Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 24 Sep 2016 19:31

Not sure if this is the right thread:

UN Security Council backs nuke test ban implementation

With US Secretary of State John Kerry invoking North Korea's latest nuclear explosion as a "reckless act of provocation," the UN Security Council has approved a resolution urging quick global implementation of a treaty that would ban tests of such weapons.

Kerry said universal adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would result in a "safer, more secure, and more peaceful planet," as the United States and 18 other council members approved the resolution yesterday, with none opposed and Egypt abstaining.

Security Council approval comes as the Comprehensive Test Ban Organisation set up to administer the treaty marks its 20th anniversary. CTBO chief Lassina Zerbo welcomed the vote, telling The Associated Press that "it will remind the international community ... that we have to finish what we started 20 years ago."

European Union foreign policy coordinator Federica Mogherini said approval is "an important step" toward global enactment of the treaty.

The Washington-based Arms Control Association called it "a very important reaffirmation of the global taboo against nuclear weapon test explosions and strong call for ratification" by key nations. Yet yesterday's move was mostly symbolic.

The US remains one of the holdouts among the 44 countries that are designated "nuclear capable", the United States, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan that still need to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force.

North Korean leaders appeared in no mood to ratify any time soon, with Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho vowing his country will expand its nuclear capabilities in defiance of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly yesterday, he condemned Washington for flying two supersonic bombers over South Korea earlier this week, vowing "the United States will have to face tremendous consequences beyond imagination."

North Korea, he said, "will continue to take measures to strengthen its national nuclear armed forces in both quantity and quality in order to defend the dignity and right to existence and safeguard genuine peace vis-a-vis the increased nuclear war threat of the United States."

Even without ratification, the UN's CTBTO already polices the world for any sign of nuclear tests with a global network of monitoring stations that pick up seismic signals and gases released by such events.

But until those eight countries embrace the treaty it is supposed to administer, it cannot go on site to inspect for tests.

The White House has lobbied Congress for support since anti-treaty minded Republicans rejected ratification 17 years ago under President Bill Clinton, with Senate approval falling far short of the required two-thirds majority.

But opposition remains strong, although advocates say that computer modeling and other cutting edge techniques make real testing obsolete

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 28 Sep 2016 01:12


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23758
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 28 Sep 2016 17:37

If you have trouble with the above site (which I had), you can download the same from here.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby Shankk » 01 Oct 2016 20:44

Now that India has taken a stand and action, we are going to face a very tough question.

Assuming that PA does have some b@lls and decide to escalate this in a way that requires India to move regular army inside pakistan there is a tiny chance that PA might after all use tactical weapons inside their territory to stop Indian advance. What is India going to do then is a big question. There is no doubt that there will be massive outcry across the world with anger directed at pakistan for use of nukes. This will happen even if it is used within paki borders. Just like aam Indians reacted after Uri the world will react the same way to put pressure on pakistan to avoid this conflict going out of hand. How far then India will go is a question. Indus water treaty will certainly be toast and there will be pressure for UNSC to cancel their resolution asking for plebiscite in Kashmir, the very basis of paki argument. Even China will find it extremely difficult to defend their munna when India prepares for an all out war and the whole world is against pakis. New UNSC resolution will most likely happen.

Again the question is will India be willing to forget such an attack on our forces just for IWT and UNSC resolution or some such breadcrumbs? I know the stated Indian policy of unacceptable damages but what does BRF think will really happen?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23758
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 01 Oct 2016 20:56

Shankk wrote: . . . Even China will find it extremely difficult to defend their munna when India prepares for an all out war and the whole world is against pakis.

Again the question is will India be willing to forget such an attack on our forces just for IWT and UNSC resolution or some such breadcrumbs? I know the stated Indian policy of unacceptable damages but what does BRF think will really happen?

Shankk, IMHO, it is fallacious to believe that China *will not* defend Pakistan's nuclear attack. Pakistan's history shows that it behaves audaciously only whenever it feels that it has the backing & understanding of a Big Power. China is very different from the US. The latter was willing to go thus far and no further and Pakistan miscalculated at times. But, China, it appears to me, is willing to go the whole hog. We have to proceed with the assumption that China would stand steadfast with Pakistan if it decided to use TNWs or lob nukes on Indian cities. China is pretending to put out statements that keep it at an equal distance from both countries but that is duplicitous and it is encouraging Pakistan behind the scenes to the precipice.

Let's be clear about one thing. A nuke attack is a different ball-game and has to be responded to in kind. There are no two opinions about that. Period.

A review of IWT or even India's withdrawal from that or UNSC dropping its Kashmir resolutions once and for all from its agenda are natural things that have to happen in fairness and naturally. How can such small things be tied up with a nuclear counter-attack? Perish that thought.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Oct 2016 22:12

I agree with Sridhar's view above. China will likely support Pakistan's nuclear stances and belligerence. This is the reason, why some have been propounding that Pakistan is a side show. The real threat is China. China will listen ONLY when we have stakes against them backed by hard power.

A large part of our population even on BRF are vested in the Lok Kya Kahege syndrome. I guess much of it is backed by the fact that our global connectivity is largely a one way dependency affair, where our assets are easily replaceable.

The challenge for any government is to meet these threats by

1. Localization of conflict in a manner that is not suitable for escalation
2. Does not have an economic impact on India
3. Does not spoof foreign powers to withdraw from their Indian interests
4. Keep making investments in a manner that over time reduces the leverage foreign powers have on the Indian economy

The last point starts with the idea of an indigenous MIC - not a dependent one and certainly not dependent on a power with vested global interests, such as the US.

Another thing is many, many folks are still buying into the nuclear loose talk rhetoric coming from Pakistan, not realizing what such an action at ANY scale would mean. The military of Pakistan knows the consequences fully well and their ONLY hope is intervention of a foreign power to compel India to back down. The more we buy into the Log Kya Kahenge syndrome the more we strengthen Pakistan and its belligerence.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby Shankk » 01 Oct 2016 23:07

Thanks for the answer SS and ShauryT. Good to know about your conviction on Indian response. I however think differently regarding China.

For Pakistan, their USP is the threat of being irrational. No doubt they will take every possible step if pushed to corner but their extremely low redlines are just a posture. On the China front though I have some doubts. Yes, they will support Pakistan to the hilt and go a long way to support them but go all the way for pakis? I am not so sure. In a long history of civilization Pakistan does not even count and they don't even have their civilization after borrowing their idea of existence from foreign land. China on the other hand is different. Their current communist leadership is again an idea borrowed from western countries but they are more than that. It is not showing so due to the brutal ways of communism just like the monotheistic religions propose and follow (only my way is right...). The fact that they have survived all the onslaught in history with their ancient culture more or less intact just like us is a testimony that they are more than their current posture of brutal authoritarianism. Could I be wrong? Sure. There is certainly a possibility but at least there is a chance.

Why China will go a long way to defend Pakistan but not all the way to defend them? That cost is way too much than the benefits. Pakistan's utility is mainly to subdue India until we let it happen. After that paks are just a liability who can easily jump into bed with Islamic block to fulfill their god given mandate of world domination. China is no friend then and China knows that. Defending pakistan after their use of tactical nukes invites complete or utter destruction of China. That means not just their culture, history and other things dear to them but all the hard work they have put in to build their country all this long. In an all out war whether they can defeat India may or may not be questionable but it is absolutely certain that they will be pushed back by decades. After that point the west will once again rise to prominence and will make sure to not repeat their mistakes and give China another chance. Chinese know this very well.

Will things really go so bad? Now that's the question. Once a nuke is used irrespective of it's type, tactical or strategic or it's size all bets are off. Use of nukes is the first irrational thing and then it's futile to expect any rationality or reason from a country that has just been nuked no matter the actual location. Only India decides where to stop. My reading of China is different but I see a chance they will not go all the way to support paks after their use of nuclear weapons.
Last edited by Shankk on 01 Oct 2016 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 01 Oct 2016 23:12

hmm ..tactical or otherwise a nuclear war at the Chinese door step can affect their economy big time even if not directly involved !!.. indeed India can facilitate how near they want it ..

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 01 Oct 2016 23:13

after that they can forget about getting ahead of USA economically and by extension militarily :mrgreen:

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby Shankk » 01 Oct 2016 23:24

Historically speaking India acted a buffer between China and Islamic conquests. We took all the brunt and China was spared due to that. Why take that buffer away now? After India China all out war, it's like old time again. Both Christianity and Islam brutally fighting for world domination. Even if China manages to survive war with India, one or both of these religions will finish them in a matter of time. At that time they will not have a time tested buffer that fights these ideologies and saves them from being on the frontline. Now I don't have a crustal ball but something tells me Chinese are not that stupid.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Deterrence

Postby Prem » 01 Oct 2016 23:26

kit wrote:after that they can forget about getting ahead of USA economically and by extension militarily :mrgreen:

Without Economic glue to keep them together, 4 Chinas will split again and WEST/ Japan/ Russia etc will keep them in Jarasandh mode.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Oct 2016 23:37

Think of it this way, there is no better outcome for China than to see Indian sub-continent damaged forever by nuclear war. India is its ONLY competitor in Asia. One does not provide direct arms, ammunitions, technology, strategic support for nuclear weapons and at the same time come out with cajoling statements. It is China's actions that will speak, not words.

Kit: China is not near India. It is Tibet that has a border with us. China is at least 1000 KM's away from us. India is just starting its onslaught to be the new trading partner of the west and ONLY nuclear war will derail India, benefitting China and consolidating its hegemony in Asia.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Deterrence

Postby Lalmohan » 01 Oct 2016 23:39

actually - china was invaded by the arabs as well. xinjiang was ceded to the barbarians

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Oct 2016 23:42

Shankk wrote:Historically speaking India acted a buffer between China and Islamic conquests. We took all the brunt and China was spared due to that. Why take that buffer away now? After India China all out war, it's like old time again. Both Christianity and Islam brutally fighting for world domination. Even if China manages to survive war with India, one or both of these religions will finish them in a matter of time. At that time they will not have a time tested buffer that fights these ideologies and saves them from being on the frontline. Now I don't have a crustal ball but something tells me Chinese are not that stupid.

Islamic conquests happen ONLY on weak states. As long as China remains strong as a state, not much that can disturb China. Their Islamic under belly is in its border regions only and not of much strength. Do not go by the current global terrorism news cycles, it is a side show. Islam has been weakened very severely in many domains since GWOT. China is at the least of threats from Islamic states.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Deterrence

Postby GShankar » 01 Oct 2016 23:44

Shankk wrote:Historically speaking India acted a buffer between China and Islamic conquests. We took all the brunt and China was spared due to that. Why take that buffer away now? After India China all out war, it's like old time again. Both Christianity and Islam brutally fighting for world domination. Even if China manages to survive war with India, one or both of these religions will finish them in a matter of time. At that time they will not have a time tested buffer that fights these ideologies and saves them from being on the frontline. Now I don't have a crustal ball but something tells me Chinese are not that stupid.


You seem to imply that 'religion' spread is the biggest danger for china. I think otherwise. (Communist Party of) China's biggest fear is loosing control. Economic development is the strategy to retain control from internal forces. Military development is to retain control from external forces.

CPC seems to have handled the peaceful influences of Buddhism by re-discovering taoism, confuzism, etc. They'll be as revisionist as possible in the guise of 'pistol' growth. They know that competition with US is a long game and India is a hurdle along with Russia as of now. They have clearly taken advantage of the current situations and have gained a more favorable position from Russia. The strategy to bring India to their fold has gotten a twist when Modi became PM and it is to be seen how this game is going to be played going forward.

Repetitively, with words and actions, Modi has proven that he has India's best interests covered based on his own strategy. Important thing is to have confidence and wait. Irrespective of what China, Pakis or others do, between Modi and Doval, they seem to have a strategy.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Deterrence

Postby DavidD » 02 Oct 2016 03:19

China would not want a nuclear war, and while it's perfectly fine with Pakistan and India nuking themselves to oblivion, it knows full well that nuclear war could easily spread to China as well and so it'll do everything it can to prevent a nuclear war. This means that China will step in militarily if necessary to 1) stop the Indians from overrunning Pakistan if it comes to that or 2) stop J&K from breaking away from India if it comes to that. This is because those two outcomes are unacceptable to Pakistan and India respectively and could easily start a nuclear war.

The U.S. and probably even Russia will help out as well, because frankly, nobody wants a nuclear war.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23758
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2016 07:58

The Uri attack, the pre-emptive attack by our special forces on terrorist launch-pads within Pakistan-held Indian territory, the Chinese influence over are events that should lead to some refinement in the Indian deterrence posture.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2016 08:23

You know Sridhar - these threads have been dominated by cold war gyan and cold war cliches as if rivalry between the US and USSR defined all other disputes.

On oft repeated cliche was that nuclear armed nations won't go to war - and that was killed by Pakis in Kargil in 1999. But Pakis started a new paradigm "Asymmetric war under a nuclear umbrella" believing that the nuclear umbrella would prevent retaliation.

So one more assumption comes crashing down...

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Deterrence

Postby DavidD » 02 Oct 2016 10:31

shiv wrote:You know Sridhar - these threads have been dominated by cold war gyan and cold war cliches as if rivalry between the US and USSR defined all other disputes.

On oft repeated cliche was that nuclear armed nations won't go to war - and that was killed by Pakis in Kargil in 1999. But Pakis started a new paradigm "Asymmetric war under a nuclear umbrella" believing that the nuclear umbrella would prevent retaliation.

So one more assumption comes crashing down...


Well, to be fair, the Indian retaliation has been more with words than with actual action. Just looking from the sidelines, it seems like there's been heck a lot more talk about the "surgical strike" than there has been strikes themselves. I think that's sending the wrong message to Pakistan, because the message right now is that the Indian government would only defend J&K so far as to placate its domestic critics rather than actually being fed up with all the terrorist attacks. Pakistan needs to get serious about the terrorist problem in its own country. It needs to realize that while it can serve some purpose in destabilizing its rivals in India and Afghanistan, it's destabilizing itself as well.

I think China has sent a message to Pakistan by not openly supporting its position, and if India can send a message that it won't stand for this kind of crap then maybe the ruling elites in Pakistan can really get the message. Just like how the wealthy learned eventually that they don't need slaves to be rich, perhaps Pakistan will eventually realize that it doesn't need terrorists to be a strong nation.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2016 10:40

DavidD wrote:Well, to be fair, the Indian retaliation has been more with words than with actual action.

That is how things work. To continue the total fairness and neutrality paradigm, Chinese words and actions too are more hot air than anything visible. But the people who need to get a message will get it

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 02 Oct 2016 19:31

One factor people .. Pakistan is China .. China owns the generals .. if you keep in mind this aspect things become simpler

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 02 Oct 2016 19:34

Pakistan stopped having a state policy long back ..now it's just one mercenary army with nukes protecting their benefactors land ..yes most is now owned /pawned away to China.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amoghvarsha » 02 Oct 2016 20:04

How will China react to an American base in Andaman sea or American soldiers in Kargil?

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Deterrence

Postby DavidD » 03 Oct 2016 01:41

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote:Well, to be fair, the Indian retaliation has been more with words than with actual action.

That is how things work. To continue the total fairness and neutrality paradigm, Chinese words and actions too are more hot air than anything visible. But the people who need to get a message will get it


Exactly, the Chinese stick to words, they do have a peaceful rise paradigm to stick to after all. I'm not sure words alone is enough to deter Pakistan though.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 03 Oct 2016 04:18



Americans are wrongly escalating the situation. Need to take them out of the news and media channels
Published on Sep 15, 2016
Zero Line with Dr. Kent Moors
Nuclear War: World War 3 Could Start Between India & Pakistan
http://zerolinekentmoors.com/

The threat of nuclear war between India & Pakistan is just one piece of a larger geopolitical conflict that is quickly escalating -- called "The Great Game" by Dr. Kent Moors.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby Shankk » 03 Oct 2016 04:29

GShankar, may be I could have made a better choice of words when I mentioned religion but I do not mean it in absolute sense. Religion is simply a tool of advancing political interests. Heck there was a time when religion itself directly controlled everything. Don't want to digress too much in this topic but just want to state that religion is a sheep's clothing. Religious leaders like the church lead the colonization march in disguise and prepare the situation, time, land, people for eventual takeover. In that sense China will be taken over. Anyways apologies for digression.

What India has achieved with this strike is reviving the deterrence. All this long paki deterrence worked like a charm and India scared away from taking any steps. Now India is signaling China that the skirmishes between India/pakistan are not limited to two countries anymore. If pakis does have some b@lls there is no telling when China will be dragged into clashes. On the other hand pakis will be in a bind as to how far they want to go and who exactly will support them in that case.

All this while paki brinkmanship worked because only their deterrence was working and Indian deterrence failed miserably. It is only now that the parity has been restored.

jivana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby jivana » 03 Oct 2016 09:18

Why doesn't India tell China that they cannot continue to have their poodle continue to needle India? If things escalate and lead to a atimi jung then India will hit back everyone who helped napkis build the bomb and prvided the delivery systems?

China needs to know if India is hit, they will be hit as well.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bheeshma » 03 Oct 2016 09:33

Why do you think India is joining US and Japan in SCS? Plus BLA etc regularly target chinese in baluchistan.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 03 Oct 2016 09:38

jivana wrote:Why doesn't India tell China that they cannot continue to have their poodle continue to needle India? If things escalate and lead to a atimi jung then India will hit back everyone who helped napkis build the bomb and prvided the delivery systems?

China needs to know if India is hit, they will be hit as well.


All of them are in this together. Chini and Uncle. They are watching if P ak behavior will change India.

P ak is a puppet country which does not do anything without the permission
Only when Uncle withdraws assistance from P ak that it is truly not under control.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Deterrence

Postby GShankar » 03 Oct 2016 12:54

Shankk wrote:GShankar, may be I could have made a better choice of words when I mentioned religion but I do not mean it in absolute sense. Religion is simply a tool of advancing political interests. Heck there was a time when religion itself directly controlled everything. Don't want to digress too much in this topic but just want to state that religion is a sheep's clothing. Religious leaders like the church lead the colonization march in disguise and prepare the situation, time, land, people for eventual takeover. In that sense China will be taken over. Anyways apologies for digression.


Agreed. However, my contention remains that it does not seem that religious take over is highest on CPC's mind IMO. And India is not really the shield here too. For ex: Christianity and Islam had made much higher inroads in Philippines, S. Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia respectively.

Shankk wrote:What India has achieved with this strike is reviving the deterrence. All this long paki deterrence worked like a charm and India scared away from taking any steps. Now India is signaling China that the skirmishes between India/pakistan are not limited to two countries anymore. If pakis does have some b@lls there is no telling when China will be dragged into clashes. On the other hand pakis will be in a bind as to how far they want to go and who exactly will support them in that case.

All this while paki brinkmanship worked because only their deterrence was working and Indian deterrence failed miserably. It is only now that the parity has been restored.


With regards to the strike, I am seeing this as a continuum. First we have improve relationship with all neighbors (including pakistan and china). They all understand us well now :). And I think the trial run was conducted in Burma and probably some smaller one off raids in pakistan. Now we have conducted a bigger op and pakis and chinese are twiddling their thumbs. And like I said this earlier this would continue and there is going to be few (or more) rounds of back and forth before the proverbial dust settles down.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23758
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 04 Oct 2016 12:36

Khalid Kidwai, the ex-Chief of SPD of Pakistan had enunciated the four Pakistani redlines openly at least on two occasions, once in c. 2002 and another in c. 2015 at Carnegie. Pakistan would use n-weapons if anyone of the following conditions happens:

  • A significant territory of Pakistan is captured by India
  • A significant portion of the PA or PAF is destroyed by India
  • India strangulates Pakistan economically
  • India causes political destabilization of Pakistan through subversion

Articles have started appearing in the traditional anti-India 'national newspapers' in India suggesting that the surgical strike was foolish, it will open a Pandora's box that India will find difficult to close, that Pakistan is more 'innovative' and can inflict immense pain on us etc.

The above are all very vague terms and possibly, deliberately kept so. In any case, the fourth condition is something that we have paid scant attention to so far in our discussions. With the Balochistan situation immensely heating-up, with some people in the POK rising-up against the Pakistani Army, with FATA residents of Khyber-Paktunjhwa fulminating now against the atrocities of the Pakistani military, with the denizens of Balawaristan always up against the occupying Pakistani state, how far does Pakistan think its fourth redline is from being breached?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2016 23:50

Unstated redline is:
- If TSPA Chief feels constipated for any reason then its atim bum on India

This is most important redline.

----
Fourth redline has been breached and followed up with Surgical Strike .
Review of export import policy will breach the third redline.
One and two don't count as they are in self destruct mode.
In my opinion all the redlines were erased with the Surgical Strike and Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar agreed on Twitter.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bheeshma » 04 Oct 2016 23:53

One and two are irrelevant. What it implies is pakis would be completely nuke nood by then as IA,IAF and IN would target any nuke capable equipment first in a sudden strike (cold start). Pakis have no economy so there is nothing left to strangle..they may be talking about naval blockade but that is hot air from pakis as usual.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 05 Oct 2016 00:01

Pakis are scrambling to deny that the surgical strike occurred just so that they can pretend the redline is still there.

I was wondering why Porkovich of the Non Proliferation Brigade had suddenly started talking about J&K after all these years.

There used to be a devil's bargain between Crap-On, Porkovich types whose main objectives were to hamstring India's nuclear program so that we wouldn't challenge their pet China; and Pakistan, which wanted to augment its fragmenting H&D by pretending to be a nuclear power "on par" with India.

The game was played like this:
1) Pakistan (via people like Khalid Gande-nalli-ke-Kidwai) would visit the "stink tanks" infested by the likes of Porkovich/Crap-On, and give grandiose poor-point presentations about their so-called "redlines".
2) Pakistan would carry out a terrorist attack against India.
3) India would make gestures of preparing for retribution.
4) Porkovich, Crap-On etc. would make a big fuss about "most dangerous conflict in the world" and "WW3 could start in IndiaPakistan", citing the "redlines" as articulated by Gande-nalli-ke-Kidwai during his stink tank visits.

This time India went ahead with public retribution. The effect of this was to effectively call the Pakis' bluff and expose the redlines as pure fiction.

Don't underestimate the effect that the strike of 28/9 will have on rewriting the entire set of assumptions upon which nuclear deterrence equations between India, China, and Pakistan have been based ever since 1998 (in the conventional wisdom of Crap-On, Porkovich, and many others).

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2016 04:07

The only redline is a formal declaration of all out war
Short of that everything is manageable.
If india destabilizes them in the provinces they will try to manage the situation with genocide. They know that a military showdown will be needed in the end, that is where the redline will be close to being beached

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby krishna_krishna » 05 Oct 2016 08:23

Two big takeaways or deterrence impact of S. Strikes is :

1) We have shown will and capability to fight our own war, we are not going to beg or ask the world to fight our war. 3.5 forefathers can save soothing good words for napakis including their aid(s).
2) Calling their Bum bluff, we have reinforced that N clear weapons are strategic deterrent only not for war fighting. There is a space under the N. cloud where india still can punish them with impunity without any fear of their "New Clear Bum". The empty threats will stop or be less in frequency. If they use them , they should be prepared to be wiped off.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23758
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 05 Oct 2016 19:16

Ideally speaking, an H&D based society such as Pakistan, *MUST* have included loss of H&D as the only redline. What else can be more destroying of the Pakistani state than even a slight loss of its H&D? After all, it is for the sake of H&D that the State of Pakistan is duplicitous, perfidious, mendacious and above all a nuclear-weapon state. Why did it go to such enormous extents to possess n-weapons if it was not to match India, an H&D proposition? If that H&D is at stake, shouldn't the State use its crown jewel?

Khalid Kidwai, instead of drawing up the four separate redlines, should have simply said, "If Pakistani H&D is at stake, we will use the nukes". That would have been simpler, kept the threshold as low as possible, made it difficult for the kafir enemy to interpret where exactly the threshold started, and the ambiguity would have allowed the cavalier Pakistani generals to use the weapon as they deemed fit, wouldn't it have?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2016 20:40

:lol:
That is the real redline. All else is hot gas.
That is a primitive society. All gaming is useless.
It depends on the state of H&D of the men with the buttons on the given day and time for Bum use.

One thing these guys will always respect is the certainity of destruction to themselves.
India should start flying planes loaded with red colored mijjiles over pindi and Isloo, once every few months at random, and these guys will cool down.
The fact that they are organized as a nation and as an army, as opposed to a loose jihadi group without any national borders is their achilles heel, and we should exploit the same. They don't seem to have any reservations to killing Indians in cold blood.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2016 21:14

SSridhar wrote:Ideally speaking, an H&D based society such as Pakistan, *MUST* have included loss of H&D as the only redline. What else can be more destroying of the Pakistani state than even a slight loss of its H&D? After all, it is for the sake of H&D that the State of Pakistan is duplicitous, perfidious, mendacious and above all a nuclear-weapon state. Why did it go to such enormous extents to possess n-weapons if it was not to match India, an H&D proposition? If that H&D is at stake, shouldn't the State use its crown jewel?

Khalid Kidwai, instead of drawing up the four separate redlines, should have simply said, "If Pakistani H&D is at stake, we will use the nukes". That would have been simpler, kept the threshold as low as possible, made it difficult for the kafir enemy to interpret where exactly the threshold started, and the ambiguity would have allowed the cavalier Pakistani generals to use the weapon as they deemed fit, wouldn't it have?

Sridhar the need to save echandee is inextricably linked to power to salvage echandee.

For example if a woman is seen to have shamed the family, the male relatives have physical power over her and she will be punished. But if the opposing party (The "shaming party") is more powerful then echandee cannot be regained by an actual fight. They will go for mediation and talks. We have made the mistake of agreeing every time - the duffers that we are.

Let me just link up the relevant chapter on Pak psyche of my now decade old book
http://pakistanfailedstate.blogspot.in/ ... neral.html

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 05 Oct 2016 21:41

It seems that in Modi's view, what needs to be done is to "secularize" the Pakis' sense of history.

Pakistan has always seen all of the Indian subcontinent in terms of a legacy of Muslim kingdoms... a dominant Mughal Empire and its provinces in the North, mostly subservient Bahmani Kingdoms in the South. All this time they saw themselves (sitting in Punjab) as the true inheritors of the Delhi/Agra Mughal throne (hence, they suppressed Punjabi in favour of Urdu, etc. in their own lands.) Meanwhile, they saw Delhi/Agra as being in the hands of Kafir upstarts because of an accident of history... but these upstarts, being Hindu cowards, were invariably going to buckle and capitulate before the force of Islam, and sooner or later they would be shown their place and green flag would fly over Red Fort, etc.

Today Pakistan finds itself facing something they never thought possible. A strong emperor in the Red Fort! Who is not Muslim! Yet, there he is speaking from the Red Fort. And just like a great Mughal, he has shown himself ready to give jhaapad to lesser monarchs/governors/vassals which they have no option but to sit quietly and take.

I think Modi has recognized the Mughal-obsessed lens with which Pakistan views the subcontinent. When he invited Nawaz Sharif to his swearing-in, along with all the other SAARC leaders, he was putting on a ceremony designed specifically to hit the Pakistani psyche at its key historical reference points... inviting the lesser provincial leaders to the Delhi Durbar to witness the coronation of the supreme monarch. Isolating the Pakis by convincing every other SAARC nation to pull out of the Slumbad conference has only reinforced this impression of Modi being the Shah Alam and themselves only being one of many vassal states. Currently he is stoking the subnational rivalries of Pakistan, propping up Baluchs, Pathans and Sindhis, which again has the effect on the Pakjabi psyche of reminding them of their peripheral and regional status in the subcontinent's scheme of things as viewed through their own Mughal-obsessed lens. Now the 28/9 strike will recapitulate, for Pakis, the spectre of Akbar mounting punitive military raids to subjugate rebellious midgets like Mirza Hakim of Kabul or Chand Bibi of Ahmednagar.

The reason Jinnah died thinking of Pakistan as "moth-eaten" was that he realized it had inherited, not the Mughal Empire, but a few of its peripheral provinces. Modi's way of dealing with Pakistan is to reinforce the idea that they are not the inheritors of the Mughal legacy... the Republic of India is. They remain peripheral governors of the empire with no more aukat than any provincial upstart has ever had. The fact that the Republic of India is led by an unapologetic Hindu causes them vast heartburn... but on the other hand, if he behaves like a Mughal Emperor, what to do? Pakistan's "sense of history" and "Islamic identity" are finally at odds with each other... in a way that has perhaps not been the case since post-1971. This will provoke an H&D crisis that no amount of drawing redlines can protect them from.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sagrawal, yensoy and 37 guests