Let us think the unthinkable. If India decides to go for a decisive war with Pakistan, what an be realistic outcomes.

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
Lol so it seems after I finally brought myself to read it which I never did in the first place because my post was never a response to your post because if that had been the case I would have quoted your post and not repeat one of the main point if I was arguing against your post.

And hence would have not shot myself in the foot later on.

Now I understand why you didn't quote my post in your sarcastic reply because you thought I made the post in reply to your post and so you did the same.

My first post was in response to the general hubris that civilian targets cannot be targeted , so called escalation ladder and it steps from coming across such posts here and in other forums including think tank discussions and not in the context of your post. That was the reason why I wrote it .

I apologise for my 3rd post ( 179 )
Okay, cheers. (y)
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
11,891
7,453
Mumbai
Okay, cheers. (y)
There's this true indology guy on Twitter who tweets on Hindu History, epics, mythology etc. Since you've a penchant for research, you ought to pursue it & generate threads accordingly. Of course, he never embellishises his thread. Then again he's not you. Just a brainwave.
 

Arsalan123

Active member
Jun 3, 2019
1,296
121
Sindh, Pakistan
people who think that Pakistan can't destroy entire India lives in another world. the world moving on towards advanced theory of those critical subjects and there are very few who understand. all in all, you need oxygen to breathe but what if there is no oxygen? India should better care about its population centers. Pakistan and India are both rivals and trust me, we will never allow Indians to live peacefully after our destruction. the rule is simple. if we die, you die. there are red lines and everyone understands that. balakot and feb 27 can happen again but they aren't on the same magnitude. just think about people running like a chicken just to inhale oxygen. we all die without oxygen. if you are a small country, you have to think about ways to destroy a bigger country in case of war. this is what we have done. we have ways and methods to destroy India but yes most of us live in 65,71 and 99. those old days are gone. modern research is always available and modern technology is quite dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
people who think that Pakistan can't destroy entire India lives in another world. the world moving on towards advanced theory of those critical subjects and there are very few who understand. all in all, you need oxygen to breathe but what if there is no oxygen? India should better care about its population centers. Pakistan and India are both rivals and trust me, we will never allow Indians to live peacefully after our destruction. the rule is simple. if we die, you die. there are red lines and everyone understands that. balakot and feb 27 can happen again but they aren't on the same magnitude. just think about people running like a chicken just to inhale oxygen. we all die without oxygen. if you are a small country, you have to think about ways to destroy a bigger country in case of war. this is what we have done. we have ways and methods to destroy India but yes most of us live in 65,71 and 99. those old days are gone. modern research is always available and modern technology is quite dangerous.
You do realize that unspecified and arbirary technology / technologies / "theories" are no better than "vedic weapons" and "gau-mutra science" that Pakistani make fun of.

No such weapons exist and certainly Pakistan neither has capability nor potential to develop and deploy them. And no, Dr Strangelove was not a documentary.

BTW, as far as oxygen goes. Air flows.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
11,891
7,453
Mumbai
people who think that Pakistan can't destroy entire India lives in another world. the world moving on towards advanced theory of those critical subjects and there are very few who understand. all in all, you need oxygen to breathe but what if there is no oxygen? India should better care about its population centers. Pakistan and India are both rivals and trust me, we will never allow Indians to live peacefully after our destruction. the rule is simple. if we die, you die. there are red lines and everyone understands that. balakot and feb 27 can happen again but they aren't on the same magnitude. just think about people running like a chicken just to inhale oxygen. we all die without oxygen. if you are a small country, you have to think about ways to destroy a bigger country in case of war. this is what we have done. we have ways and methods to destroy India but yes most of us live in 65,71 and 99. those old days are gone. modern research is always available and modern technology is quite dangerous.
Pls focus on your economy & upliftment of your own people. Start loving yourselves more than hating us & maybe just maybe you'd prosper. I've my doubts, though. But I'd choose to be an optimist here .
OTOH, if you continue pursuing the policies you are now, whether internally or externally, you're running towards your doom. We don't need to di much except perfect the end game as it were or the finale. The present dispensation in India is best suited to deliver the coup de Grace.
 

