Rajiv Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070031021&ch=10/28/2007%2011:08:00%20PM Interesting read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Pak khud to mar hi raha hai magar India ko bhi sath ghasit ne ki kochish karta hai! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 It worries me to this day that India doesnt have an assured second strike capability!Fack!! All land based warheads/missiles can be taken out by Pakistan in a first strike scenario. Where the hell is our sea based SLBM capability?!?!? How can one neglect it when the very survival of a country depends on it?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 It worries me to this day that India doesnt have an assured second strike capability!Fack!! All land based warheads/missiles can be taken out by Pakistan in a first strike scenario. Where the hell is our sea based SLBM capability?!?!? How can one neglect it when the very survival of a country depends on it?!? India has no second strike capability ? Where did you hear that from ? No country would have a no first use policy , if they didnt have second strike capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 All land based warheads/missiles can be taken out by Pakistan in a first strike scenario. Eh ? How did you arrive to that conclusion ? Indian missiles arnt sitting in some Silo somewhere...they are on back of mobile trucks that can just drive off to anywhere when they want (well thats an exgaggeration but you know what i mean). So how do they get taken away in a first strike scenario ? someone is gonna lob literally 2 zillion nukes at us to get every sq km of indian territorry ? If so, fine- we all die anyways- that many nukes mean end of this planet habitable for mankind anyways, doesnt matter if they are lobbed at india or at someone else. Sea based nukes give you tactile capability to hit anywhere in the world if you wanted. Thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Its not a second strike option either- it was in the 1970s & 1980s because missiles wernt developed enough to be mobile and everyone had their ICBMS in silos. That is no longer the case today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Eh ? How did you arrive to that conclusion ? Indian missiles arnt sitting in some Silo somewhere...they are on back of mobile trucks that can just drive off to anywhere when they want (well thats an exgaggeration but you know what i mean). So how do they get taken away in a first strike scenario ? someone is gonna lob literally 2 zillion nukes at us to get every sq km of indian territorry ? If so, fine- we all die anyways- that many nukes mean end of this planet habitable for mankind anyways, doesnt matter if they are lobbed at india or at someone else. You just forgot a VERY VERY important part of our nuclear strike capability, which is that both Sukhoi- 30 MkI and Mig-29 can carry nuclear warheads. Sea based nukes give you tactile capability to hit anywhere in the world if you wanted. Thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Its not a second strike option either- it was in the 1970s & 1980s because missiles wernt developed enough to be mobile and everyone had their ICBMS in silos. That is no longer the case today. Huh ? That is news to me. Sea based launch capability is an important part of our nuclear triad strategy. Read this if you care, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sidhu.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 You just forgot a VERY VERY important part of our nuclear strike capability, which is that both Sukhoi- 30 MkI and Mig-29 can carry nuclear warheads. I didn't- i was being very much 'worst case scenario' minded when i said it. India doesnt fly its sukhois 24/7/365, neither does it have overseas air bases. Indian planes are located on atmost 30-40 finite large targets that can be hit. But even then, its far easier to hit a 2sqkm airbase than one frigging big truck! Sea based launch capability is an important part of our nuclear triad strategy. Read this if you care, It is, but very much in a tactical range sense, NOT as second strike capability. Your second strike capability is your mobile launch vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zap_Brannigan Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 That would have turned pak into a glass parking lot...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I didn't- i was being very much 'worst case scenario' minded when i said it. India doesnt fly its sukhois 24/7/365, neither does it have overseas air bases. Indian planes are located on atmost 30-40 finite large targets that can be hit. But even then, its far easier to hit a 2sqkm airbase than one frigging big truck! Pakistan , which is probably our no.1 nuclear threat , wont even have 35-40 nuclear warheads. They dont need that many. Air-based nuclear launches are much more accurate and deadly than land-based ones. It is, but very much in a tactical range sense, NOT as second strike capability. Your second strike capability is your mobile launch vehicles. Sea-based attack capability is a tactical capability+second strike capability. Not just a tactical capability as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Pakistan , which is probably our no.1 nuclear threat , wont even have 35-40 nuclear warheads. They dont need that many. Air-based nuclear launches are much more accurate and deadly than land-based ones. Air base nuclear launch is only a feasability against Pakistan. And if India's defence planning still revolve around Pakistan, then India is even a bigger fool than i realized. For, India should look to match/better China. They are our real benchmark, not Pakistan. And with air-based nuclear launch, you CANNOT threaten china. No plane on earth can launch 5000Km range nuclear warheads and Indian planes won't be halfway across Tibet before they are torn to shreds by barrage after barrage of anti-air missiles their own airforce squadrons engaging our planes. Air based nuclear deterrence is a very narrow vision. And again, it is not our 'second strike option'. I was commenting on the SLBM subs being '2nd strike options' since someone claimed all india's nuclear land assets can be wiped out in 1st barrage. I said this is not so, because FACT is, India's nuclear missiles are on mobile launch pads and good luck hitting 100 odd mobile launch-pads randomly driving around/deployed around the nation all year. Sea-based attack capability is a tactical capability+second strike capability. Not just a tactical capability as you think. It is irrelevant as a 2nd strike capability. If your land is too far to launch missiles towards your enemy, sea based attack capability is your FIRST STRIKE capability and the ONLY STRIKE capability. And if your land isn't too far