Rogue nuke out of Pakistan - article by KS and reactions

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

Rogue nuke out of Pakistan - article by KS and reactions

Postby shiv » 23 May 2006 07:04

The following article has been linked from the News section of BR. It is by KS and I hope there is no parallel discussion going on. The topic is too important to ignore - but I wll post some of my own thoughts in a separate post.

First the article itself, lifted from the Tribune.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... ewsid=6218

The A Q Khan effect
US succumbing to Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail
by K Subrahmanyam

The fact that the United States continues to be soft on Pakistan even though its leaders are aware that Pakistan is the epicentre of Jehadi terrorism, is a great puzzle for the Indian government and strategic analysts in India.

The mastermind of the 9/11 attack is a Kuwait born Pakistani. The ISI and Omar Sheikh sent $ 100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack. The shoe bomber Richard Reeves and the London train bombers had a Pakistani connection. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri were permitted to have safe havens in Pakistan and continue to be there.

The US coordinator on counter-terrorism, Henry Crumpton, recently complained about the inadequacy of Pakistani cooperation in hunting down the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. There is evidence of a resurgence of Taliban activity in Afghanistan, mostly with Pakistani help. In spite of all these, General Musharraf continues to be the favourite son of the US administration. He has been able to flout every dictum of President Bush and still is hailed as an ally on the war on terrorism. Why?

For the first time, we are getting a plausible explanation from an American analyst, Tom Donnelly, of the American Enterprise Institute. Donnelly focuses on the US concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. He highlights the role and activities of Dr. A.Q. Khan and his pan-Islamic orientation. He points to the possibility of certain sections of the Pakistani Army and scientific establishment sharing his Pan-Islamic orientation. He draws attention to the US Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) which has a whole section on the threat to the US from loose nuclear weapons and materials getting out of the control of a nuclear weapon state.

Though no state is specifically named, it is quite obvious that the concern is about Pakistan as the QDR refers to a state friendly to US.

Donnelly outlines a plan that the US would perhaps be adopting to deal with such a situation. The plan has all signs of a military briefing. The first assumption is that though the hijacking of a nuclear device or materials may be carried out by a combination of jehadis, extremist oriented sections of the army and the scientific establishment, the Pakistan government and the Army will be with the US and will cooperate in recovering the materials from the jehadi group. This assumption is absolutely basic to the success of the operation. The implication is the situation will be beyond control if the Pakistani government and Army are non-cooperative.

Donnelly’s plan involves deployment of the US Delta force, rangers, infantry and air force elements. The US may have to act alone. While Indian help may be available that will be red rag to the Pakistani government and Army and therefore should be avoided. This operation is detailed in his article in phases and he does not deal with the post recovery phase.

The Donnelly paper needs to be circulated widely and studied in detail by appropriate authorities in India. The important issue that comes out of this article is the imperative need for the US to keep on the right side of General Musharraf and the Pakistani Army because of the existentialist threat of Pakistani nuclear weapons and materials falling into the hands of the jehadis. Because of this compulsion the US has to overlook all transgressions of General Musharraf and the top army leadership. In that sense, the US is under an existential nuclear blackmail by Pakistan.

This gives Musharraf adequate courage to demand economic and military aid and even access to civil nuclear energy from the US, even though he allows a safe haven to Al Qaeda and Taliban leaderships and reneges on all promises to act against jehadis in his country. This existential blackmail has three components- the large scale presence of Jehadis in Pakistan, a reputation for pan-Islamic orientation among intelligence establishments, scientists and the Army, and proved attempts originating in Pakistan and aimed at the US for using WMD. All the three factors exist. There is no need for General Musharraf or any other Pakistani leader to convey any specific blackmail. The signals are all there and the US can read them.

There is no other explanation that can adequately explain the US tolerance of Pakistani behaviour, which has been far more provocative than that of Iran or North Korea. The US also faces an unfamiliar problem. All its nuclear theology was based on the concept of deterrence, which assumed that the adversary valued certain things such as life, property and future of his nation. But the jehadis value nothing and therefore cannot be deterred. Further, the Pakistani leadership deliberately cultivates an image of irrationality. Recently, in an interview, General Aslam Beg elaborated on the advice he had given to the Iranians. Whoever hits Iran, hit Israel and destroy it. He boasted that his strategy for Pakistan was, no matter who hits his country, he would hit India.

In India there is inadequate understanding of the US predicament. The US is in a kind of hostage situation. We should have noticed that there has been very few detailed analyses about reasons underlying the extraordinary permissiveness of the US about Pakistani behaviour. The charges of A.Q. Khan’s CIA linkages have been ignored. Even the monstrous accusation that 9/11 commission members were dealt with by Pakistani lobbyists and persuaded to water down their conclusions evoked no response from the US media or law makers. Pakistan’s defiant non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of Iranian proliferation, in which Islamabad is the primary guilty party has been looked away from. In these circumstances, President Bush displayed rare courage in refusing to succumb to the latest blackmail from Pakistan seeking equal treatment with India on access to civil nuclear energy.

How long the US will put up with Pakistani blackmail? Will the US be able to keep blackmail under manageable levels or will it someday or other breach the limits of US tolerance? Will US succeed in democratising Pakistan under these circumstances or will it have to reconcile itself to successive army regimes flaunting its linkages to jehadis? These are the issues that need to be addressed in Indo-US Track II deliberations.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 23 May 2006 07:10

X-Post what I wrote from from the "Pakistan Int Terror" thread:

I find it difficult to believe that KS could only now be coming to a conclusion that BR had postulated a couple of years ago. Mostly because of Sunil's analysis from the time we ran the pakee "Nuclear doctrine thread" and; some odd stuff that N's occasionally come up with.

("Postulated" b'coz of the sheer bizzareness of the conclusion at the time and even now. Also, if our people are really wondering about this possibility *only* now, then some of those "analyst" folks in Delhi ought to be taken out to a quite little side street and rigoursly beaten with hockey sticks).

Of course, on a disreputable forum like BR, we can only "postulate" and babble weird theories. I'm assuming GoI has the capability of looking for evidence to accept or discard them. And senior people like KS are not supposed to be babbling strange conspiracy theories more suited to internet fora.

Which raises an interesting question: Why is KS raising this issue *now*?

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

Postby shiv » 23 May 2006 07:10

There are some points that I would like to repeat separately:

While Indian help may be available that will be red rag to the Pakistani government and Army and therefore should be avoided.


The Donnelly paper needs to be circulated widely and studied in detail by appropriate authorities in India.



In India there is inadequate understanding of the US predicament. The US is in a kind of hostage situation. We should have noticed that there has been very few detailed analyses about reasons underlying the extraordinary permissiveness of the US about Pakistani behaviour.


Indian involvement being a "red rag" is important. Pakistan has said that India will be nuked under any circumstances. Should we not also have our own plans to punish Islamabad or whoever?

Should we not have a policy to cooperate with the US knowing that we are anyway under threat of being nuked by a jihadi rogue?

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 23 May 2006 07:14

As usual, the powers that be and great minds that advise them are silent about the (diarrohiac?) elephant in the living room....

What if paki nukes have to be defanged w/o paki army/govt cooperation? indeed against focussed paki hostility? Indian help would be useful and appreciated in that scenario I surmise....

Worst case scenario, slip in and defang paki nukes admist a civil war in pak...? Man, I could write a book on that now....

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 May 2006 07:22

What if a nuke/dirty bomb is sent to India and after the event the government in IRoP denies responsibility and claims loss of control? What does India do then? Forget the US, which is 7000 miles away - What about us? How will GoI react?

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 23 May 2006 07:22

BTW: That Tom Donnelly paper was posted somewhere on BR. This is the link:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 ... detail.asp

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 23 May 2006 07:31

All disinformation designed to convey that TSP needs help, Bakistan Boor Coundry Onlee etc.

PAKISTAN IS NUKE-NUDE.

But of course, US and India can't be sure that the Peopre's Levorutioaly Lepubric won't give them some more nukes.

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

Postby svinayak » 23 May 2006 07:54


There is no other explanation that can adequately explain the US tolerance of Pakistani behaviour, which has been far more provocative than that of Iran or North Korea.


KS ignores the most important explanation. We have seen many articles which state that they thought India will be deterred by Paki nukes and the strategy was to let them have it in 80s and 90s to keep India in check.

This has been extended to tolerance of Blackmail only to keep India in check.
An irrational display of behaviour by jehadi leadership in TSP could be the only deterrance against India.


This conclusion seems plausible after the 2002 standoff where TSP had to make some choices.

Below reason does not cut it.
The US is in a kind of hostage situation. We should have noticed that there has been very few detailed analyses about reasons underlying the extraordinary permissiveness of the US about Pakistani behaviour.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 May 2006 08:33

Should we not have a policy to cooperate with the US knowing that we are anyway under threat of being nuked by a jihadi rogue?


That could or may be true - that India has a policy.

BUT the reverse may not be true - the US may have an independent policy that does NOT include India in the equation.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 May 2006 08:43

[list=1]
[*] Leadership is not about solving problems, but about creating (making others perceive) them.

Indian analysts have constantly tried to solve problems, never created one. Indian analysts share trying whines from "British divide and conquer" to more recent "most affected country by Terroists." So it should not surprise us that they are amazed and baffled by continued U.S. support to TSP.

[*] [b]“The water must not be too hotâ€
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 23 May 2006 09:11, edited 2 times in total.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby arun » 23 May 2006 09:04

There is one more article, again pretty contemprorary, which may not have been posted on BR on the subject . So here goes :

Pakistan Presents a Potential Nuclear Nightmare for U.S.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Postby Rudradev » 23 May 2006 09:21

The situation is likely to come to a head, for us, when the moment of truth arrives in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan seems almost certain to become the first international casualty of domestic politics in the United States. An article posted on another thread discussed a 215-million-pound deal being negotiated with the Russians to arm the Karzai government's armed forces to the teeth, in anticipation of US forces having to abandon the country. This pullout may occur as the result of a deliberate decision by a new Democratic administration in the US post 2008, or it may be initiated by the Republicans to appease the growing anti-war electorate , in a theatre that shows no likelihood of publicly apparent reward, little sign of improvement from a political-stability standpoint and every indication of getting worse from a security angle as the Taliban intensify their attacks.

India quite simply cannot allow the Karzai government, or its legitimate successor, to be threatened by Pakistan via its Talib and other proxies. We cannot afford a re-establishment of Pakistani strategic depth in the region, whether or not the US decides that it is of little importance to their security and determines to turn their back on it.

At some point the moment is going to come when we must put up or shut up. If Pakistan manages to re-establish control over Kabul and the Americans lose interest in the region... we will be back in the '90s. Except that (1) Pakistan will be in a far stronger economic and military position thanks to all the benefits they have accrued by virtue of being "al-lies", Shortcut-fiefdoms and earthquake-victims since then; (2) We will have a far more malignant Bangladesh in our armpit, collaborating with the ISI in terrorist attacks against India, than we did during the '90s; (3) Nepal will be an unprecedented headache for our security establishment, far less stable than it was during the '90s, its Maoists intermingling with our own Red Corridor across the Terai; (4) Sri Lanka will most likely represent far more of a security concern than it did in the '90s, given present trends of increasing Tiger irredentism. In short, it will be just like the '90s but much worse. And no amount of dreaming the Great Indian Liberalization Dream, no number of US-build PHWRs pumping juice into brand new electricity grids is going to do a damn thing to ensure our security in so immensely threatening an environment.

Right now, Afghanistan is the one card we hold. What are we going to do if Unkil throws up his arms in despair and leaves, and the Pakiban seem to be on the verge of reclaiming it for themselves?

Can we pledge to defend the Karzai government and its legitimate successors by any and all necessary means? Given the diffuse nature of the Pakistani nuclear threat, with rogue weapons and the attendant plausible deniability, is that an option we even dare to reserve?

From the Donnelly paper, it is clear that even if Unkil decides to abandon Afghanistan, even if Unkil takes no further interest in pressuring Pakistan on terrorism against India (and actually begins to see India as a welcome diversion for LeT types who would otherwise prove a thorn in his side in Iraq)... Unkil will yet do everything in his power to keep Mush and the TSPA establishment happy because they are his only insurance against the spectre of a nuclear 9-11.

So... what options do we have?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 23 May 2006 09:59

Excuse me, where's the news story that says that a nuke is loose in WBD :D ?

I thought doomsday had come.


P.S.
The only loose nukes are found on this forum. Why was it necessary for an Admin to nuke my Military Hardware Wishlist a.k.a. Abhishek in Wonderland thread. :D
Last edited by abhischekcc on 23 May 2006 10:07, edited 1 time in total.

Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 529
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Postby Abhijit » 23 May 2006 10:05

KS's case against Pakistan:

1. Connection to global terrorism and 911 in particular:

In these circumstances, President Bush displayed rare courage in refusing to succumb to the latest blackmail from Pakistan seeking equal treatment with India on access to civil nuclear energy.


2. Taliban support and Afghanistan destabilization

There is evidence of a resurgence of Taliban activity in Afghanistan, mostly with Pakistani help.


3. Other shenanigans

The charges of A.Q. Khan’s CIA linkages have been ignored. Even the monstrous accusation that 9/11 commission members were dealt with by Pakistani lobbyists and persuaded to water down their conclusions evoked no response from the US media or law makers. Pakistan’s defiant non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of Iranian proliferation, in which Islamabad is the primary guilty party has been looked away from.


KS's conclusion:

the US is under an existential nuclear blackmail by Pakistan.


Interesting bit:

There is no need for General Musharraf or any other Pakistani leader to convey any specific blackmail. The signals are all there and the US can read them.


To support this,

the large scale presence of Jehadis in Pakistan, a reputation for pan-Islamic orientation among intelligence establishments, scientists and the Army, and proved attempts originating in Pakistan and aimed at the US for using WMD. All the three factors exist.


Of these, what are 'proved attempts originating in Pakistan and aimed at the US for using WMD'?

Does KS suggect that (at least) a policy paper that outlines an implied 'nukular' blackmail by pakistan has been presented to Bush ? In US the final arbiter of foreign policy is the president himself. If the US analysts have reached a conclusion of nuclear blackmail, it must be presented to the president. Unless the president receives a clear and unambiguous blackmail it is not a blackmail. You can't blackmail US by blackmailing some analysts or Rummy or even Cheney. Can one blackmail India while keeping the PM out of the loop? It would be meaningless. Much more so in case of US. So KS is claiming that Bush is aware that US is being blackmailed. Can this info remain unleaked? How long? What is the political advantage of giving in to blackmail today and getting into a permanent hall of shame later when it leaks? As against that, how much easier to just crush the balls of paki army by simply kicking their butt in public? I find it unconvincing that any sitting US president will give in to blackmail only to be discovered later and branded the blackest of the black sheep of American Politics.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 23 May 2006 10:30

Rudradev wrote:The situation is likely to come to a head, for us, when the moment of truth arrives in Afghanistan.

Watch the Scenarios thread. This is what EXACTLY we are getting there.

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

Postby svinayak » 23 May 2006 10:37

Whoever hits Iran, hit Israel and destroy it. He boasted that his strategy for Pakistan was, no matter who hits his country, he would hit India.


Is this the real blackmail which US is worked up on.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 23 May 2006 10:38

> What about us? How will GoI react?

after we finish cleaning up the rubble and cremating our 100,000 brothers and sisters a strong diplomatic demarche will be sent to the chef-de-mission of IroP , india will urge IroP to clamp down on its terrorists, any talk of retaliation will be quickly snuffed out by Goi lapdogs in the talk show circuit.

The US and UK will obviously urge restraint and praise our statesmanlike behaviour in not instantly retaliating.

Thought Shapers on BR will convince us all that revenge is best eaten cold :lol:

Being in india's 2nd most prominent target for a JDAM (dilli is off limits as its the capital and wipes out the people IroP *needs* in charge here for the restraint scam) doesnt give me a cozy feeling.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 23 May 2006 10:42

IroPs bluff can and should be called. It should be made very clear that a surgical strike on nuclear storage sites or a seize-and-takeaway operation that causes zero civilian damage in Pak, if replied with a attack on India will mean the killing of every man, women and child including all the RAPE in Pakistan. after a full blast of nukes, IA Will go in and systematically execute every last living thing between the indian and afghan border including livestock. no more saif-ul-islam fantasies.

All civilian flights with the RAPE fleeing to points west will also be intercepted and shot down over the sea. ships will be intercepted and all pakis fed to the sharks.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 23 May 2006 10:44

Singha wrote: a seize-and-takeaway operation that causes zero civilian damage in Pak


Why not 100% civilian damage? Its not as if they deserve to live.

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Postby parsuram » 23 May 2006 11:08

I am continually amazed at people being dazzled by a thin veneer of glitzy bravado covering internal oceans of cowerdice in all pakis. This forum has documented ad nauseum paki instincts to back off, compromise, lie, deceive, sell their mother or what ever it takes to save their sorry hides. Many even lable this paki psyche as "tactical brilliance" (TB ). :D . It is the same "tactical brilliance" which made them and their ancestors Muslims in the first place, and, when it comes to it, it is that alone which will make them stop being Muslims (aside: I wonder if "tactical brilliance" is an autosomal recessive trait in humans). And it will come to it. If they continue to dabble or mess with science & technology such as Nukes from higher civilizations, it will come to it sooner.

PS: I have taken the liberty of adding TB (tactical brilliance, or tactically brilliant), a chronic paki affliction, to the acronym list.
Last edited by parsuram on 23 May 2006 13:00, edited 4 times in total.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 23 May 2006 11:22

Right, this is a change. :P Usually TSP vermins attack - kill a few innocents and then folks on BRF plan, rather mostly dream, various scenarios of inflicting revenge. Then a miracle happens - usually nothing! And we get back to our servile DOO ways - Salt Mines for some!
2000 yrs of slavery is hard to shake off in a generation or two!

Now with increasing frequence there is a need to dream up tachyon-beam attacks on the poor little innocent TSP - whose only crime is a small blackmail of her Uncle - or is she?

In any case Uncle will probably not let us spank his favorite niece - blackmail or not! Afghan policey - ka jaruri hi kuch karne ka? Time for more chai-biskoot and a little afternoon siesta! yawn! :mrgreen:

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Postby RajGuru » 23 May 2006 12:51

Has anyone read "The Fourth Protocol" by Fredrick Forsyth? It can answer some of the questions raised here.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 23 May 2006 13:01

RajGuru wrote:Has anyone read "The Fourth Protocol" by Fredrick Forsyth? It can answer some of the questions raised here.


I think there was a movie by the same name - starring the young Pierce Brosnan. Where the a rogue Soviet intelligence chief slipped a nuke into Britain.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 23 May 2006 17:33, edited 1 time in total.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 23 May 2006 17:08

RajGuru wrote:Has anyone read "The Fourth Protocol" by Fredrick Forsyth? It can answer some of the questions raised here.


Yup.
But instead of sophisticated suitcase nukes, the yanks here are probably scared of crudely done dirty bombs using radioack material somewhere on western (or G-d forbid) on the 'homeland' itself.... Thats the blackmail done via jehadi proxies which pak is capable of orchestrating in its sleep, that the US is scared of, IMO.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 May 2006 17:41

IF Pakis have really blackmailed the US, then the next step - for the Pakis - must be to defang the US. Cannot think of a more Islamic step than that.

Liberation of the holy land and formation of the Mush Caliphate would be followed by a mass conversion. Ultimate Shanti.

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Postby RajGuru » 23 May 2006 17:53

vsudhir and abhishek
Its actually a gun type design which they smuggle in part by part. Each part arrives by a different courier. The plan is hatched by the chief of the communist party and the KGB is kept out of the loop to avoid possible penetration. The interesting part in the novel is where the author explains why he is doing it. The reason why I brought this into discussion is the prevailing political conditions in britain at the time of the novel are eerily similar to our political situation. Britain at that time had communist parties on the rise and the pressure on the govenment from the reds to get rid of the nukes. The explanation given by the author is very lucid but exotic. JMT

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 23 May 2006 18:25

The idea of US being blackmailed by TSP is funny. All US has to do is talk to gola and point a finger at his son in US. As for non-state actors, US has much to lose by succumbing to the fear of a paltry 1-2 dirty bombs.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 23 May 2006 18:48

Singha wrote:

after we finish cleaning up the rubble and cremating our 100,000 brothers and sisters a strong diplomatic demarche will be sent to the chef-de-mission of IroP , india will urge IroP to clamp down on its terrorists, any talk of retaliation will be quickly snuffed out by Goi lapdogs in the talk show circuit.


There is a stated policy of extreme retaliation against pakistan and china etc., but this will be useless because the pakis will have plausible deniability when they cause a JDAM attack in India (as East and West BD are training more Indian muslims to cause terror in India) This will be the most likely reaction by the self-serving incompetents in New Delhi:

1) Cut of all relations with pakis for a few months, and if public pressure is too high, make a show of amassing troops at the Indo-WestBangla border. At the same time make appeals for "communal harmony" and talk of a "foreign hand" involving a "neighbouring country" -- the GOI won't want to name names here because of "communal harmony".
2) Wait for public memory to fade on the incident, and then pullback the troops.
3) start a "peace process" with pakistan on the "advice" of western powers, like they are doing currently in Siachen, and at this time roll back all of the steps taken in step 1
4) Then proclaim that the peace process will strengthen the ties between India and Pakistan no matter what terrorist acts happen in India.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Does anyone here really believe that the incompetent/corrupt Indian Netas will do anything else than work on saving their own gaddis -- the oiseaules have not done it for 50 years, so why would they start now? Finally, when things cool down, people out here proclaim that the GoI was really chankian in the way it wet its underpants at the thought of extreme retaliation and come up with nice fancy theories of chankianism --- all of this assuming that the govt.'s incompetence does not lead to a civil war like situation in India.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 May 2006 19:19

Manne wrote:The idea of US being blackmailed by TSP is funny. All US has to do is talk to gola and point a finger at his son in US. As for non-state actors, US has much to lose by succumbing to the fear of a paltry 1-2 dirty bombs.


With a Caliphate in mind, Mush can afford to contribute a son to the cause. No big deal.

Urge you to read up on Mush's talk to the nation after 911. He compares his act (to give into US) to that of the Prophet (PBUH) who made deals with His enemy only to wait for the right time.

We need to follow one thread: logic or the Islamic. IF you follow logic (as in son in the US), then Islamic cannot apply. Reverse is true too.

One exception: make Gola realise that Caliphate did not happen. (Yes, he is very serious about Caliphate and 128 virgins.)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 23 May 2006 19:42

A few points.
KS is responding to the Beg's brag of advising the Iranians. This littany of complaints on TSP rogue behavior is a warning to Uncle.

But it wont do for it supposes that Uncle doesnt know all this. I am ready to think Uncle wants it this way to keep the mangy pit-bull to scare a dithering India into Uncle's protection.

KS writes:
The US also faces an unfamiliar problem. All its nuclear theology was based on the concept of deterrence, which assumed that the adversary valued certain things such as life, property and future of his nation. But the jehadis value nothing and therefore cannot be deterred. Further, the Pakistani leadership deliberately cultivates an image of irrationality. Recently, in an interview, General Aslam Beg elaborated on the advice he had given to the Iranians. Whoever hits Iran, hit Israel and destroy it. He boasted that his strategy for Pakistan was, no matter who hits his country, he would hit India.


Beg's threat is a rational one. Also those who control the 'irrational' jihadis are rational. In a totalitarian state the leadership and its assets have to be targetted.

However the Afghan situation shows that there are other ways to take care of TSP. India must work full speed ahead to include Afghanistan in its orbit and see TSP implode. The core idea to be attacked is the idea of the two nation theory. Nukes are usefull only to deter teh rational leadership while the irrational are reduced.

As Parsuram has said KS should write a book on TSP psyche. He should start from the history of India from Ambhi Raja and the mechanics of a rentier state. The old Afghan rentier state has slithered Eastwards into West Punjab and has infected the mindset which prompts this behavior.

Early on at time of Kunduz which was called correctly in the forum some speculated if the TSP had its assets already dispersed in select capitals.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 May 2006 19:48

Is blackmail at this level possible? Plausible?

I think the answer to both is yes.

Then the question becomes, what is it that is keeping the US still interested in Pakistan - outside of blackmail.

IF blackmail is true, then it would explain A3, one sided FMCT, testing ban, etc. Could the US be willing to make India the sacrificial lamb? :)

Does Pakistan have a bigger list?

Fun times. :)

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Postby RajGuru » 23 May 2006 19:58

Nuclear strike crosses the threshold of all tolerance limits. It is a TOTAL WAR!! Doesnt anyone think that Emergency can be declared during a WAR? It happened in 62, 65 and 71. It was not during kargil as it was a low intensity conflict limited to certain region. Where does the question of gaddis come in Emergency?
One more thing. Nukes are not that abundant now a days on the black markets. If I was a top ranking AQ leader and there is one nuke and it was supplied by my ISI friend i would strike Israel or an American ally(any christian nation but not on American mainland). India would be lower down in the priority order. There would be no strategic gain in the long term by striking India with a rogue nuke. JMHO

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 23 May 2006 20:07

NRao wrote:With a Caliphate in mind, Mush can afford to contribute a son to the cause. No big deal.

Urge you to read up on Mush's talk to the nation after 911. He compares his act (to give into US) to that of the Prophet (PBUH) who made deals with His enemy only to wait for the right time.


NRao, since when did BRF start treating gola's word as Oracle? That talk was to TSPians. Gola has his balls exactly where they can be squeezed. The same would apply to most of TSPA commanders give or take a few.

As for Caliphate, gola is under no illusions over his sphere of influence. Heck, forget Iran and Afghanistan..it doesn't even cover Balochistan and Sindh. :P

Let us not be caged in by our own strawmen.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 23 May 2006 20:18

The Pakistani Army is willing to play by the rules of deterrence. Al-Qaeda is not. If Al-Qaeda gets its hands on a nuke, they will use it. If US apprehension is that at least one nuke is already outside PA control but it has not been used, then it is really still with proxy PA control. Because if was genuinely with Al-Qaeda, it would have been used by now even in the Middle East if Al Qaeda determined that it was infeasible to smuggle it onto the US mainland. That Middle East detonation would paralyze US trade and commerce in the fear that additional nukes will get into the US mainland.

India is an official nuke target for the PA. The US is a clandestine target for PA nukes. As far as the nook-nude theory goes, the operative sentence seems to be,"The US has secured most of the Pakistani arsenal". Not all. And even if 2-5 are lying loose somewhere, the PA has deterred the US successfully. The PA message to the US could be,"Dont bring us down, because even after you bring us down, a nuke could go off somewhere, maybe the Saudi oil fields thereby raising the price of oil to $300 dollars per bbl and wrecking your economies or maybe the US mainland. In the meantime, we will all smile happily for the cameras and you continue to supply us our toys and give the appearance of this happy marriage i.e. foremost ally in the war on terrorism etc. etc. Even if some misguided elements within the PA take Zawahiri's call seriously and rise in revolt against the brass, dont take advantage of that confusion to try and look for the balance nukes, because we will then retaliate by detonating them either in the Saudi oilfields (where we have enough sympathaizers) or the US mainland and we will claim that the persons responsible for the detonation were Zawahiri's proteges who had succeeded in getting their hands on the nukes. So get over this idea of yours to try and control our nukes and let us live happily the way we are living now." And successive US administratiions then determine that the risk/reward ratio for "cleaning up" Pakistan just does not stack up. Leave it for the next administration. In any even it is those too smart by half Indians who are sitting next to the powder keg.
Last edited by ldev on 23 May 2006 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 23 May 2006 20:28

RajGuru wrote:Nuclear strike crosses the threshold of all tolerance limits. It is a TOTAL WAR!! Doesnt anyone think that Emergency can be declared during a WAR? It happened in 62, 65 and 71. It was not during kargil as it was a low intensity conflict limited to certain region. Where does the question of gaddis come in Emergency?
One more thing. Nukes are not that abundant now a days on the black markets. If I was a top ranking AQ leader and there is one nuke and it was supplied by my ISI friend i would strike Israel or an American ally(any christian nation but not on American mainland). India would be lower down in the priority order. There would be no strategic gain in the long term by striking India with a rogue nuke. JMHO
IRoP made its nukes to target India. Any AQ relationship is secondary. When 5-10 years from now it is clear that India will not bulge an inch on its position on Kashmir and all these talks are just time pass then some general in IRoP would be "compelled" to fulfill thier national mission. What better way to get the Kafirs to their knees than a Nuke slipped under the radar? Think about it, it is the only option they have left and yes they are capable of doing the same.

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

Postby svinayak » 23 May 2006 20:30

ramana wrote:

Beg's threat is a rational one. Also those who control the 'irrational' jihadis are rational. In a totalitarian state the leadership and its assets have to be targetted.


Before 911 Uncle and TSP may have had the same goal including a strike.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 23 May 2006 21:11

ramana wrote:Early on at time of Kunduz which was called correctly in the forum some speculated if the TSP had its assets already dispersed in select capitals.


Including KS Arabia. This is Arab spin masters trying to spin Iran nuclear news to cover Pakistani-Chinese Proliferation Incorporated
[quote="RanjanRoy"]Defense news 05/22/06
Saudi Arabia Braces for a Nuclear Iran[quote]

By RIAD KAHWAJI, RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is considering its choices if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, say academics and analysts with close ties to the government here.
“Logically, we can say that Saudi Arabia has three options to deal with a nuclear Iran,â€

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 May 2006 21:40

As for Caliphate, gola is under no illusions over his sphere of influence.


Sphere of influence is not a physical area for the time being. He does not need any geographic area to be in control. That is exactly what happened to The Prophet too. In Mush's mind the good times are yet to come. There is a lot of parallel between now and then. There is one point in time the Muslims were out numbered 1:30+ and yet they won.

This is not to say he will succeed, just that we need to be aware of his thinking.

Besides, we do not know for a fact that Mush is not in control of those areas. Or are we? I can see the Talibs creeping towards Kabul. And, no one outside of the PA can support them the way the Talibs are behaving.

In my book Mush is IT. And, IMHO, it is US's politcians that are at fault - they allowed ALL this to happen - no matter what they say. Bringing Taliban to life, supporting them, not knowing the history of Jihadis, very, very badly unfamiliar with regional dynamics (specially in A'stan), in recent past not listening to their own Generals (both WRT A'stan and Iraq)(guess democracies have that in common), etc.

Omar
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 07:03
Location: cavernous sinus

Postby Omar » 23 May 2006 22:03

If Al-Qaeda gets its hands on a nuke, they will use it.


It may sound crazy, but what makes you think so? If Al-Qaeda uses the only nuclear weapon (I assume) in its possession, its ability to blackmail (the kind of which can force policy changes) is gone. How will it force the "infidel crusaders" from the "land of two mosques"? How will it establish a fundamentalist government in KSA? The organisation will be back to square one in its ability to force a soln.
Last edited by Omar on 23 May 2006 22:06, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 23 May 2006 22:07

If they are religiously driven fanatics, they believe in Qyammat or end of days.

The way to make the irrational jihadi rational is to convince them that the way of life they are sacrificing for will not survive and thus their sacrifice is futile. That is how wars are won with surrenders.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests