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

[The Deterrent]

You seems to be correct, and so the Pakistani assessment, because to save one pilot India had to stop the retaliatory air strike because he was son of an air marshal. Pakistanis seems to have taken this into account and surely have formulated new conventional strike policy. So talking about nuclear exchange their assessment got the stamp.

I don't think that's what happened, but you're free to have your own opinion. Let's keep the discussion on topic.

Isn't the new TNWs also for Chinese to make their second strike capability coming beyond 2000km from sea where IBG are present , like Andamans or Gwadar?

I'm not sure, so far the deployment has been observed against Pakistan only.

To my understanding a good manoevure would be to let them use TNW on their cities and retaliate with massive TNW strike. And call for de-escalation. It's just that we need to avoid taking any hit. They might shift to shaheens and which Indian BMD can tackle some how.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pakistanis will be reading all this. And getting the ideas haha!

Not a bad contingency strategy at all.

You don't have truckload of nukes either. Take any airfield. The distance between 2 hangars if 150-200m. At best, 1 nuke can take out 4 or 5 hardened hangars out of a possible 20 or 30 or more such hangars. You need the ability to hit all hangars, which can either be done with a lot of nukes or obviously with enough conventional weapons. And Pakistan doesn't have a lot of nukes.

You know, sometimes its better to use common sense first, instead of directly jumping to numerical calculations.

India's primary response to any type of nuclear attack will be massive. So this is a meaningless point to bring up.

If you are assuming India will use TNWs in retaliation to Pak using TNWs, I don't think that's how it's going to work.

The Indian SFC does not thinks that it is a meaningless point at all. You're welcome to ask them why.

Dunno what you mean in the context. A decision has to made rather quickly considering we now have SSBNs, so launches can happen within a short window.

Lost in translation...

That's the point. The small number of nukes cannot bring the region down with it either. So all PA can do with nukes is put a small dent in India, and the result is the top brass will be globally hunted and any damage caused will be fixed within 10 years or so. The richer India becomes, the more resilient will India become in a nuclear confrontation.

I think you and @Saaho can debate amongst yourselves on how to "win" a nuclear war, despite losing 5~10% of the population.

Who are you referring to? PA? Sadly for them, no. We have created no-man's land in many places along the LoC. In a lot of areas, the PA has not seen the LoC in a year.

What does escalation dominance during a stand-off have to do with border skirmishes?

The only point I'm making is PA is not in the game of defeating India in a war, whether conventional or nuclear.

My personal opinion is, the current PA exists only to buy time until certain people can leave Pakistan during all-out war. And if PA goes nuclear at this time, even these certain people will be hunted down, that's why PA won't use nukes at all.

Actually its my fault, I keep forgetting that you take a healthy hourly dose of optimism and have a version of the world that exists on paper.

Pak's reaction to Balakot was expected and overestimated. Rather you can say that Pakistan's reaction was either to be nothing or more than what happened. And there were people very much counting on Pakistan to do much more than just the post-Balakot skirmish. According to Rawat, our escalation point went up to war.

Army was ready for conventional war with Pakistan after Balakot: Sources

Rather, it was Pakistan that did not expect India to retaliate the way we did after Pulwama.

Pakistani PM literally stated that we will not think about retaliation, we will be compelled to retaliate. If Pakistan did not expect anything, and had not prepared contingency SOPs, the response wouldn't have come within 30 hours.

I suggest you acknowledge the uniformed officers of your own country.

Have you considered you are the one making wrong assumptions?

India is not bluffing after all.

One would assume India will want to deal with Pakistan long before China actually becomes a major military threat to India, possibly post 2035.

Make only short term investments in Pakistan. Mid term and long term... that's a huge risk. Do you want to risk a permanent demonetisation of Pakistan's currency?

Fortunately, I live in the real world, and I trust Indian military personnel and what they develop on the ground more than I trust your word for it. So please, I suggest you sing these lullabies to someone else.

The Belief stems from the most simple observation. Pakistani Military has never been on the losing side in a conflict. Every time it has had an altercation with whichever state, it's a stranglehold on the administration of Pakistan just has grown stronger. No matter what happens on the battlefield, Pakistani Military always wins in Islamabad.
The day it uses Nuclear Weapons it will lose, and a loss of such magnitude will be unacceptable to Pakistan Military.

And that is reinforced with what you dub as Blunder of 99, which consolidated power for a Military general for the next decade instead of court-martial. This is not new or unique we saw the same with General Tikka Khan, General Rao Farman Ali, FM Ayub, etc.

PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its deterrence strategies and doctrines. These two domains have almost never overlapped. Unfortunately I can't convince you with evidence about how or why, but I can tell you that you're putting the wrong 2 and 2 together. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Where is the evidence of that? Actually, the evidence is quite contrary to that.

Read this :

Pruthvik Shankar asked: Does India have tactical nuclear weapons? | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Unfortunately I can't share the evidence, and even if I did it wouldn't be worth it. But ask the people on your side, maybe they'll help you out.
Don't bother about the seems and coulds, thats conjecture based on previous Indian doctrine(s).

Which ex-SFC? BS Nagal?

His position is actually different :

India's nuclear doctrine: The fog lifts

He fears that political leadership may not show resolve but he favours FULL implementation of massive retaliation. In absence of any tactical nuclear weapons, political leadership will be left with no other option and that a good thing. BTW, this was his position in 2014 and before. India was ruled by morons who would have not chosen to commit. If the war happens right now, India will commit fully because political leadership has no political crisis at hand to mitigate.

Let me first point out what his earlier points are (from what you quoted):

"commitment to 'massive' retaliation is problematic"
"India's 'response to a few or one (Pakistani) tactical nuclear weapons should not be disproportionate"
"escalation control should be practiced in conventional and nuclear war on moral and humanitarian considerations"
"The strategy is not rational, (and) our political leadership may not show resolve during crisis or at the time of decision".

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

Now coming to where he doubles down, he argues what India SHOULD do to uphold deterrence, but in spite of that he fears that it MIGHT NOT happen. So you can see the inherent incredibility of a disproportionate response.
Nagal is not the only one. And even if there were zero public statements regarding this, the developments on the ground would suggest the same shift in India's doctrine.

 

[Saaho]

I don't think that's what happened, but you're free to have your own opinion. Let's keep the discussion on topic.



I'm not sure, so far the deployment has been observed against Pakistan only.



Not a bad contingency strategy at all.




You know, sometimes its better to use common sense first, instead of directly jumping to numerical calculations.



The Indian SFC does not thinks that it is a meaningless point at all. You're welcome to ask them why.



Lost in translation...



I think you and @Saaho can debate amongst yourselves on how to "win" a nuclear war, despite losing 5~10% of the population.



What does escalation dominance during a stand-off have to do with border skirmishes?



Actually its my fault, I keep forgetting that you take a healthy hourly dose of optimism and have a version of the world that exists on paper.



Pakistani PM literally stated that we will not think about retaliation, we will be compelled to retaliate. If Pakistan did not expect anything, and had not prepared contingency SOPs, the response wouldn't have come within 30 hours.

I suggest you acknowledge the uniformed officers of your own country.



Fortunately, I live in the real world, and I trust Indian military personnel and what they develop on the ground more than I trust your word for it. So please, I suggest you sing these lullabies to someone else.



PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its deterrence strategies and doctrines. These two domains have almost never overlapped. Unfortunately I can't convince you with evidence about how or why, but I can tell you that you're putting the wrong 2 and 2 together. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.



Unfortunately I can't share the evidence, and even if I did it wouldn't be worth it. But ask the people on your side, maybe they'll help you out.
Don't bother about the seems and coulds, thats conjecture based on previous Indian doctrine(s).



Let me first point out what his earlier points are (from what you quoted):

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

Now coming to where he doubles down, he argues what India SHOULD do to uphold deterrence, but in spite of that he fears that it MIGHT NOT happen. So you can see the inherent incredibility of a disproportionate response.
Nagal is not the only one. And even if there were zero public statements regarding this, the developments on the ground would suggest the same shift in India's doctrine.

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".

 

[randomradio]

The Indian SFC does not thinks that it is a meaningless point at all. You're welcome to ask them why.

Well then, let's see if that's true once they change India's doctrine to give Pakistan an advantage.

Right now, our response will be massive to no matter what Pakistan does with regard to nukes.

I think you and @Saaho can debate amongst yourselves on how to "win" a nuclear war, despite losing 5~10% of the population.

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.

What does escalation dominance during a stand-off have to do with border skirmishes?

Everything we are doing is mainly centered around the border in the North.

Actually its my fault, I keep forgetting that you take a healthy hourly dose of optimism and have a version of the world that exists on paper.

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?

Pakistani PM literally stated that we will not think about retaliation, we will be compelled to retaliate. If Pakistan did not expect anything, and had not prepared contingency SOPs, the response wouldn't have come within 30 hours.

I suggest you acknowledge the uniformed officers of your own country.

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.

Fortunately, I live in the real world, and I trust Indian military personnel and what they develop on the ground more than I trust your word for it. So please, I suggest you sing these lullabies to someone else.

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.

 

[screambowl]

Right now, our response will be massive to no matter what Pakistan does with regard to nukes.

What do we understand by massive response? How much is massive as per the qty for a country like Pakistan?

Not a bad contingency strategy at all.

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

 

[Ashwin]

Well it works...

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.

 

[Milspec]

PA's historic control of the power center has nothing to do with its deterrence strategies and doctrines. These two domains have almost never overlapped. Unfortunately I can't convince you with evidence about how or why, but I can tell you that you're putting the wrong 2 and 2 together. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

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.

 

[randomradio]

What do we understand by massive response? How much is massive as per the qty for a country like Pakistan?

Massive response = A response aimed at creating unacceptable damage and casualties. If PA uses tac nukes on the IA, even if it kills only 1 soldier, our response can be the full use of strategic weapons on Pak's military targets. It's not necessary that we have to attack civilian targets like cities, there's plenty of military targets that can eat a few thermonukes, including the ones that are within cities.

Deterrent's entire PoV is based on an assumption that India will not use strategic nukes if PA only uses tactical nukes, which means he wants to believe in a scenario where PA will be able to get away with using nukes on India simply based on the type of nukes used, which is simply a delusion, because India has clearly stated multiple times that any response to nukes of any yield will result in a massive response.

 

[hellbent]

What kind of stupid assumption is this ?

That India will not stike hostile civilian targets

All this assumptions and nonsense about escalation ladder is good for tea coffee type discussions only.

Indian tactical nukes are are for po..... WMDs and their storage sites.

Conventional weapons even though can take out some of the same cannot guarantee the same due to fog of war and heavy defences in place by the enemy to protect the same.

I remember a paper by DRDO where probability matrixes were used to wargame indian response and it's success / failure.

India has left the no first strike option eg certain conditions when enemy strike is seen a foregone conclusion.

Tactical nukes will be used to destroy mobile WMDs and storage sites to reduce enemy ability to escalate.

This will include counter force ( beauty is it will actually be a counter value ) strikes on a few cities which house WMDs , thus giving plausible deniability to any international criticism.

Main motive is to preemptive po.... counter value strikes , if it is observed to be on the contrary , preemptive strikes will target even non WMD related po....... cities.

The operational concept is " persistent operational deployment " of Indian WMD assets to allow strikes on demand and reduce reaction time to deter / destroy preemptive strike capabilities of enemy. This includes combination of both counter force and counter value targets . Gaps in real time info on enemy assets due to fog of war is a big factor towards such deployment.

Simplistically speaking this is implemention of the OODA loop with shortened chain of command. SFC has being working on the same since last decade.

There is no escalation ladder involved because in real world that does not exist once the red line is crossed and nothing can be left to be chance / assumption. Those who take the initiative and control the events wins the same , this is what mathematics say.

In real world escalation ladder is a one way street , cannot share it , because that would mean you are not in control of events since you are waiting for response , so you either own it all and win it or you share the escalation ladder and enter the realm of probabilities with half of them not good for India.

If we even completely nuke po........... worst case scenario we will face sanctions but question is given India's standing current and in future which country will risk it . Jiske lathi uski bael . 80% of the world will not give a fu*k about po...... anyways. headline news for a year and everything back to business. That's the reality .

 

[vstol Jockey]

What kind of stupid assumption is this ?

That India will not stike hostile civilian targets

All this assumptions and nonsense about escalation ladder is good for tea coffee type discussions only.

Indian tactical nukes are are for po..... WMDs and their storage sites.

Conventional weapons even though can take out some of the same cannot guarantee the same due to fog of war and heavy defences in place by the enemy to protect the same.

I remember a paper by DRDO where probability matrixes were used to wargame indian response and it's success / failure.

India has left the no first strike option eg certain conditions when enemy strike is seen a foregone conclusion.

Tactical nukes will be used to destroy mobile WMDs and storage sites to reduce enemy ability to escalate.

This will include counter value strikes on a few cities which house WMDs , thus giving plausible deniability to any international criticism.

Main motive is to preemptive po.... counter value strikes , if it is observed to be on the contrary , preemptive strikes will target even non WMD related po....... cities.

The operational concept is " persistent operational deployment " of Indian WMD assets to allow strikes on demand and reduce reaction time to deter / destroy preemptive strike capabilities of enemy. This includes combination of both counter force and counter value targets . Gaps in real time info on enemy assets due to fog of war is a big factor towards such deployment.

Simplistically speaking this is implemention of the OODA loop with shortened chain of command. SFC has being working on the same since last decade.

There is no escalation ladder involved because in real world that does not exist once the red line is crossed and nothing can be left to be chance / assumption. Those who take the initiative and control the events wins the same , this is what mathematics say.

Very well explained. I had left it short of it as I did not want to post it all here. Dominating the escalation matrix also means dominating the available options of the enemy. Indian TNWs are for that very purpose and that is the reason for developing newer missiles with much faster reaction time and far greater accuracy. The aim is to deny the enemy the option of using nukes and keep the battle conventional as far as possible.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

Very well explained. I had left it short of it as I did not want to post it all here. Dominating the escalation matrix also means dominating the available options of the enemy. Indian TNWs are for that very purpose and that is the reason for developing newer missiles with much faster reaction time and far greater accuracy. The aim is to deny the enemy the option of using nukes and keep the battle conventional as far as possible.

Can we use Conventional Missile Strikes First to Dislocate and Destroy their Nuclear preparations

After all it takes time to mate warheads to the missiles or make them ready for installation on a F 16

Suppose our large number of Satellites
Do pick up something , then even Accurate Brahmos strikes can hurt them

 

[vstol Jockey]

Can we use Conventional Missile Strikes First to Dislocate and Destroy their Nuclear preparations

After all it takes time to mate warheads to the missiles or make them ready for installation on a F 16

Suppose our large number of Satellites
Do pick up something , then even Accurate Brahmos strikes can hurt them

what is the missiles are moved when our missiles are in flight? You need area coverage which TNWs can provide and in case of fixed storage facilities, their accuracy will do the job.

 

[randomradio]

What kind of stupid assumption is this ?

That India will not stike hostile civilian targets

All this assumptions and nonsense about escalation ladder is good for tea coffee type discussions only.

Indian tactical nukes are are for po..... WMDs and their storage sites.

Conventional weapons even though can take out some of the same cannot guarantee the same due to fog of war and heavy defences in place by the enemy to protect the same.

I remember a paper by DRDO where probability matrixes were used to wargame indian response and it's success / failure.

India has left the no first strike option eg certain conditions when enemy strike is seen a foregone conclusion.

Tactical nukes will be used to destroy mobile WMDs and storage sites to reduce enemy ability to escalate.

This will include counter value strikes on a few cities which house WMDs , thus giving plausible deniability to any international criticism.

Main motive is to preemptive po.... counter value strikes , if it is observed to be on the contrary , preemptive strikes will target even non WMD related po....... cities.

The operational concept is " persistent operational deployment " of Indian WMD assets to allow strikes on demand and reduce reaction time to deter / destroy preemptive strike capabilities of enemy. This includes combination of both counter force and counter value targets . Gaps in real time info on enemy assets due to fog of war is a big factor towards such deployment.

Simplistically speaking this is implemention of the OODA loop with shortened chain of command. SFC has being working on the same since last decade.

There is no escalation ladder involved because in real world that does not exist once the red line is crossed and nothing can be left to be chance / assumption. Those who take the initiative and control the events wins the same , this is what mathematics say.

I have a much simpler take on this.

You go to war, first start with nukes, destroy everything. No NFU, no escalation, no limited war, no nothing. Pak so much as sneezes, we destroy everything. Even towns with populations of more than a few thousands should be completely and utterly destroyed. The only people left should be in small villages, only because we can't physically destroy them. There are at least 500 towns and cities above a population of 10,000 that can be targets, and 100 of those are above 100,000.

And we must be the ones who strike first, not Pakistan. This is what a nuclear war should mean anyway. None of that tactical nukes and escalation BS.

Of course, we also need nukes in such numbers. 90 50-100kt bombs are enough for the bottom 90 cities. The next 8 will need 1 or 2 thermonukes each. The top 2 cities are the biggest and will need multiple thermonukes. Double the numbers for a second wave of attacks. But if you still want to erradicate 30% of Pakistan's population or 100% of the core population, all 500 towns and cities should be destroyed.

But we are following a policy of "minimum" deterrence, and what's "minimum" is still publicly undefined.

 

[hellbent]

Don't know if somebody is being sarcastic or making a poor attempt at it.

When I said completely nuke I meant probability of nuking all possible counter value and counter force targets only. It was very obvious . War is mathematics at core . Every event is equally likely . And importantly it is unbiased , if you can f*ck , you are equally liable to get f*cked too. But what you are doing here is philosophy with sarcasm

Counter value and counter force targets are list of prioritised targets which are selected after due deliberations including factoring probable resulting events post exercising of detonation of nukes . Stimulations are very extensive and are not limited to military affairs like probability of fallout , probability of casualties etc but encompasses beyond that . I will not expand on it , possibly ask NS on it , he is somebody on the know.

Anyways if somebody considers village as a counter value target , well than , no offense but I have no interest being part of the discussion.

Actually I was confused for a moment when I read 100 nukes here , 100 nukes there , then I realised maybe somebody spent too much time on peeedf in the earlier days. Po......... are expert in that .

Again anyways

As to what policy we are following or is being " assumed " that we are following...............
Is best left to online debates , think tank discussions blah blah

 

[hellbent]

Why is my post green in colour ?
@Ashwin

 

[vstol Jockey]

Why is my post green in colour ?
@Ashwin

Because I called it best answer.

 

[hellbent]

Because I called it best answer.

I thought new system of warning due to reporting lol

Anyways
Thanks

 

[randomradio]

Don't know if somebody is being sarcastic or making a poor attempt at it.
A
When I said completely nuke I meant probability of nuking all possible counter value and counter force targets only. It was very obvious . War is mathematics at core . Every event is equally likely . And importantly it is unbiased , if you can f*ck , you are equally liable to get f*cked too. But what you are doing here is philosophy with sarcasm

Counter value and counter force targets are list of prioritised targets which are selected after due deliberations including factoring probable resulting events post exercising of detonation of nukes . Stimulations are very extensive and are not limited to military affairs like probability of fallout , probability of casualties etc but encompasses beyond that . I will not expand on it , possibly ask NS on it , he is somebody on the know.

Anyways if somebody considers village as a counter value target , well than , no offense but I have no interest being part of the discussion.

Actually I was confused for a moment when I read 100 nukes here , 100 nukes there , then I realised maybe somebody spent too much time on peeedf in the earlier days. Po......... are expert in that .

Again anyways

As to what policy we are following or is being " assumed " that we are following...............
Is best left to online debates , think tank discussions blah blah

You are just tripping up on your own words:

Coming to villages, this is what I said:
The only people left should be in small villages, only because we can't physically destroy them.

So that automatically becomes:
Anyways if somebody considers village as a counter value target...

And I literally said what you spent two posts saying the same thing:
It's not necessary that we have to attack civilian targets like cities, there's plenty of military targets that can eat a few thermonukes, including the ones that are within cities.

Since it's obvious you seem not to understand what I say, it looks like I will have to dumb it down with jargons-- So translation:
It's not necessary that we have to attack countervalue targets, there are plenty of counterforce targets within countervalue targets, so even countervalue targets can unwittingly become part of our counterforce nuclear strikes.

There I hope I have given you the "definition of machine" in the words you like.

 

[randomradio]

Can we use Conventional Missile Strikes First to Dislocate and Destroy their Nuclear preparations

After all it takes time to mate warheads to the missiles or make them ready for installation on a F 16

Suppose our large number of Satellites
Do pick up something , then even Accurate Brahmos strikes can hurt them

There are various ways to do it using conventional means, including the use of special forces, but for some reason GoI has not allowed the use of all possible conventional means of decapitation strikes against enemy nukes, including Brahmos.

I'm throwing in my two paise here, but I think the PMO wants to use SFC-operated weapons for decapitation strikes. And the reason for this is to both prevent intelligence from leaking out through the useless MoD as well as to allow for the use of nukes in pre-emptive strikes. Pre-emptive nuclear strikes are easy to justify if conventional capability for a decapitation strike is not well-developed or is lacking. For example, the Brahmos may not be enough to successfully hit a few types of underground nuclear storage bunkers, so it's easier to use nukes here.

 

[randomradio]

The irony which I could not help noticing is this

Quote from my very first post



The second reply to my second post which was to educate the dumb me



Now the joke's is on whom ?

Again you tripped up on your own words.

My quote is from post 167, your quote is from post 168, posted almost 7 hours after my post.

The irony is you first proved you can't read, now you proved you can't count.

The joke's still on you.

 

[hellbent]

Again you tripped up on your own words.

My quote is from post 167, your quote is from post 168, posted almost 7 hours after my post.

The irony is you first proved you can't read, now you proved you can't count.

The joke's still on you.

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 )