Rogue nuke out of Pakistan - article by KS and reactions

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 25 May 2006 21:11

1) What is the object of desire for IROT?
2) What is the object of Desire of IRO Iran?


They are two different things

Case 1 IROT

a) Wrest the sate of J&K from India
b) Create havoc in India
c) Provoke Indian secular populace into riots and there by further balkanize the ROI
d) Create mini Pakistans or west Bangaladesh in India

In case of TSP, there is very thin line demarcation between fundamentalists
Islamic terrorists and the current Junta. It can be safely said that TSP has inducted such terrorist into its armed forces and governing bodies. Having said that directly exploding a detectable radioactive device with mass casualties not desirable from their perspective of 'Object of desire'. As long as unkil can be balck mailed and suck funds they will keep the pot simmering but never allow spill over...
On the other hand if an assertive leadership evolves into power in India, and declares enough is enough then IROT will precipitate the dirty bomb and then cry fowl and involve unkil, UN etc, there by proving the scenario Shiv alluded to.

Case 2 Iran

It is unthinkable that the current leadership will walk the talk. It should be noted that prez who shot the first volley across the bow of Iran, calling it axis of evil. That certainly accelerated the quest for the forbidden fruit. Besides Russia and PRC have considerable leverage on Iran to put sufficient squeeze on their P or U balls to not go too far..

There certain clamor in the media to act against Iran, and the prez is duly obliging by invoking the fathers above with out reading their complete commandments.

It is truly a clash of faith; didn’t the president say 'Crusade', etc sometime back?

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 25 May 2006 21:14

Alok, Rye, N Rao

First of all an established database's utility would not be limited to post-attack identification. It would be very useful in any proliferation investigation.

There would have to be two databases. An open source database with the IAEA (samples taken during inspections, or when a facility is declared), and another one with the PSI for clandestinely obtained signatures.

I would say the IAEA has demonstrated its impartiality over multiple crises, so if someone in State A for example claims they have intercepted a shipment of fissile material from State C based on a match between their analysis and the entry in the database, if state A was agreeable the IAEA could conduct their own independent analysis of a sample.

I dont think the task of obtaining a critical mass or more of someone else's fissile material without either their consent or gross negligience is easy, and the fear of identification would act as a powerful incentive on all states.
Last edited by Johann on 25 May 2006 21:27, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby NRao » 25 May 2006 21:22

Johann,

I see two problems:

1. Even with the cuurrent state of affairs, no international agency has done anything with the proliferations that have taken place so far. (Or have we?)

2. Given #1, I just do not see much use of conducting analysis AFTER a nuke has exploded.

We need a means to prevent such things from happening.

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

Postby Rudradev » 25 May 2006 21:25

Johann, this database idea sounds fine in principle, but in practice it reminds me of the time the Mumbai police turned over their evidence of Pakistani involvement to the FBI following the Mumbai blasts of '93... and the FBI lost it. If certain parties will go to that extent to protect Pakistan from retaliation (or even accusation) following a mere RDX attack, I shudder to think of the sort of cover-ups that will occur when a JDAM is involved.

The Anglo-American axis is willing to cover up Pakistan's involvement in terrorism not just against India but even against themselves, in Afghanistan, on 9-11 and so on... because of their more pressing geopolitical compulsions. As long as Pakistan continues to maintain a Donnelly Stranglehold (requiring the Americans' absolute dependence on the Pakistan Army and political leadership to save the West from a JDAM attack) on the West, I find it impossible to believe that the very same powers who excuse every imaginable Pakistani transgression today, would change their tune just because India was nuked. I find that even less likely than the possibility of GOI growing a spine and retaliating against Pakistan and China following a JDAM attack on our own soil.

I can just see the PSI/IAEA analysts folding their arms, shaking their heads and saying "no conclusive determination as to where the material came from", while our friendly Western ambassadors ask us to restrain ourselves... reminding us of unilateral moratoriums, No First Use declarations and so on!

So, given an inept Indian bureaucracy that we fear might not act to retaliate against a JDAM attack... why on earth should we prefer to hand over the right of determination and arbitration to an international bureaucracy with half a thousand compulsions and machinations to protect Pakistan up its sleeve?

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

Postby NRao » 25 May 2006 21:30

Johann,

BTW, I get the feeling, based on your examples, that the seriousness of the situation has not dawned on you (hope I am wrong).

We are talking about state X (AQ) having a dirty bomb and potentially having smuggled it into India or the US or the UK, etc.

NK and Pakistan and China have already proliferated and we have matched isotopes. Outside of the threat enhancing, we have done nothing. That is what I mean by academic.

Dnirody
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 May 2006 21:48

Postby Dnirody » 25 May 2006 21:51

[quote="rocky"]dnirody, KS is doing quite a bit of pro-US batting recently. Re-read his article with that at the back of the mind, and the effect is completely different.

The point I wish to make is that it is necessary to be pro-India first and foremost and not seek to find a 'friend' who believes only in taking and not in giving. Washington inasmuch as it sees India as an 'ally', a doubtful proposition, will always favour Pakistan because if for no other reason because it has invested so much in it. Pakistan opened up Afghanistan an, more importantly, Central Asia. The US has thown its relationship with Uzbekistan right out the window, it is NOT going to repeat that with Pakistan. One might add that Washington shan't kindly regard, no more than does Islamabad, apparent Indian ambitions in Central Asia, again via Afghanistan.

Non-alignment, it would seem, has been abandoned; this is undoubtedly part of the problem on developing a coherent world-view. For as long as the obsession with Pakistan continues, India's vision shall be of a highly restricted nature. Buttering up Uncle Sam to beggar Cousin Ali is, frankly, a complete waste of time because the former has already picked his side.

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

Postby Rye » 25 May 2006 21:58

Harish wrote:
People are not fools to keep quiet when the country has been nuked. To compare the public response to a small bomb with a city-busting nuke strike is sheer stupidity.


The GoI DELIBERATELY plays down terrorist attacks on Indians, especially if the affected people belong to the "majority community", with the willing collusion of the Indian Media --- all of this in order to "maintain communal harmony" if we are to believe their claims. Therefore, the GoI already has a history of lying to the public about the seriousness and the nature of terrorist attacks. If the people are never aware that there was an attack (as in Shiv's scenario), then there is going to be no reaction from them.

Extrapolate this behavior to a WMD attack and you get precisely what Shiv has outlined in the hypothetical attack on Jingorampur.

India in all probability will act against TSP given the slightest evidence of its involvement.


That would depend on the existence of "such evidence"...the pakis are not totally stupid you know, being tactically brilliant and all.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 25 May 2006 22:02

N Rao,

I am saying what I am saying *because* I realise the seriousness of the threat. In particular the fact that these threats affect more than one country, and will come from more than one direction, and that we will have to face these threats not just in the next few years, but for decades to come. Nuclear forensics will be just as important as radar pickets across borders and satellites in inducing caution, control and deterrence by holding all involved parties responsible. And unlike radar chains, it has the potential to discourage clandestine proliferation.


Rudradev,

Firstly, to repeat myself, I am not suggesting that a response to an atack must be predicated on lab results. That is ridiculous. What I'm saying is that any government whether in a proliferation investigation (say a dirty bomb that was intercepted), or post attack would *very* much want to know where the fissile or radioactive material came from. If say Russian laxity led to some of their Cobalt-60 used in a jihadi dirty bomb, wouldnt you want to be able to hold them financially liable for the massive costs of decontamination, reconstruction and treatment? If on the other hand the fissile material came from North Korea, another approach would have to be taken. This would be quite separate from the question of retaliation against the jihadis. The knowledge that you could be held responsible for what happened to your fissile material, even if you did not commission an attack will lead to far greater care.

Secondly, if there was an *international* database of conventional explosives, the GoI wouldnt have had to depend on the USG to identify the traces found in the Bombay attacks, particularly if India had developed the expertise to recover and analyse explosive traces. For example most police forces dont send a piece of physical evidence abroad to determine whose fingerprints are on it. They lift the print, and send it out through interpol. An international database of fingerprints does not yet exist, but it would save a lot of time.

The IAEA is an international organisation which has proved its impartiality.

- The IAEA did not sign off on Iraq. They acknowledged the gaps in Iraqi accounting, and the evidence of Iraqi deception efforts, but insisted that evidence of active programmes or an arsenal were missing.

- The IAEA did find real clandestine programmes in Iran, and proliferation in to the country. When examining centrifuge parts found in Iran was able to match some of the HEU particles to Pakistani enrichment, but there were also other particles that have not yet been identified.
Last edited by Johann on 25 May 2006 22:15, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Rudradev » 25 May 2006 22:08

Rye wrote:asharma wrote:

A declared policy of nuking xxx or yyy or both or any, for that matter, will only result in India being nuked by China and/ or US IMMEDIATELY in the event of a nukular strike.


And you came up with this based on what reasoning? Secondly, what is the National Security Advisor and Defence Ministry in India for? Sitting with their thumbs up each other's butt? Why the heck are we spending billions on $$s on weapons if the jokers who are supposedly running the country have no clue on how to create an iron-clad policy to keep the wolves out?

.


Rye: Actually, ASharma's words remind me of a post KGoan made more than a year ago in the Possible Mil Scenarios thread. I don't know how serious he was but the implications are chilling. IIRC, the reasoning went like this:

Let us say India declares openly that, any attack on India by a Pakistani Nuke JDAM or otherwise will invite Indian nuclear retaliation on Pakistan AND China without question.

China always has the option to extend the Beg paradigm one step further. They can say to the US... if the Indians nuke us, we will nuke YOU.

So the "Beg Chain of Events": Pak uses nuke/JDAM against India, India nukes China in retaliation, and China nukes the US in retaliation.

The US now has three broad options:

1) Sit around and continue its present policy as always, hoping that the Chinese will not follow through on their threat and simply nuke it out with India instead. Bad choice for the US, first because of the uncertainty (any two-bit Jihadi in TSP could bring about the nuclear annihilation of a US city by precipitating a JDAM chain of events); secondly, because of the economic shock that would result if two Asian giants, both of which America trades with, wound up nuking each other to oblivion... even if China didn't follow through on its threat.

2) Act aggressively and confrontationally with China and Pakistan to de-nuke Pakistan, bring China to book for their nuke proliferation, call Beijing's bluff... in short, do what India would want them to do.