to launch missiles to your enemy land, your second strike capability is your mobile launch vehicles randomly deployed around the nation. So either way, sea based launch ability is purely tactical of sort, NOT 2nd strike capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 That would have turned pak into a glass parking lot...... Dude, thats idiotic. First off, not all of Pak's missiles are gonna arrive in one piece. India has decent anti-missile tech in progress. It won't stop all, but it will stop a lot of missiles from arriving in 1 piece anyways. Secondly, nuking a SMALL BORDERING NATION IS NEVER AN OPTION. Wtf. pakistan is only 500-600km wide for the most part. You turn a land within 500-600 km away from your border into a glass crater, you are gonna f*ck over your OWN land in the process. Might as well dump tonnes and tonnes of radioactive waste around Delhi, Pujab,Rajasthan & Gujrat, in middle of cities- for that is EXACTLY the fallout result of turning Pakistan into a glass crater. And to be honest, as far as Pakistan goes, we don't need to engage a nuclear war to beat them into a pulp if they ever launch nukes on us. For one, if they launch a nuke, you can GARANTEE that EU and America would drop Pakistan like a hot potato & come to India's corner. Already, the balance of west is shifting from indifference/pro-pakistan to pro-India, thanks to our economic boom. So, if Pakistan launches nukes, you can garantee that the rest of the world WILL NOT allow China to interfere in an Indo-Pak war. Secondly, we don't need to nuke the hell outta pakistan- we just need to declare total war on them. Unconditional surrender and COMPLETE surrender of the military & buerocracy or else we keep fighting wars. So Pakistan launches nukes, 4-5 of them make it in one piece, India is pretty badly hurt. But then total conventional war against Pakistan wipes it out off the face of the map & India doesnt need to 'further pollute/ravage' India by lobbing nukes to Pakistan. Think about it logically for a change, instead of emotionally. You don't need to launch nukes at Pakistan even if they launch first and if you do, you are f*cking yourself over even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zap_Brannigan Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Next, are you gonna go on a rant about how parking In pakistan is not feasible ? Take a generic statement as what it is and not some kinda well researched argument. mmmm...k. I wouldn't know the first thing abt nuclear or other war to come into this argument. I'll stay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Take a generic statement as what it is and not some kinda well researched argument. When you are talking about the nuclear option, make sure it is a well researched opinion and not some kinda knee-jerk generic statement. This isnt toys for kids- this is serious $hit with some serious, millions of years worth of consequences. Sure, your adversary acts like lil idjits- but is that your excuse for toting the same 'general rhetoric' with nukes ? Highly irresponsible, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 India has no second strike capability ? Where did you hear that from ? No country would have a no first use policy , if they didnt have second strike capability. The missiles/planes can deliver a second strike, but its a high risk option. Pak/China will target all potential second strike infrastructure in India - not just cities. In such a situation, only a submarine based SLBM can deliver second strike, i.e., an assured way of retaliation. Without it, no first use polciy is a big joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Air base nuclear launch is only a feasability against Pakistan. And if India's defence planning still revolve around Pakistan, then India is even a bigger fool than i realized. For, India should look to match/better China. They are our real benchmark, not Pakistan. And with air-based nuclear launch, you CANNOT threaten china. No plane on earth can launch 5000Km range nuclear warheads and Indian planes won't be halfway across Tibet before they are torn to shreds by barrage after barrage of anti-air missiles their own airforce squadrons engaging our planes. Air based nuclear deterrence is a very narrow vision. And again, it is not our 'second strike option'. I was commenting on the SLBM subs being '2nd strike options' since someone claimed all india's nuclear land assets can be wiped out in 1st barrage. I said this is not so, because FACT is, India's nuclear missiles are on mobile launch pads and good luck hitting 100 odd mobile launch-pads randomly driving around/deployed around the nation all year. It is irrelevant as a 2nd strike capability. If your land is too far to launch missiles towards your enemy, sea based attack capability is your FIRST STRIKE capability and the ONLY STRIKE capability. And if your land isn't too far to launch missiles to your enemy land, your second strike capability is your mobile launch vehicles randomly deployed around the nation. So either way, sea based launch ability is purely tactical of sort, NOT 2nd strike capability. I didnt imply that every single nuke in India would be destroyed. I meant, the capacity to deliver a devastating second strike would be severely reduced. A SLBM capability assures te complete destruction of the aggressor thereby making no first use policy feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The only way to our survival is to annex them, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Why doesn't India have a first strike policy when Pakistan does ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The only way to our survival is to annex them' date=' IMO.[/quote'] I dont think we need more ROPs in India. Dont we have enough problems already?!?:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Why doesn't India have a first strike policy when Pakistan does ? I hope this is with respect to Pak only. Having it with China would be like shooting ourselves in the foot, but with PMs like Manmohan you never know :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Why doesn't India have a first strike policy when Pakistan does ? Because a no-first strike policy makes sense. In the case of an Indo-Pak war the longer its duration the better it is for India. Pound for pound we have bigger weapon arsenals, bigger economy etc and the longer the conventional war the worse it shall get for Pakistan. Pakistan realizes this and knows that if there is a lengthy war they would be beaten fair and square and the N-weapons would hardly be of any assistance. Alterantively you can be one of the clueless right wingers and blame India's no-first policy on everything from Secularism to Psy-Ops :hysterical: xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts