in | Edited by Ashna Kumar
New Delhi, September 21, 2016 | UPDATED 02:02 IST

Highlights

1
Never heard any Pakistani say they will not send terrorists because India has nuclear weapons: Fair
2
India cannot expect support unless it officially declares Pakistan a state sponsor of terror.
3
Waging a diplomatic war is just not enough.

Talking to India Today about India's retaliation against Pakistan after the Uri terror attack, Georgetown University professor and an expert on India-Pakistan relations Christine Fair said that India shouldn't exercise restraint fearing nuclear reprisal from Pakistan.

Criticising Pakistan-sponsored terror against India, Fair said, "I have never heard any Pakistani say they will not send a terror team because India has nuclear weapons."

She says that India's nuclear arsenal should in fact give it immunity and impunity to prosecute sub-state terrorism sponsored by Pakistan.

HOLES IN PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

Fair pointed holes in Pakistan's nuclear doctrine saying that it required Pakistan "to first detonate a nuclear tactical weapon in its air space as a warning to Indian troops and then the second level of escalation over a border transgression would call for the use of nuclear weaponry.

If Pakistan bursts a weapon in its airspace, it will immediately run a risk of knocking out its commanding communication."

"Secondly, If Indian troops transgress into a populated city like Sialkot or Lahore, Pakistan will suffer more fatalities than on Indian troops. Therefore, this battlefield calculation gives India a lot of wriggle room to retaliate than to exercise restraint," she said.

BALOCHISTAN CARD DEMOTES LARGER ISSUE

The professor also warned India against breaching the Indus water treaty with Pakistan, arguing that it will be an unjust answer because India will end up punishing innocent Pakistanis and not those who launched the terror attack.

Fair is strongly averse to India's plan of sending ministers to foreign countries in order to garner support against Pakistan. She says, "It is a little too much to ask others to do it," adding that India cannot expect support unless it officially declares Pakistan a state sponsor of terror.

Asking India to focus on Pakistan seeding unrest in Kashmir and not on Balochistan, she advised - "If India plays the Balochistan card to UN, it would merely look like a 'tit for tat' situation, thereby demoting the larger issue of sub-state terrorism."

WHY IS CHINA DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

Fair wanted India to pull in China into the debate as they have been defending Pakistant blatantly. It will put China in a hot seat, when India raises the terror issue in UN.

"Why is China defending the indefensible?" asked Fair.

Waging a diplomatic war is just not enough, Fair said.

"Don't expect diplomatic isolation is going to stop Pakistan from using terror as tool for foreign policy," she added.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uri- ... -terrorism/1/769343.html

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 21 Sep 2016 04:41

I think the TNW strategy is effective but only to a degree. It keeps India confined to 20-30km in the border areas.

However, in adopting this strategy they have already conceded defeat. It's a very defensive posture to take.

You can circumvent this by building up your nuclear arsenal while chipping away at their troubled regions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2016 07:35

matrimc wrote:Have people seen this 650 page book?

Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition (Published by USDOD and ERDA)

I downloaded and referred to this book when I wrote my take on a 50 kiloton nuke on Rawalpindi 3-4 years ago
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3JNY4 ... sp=sharing

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2016 07:41

Gagan wrote:Madam-ji has just copy pasted from the internet and jerry rigged a sort of an article, and here we are discussing this piece of crap

She has done some hasty reading, that all.

She shows up her ignorance when she says that nuclear explosions throw a lot of carbon in the air that will blot out sunlight. This is a double mistake

1. The explosion does not produce carbon but secondary fires in cities can do that and the carbon has a name" "smoke"
2. You need to take out dozens of cities in a conflagration such as was expected in the Cold War to produce enough fires to blot out the sky. A small nuclear exchange will hardly do that - especially if cities do not have the wooden constructions and material to burn

wig · Post by **wig** » 21 Sep 2016 09:30

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 430744.cms

this appeared today "Pakistan may use tactical nuke if it’s unable to push back Indian army: Hans Kristensen".
I opine that use of a tactical nuke might be an invitation to wipe out Pakistan

A potential low-yield, tactical nuclear weapon strike by Pakistan is perhaps the single most important factor preventing the Narendra Modi government from taking any military action against Pakistan in haste. While the threat from these weapons has been described by some in India as just a Pakistani red herring, the same will play on the minds of Indian policy makers if they indeed decide to go ahead with a cross-border strike.
As the director of Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, Hans Kristensen remains one of world's leading authorities on Pakistan's nuclear weapon programme. He first wrote in 2011 that Pakistan's production of nuclear capable 60-km Nasr missile was not intended to target any Indian city but to check an Indian army advance. TOI caught up with Kristensen to find out how credible was the threat from Pakistan's tactical nukes:
Q. Does the prospect of a flare up between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, after the Uri attack worry you?
A. Yes, that is potentially a dangerous situation. However, a Pakistani decision to use nuclear weapons in response to an Indian incursion is not automatic but ould very much depend on the magnitude of the Indian incursion.
Q. When exactly do you think Pakistan could put to use its tactical nuclear weapons?
A. Smaller operations would be very unlikely to trigger nuclear use but would certainly trigger conventional responses. And once a conventional confrontation breaks out and more forces are thrown into the battle, then it would potentially escalate to nuclear weapons use if Pakistan concluded that it couldn't push back the Indian attack.
Q. What about the effectiveness of these weapons for Pakistan?
A. As for the effectiveness, nuclear weapons could no doubt create significant problems for an attacking force. But it very much depends on how the attack is structured. Indian forces would have to attack in fairly concentrated formations for nuclear weapons to be useful. And a nuclear counter attack could actually end up requiring a large number of warheads. When the US examined potential use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq it concluded that it would not be a limited matter but require a significant number of weapons.
Q. What can Indian forces do to limit the damage from a low-yield nuclear weapon?
A. If the Indian forces were not coming in a heavily concentrated form but more dispersed and from different directions, then it would be much more complicated to counter them.Q. Could Pakistan itself not suffer from the radioactive fallout of its own tactical nuclear weapon?
A. The radioactive fallout from the weapons would be indiscriminate; it would fall wherever the wind blows. So if the Indian forces were attacking with the wind in their back, the radioactive fallout would drift across Pakistan, not India.

Q. In these circumstances, can India afford to use the military option against Pakistan?
A. Because of these risks, it would be reckless and highly risky for India to strike into Pakistan in revenge for the terrorist attacks. It would carry with it consequences that would far exceed the damage caused by the terrorist attacks. Sound strategy - especially nuclear strategy - requires cool heads, not hasty reactive military spasms that end up creating far more damage than the initial attack.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Sep 2016 10:51

darshhan wrote:The best way to understand nuclear weapons effects is to conduct Practicals directly.
Trust me more people will survive a nuclear explosion than reading 650 page technical ebook. US DOD can shove it up their @**

Good one.

It is a doorstop if printed and bound. But one can cherry pick juicy bits to scare the $h173 out of some pakis and cheen.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Sep 2016 10:55

Shiv, that woman is talking about nuclear winter. A few KT or even a handful of 100kt weapons are not going to cause nuclear winter. She is off by two orders of magnitude.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Sep 2016 17:23

She should stick to writing articles about harry potter and the hunger games movie

Hans Kristensen is selling snake oil
He is fear mongering. The US & Russia have tactical nukes, not a fata hua bhikhari like Pakistan. Their main design fizzled, pakis are making virtue out of failure and calling it a tactical nuke.
NoKo's best acheivement was this last test, which yielded some 15 KT. NoKo claims that this is a complete package. This will eventually make its way to Pakistan.

Please remember that Pakistan has 2 Poo reprocessing plants only, in Pinstech & at Chashma.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2016 22:21

Rafale adds to the detergent value argues this article:

http://nationalinterest.org/print/blog/ ... they-17777

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Sep 2016 19:37

^It is difficult to buy the Rafale for strategic delivery argument. Rafale does not have the range or payload carrying capacity to deliver long range ALCM. In today's age with well defended air spaces and the need to deliver our payloads over 3000-4000 KM away the only reliable air based delivery is from a LR bomber with the ability to carry stand off cruise missiles that can travel 1000-2000 KM.

The IAF has tactical plans to use the the Su-30 in a one way mini-bomber role for this purpose against China but Rafale doing the same is a stretch. Even if it is able to carry the Nirbhay, it would be only 1 per aircraft, is that good enough for deterrence purposes or the best use of the asset? If the IAF is thinking about Pakistan then that is a joke. Rafale as a replacement for the Mirage seems a ruse, which has many alternative answers for short legged free fall payload deliveries.

Our air component of the triad should really focus on LR bombers and LR ALCM.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 22 Sep 2016 19:46

TU 22M3 is the best bet for ALCM launches. There were some news about India buying them a month or so ago. Nothing after that. Backfires will surely be a strategic deterrent. Imagine a dozen MKIs escorting couple of backfires for ALCM strikes.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 22 Sep 2016 19:57

can TSP ever stop attacking India- NO
can there be any deterrence to stop them-NO

possibly none other than wiping out the segment of population(can be from 0-100%) who have the itch to fight India. This is inbred right from birth with hate literature falsifying history etc etc. maybe the only solution is becoming dharmic. This softens them up in not hating to kill others.
---------------------------

being a typical inbred tspian , in breaking TSP into smaller parts is necessary but not sufficient to stop attacks on india.
The remaining parts will continue to think in the same way to bleed India with hope.
yes splitting TSP will definitely help India in the long run by managing smaller pieces of rump tsp much better than a large state.

--------------------------
nooclear bums do not matter with tsp. it deters only India being more rational than tsp,valuing life more than death.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2016 20:10

SU-34s a better bird for delivering tactical nukes than the Raffy by air.Our land forces should also be equipped with mobile SSMs with N-capable warheads.That will put the fear of obliteration into Paki pants.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 22 Sep 2016 23:05

Lit up like a christmas tree Su 34 in the sky is too unstealthy; I think they'll keep everyone guessing with some reports saying mki as nuke platform, some reporting rafale, while it may be that Rafale and MKI just create a diversion while Tejas goes and delivers the lotus

Remember how IA fooled amreekan satellites etc. by doing dismanteling thing in pokharan before '98?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 22 Sep 2016 23:15

Philip wrote:SU-34s a better bird for delivering tactical nukes than the Raffy by air.Our land forces should also be equipped with mobile SSMs with N-capable warheads.That will put the fear of obliteration into Paki pants.

Su-34 better for tactical nukes? Where did you get this from?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Sep 2016 12:41

RoyG wrote:
Philip wrote:SU-34s a better bird for delivering tactical nukes than the Raffy by air.Our land forces should also be equipped with mobile SSMs with N-capable warheads.That will put the fear of obliteration into Paki pants.
Su-34 better for tactical nukes? Where did you get this from?

RoyG, Are you really surprised by Philip's post? If you have read one, you have read it all. Just replace SU 34 with Akula/Kilo/Mig 29/S-300/S-400/S-500/T-90/AK47 etc.

You get the drift.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Sep 2016 19:26

A month back
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -dangerous
and now
http://swarajyamag.com/insta/america-wo ... h-the-wind

?