Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

Sparten said:
For a true first strike platform, you need something that can carry high accurate MIRV/ This means bigger warheads (nuclear warhead size and yield don't scale quite as linearly as conventional ones, but there is a link). Which means terminal guidance. Also countermeasures. And a powerful post boost vehicle (PBV) with space for multiple warheads, as well as sufficient on-board propellant to release warheads on an optimal trajectory.
All this requires a heavier payload, a large PBV and MIRV versus a simple warhead mounting and RV.
When we talk about missile range, what you are actually saying for payload mass x a missile has range y (trajectory also affects it but we will ignore for now). Adjusting x makes y greater and vice versa.

As a very rough rule of thumb (@JamD could explain better), halving the payload mass increases range by 40%.

So the same missiile which carrying 6 heavy MIRV on a bulky warhead PBV which can hit say 4000km, will have ICBM range with a single light warhead and no PBV.
Click to expand...
But the context is nuclear and the first strike perspective is still met with existing systems.
I would challenge your argument as both unnecessary and unrelated to the concept of existing MAD and reassurance of red lines.

Pakistan does not need an optimized MIRV-heavy, counterforce first strike platform to credibly enforce water related red lines because it already possesses a survivable second strike capability through a mix of mobile ballistic missiles and sea-based deterrents. The credibility of deterrence comes from assured retaliation, not from maximizing firststrike efficiency or payload optimization curves.

The existing Pakistani arsenal is more than sufficient to enforce that line, regardless of India’s nascent ABM or missile defense posture. Pakistan already fields a diversified, survivable nuclear force with road mobile systems, medium range and longer range ballistic missiles, and a growing sea based leg, which collectively ensure an assured second strike capability and credible deterrence over India’s population and economic centers.

From a MAD‑logic standpoint, what matters is not whether Pakistan can deliver a perfect MIRV based firststrike under Indian ABM, but whether it can credibly threaten unacceptable damage through a mix of hardened and dispersed platforms. Even a modest number of surviving warheads penetrating ABM coverage is enough to make any Indian attempt to weaponize or block water an existential strategic gamble.

In that sense, Pakistan’s existing nuclear posture, combined with its explicit redline signaling on water, already raises the strategic cost for India far beyond what any incremental MIRV or ABM upgrade can credibly offset.

Your focus on payload mass, PBVs, and MIRV scaling is technically sound but strategically of little value esp in the context of the nuclear warning on water. Deterrence stability is built on minimum credible deterrence, not arms race parity in MIRV sophistication. Even a limited number of survivable warheads capable of penetrating defenses is sufficient to impose unacceptable damage, which is the core of MAD logic.

Introducing heavier MIRV requirements as “necessary” for enforcing red lines mixes capability enhancement with strategic necessity and is plain overstating what is actually required to maintain deterrence stability in the region.
 
WHAT THE HELL? twitter full of images of new yotk post meme of modi as giving chai. It is horrible for a publication of suvh stature to styope so low
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
peacemaker99 said:
WHAT THE HELL? twitter full of images of new yotk post meme of modi as giving chai. It is horrible for a publication of suvh stature to styope so low
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

maybe a good idea shouldve been to not attack us for something we didnt do last year.
 
roz ka kaam... pune AF station is home to two su-30mki squadrons, lagta hai kaam dikha diya Su-30MKI ne ek baar phir aur iss baar seedha runway par
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
aurelianpilled said:
roz ka kaam... pune AF station is home to two su-30mki squadrons, lagta hai kaam dikha diya Su-30MKI ne ek baar phir aur iss baar seedha runway par
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

Hopefully a complete airframe loss not too confident though.
 
Olympus81 said:
I am of the view that Pakistan always focuses on a tactical level and sometimes loses its sight on a strategic scale.

The battle in 25 did not culminate in India repositioning its stance on IWT. The longer the status quo stays, Pakistan loses leverage on enforcing this issue.

There are diplomatic pressure, nuclear doctrine (as a member mentioned) that can be triggered. But there is absolute silence on this. Pakistan’s water is supposed to be a red line.
Click to expand...


traditionally true.. but since operation Tandoor I see them on a strategic back foot..

India's attempt to label as "global terror" and "isolate" Pakistan failed miserably ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 1, guests: 13)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top