Pakistan’s unveiling of the nuclear-capable Nasr missile has prompted intense debate in India about what this means for the country’s defence.
A debate has been raging since the unveiling in April of Nasr, a solid fuelled battlefield range ballistic missile system developed by Pakistan. While analysts in Pakistan have taken pains to underline its utility, many defence planners in India have indicated they are sceptical. Regardless, the assumption underpinning the majority of the commentary is that Nasr is a potent weapon system with capabilities as advertised.
There appear to be four levels on which the system could operate: grand strategic, strategic, operational, and tactical. The reality is that there seems to be a contradiction in the implications of Nasr at these different levels, and how Pakistan resolves these contradictions will determine how it will eventually employ the weapon system.
At the grand strategic level, the idea seems to be to focus international attention on South Asia as a ‘nuclear flashpoint.’ The possibility of the use of nuclear weapons increases with the ‘use them or lose them’ connotations of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). It’s expected that this would energise the international community toward crisis de-escalation and conflict termination, with the aim being to pressure Indian decision-makers and deprive them of autonomy in decision-making.
At the strategic level, it has been rightly pointed out by Indian nuclear analysts that Nasr is an attempt at lowering, or rather projecting, a low nuclear threshold. The idea is to restrict the scope for India’s conventional operations. In the limited war logic, India doesn’t intend to flirt with Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. In any event, keeping these low would help Pakistan preserve its territory and military forces to the extent possible.
At the operational level, the impact of Nasr is more psychological. The aim would be to slow down Indian offensive pincers by making them ‘button down’ for a battlefield that could potentially suddenly ‘go nuclear.’ The precautions, logistics load, and time cycle of standard operations procedures would slow and complicate operations. This would translate into increased combat friction, resulting in an increased leadership burden. There will be higher levels of vulnerability at bottleneck points, such as bridgeheads. Pakistan would then be able to counter thrust lines that it now can’t address due to the relative imbalance of forces – or if it’s surprised. Indian forces won’t be able to exploit opportunities with a sense of impunity, even those of pursuit. In fact, the more successful they get, the more the nuclear shadow of Nasr will loom large. The element of fear as well as surprise, and its disconcerting effect, will be exploited fully by Pakistan. India may therefore need additional forces to cater for various contingencies. This will have a corresponding effect on logistics, the pace of progress of operations, coordination, presenting potential targets, etc.
At the tactical level, the physical and psychological pressures of operating in a potential nuclear battlefield will add to the strain of combat. In hot weather, there would be increased physical attrition for troops, requiring earlier relief and time-consuming rotation in subunit/unit roles. the wider dispersion that nuclear tactics necessitate will increase command and control problems and the fog of war. Wide frontages increase the vulnerability to counter attack, since the freedom to concentrate would be with the counter attacker.
It would, then, appear that the seeming advantages stated above are what’s behind Pakistan’s development of Nasr. However, it’s surely a mixed blessing. What are the cons?
At the grand strategic level, attracting international attention to the region as a crisis point works both ways. As the Kargil conflict showed, India can profit from the situation and the onus on backing off could well be on Pakistan. Any propensity for first use may prompt the feared crackdown on its nuclear assets by the US-led international community, which would be to India’s advantage. This may convulse the Pakistan military into an internal battle over its assets, which would be especially untimely when faced with an Indian ‘threat.’ Pakistan will finally end up a nuclear pariah with a dysfunctional military, a state it has managed to avoid so far.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
mere mutabiq
I don’t understand why the world is concerned for Pakistan Nuclear Assets? In my opinion,they are biased & are scared of Islam. They don’t want to see an Islamic country (Pakistan) in possesion of nuclear weapons. The question is, why they are threatened. In response to the big “WHY” I would say that they are scared because they abused Muslim throughout their existance. Almost every Islamic country was a colony of European. Although the Europeans invaded 97 of world in general but the invasion of Islamic countries in specific was very well planned & organized to rob the rich resources of Economically weak & Defenseless countries. The anti Islamic countries know for sure that if the Islamic countries become powerful, they will take revenge of killing, robbing, looting, aggressions, invasions, oppressions, atrocities and other abuses. They know the reality of “EVERY RISE HAS A FALL” which is a fact and can’t be denied. This is the real threat but nothing else but in my opinion the teaching of Islam are very open and clear and forgiveness is one of the teachings of Islam. I ask the ignorants who are anti Islam & Pakistan, that why don’t they point their fingers at USA, UK, FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA, IDIA, ISRAEL, SOUTH AFRICA & BRAZIL. They should not forget that USA dropped two WMDs on NAGASAKI & HEROSHIMA (JAPAN) and killed hundred and thousands of innocent people, proove me if I am wrong. Was it justified? according to US point of view yes it was justified because USA took this step for her defense because JAPAN attacked Pearl Harbor without any provacation. I don’t know if it is true or not and what was going on behind the screen but for a minute if this assumption is correct that USA used nukes for its defense then we should give this right to every country abd there is no need to cry. As for as its use is concerned, I know for sure that only a crazy person or a believer of MIGHT IS RIGHT/POERFUL/FORCEFUL/DICTATOR can take this weird action of killing innocent people. I reject and condemn all the arguments of ignorants who point fingers at Pakistan’s nukes are against Iran’s development of nuclear program. All the countries of globe have equal rights and if they want to restric Islamic countries from the access of nuclear weapons, in my opinon they should get rid of their own WMDs because their WMDs are the biggest threat to the world peace. It’s a double standard.
khan
thumbs up for pakistani scientists. great job done guys. nuclear sysytem is very important for us and india will never think about war. what all they can do is by creating tension and my dividing us in different groups. like they are doing in Balochistan. we must unite ourselves. western countries are not our frinds. libya handover its nuclear centifuges so what western power did,they divided them and civil war started. we have to think cearfully
imran
@lalabairagi
Who has told you that India has no first use policy? Have you ever studied Indian declared nuclear policy, it says in some circumstances first use can be thought of.
And dont worry about Pakistan, worry about 65 million untouchables as UN is about to pass a resolution for their rights in India.
Asif
Its actually more than 300 million untouchables in India right now.
lallabairagi
I fail to understand as to what Pakistan achieves by building such weapons which do nothing but assure its own destruction. there is only one possible scenario wherein the nuclear weapons would be used, that being a retaliation in an advent of a Indian attack. If used Pakistan would be seen as an agressor and would invite a assured massive barrage of nuclear weapons from India which would be seen as justified in using the weapons due to their long standing no first use policy. When the dust settloes down, Pakistan would no more exist, save but as a mention in history. I further fail to understand as what Pakistan aims to achieve from makins such self incriminating statements as to the nuclear stockpile. What pakistan needs to do now is to sign the NTPT and give away all the nukes to IAEA, which will leave India in a catch 22 situation. This may even force india to sign NTPT as Pakistan would be seen in a positive light as against India. What Pakistan badly needs is global support and not nuclear weapons.
mere mutabiq
Lala, why don’t you ask all these questions to India which you raised in your comment? I congratulate Pakistani Sciencits because they zipped up India for good and shattered their dreams to become Macho of the region. Not only this, the Pakistani Scientists strengthen the defense by giving the gift of nuclear weapons to the country in form of Missiles & Atomic Bomb. I also encourage the Scientists of Pakistan to build an Intercontinental Missile upto the range which could hit any enemy at any distance, it is very important & necessary for the defense of the country. We should not forget that the enemy can be not stopped from agression and invasion until & unless she is hit directly.
rana shoukat
buck up pakisatni scientists …..
lala neetu
thumbs up pakistani scientists ….. well done