Arsalan123

Active member
Jun 3, 2019
1,296
121
Sindh, Pakistan
Go away man , we know how much your
Army guys love their MANSIONS

They dont want Nuclear war

Next time we will hit even harder
And Pakistan will show Goodwill Gestures and ask for De escalation

Before your 3 FATHERS interfere, we will
Hammer you a lot
no place for emotions Stephen. have you ever seen your countrymen crying for help? you should think about it. destroyed buildings, destroyed streets, radioactive clouds, and no sun. get ready to breathe hard.
You do realize that unspecified and arbirary technology / technologies / "theories" are no better than "vedic weapons" and "gau-mutra science" that Pakistani make fun of.

No such weapons exist and certainly Pakistan neither has capability nor potential to develop and deploy them. And no, Dr Strangelove was not a documentary.

BTW, as far as oxygen goes. Air flows.
air flows yes but obviously you need oxygen which is o2. A lack of O2 can kill you. it's simple. you will not find any documentary. the state doesn't reveal the end of humanity weapons.
 
Last edited:

Arsalan123

Active member
Jun 3, 2019
1,296
121
Sindh, Pakistan
Pls focus on your economy & upliftment of your own people. Start loving yourselves more than hating us & maybe just maybe you'd prosper. I've my doubts, though. But I'd choose to be an optimist here .
OTOH, if you continue pursuing the policies you are now, whether internally or externally, you're running towards your doom. We don't need to di much except perfect the end game as it were or the finale. The present dispensation in India is best suited to deliver the coup de Grace.
I accept that we have committed mistakes but nothing is bigger than country so it's better for India to do everything without Pakistan. Pakistan is a country that doesn't listen to India and it's a fact. love yourself. stop daydreaming of annexing Pakistani states.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
11,891
7,453
Mumbai
I accept that we have committed mistakes but nothing is bigger than country so it's better for India to do everything without Pakistan. Pakistan is a country that doesn't listen to India and it's a fact. love yourself. stop daydreaming of annexing Pakistani states.
This is a perfect analogy of Paxtan's dream of getting Kashmir & destroying India.
 

Deathstar

Well-Known member
Jun 1, 2019
1,555
857
India
people who think that Pakistan can't destroy entire India lives in another world. the world moving on towards advanced theory of those critical subjects and there are very few who understand. all in all, you need oxygen to breathe but what if there is no oxygen? India should better care about its population centers. Pakistan and India are both rivals and trust me, we will never allow Indians to live peacefully after our destruction. the rule is simple. if we die, you die. there are red lines and everyone understands that. balakot and feb 27 can happen again but they aren't on the same magnitude. just think about people running like a chicken just to inhale oxygen. we all die without oxygen. if you are a small country, you have to think about ways to destroy a bigger country in case of war. this is what we have done. we have ways and methods to destroy India but yes most of us live in 65,71 and 99. those old days are gone. modern research is always available and modern technology is quite dangerous.
First rescue your people from China lol
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,298
1,064
switzerland
What is the probability that Chinese vector Pakistan to test India's military capability and then on that basis the Chinese themselves improvise?
 

The Deterrent

Active member
Mar 11, 2018
137
120
Earth
You are selectively quoting him and omitting the context. He made this statement before 2014. His context was that Indian political leadership (of that time) will not be able to retaliate massively in response of few tactical nuclear warheads as it is not rational. What is rational is proportional ladder of escalation based on humanitarian and moral grounds.

Indian leadership since then has changed. You can see them making right but irrational decisions in past few months and even last year. If Pakistan's leadership thinks that they will stick to the old rational thinking of morality, then they are wrong. Given choice of not retaliating at all and retaliating massively they will choose the later.

The reason deterrence works is because it induces fear. A disproportional response is irrational but it is this irrationality that induces fear. This is why he suggests that this policy should be implemented fully. I guess in its implementation there will be processes that will take pre-approval of political leadership on known scenarios and will execute the response without them holding the Indian SFC hostage to "rational choices".
The point of selectively quoting him was that there is an inherent problem with massive disproportionate response. We are not even talking about a conventional disproportionate response as in IAF raids on 3 PAF bases in response to Op Swift Retort. We are talking about a disproportionate response that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

True, the Indian leadership has changed. But it has not yet displayed the level of irrationality that would induce fear. A response to Op Swift Retort was the best chance India had of displaying that.

I totally agree with you on how deterrence works or how a massive disproportionate response could deter Pakistan. The problem is that the sheer scale of the massive disproportionate response makes Pakistan believe that the Indian leadership does not have what it takes to implement it. Furthermore, one of the most important aspect of deterrence is communicating the repercussions to the enemy, effectively. If thats not done, the enemy will not be deterred, even though you have both the capability and will to eliminate the enemy. So far, it has not been effectively communicated to Pakistan (through actions) that the cost of a Pakistani TNW strike will be unthinkable.



During WW2, countries have lost much more than that. Germany lost 10%, Russia lost 20%.

You have a very weird opinion about nukes and population destruction, something that even Pakistani officials and veterans peddle in the media. Even the most optimistic predictions of damage to India is only a few 10s of millions, considerably less than 5% of the population.

You speak of dropping nukes on our air bases and C&C, even frigates in one line, even if we have more such targets than you have nukes. And then suddenly all nukes are now falling on cities in the next line. That logic completely evades me. I find it funny how Pakistan thinks itself to have more nukes than the Americans.
Sure, but Europeans and Russians are first world nations, which have built everything for themselves. Can India/Pakistan do the same?
Also, WW2 spanned a couples of years, which helped sustain the damage throughout those years. Is a similar loss of population/assets over a few days/weeks comparable to WW2?

You can put the number of nukes in any equation you want, that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Pakistan has those options (i.e. counter-force and counter-value). The capability and will to implement these options upholds Pakistani deterrence, not an equation that says Pakistan does not have enough nukes.



It doesn't really matter which way it goes. Even if Pak goes all-out with nukes, it won't destroy India. Forget destroying an India that exists today, never mind the one 5 or 10 years from now. Only you guys believe in MAD and what not. There is no MAD in the India-Pak context.

So why will PA use nukes on an enemy that will obviously only have a short term impact versus bringing complete destruction of the PA in exchange?
Like I said, you have too much optimism. But of course, you're welcome to have your own beliefs.

That's actually what I acknowledged, that India's escalation point went all the way to crossing the IB. Both Vstol and Falcon confirmed the same on this forum.

There was nothing special with what Pak did post-Balakot. Hell, our response to begin a full scale war is now less than 24 hours, cut down from the 3 weeks in 2002.
Merely having escalation strategies and implementing them are different things, no? You can downplay the Pakistani response all you want, at the end of the day, India did not implement its escalation response, Pakistan did.


Funny that you are basing this on just rumours that India has actually "operationally" deployed tactical nukes.

Tactical nukes, India has had it for decades. Deployment of tactical nukes, India is yet to do it. Even if it is done, it will be in order to assist the army's offensive "after" strategic nukes have been launched and all the damage has already been done, and not as part of a silly game dealing with escalation that only favours Pakistan. If we also want to play this silly game of escalation, then our doctrine wouldn't have NFU in the first place.

When we have complete conventional superiority, it makes sense that we maintain a policy of massive retribution in reponse.
If you know me at all, you'd know that I'm usually the last person to believe rumors unless there is solid evidence backing them up. In this case, there is. You are more than welcome to ask a trusted uniformed/retired SFC member about this, I can only hope that he gives you an answer. Unfortunately, I can't share the evidence with you at this time.

Again, you are free to have your own beliefs. I'd rather trust the statements of ex-SFC and the actual physical developments on the ground.


So if India retaliates massively with TNW, what is the probability that India will succeed in breaking their chain of command? And they won't be able to launch another nuclear strike
IF India retaliates massively with TNWs (tactical or thermo? doesn't matter in this case I guess), the probability of breaking the chain of command is high.



Is it? Who is taking anything coming from 'land of pure' seriously? The credibility of the state has dramatically reduced to just a pawn in the game. This is when you possess nuclear tech. Almost everyone considers pakistan as either nuisance or balancing stud.

By 'works' you mean there is no nuclear war then obviously ;) duh... Today, you cant freely wage nonconventional attacks on Indian soil. Every three month you are on a scale by the international community on terror financing. Today, you can't expect Muslim ummah to treat you special because you have the bomb.
I assumed you were referring to the doctrine of nuclear brinkmanship, and replied that it works.


Let's explore this a bit further
"PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its deterrence strategies and doctrines." So Pakistan's deterrence strategy like "Security of the East lies in the West" a proclaimed military doctrine across it's inception to its demise was not based on its the influence of the power center? West Pakistani military administration, as exclusivist it was in its power structure literally created a military doctrine to keep the Bengalis out of the military administration. Then there were other brilliant strategies like "death by thousand cuts" which has paid off so well for Pakistan?

Now about the overlap, let's look at very simple situations. As soon as political leadership in Pakistan ingresses into the domain that challenges the Military's strategic lynch pin: i.e Indian Boogeyman, That leadership has to bid goodbye; either in a bodybag or in a Private Jet. Multiple examples that don't need rehashing.

My post was a response to yours where you literally were perplexed why the Idea that Pakistan will never use it's Nukes against India is promulgated.

My response was just an attempt to showcase that the conduct of Pakistani military shows it's Self Preservation kicks in before it's Strategic Doctrine in every major conflict vis-a-vis India. My counter purely being Pakistan Military's end goal is its Domination of the Powerstructure in the state, and will sacrifice it's doctrine's if needed to protect itself from collapse.
I'm afraid you're mistaken in correlating the deterrence strategy of an era gone by to the present day nuclear deterrence. Both situations are drastically different.

I wish I could explain to you somehow that if shit hits the fan, the Pakistani military will gamble on going first to "win", rather than standing down and facing what the Iraqi military faced.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
The point of selectively quoting him was that there is an inherent problem with massive disproportionate response. We are not even talking about a conventional disproportionate response as in IAF raids on 3 PAF bases in response to Op Swift Retort. We are talking about a disproportionate response that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

True, the Indian leadership has changed. But it has not yet displayed the level of irrationality that would induce fear. A response to Op Swift Retort was the best chance India had of displaying that.

I totally agree with you on how deterrence works or how a massive disproportionate response could deter Pakistan. The problem is that the sheer scale of the massive disproportionate response makes Pakistan believe that the Indian leadership does not have what it takes to implement it. Furthermore, one of the most important aspect of deterrence is communicating the repercussions to the enemy, effectively. If thats not done, the enemy will not be deterred, even though you have both the capability and will to eliminate the enemy. So far, it has not been effectively communicated to Pakistan (through actions) that the cost of a Pakistani TNW strike will be unthinkable.
I find it laughable that someone says "it has not been effectively communicated to Pakistan (through actions) that the cost of a Pakistani TNW strike will be unthinkable."

Is it really hard for Pakistan to see which nuclear weapons India fields? India has not operationalized any tactical nuclear weapons till date. Tactical is not even used in same sentence with nuclear weapons in Indian stratagems. @Falcon @vstol Jockey @Narendar Singh Please correct me if I am wrong.

India has not communicated via action but via inaction. A wise country know how to read both.

Anyhoo! This thread assumes that India will do the unthinkable even at a cost of losing a few hundred million Indians.

*Fixed thanks to @randomradio *
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
Sure, but Europeans and Russians are first world nations, which have built everything for themselves. Can India/Pakistan do the same?
These countries were not first world nations when the war happened. Rather, the US was only as rich as China is today. Basically a middle income country by today's standards. Europe and Russia were even poorer.

Although I do admit a nuclear war is something only a rich country can afford, to a certain extent.

Please stop comparing what India can do versus Pakistan. Yes, India is entirely capable of rebuilding on its own. Much better than Europe, Japan and Russia could do on their own. India is already building greenfield cities? India needs dozens of brand new cities with million or more people over the next 2 decades. The DMIC alone will have 8 new cities. And we are planning 5 more such corridors, with multiple new cities to be built between them.

Also, WW2 spanned a couples of years, which helped sustain the damage throughout those years. Is a similar loss of population/assets over a few days/weeks comparable to WW2?
I think the damage in WW2 was far, far more extensive than what could happen between India and Pakistan today even in a nuclear setting.

The damage from the small nukes Pakistan has is going to be largely insignificant from the PoV of the size of population and geography. A Sino-India war with megatonne nukes between the two countries would be far more devastating. Even then the economy in unaffected parts of the city will continue functioning. During WW2, cities that were battlezones were practically shut down for years, while activity in occupied cities was extremely low. Not even counting all the damages in the hinterland that supplies food to the cities.

We have too many people, too many cities for Pakistan to deal with.

You can put the number of nukes in any equation you want, that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Pakistan has those options (i.e. counter-force and counter-value). The capability and will to implement these options upholds Pakistani deterrence, not an equation that says Pakistan does not have enough nukes.
The number of nukes and yield is what's important. What do you think all the SALT treaties were about?

Like I said, you have too much optimism. But of course, you're welcome to have your own beliefs.
This has nothing to do with optimism. Even if all of Pakistani nukes are dropped only on cities, only a handful of cities will actually be affected in total, or many cities will be affected partially. This is just common sense. The all-India virus lockdown will easily be more devastating than any nuclear war between India and Pakistan in economic terms. The richer we get, the more resilient we get.

The number of nukes Pakistan operates is far too less. Furthermore the delivery systems that can affect the entire country are even less. And I'm not even talking about Indian countermeasures.

Merely having escalation strategies and implementing them are different things, no? You can downplay the Pakistani response all you want, at the end of the day, India did not implement its escalation response, Pakistan did.
I wonder what you have to say about IAF having complete control of Kashmir's skies, including POJK. Our UAVs have been flying over POJK non-stop since Balakot. Even a video was released to reinforce that.

If you know me at all, you'd know that I'm usually the last person to believe rumors unless there is solid evidence backing them up. In this case, there is. You are more than welcome to ask a trusted uniformed/retired SFC member about this, I can only hope that he gives you an answer. Unfortunately, I can't share the evidence with you at this time.

Again, you are free to have your own beliefs. I'd rather trust the statements of ex-SFC and the actual physical developments on the ground.
It depends on what you consider a tactical nuke. We are not going to use tactical nukes to destroy your armoured columns for example, the way Pakistan advertises its tac nukes as. But I doubt we don't have tactical nukes for use against hardened targets. They are not the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandeep0159

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
That's 'cause his name is @Narendar Singh, with "ar".
Corrected, thanks.
It depends on what you consider a tactical nuke. We are not going to use tactical nukes to destroy your armoured columns for example, the way Pakistan advertises its tac nukes as. But I doubt we don't have tactical nukes for use against hardened targets. They are not the same thing.
The intended use is the key. Strategic damage vs warfare tool. India has reserved Nukes to strategic use. For hardended targets, there are many ways to skin a cat.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
Corrected, thanks.

The intended use is the key. Strategic damage vs warfare tool. India has reserved Nukes to strategic use. For hardended targets, there are many ways to skin a cat.
Exactly. The Pakistanis are only looking for a false equivalence only to feel much better about their current situation.

If Pak uses tac nukes, Pindi will burn, there's nothing more to discuss here.
 

The Deterrent

Active member
Mar 11, 2018
137
120
Earth
I find it laughable that someone says "it has not been effectively communicated to Pakistan (through actions) that the cost of a Pakistani TNW strike will be unthinkable."

Is it really hard for Pakistan to see which nuclear weapons India fields? India has not operationalized any tactical nuclear weapons till date. Tactical is not even used in same sentence with nuclear weapons in Indian stratagems. @Falcon @vstol Jockey @Narendar Singh Please correct me if I am wrong.

India has not communicated via action but via inaction. A wise country know how to read both.

Anyhoo! This thread assumes that India will do the unthinkable even at a cost of losing a few hundred million Indians.

*Fixed thanks to @randomradio *
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. What has been communicated was not effective, given the history of rational, less than proportionate responses. As such, Pakistani deep state does not believes that India will follow through on the promise of massive disproportionate retaliation, and will instead choose to go for a proportionate response.


These countries were not first world nations when the war happened. Rather, the US was only as rich as China is today. Basically a middle income country by today's standards. Europe and Russia were even poorer.

Although I do admit a nuclear war is something only a rich country can afford, to a certain extent.

Please stop comparing what India can do versus Pakistan. Yes, India is entirely capable of rebuilding on its own. Much better than Europe, Japan and Russia could do on their own. India is already building greenfield cities? India needs dozens of brand new cities with million or more people over the next 2 decades. The DMIC alone will have 8 new cities. And we are planning 5 more such corridors, with multiple new cities to be built between them.
There's a reason why I mentioned nations, not countries. A revival of this magnitude has lesser to do with the state of the economy and more with the mindset of the nation.

Sure, India might be much more capable. But is India willing to go through it all? Is it all worth it? That's the real question, isn't it?

I think the damage in WW2 was far, far more extensive than what could happen between India and Pakistan today even in a nuclear setting.

The damage from the small nukes Pakistan has is going to be largely insignificant from the PoV of the size of population and geography. A Sino-India war with megatonne nukes between the two countries would be far more devastating. Even then the economy in unaffected parts of the city will continue functioning. During WW2, cities that were battlezones were practically shut down for years, while activity in occupied cities was extremely low. Not even counting all the damages in the hinterland that supplies food to the cities.

We have too many people, too many cities for Pakistan to deal with.
It appears that your optimism is too much for me to handle.


The number of nukes and yield is what's important. What do you think all the SALT treaties were about?
Irrelevant argument.


This has nothing to do with optimism. Even if all of Pakistani nukes are dropped only on cities, only a handful of cities will actually be affected in total, or many cities will be affected partially. This is just common sense. The all-India virus lockdown will easily be more devastating than any nuclear war between India and Pakistan in economic terms. The richer we get, the more resilient we get.

The number of nukes Pakistan operates is far too less. Furthermore the delivery systems that can affect the entire country are even less. And I'm not even talking about Indian countermeasures.
I must repeat, it appears that your optimism is too much for me to handle.


I wonder what you have to say about IAF having complete control of Kashmir's skies, including POJK. Our UAVs have been flying over POJK non-stop since Balakot. Even a video was released to reinforce that.
Sure, thats entirely possible. How does it relate to an escalatory response during the standoff?


It depends on what you consider a tactical nuke. We are not going to use tactical nukes to destroy your armoured columns for example, the way Pakistan advertises its tac nukes as. But I doubt we don't have tactical nukes for use against hardened targets. They are not the same thing.
IMO a TNW is whatever employed as a counter-force weapon, be it on the battlefield, against a hardened target, on an airbase or against a naval vessel. They may, IMO, vary in yield.

Haha, AFAIK no Pakistani official (like Kidwai) has advertised TNWs for use against armored columns. That's an assumption of the Western analysts. Pakistan completely realizes the ineffectiveness of TNWs against armored columns.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
There's a reason why I mentioned nations, not countries. A revival of this magnitude has lesser to do with the state of the economy and more with the mindset of the nation.

Sure, India might be much more capable. But is India willing to go through it all? Is it all worth it? That's the real question, isn't it?
Now you are talking about something else entirely. The argument already takes into consideration that it is worth it.

It appears that your optimism is too much for me to handle.
Told ya, it's got nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. Are you one of those who think a 15kt bomb will take out an entire metro city? Cheers.

Irrelevant argument.
Of course it's "irrelevant". It doesn't suit your argument.

I must repeat, it appears that your optimism is too much for me to handle.
Common sense. Not optimism. Sorry, buddy, you're the one being optimistic if you think piddly firecrackers that Pak possesses are going to do anything.
n1.png


Sure, thats entirely possible. How does it relate to an escalatory response during the standoff?
Point is we didn't need to escalate anymore.

IMO a TNW is whatever employed as a counter-force weapon, be it on the battlefield, against a hardened target, on an airbase or against a naval vessel. They may, IMO, vary in yield.

Haha, AFAIK no Pakistani official (like Kidwai) has advertised TNWs for use against armored columns. That's an assumption of the Western analysts. Pakistan completely realizes the ineffectiveness of TNWs against armored columns.
The entire propaganda gambit from Pakistan is about stopping India's Cold Start with tac nukes. I am very well aware that Pak generals know the ground reality.

What you call TNWs, may not be what we call TNWs. Dunno if you want to say a 1mt nuke would qualify as a TNW if it's used against a C&C center hidden in the hills, away from civilian population.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
There's a reason why I mentioned nations, not countries. A revival of this magnitude has lesser to do with the state of the economy and more with the mindset of the nation.

Sure, India might be much more capable. But is India willing to go through it all? Is it all worth it? That's the real question, isn't it?
Something worth looking at. From someone who's job was this topic.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are totally different cases. The people were not aware of the effects of nuclear weapons, nor were they aware such a weapons had been developed.
Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing (the rebound of blast wave from hills) effect which would considerably increase the blast damage." No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.
When the air raid alarm went the Japanese were heading for their offices and were on street. Those who looked up amd saw a bright flash. Those who saw it got their eyes affected, the maximum casualties on the street were secondary injuries due to the rubble which went up. The city being industrial areas had large number of sheds with sheets on top, these got removed or pulled up and when these came crashing down caused injuries.
There was a hospital at 600meters from ground zero. When the air raid alarm went some of the doctors and nurses took shelter. These people were safe. The buildings glass and other attachments were shattred and all who came in direct line got affected, those patients who were lying in shadow of walls were safe.
The doctors and nurse not aware of the induced radiation came out of shelters and absorbed secondary radiations. The fire which razed was more of secondary fire due combustible material used in structures.
The deaths and other casualties are secondary casualties. These could have been avoided if the people had knowledge. If interested read Glasstone.

The area struck with nuclear weapons can be occupied after 48 to 72h depending on the salt content of the soil. It is half life formula.

In lighter vein, if bomb drops at Vijay Chowk
a. Nothing will happen to structures constructed prior to 1947. North Block South Block totally safe.
2. All structures constructed post independence within 1000 m will crumple, constructed by PWD and MES. Cut was there.
3. People will throng to see the damage.
4. lots of selfies
Now on actual affect. Very little damage in Delhi. It is well dispersed city. Yes destruction will take place and we may have thousands of casualties. But the main problem will be the people who will come to see and take selfie. They will suffer from secondary injuries. We Indians never follow rules hence the damage.

=============

Let's just say you are more interested in propaganda than an actual discussion for the discovery of truth.

I do recommend reading Glasstone.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. What has been communicated was not effective, given the history of rational, less than proportionate responses. As such, Pakistani deep state does not believes that India will follow through on the promise of massive disproportionate retaliation, and will instead choose to go for a proportionate response.
Last time they did this mistake it was '71. Didn't pan out well. Indian philosophy of giving no damns day in and day out but breaking back when it does works well.

They thought that India can never drop 370 too. Happened. Demographics change, on the way. For all we know next is Indus Water Treaty. I guess then they will learn. Or may be when India does a decapitation strike.

Biggest problem for India will be to do a proportionate reply. There is no proportionate weapon in India's armory.