williams wrote: I also don't buy this argument, that for the threat to be real, they should use the nukes. I believe such a threat is one of the factor for our extreme level of defensive response to every Paki aggression and terrorist attack. No major power will be sending dossiers when a major terrorist attack like 26/11 happens and there is direct evidence that it is state sponsored.
The idea that "
some other power would have done something different unlike our defensive response" is not a direct indicator that we are totally cowed down because the argument is hypothetical. Pakistan has not directly threatened anyone else and second guessing the behaviour of that someone else and comparing that hypothetical behaviour with India's actual behaviour is sophistry.
Pakistan has threatened India with nuclear weapons and the question is what we would have done if such a threat did not exist. This is a totally hypothetical question but it is worth looking at it and comparing what Pakistan has to say and what India has done.
How other powers respond to Pakistan is a different issue because they are not under direct threat and I will state my observation in that regard later. But first, India.
- In 1947: No Pakistani nuclear threat, but India stopped short of reoccupying all of Kashmir
- In 1965: No Pakistani nuclear threat, but India just defended itself. The opening of a new front was judged as "trying to attack Pakistan"
- 1n 1971: no Pakistani nuclear threat. Bangladesh formed. India stopped short of breaking up west Pakistan. In fact the line was simply held in the west with no major advances
- By 1984: Pakistan had its first nuke but that did not stop the reoccupation of Siachen
- 1987: Pakistani threat was open and absolutely nothing happened, although Pakistan claims that an Indian invasion was stopped. It is claimed that Gen Sunderji's Operation Brasstacks was to be an attack on Pakistan which did not take place because of Paki nukes. This argument is no different from the claim that you dispute - that Pakistani nukes are not a threat because they have not been used. No Indian invasion occurred in 1987 therefore Pakistani nukes are an effective deterrent
- 1999: Kargil. Pakistani war plans in 1999 (as per a paper written by Gen Javid Nasir) was that in 1965 India responded to a localized invasion by spreading the conflict to other areas. But because of Pakistani nukes, India in 1999 would not be able to escalate the conflict as it had done in 1965, allowing Pakistan to exert irresistible force in Kargil. What transpired was that India escalated by using air power. Pakistan should have escalated too by using counter air power. Why did their nuclear bravado not help them at that point? Or why was India not prevented from responding adequately?
- 2001-2002: This, in my view was a pointless action. The possibility of a nuclear exchange was kept in mind and it was openly announced that India was readying its forces for use. It was announced in the media. Despite the pointlessness of the whole exercise - the readying of nuclear forces by India does not sound like an act that sought to mollify or reassure Pakistan or indicate Indian fear.
Let me say this: As long as you, or Pakistan, take the view that India is being held back from attacking Pakistan because of its nukes, you cannot be proven wrong. But nothing in history shows that India has any intention of attacking west Pakistan. If the lack of intention of attacking west Pakistan is "fear" of nukes - that fear existed even before Pakistan got nukes.
I see a number of Indians on BRF and now I am including you in that list - among people who believe the Pakistani story that India has an intent to attack Pakistan and is being prevented from doing that by Paki nukes. I am unable to see any such intent in Indian actions from 1947. the story that Indian seeks to attack Pakistan is a Pakistani story and believing that story is your prerogative. I don't buy it.
If the argument is "
If India had to take over Pakistan we should have done it before they got nukes" - then that argument is in my view akin to the one that says "
if my aunt had a di(k she would have been my uncle". India has never shown any intent of attacking Pakistan so the idea that we should have done it earlier is meaningless. Pakistanis and some Indians call a lack of intent to attack Pakistan as "fear" and "cowardliness". If you belong to this group it is your prerogative to hold that view. It is an argument that both sides can use. I can say that Pakistan has not nuked India because it is afraid of using nukes. Same fear and cowardliness in Pakistan.
Coming to the point about "other powers" doing things to Pakistan, let me be brief because I have said this countless times
1. "Other powers" are not under nuclear threat from Pakistan
2. Pakistan has thumbed its nose at the US and has made the US look like a jackass (although America rakshaks will never admit that) by milking the US for money saying that nukes will go to Taliban while not doing anything against the Taliban. The US has shown genuine fear of Pakistani nukes and a willingness to be blackmailed by anyone in Pakistan who promises to help the US.