3) Finally, they could go along with the Chinese, and decide that the best thing to do would be for both the US and China to nuke India immediately and devastatingly as soon as any Pakistani nuclear attack, JDAM or otherwise, took place against India. Thereby ensuring a stop to the Beg chain of events at the far more assured (and least costly) level of crippling Indian retaliation, rather than at the unpredictable first stage of Pakistani/Jihadi precipitation.

The decision to choose 3 will be pretty well made for the US by two factors:

a) The far greater importance of China as an economic partner today than India, as well as a partner in maintaining the security and stability of economically important East and Southeast Asia; a.k.a. the Zaragosa dynamic.

b) A simple risk analysis: The fact that China *can* in fact hit the US with nukes, but India *can't*. This should give some people reason to re-evaluate the urgency of developing and deploying Surya, rather than securing dubious Nuclear Deals and other mumbo-jumbo at the altar of the Great Indian Liberalization Dream.

The logic is chilling but it cannot be denied. If we openly declare that a Pak or JDAM nuke attack on Indian soil will invite retaliation on China AND Pakistan, this is what we risk.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 25 May 2006 22:47

Rudradev wrote:China always has the option to extend the Beg paradigm one step further. They can say to the US... if the Indians nuke us, we will nuke YOU.

...

3) Finally, they could go along with the Chinese, and decide that the best thing to do would be for both the US and China to nuke India immediately and devastatingly as soon as any Pakistani nuclear attack, JDAM or otherwise, took place against India. Thereby ensuring a stop to the Beg chain of events at the far more assured (and least costly) level of crippling Indian retaliation, rather than at the unpredictable first stage of Pakistani/Jihadi precipitation.


Well, China cannot adopt the Beg paradigm *and* adopt posture #3 at the same time, so this is an unrealistic scenario.

a) The far greater importance of China as an economic partner today than India, as well as a partner in maintaining the security and stability of economically important East and Southeast Asia; a.k.a. the Zaragosa dynamic.
A destroyed China will hurt the US a lot, but the tab will be picked up elsewhere very easily. Most of the trade between China and the US is easily replacable, probably within a year with slightly more expensive products from the rest of the world. And more dollars are just a printing machine away in the US.

Destroying India would not only devastate all the knowledge based trade, but would take several decades to replace, since no other country has the equivalent manpower and skills to single handedly or collectively replace India (barring China - who have taken a different route).

b) A simple risk analysis: The fact that China *can* in fact hit the US with nukes, but India *can't*. This should give some people reason to re-evaluate the urgency of developing and deploying Surya, rather than securing dubious Nuclear Deals and other mumbo-jumbo at the altar of the Great Indian Liberalization Dream.
On the dot. In the nuclear world, you have to protect yourself from everybody and deter everybody, India (and TSP) are the only countries who have a "myopic" deterrence strategy.

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

Postby NRao » 25 May 2006 23:16

And unlike radar chains, it has the potential to discourage clandestine proliferation.


Fair enough. However, I do not see any future in this path - given that we have actual cases of proliferation and we have done nothing about it. And, that it has not been addressed.

The only time I see some action being taken is if a nuke were to explode in the US or MAY BE in the UK or France. IF one is exploded any place else, I see a "restraint" banner being displayed. After then what is the use?

I would like India to formulate her own policy outside of any such international concepts and be prepared to execute it by herself. And, I perfectly understand that such a move would step on some big toes. But so be it.

I cannot see any acceptable, functional, intellectual, common sense, comprehensive option working.

Lastly, I see the US in the same boat as the AQ - they both have their own agenda and tend not to compromise, yet expect others to and then threaten them if they do not. AQ executes a threat by demonstrable hurt, the US executes it by introducing tremendous amount of biases or denial of proper recourse (Do not cross the LoC).

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

Postby Rye » 25 May 2006 23:33

Rudradev wrote:
The logic is chilling but it cannot be denied. If we openly declare that a Pak or JDAM nuke attack on Indian soil will invite retaliation on China AND Pakistan, this is what we risk.


Thanks, Asharma, rudradev, I get it now. BTW, Rudradev, I second rocky's observation --- brilliantly said about the urgency of acquiring surya's and it is also extremely clear to me as to why the US is urgently going about trying to curtail India's missile program -- that is exactly what we should expect them to do given the circumstances.

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

Postby NRao » 25 May 2006 23:38

IF the US and China colab and strike India, then the threat to the US increases by that much that the perpetrators of the Indian blast will ransom the US. No two ways about it. What we need to realise when it comes to this dirty nukes is that India and the US pretty much habve the same enemy (in diff forms may be). Matter of time.

Also, since India is now aware of this scenario, then India should place her nukes on a much shorter call.

In all this, again, the US is the weakest link!!!!

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 25 May 2006 23:40

While we in jingo land are enacting possibilities, GOI has shelved the Agni III program.
x posting
Gerard posted the following in Misile thread

Ignorance at the Asia Times...

India shelves ambitious nuclear missile program

Quote:
India has its own cruise missile, BrahMos, with a 300km strike range, believed to be similar to the US Tomahawk cruise missile


Quote:
China's ballistic missiles are, of course, far more advanced and are said to cover most of the world.


Quote:
Agni III is said to be able to deliver a 200-300kg warhead with a high degree of accuracy.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 26 May 2006 00:17

N Rao,

History and the world will not end with the first terrorist detonated nuclear weapon, or more likely first terrorist dirty bomb.

Al Qaeda, the LeT, or whoever will *not* be the last to attempt such kinds of attacks.

As nuclear power generation grows worldwide there will be significantly more fissile material, and more waste to manage.

When you add medical isotopes the list becomes very long. Yet there has to be some international effort to be able to identify diversion, and to trace diverted material back to a source. That's why commercial explosives for example have tracers added to them.

Combined with the diffusion of knowledge it means that even if Pakistan disappeared there would still be a great deal to worry about.

Interpol is a tool of international collaboration. It doesnt always work - your red corner notice may not always be heeded. But it works enough that law enforcement isnt willing to throw it away.

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

Postby Rudradev » 26 May 2006 00:31

rocky wrote:
Rudradev wrote:China always has the option to extend the Beg paradigm one step further. They can say to the US... if the Indians nuke us, we will nuke YOU.

...

3) Finally, they could go along with the Chinese, and decide that the best thing to do would be for both the US and China to nuke India immediately and devastatingly as soon as any Pakistani nuclear attack, JDAM or otherwise, took place against India. Thereby ensuring a stop to the Beg chain of events at the far more assured (and least costly) level of crippling Indian retaliation, rather than at the unpredictable first stage of Pakistani/Jihadi precipitation.


Well, China cannot adopt the Beg paradigm *and* adopt posture #3 at the same time, so this is an unrealistic scenario.

.



You misunderstand. China can threaten the US with the Beg paradigm... and as a result of this, US will be forced to adopt posture #3 as an understanding with the Chinese as their best option. That's what I'm postulating... not that China will adopt the Beg paradigm and posture #3 simultaneously.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 26 May 2006 00:35

I don't know why you guys seem to think that India is like that onlee. It has been discussed on another forum what the US would do if Saudi terrorists popped a nuke on the US. What would the US's response be? To nuke the major business partner's of the Bush family? I don't thnk so. And what if the Saudi's got a hold of old Soviet nuke material to do it? We're gonna nuke Russia on a grand scale? You guys seem to think you're unique or something.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 26 May 2006 00:40

Rudradev wrote:Rye: Actually, ASharma's words remind me of a post KGoan made more than a year ago in the Possible Mil Scenarios thread. I don't know how serious he was but the implications are chilling. IIRC, the reasoning went like this:

Let us say India declares openly that, any attack on India by a Pakistani Nuke JDAM or otherwise will invite Indian nuclear retaliation on Pakistan AND China without question.

China always has the option to extend the Beg paradigm one step further. They can say to the US... if the Indians nuke us, we will nuke YOU.

The Chinese would certainly be willing to make nuclear threats to keep the US from intervening in Taiwan.

But they wont attempt blackmail the US in to doing the job for them - we will nuke you unless you destroy the Taiwanese airforce and navy. We are a bigger economy after all. That's *completely* divorced from any kind reality, and the Chinese leadership certainly does not suffer from that failing. They wouldnt make such threats, and the Americans certainly wouldnt listen to them.


The core of the postulate here that is worth discussing is what the PRC would be willing to do to protect Pakistan from Indian retaliation after a nuclear attack (of some sort or another).

They Chinese have always avoided direct confrontation unless they were confidant of being able to achieve conditions of at least local superiority. They have had border scuffles but in *every* case they have avoided taking it to the brink, whether with the Soviets or Americans. They will not risk their progress and prosperity for Pakistani insanity. In fact I think its far more likely that China will eventually end up playing the same role as it does with North Korea. The PRC does *not* want to see a war on the Korean peninsula (too many risks and costs for the PRC), but they dont want to see the DPRK collapse either. So they apply their energies to maintain that balance. The North Koreans resent the Chinese role, and the Chinese dont like the pressure, but they have at the same time reaped rewards for keeping the peace.

They will attempt to restrain Pakistan because as with North Korea, they dont want to have to find themselves in the position of having to take some really big risks, and big decisions in an actual war between their clients and another nuclear power.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 26 May 2006 01:02

Johaan Said
But they wont attempt blackmail the US in to doing the job for them - we will nuke you unless you destroy the Taiwanese airforce and navy. We are a bigger economy after all. That's *completely* divorced from any kind reality, and the Chinese leadership certainly does not suffer from that failing. They wouldnt make such threats, and the Americans certainly wouldnt listen to them.


PRC is not yet there to make that kind of threats,but its working over time to be there..
Besides outside of Taiwan its better to understand PRC and Unkils objectives are more or less same (especially with India)

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

Postby Rudradev » 26 May 2006 01:11

Taiwan isn't even remotely a parallel to this situation. Taiwan doesn't have nuclear weapons, of its own or proliferated to it by another power. Taiwan cannot threaten China with nukes, so of course it does not benefit the Chinese to blackmail the US with their nukes in order to gain any sort of edge over Taiwan...barring an actual military intervention into a China-Taiwan conflict by the US.

The premise I put forward related to a scenario where India clearly indicated that it would retaliate against China AND Pakistan in response to a Pakistani or jihadi nuclear attack on India.

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

Postby ShauryaT » 26 May 2006 01:18

Rudradev wrote:Taiwan isn't even remotely a parallel to this situation. Taiwan doesn't have nuclear weapons, of its own or proliferated to it by another power. Taiwan cannot threaten China with nukes, so of course it does not benefit the Chinese to blackmail the US with their nukes in order to gain any sort of edge over Taiwan...barring an actual military intervention into a China-Taiwan conflict by the US.

The premise I put forward related to a scenario where India clearly indicated that it would retaliate against China AND Pakistan in response to a Pakistani or jihadi nuclear attack on India.
What we want is a general retaliation policy against terrorist groups and countries that harbor or support them, as opposed to one that specifically names China and Pakistan. It leaves enough nuance and the obvious message gets across.

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

Postby svinayak » 26 May 2006 02:27

A Must see Documantry on A.Q. Khan it was on Times discovery. (all 20 mb)

Image
Image

A.Q. Khan The nuclear Jihad
Keywords: Abdul Quadir khan, Netherlands, 1974 India atomic bomb, Khan a spy,

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6YST2II6


Keywords: A.Q. Khan in love with himself, A.Q. Khan wanted allover west, uranium centrifuge, Pakistani c1 30 cargo plane in North Korea, Khan’s Centrifuge smuggle to Libya caught.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=27B0TXP0
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QPOTTXYM


Key words: Hamid Gul, Sultan Bashir mahmood,

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QZIFXYSL


KeyWord: Iran’s nuclear progress

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LFTIGL7F

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

Postby kgoan » 26 May 2006 03:39

Rudradev:

Thanks. We've been through this before, starting from 4 years back when discussion of Paks nuclear doctrine first came up and a number of times on various nuclear threads since. But the same issue of "nukeing China" keeps coming up regularly like some magic talisman.

The post that you mention is here.

Nuclear doctrine and targetting isn't a game of being "clever". There are *very* good reasons why we do what we do, *including* our declaration of a "No first use". And folks, pleease don't start on that. Do recall the difference between motherhood statements like that and reality. If you have a hard time understanding that, consider how many times our beloved politicians have promised to eradicate poverty/corruption/casteism/terrorism et al ad nauseum.

The relavant parts from the post in the link above:

In the context of Pakistan launching a nuclear attack on India, should India make a statement that we would hold China responsible and threaten retaliation to China?

If I understand correctly, your reasoning is as follows:

The US is strongly involved within Pakistan and much has been made of statements in public about India and the US being "natural allies". Consequently, a threat of Indian retaliation towards China in retaliation for a Pakistani attack on India forces the following terror-balance:

A. The Chinese are forced to attempt to control their Pak clients better.

B. An Indian retaliation against China raising the spectre of the Chinese concluding that the US is somehow involved and may therefore retaliate against the US.

Even if the Chinese do not believe the US is directly involved, an Indian nuclear response, even if it's limited would set China back for decades. Their choice in that scenario, if they limit retaliation only to India, is to see the US maintain it's dominance in Asia for the next century and all Chinese dreams of "superpowerdom" vanish. Taiwan would be lost etc.

So the Chinese may well retaliate against the US (and possibly Japan) as well as India in a "take them down with us" scenario.

Therefore, as a result of India going "insane" after a Pak nuclear attack and attacking China, the US *may* also be held in danger of a nuclear attack from China.

Consequently, to prevent this happening the US will also be drawn to ensuring, with all possible means, that pakistan does not use nuclear weapons against Indian soil.

In essence therefore, the first part of your question is to ask whether an Indian statement of nuclear retaliation against China would force a balance of terror between India, Pakistan, China *and* the US, which in turn would force China and the US to control the Paks from launching?

Within this logic, the essence of your question is to ask whether we should make such a statement agaisnt China?

My answer is No. Under no condition whatsoever should such a statement be made. Most importantly, the Pakistanis should never know of such a statement being made. To do so guarantees the devastation of the Union.

Consider:

If Pakistan *does* launch an attack on India, then by this logic we *may* launch against China, which may launch against the US.

Neither China nor the US can afford such a risk.

Now you may argue that's precisely the point. Which is why they will control Pakistan.

Yes. But what happens if the Paks launch anyway?

Then neither the Chinese nor the US can sit back. But they will not attack Pakistan, they will attack India.

Because we are the threat to them after Pakistan launches. It's *vital* you realise that they have no choice. Once pakistan launches, and given our stated intent to retaliate against China, both will act to prevent a nuclear attack agaisnt themselves.

And they can only guarantee that via a full scale combined nuclear attack against India.

Understand this: Making such a threatening statement about China, guarantees that in the event of a Pak launch, China and the US will be *forced* to destroy us.

The Pakistanis will work this out quite easily. Consequently, an Indian statement against China *guarantees* a Pak launch against India almost immediately because they *know* that China and the US will have to follow suit.

In essence: Making such a statement against China *increases* Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the combined total of Pakistan, China and the US. And guarantees their use against India.


I can expand on this a bit more, if you wish, however since you ask for a quick reply, I hope that is satisfactory.

Part 2
The second part of your question is more intriguing. Specifically, you ask what if some Pak controlled terror group launches an attack on India, could we hold Pakistan and possibly China responsible?

My answer is yes to Pakistan and retaliation *must* follow immediately and devastatingly to prevent Pak first use.

Here, *we*, have no choice. The Pakistanis will know we will hold them responsible and that public opinion will demand retribution. They will *not* wait for retaliation. A jihadi nuclear attack on India will *force* the Paks to attack us immediately, to cause as much damage as possible to us and therefore hope to escape the worst of our retaliation.

However, this immediately raises the spectre of Part 1 again.

Consequently, I would suggest the following:

1. Under no circumstances make any *public* statement against China or any other power.

2. Any "backdoor" statement made to the Chinese *must* be made so that the US can *never* be certain we have made such a threat, even if the Chinese claim we have. If possible, avoid making any such statement whatsoever even privately.

3. A public statement holding Pakistan responsible for Jihadi attacks is only possible if we can launch a retaliation almost "immediately". I cannot define "immediately. But a response that takes 6 to 12 hours or longer is futile. It guarantees triggering part 1.

So my dear X, you see, I simply cannot see any benefit to India to publicly make such threats. On the contrary, such a public threat places the country in danger of a combined Pak, China and US attack.

A private threat is only moderately less dangerous. i.e. Only valid if it is *truly* private to the Chinese and they *cannot* prove to the Americans or Pakistanis that such a threat has been made. Otherwise we place ourselves in a terrible, almost suicidally dangerous, position.

By the way, I know that this is one of those interminable academic exercises you love so much, and is of no practical use given our policy of maintaining absolute ambiguity, so why now?

I hope our netas aren't planning to do anything silly - they do tend to run of at the mouth in moments of stress.

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

Postby kgoan » 26 May 2006 03:53

You know reading some of the posts on this thread indicates that a lot of the arguments and threads on nuclear doctrine and use we've had over the last few years have been perfectly useless.

Nothing, absolutely *nothing* seems to be capable of penetrating through the fog of the Great Indian Whine: We are so weak, we are so pathetic, GoI is useless, We are allll going to die. . .

Seriously, is there *any* other folk out there with a greater degree of whining, carping, fear and self-pitying wailing forming the core of their identity and self-hood than us?

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 26 May 2006 04:33

kgoan >> take it easy it takes time to grow up, even some jones of the world have not progresed half as much as others have..
Growing Pains ( at BR for some), In Hyderbadi ishtile 'Light le lo saab' :D

JYang

Postby JYang » 26 May 2006 04:57

kgoan wrote:You know reading some of the posts on this thread indicates that a lot of the arguments and threads on nuclear doctrine and use we've had over the last few years have been perfectly useless.

Nothing, absolutely *nothing* seems to be capable of penetrating through the fog of the Great Indian Whine: We are so weak, we are so pathetic, GoI is useless, We are allll going to die. . .

Seriously, is there *any* other folk out there with a greater degree of whining, carping, fear and self-pitying wailing forming the core of their identity and self-hood than us?


No. :P

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

But in all seriousness, I think this all this nuclear bravado stems from a few sobering facts that most Jingos would rather not confront but rather drown out with banal posturing.

1) India is more vulnerable than most to a Jihadi nuke due to the issues with Pakistan.

2) India's present nuclear force is by far the weakest (aside from Pakistan's) among admitted nuclear powers.

3) India's ability to deter China with nuclear countervalue attack is not guaranteed nor is it capable of delivering a terminal blow, while China has sufficient capability to hit every urban center in India.

4) Pakistan is an autonomous state, not China's lackey whatever the BR Jingos may think, thus Pakistan's actions will not neccessarily be constrained by Beijing's desires. Such uncertainty means that it will be India's nuclear threat that will be seen as belligerent and provocative. In other words, NPA in overdrive and kiss any and all nuclear cooperation with the West goodbye.

5) Finally, India's present government or future governments are most unlikely to make such a provocative statement. Either from what you would call lack of spine or simple common sense based on a realistic assessment of India's capabilities and situation. Depends on your pov.

6) Oh, and just maybe what Kgoan was moaning about in the above.

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

Postby ldev » 26 May 2006 04:59

kgoan wrote:The post that you mention is here.


Let me play the devil's advocate. The above post presupposes that the Chinese and Pakistani nuclear arsenals are *separate*. In fact, they are acting in tandem. The precise objective of China supplying nukes to Pakistan was to achieve just the kind of reasoning outlined in that post i.e. that India and Pakistan will be held in a balance of terror and China will cruise blithely *above it all*, immune from any Indian retaliation precisely because the Chinese perceived that India would be apprehensive of a combined US, China first strike. But how real is this scenario in the light of developments since and as a consequence of what we know today. Consider:

1. The Chinese have 20-30 missiles capable of reaching the US which are liquid fueled and the US has upto 6 hours of warning when those missiles are fuelled. The first thing the Chinese will have to start doing if India issues such an expliticit retaliatory threat will be to start expanding and modernizing those long range missiles besides having at least half a dozen SLBM boats. The US will undoubtedly start taking counter measures as soon as it tracks these developments.

2. There are strong indications in the recent Senate hearings on the India-US nuke deal that the Chinese may be having as few as 130 deployed warheads.

3. The recent India nuclear thread postulates that India has a fissile material production capacity of at least 260 warheads per year. Other estimates indicate that India could have material for in excess of 1000 warheads. These were unknown when that post was made on that thread. At that point of time best estimates were that India has 40-90 warheads.

4. Even if India does not have the ability to target the US to deter a US first strike, India has the warheads and the delivery mechanisms to make the entire Middle East and most of Europe a wasteland besides ofcourse China.

Maybe India need not specifically mention China, but what it has to do is to state that India will hold ALL individuals, organizations AND countries accountable that in its sole determination were responsible for any detonation on Indian soil. And not confine it just to Pakistan.

Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Postby Sadler » 26 May 2006 05:06

ldev wrote:Maybe India need not specifically mention China, but what it has to do is to state that India will hold ALL individuals, organizations AND countries accountable that in its sole determination were responsible for any detonation on Indian soil. And not confine it just to Pakistan.


Sounds like the perfect first step towards a more assertive and confident India and also the beginnings of an Indian Sampson Option. Or should we call it the "Shiva" Option?

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

Postby ldev » 26 May 2006 05:13

Sadler wrote:...also the beginnings of an Indian Sampson Option. Or should we call it the "Shiva" Option?


:) I almost used those very same words in my post. In fact I used them and then deleted them. But you are correct. The world must be made aware , that there will be consequences if India is attacked with nukes. Consequences for all parties responsible for such an event.

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

Postby shiv » 26 May 2006 06:11

Folks - I have an idea.

Why noy pay Pak, buy some Uranium and set off a bomb in China if possible. Heck you can buy a Chinese missile as well. Better buy 3 - two may be duds. Everybody knows that loose nukes in this world come from Pakistan. Somone in China gets nuked, and Pakistan gets blamed.

But I have something more serious to say..

After all - jihadi strategy is similar -i.e. set off a nuke somewhere and blame someone else. The signature of the bomb material etc is of use only to try and figure out who should be nuked after that. Whoever gets nuked - the actual people who made the bomb can escape.

So the current scenario seems to be as follows. Tie up the survival of Pakistani leadership to the control of nukes. No matter where a nuke goes off - the Pakistani leadership and all that they value will be destroyed. Their days are numbered with exactly the same timer as the rogue bomb waiting to go off in India or the US or Israel.

I believe that this is the "balance of terror" that is being arrived at now.

Thing is - is it possible to go forward from this comfortable balance and actually rein in the Jihadi and his nuke?
Last edited by shiv on 26 May 2006 06:54, edited 1 time in total.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21172
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 26 May 2006 06:28

shiv wrote:Folks - I have an idea.

Why noy pay Pak, buy some Uranium and set off a bomb in China if possible. Heck you can buy a Chinese missile as well. Better buy 3 - two may be duds. Everybody knows that loose nukes in this world come from Pakistan. Somone in China gets nuked, and Pakistan gets blamed.

But I have something more serious to say..

After all - jihadi strategy is similar -i.e. set off a nuke somewhere and blame someone else. The signature of the bomb material etc is of use only to try and figure out who should be nuked after that. Whoever gets nuked - the actual people who made the bomb can escape.

So the current scenario seems to be as follows. Tie up the survival of Pakistani leadership to the control of nukes. No matter where a nuke goes off - the Pakistani leadership and all that they value will be destroyed. Their days are numbered with exactly the same timer as the rogue bomb waiting to go off in India or the US or Israel.

I believe that this is the "balance of terror" that is being arrived at now.

Thing is - is it possible to go forward from this comfortable balance and actually rein in the Jihadi and his nuke?


We must take note that Pakistan =Islam.

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

Postby shiv » 26 May 2006 07:10

Prem wrote: We must take note that Pakistan =Islam.

That is a knife that can be used to cut in several different ways.

Pakistani generals and politicians have used it (and have helped the US use it) to further geopolitical goals.

That same excuse can now be used to target Pakistan leaders and their personal assets in case a Jihadi Detonaed Atomic Munition (JDAM) goes off somewhere.

In fact there is some advantage in this. A "nuclear retaliation" can wait - but the Paki leaders get hit straight off with conventional PGMs taking out their C&C centers their houses, their farmhouses and the houses of their girlfriends - so it is in their interest to make sure any nuclear material is safe.

If they are suicidal and Islamist and support the Jihadis - that is quite OK - they are going to be taken out and sent to houriland.

But over and beyond this what else can be done to revent or pre-empt a JDAM?

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

Postby ldev » 26 May 2006 07:44

>But over and beyond this what else can be done to revent or pre-empt a JDAM?

Most parks and other public recreational places in the west have a "Stoop and Scoop" policy. i.e. pick up your dog's sh*t after he has squatted. Nobody else is expected to pick up that sh*t. See, Pakistan is China's pet dog. Pet dog's will listen to their owners not strangers. India is a stranger and Pakistan will not listen to India. But the dog (Pakistan), will listen to its owner (China). And inspite of that if the dog sh*ts, then the owner has to clean it up. India the stranger now has more than a 1000 reasons as to why the Chinese may prefer to pick up the sh*t rather than risk falling into it. India has to gently point out those 1000 reasons to the Chinese.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 26 May 2006 09:38

ldev wrote:
Sadler wrote:...also the beginnings of an Indian Sampson Option. Or should we call it the "Shiva" Option?


:) I almost used those very same words in my post. In fact I used them and then deleted them. But you are correct. The world must be made aware , that there will be consequences if India is attacked with nukes. Consequences for all parties responsible for such an event.

Sadler,
Actually, "not-so-experts :D" of the BRF suggested this option given the JDAM possibility in a Puki related thread weeks ago. Nothing new.
Trick is to design the Indian Sampson (or "Shiva") option in a manner that it wipes out IRoT and related irritants (current and potential threats) but stops short of triggering a chain of "Sampson"s up the ladder upto the US.

China is a major factor in this scenario. Even if Pukis and assorted Islamist hell-holes are nuked leaving out China, what is the gaurantee that the chincomms will not jump in fray?

PS: IRoT is more than a *pet dog* for the chincomms. IRoT is the glue that holds the Sino-Islamic partnership. Energy security, trade routes are one aspect. Equally important is the fact that many of these Islamic nations are too eager to needle India on the chincomms behalf. Any "Sampson/Shiva" option will need to cater in these irritants. And this will bring in the chincomms even if they are not in our hitlist.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 26 May 2006 11:31

I have only one problem with the grand theories trotted out about not nuking China if a JDAM explodes in India. The Pakis, sure as hell, coudn't have come up with a nuke all by themselves. China gave it to them, knowing fully well that the only country it will be used on is India.

So a Paki nuke going off in India means that China is nuking India. Not punishing them in return is :evil:

asharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 29 Jan 2006 17:09

Postby asharma » 26 May 2006 13:25

This is with reference to JYang's posts, and others subsequently.

JYang,

1. FWIW, my personal opinion is that India is "NOT" the most at risk from a JDAM..... if IROT could get away with it, they would have nuked India by now. I know if sounds incredulous coming from us "whining Indians" but I do think that IROT is scared of crossing a "redline" beyond which they know India will give them a jhapad. Unfortunately and on te flip side, their entire behaviour, learning from their Chinese masters, is to gradually push the extent of that red line further, and here sadly I must say they have again learnt quite well. So "someday" we need to stand up and deliver a second jhaoad a la 1971, but of that I remain pessismistic...

2. From purely publicly available information, that seems to be the US, although why that should be so baffles me as much as others on this thread. Consider- IROT "HAS" bums, at least in my personal opinion the islamists and TSPA equalequal, hence islamists have as well. Now, the fact that 911 happened itself is proof that "someone" has an ideological bone to pick up with Unkil, and that someone is, or was very very closely, aided by TSPA. I presume that this is all known to US as well, and still they continue to indulge their pet rabid dog...... beats me. someone go figure and let me know.

The two alternates are- there is no IROT bum, Amrika bahdur has no fear and can merrily go on using IROT as the condom it always had, India can go take a hike or learn to accept the fact that IROT condom is bery bery useful till such time iran condom is available coz of Central Asia..............or the bum has already reached Amrika............ the 2nd possibility was discussed and dissed on this thread previously I think. The first, is of course, drawn from enqyoob nook-nood theory(R) :twisted:

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

Postby NRao » 26 May 2006 19:05

I searched for "triad" on this page and could not find it, so I assume much of the args on nuking China as a declared policy has not dealt with that aspect.

So, in addition to what ldev had to state as a devil's advocate, I would like to add an Indian sub based nuclear threat should alter the equation sufficiently.

Also, to add to what ldev had to state on China and Pakistani nuclear forces being one, I was under the impression that the Pakis had to get the "key" form China to even test the last time around.

In addition, IF the US AND China have bought out their protection in any form from the Pakis, then ANY JDAM has to be Paki based. Is there a doubt from an Indian PoV? Cannot be. (What a US think tanker states/thinks is really irrelevent to India here on out IMHO.)

Finally, IF that arg about China blasting the US for political or economic reasons, etc HOLDS, then what is to prevent say Israel from blasting Iran and the France or Russia from taking out say Germany when the griddle is hot - for economic reasons? Anyone who has a nuke can then take advantage of a JDAM blast in India work their own logic out and take advantage of the situation.

Also, is there something called declared (vs. non-declared) in a nuclear scenario? I do not think so. Just because India did not tell anyone that does not mean China is not going to sit tight and assume that India does not have such a (hidden?) policy. In fact, specifically in the case of China I would state that they would assume the worst, act and then ask questions or discuss later. It is becasue of this last statement of mine that I would be most agressive with China. I think that gressiveness will really benefit both India and China. Also, engaging China can/will only help control Pakistan (only in terms of Indo-Pak dealings - it will be of no use in temrs of Indo-China dealing, China WILL use Pakistan if she has to deal with India).

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

Postby RajGuru » 26 May 2006 19:35

Why is'nt Bangladesh in the discussion? Pakis and Chinese could use Banglas as a glove in this scenario(couriers). If they involve the Bangladeshi terrorists with help from the jehadi elements of the Bangla army then what should be our response.
My response is Nuke'em too.

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

Postby ramana » 26 May 2006 19:39

Rajguru, No point in increasing challengers. Remember Rama Raya?

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

Postby RajGuru » 26 May 2006 20:03

ramana wrote:Rajguru, No point in increasing challengers. Remember Rama Raya?

Ramana garu
If they use BD as a transit point and use BD for logistics should we forgive them?


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest