…

I thought the ‘why’ was obvious. Prithvi was a missile that was developed and deployed in large part for the nuclear delivery role. That it can also carry conventional warheads is besides the point. You launch the Prithvi, there’s a high chance the enemy will not want to take chances, will assume it carries a nuclear payload and launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

the answer is to simply make it clear that prithvi is for the conventional role, and agni/shourya for strategic. do the message right, take the confusion out. prithvi may have been developed for multiple roles to begin with, but why replace a missile which excels in one role still when other options are available to take over the strategic one.

The risk is less with a smaller missile like Prahaar which has been specificially developed for an ATACMS-style conventional artillery role.

nothing like that per se. if the enemy sees a 100 prahars or fifty prithvis heading towards different targets within a few minutes of conflict, the “risk” is the same. which is why india has dwelt extensively on NFU.
NFU gives india the edge by dictating terms of escalation in a war. but its flip side is it exposes us to irrational strike first, win the hand sort of thinking.
either way, deterrence issues apart, changing missiles – especially one which works – is not necessary to clarify deterrence.

if the prithvi was a kludge, with limited accuracy and low payload, less reliability, we would not be having this conversation. but as things stand, it has a high payload, has good CEP, and is reliable. its present in numbers and gives us many options to hit hard targets like hardened AFB etc defended in depth. with waypoint navigation and midcourse changes possible, it is also not easy to intercept by ABM systems.