First Use of Nuclear Weapons

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 06 Nov 2006 21:06

Sadler,

My argumentative style does not reflect any hostility towards Israeli or Jewish interest groups whoever they may be. The Jews and the Indians go back a long way, and there is no bad blood between us.

I am being invasive in my manner because I feel you have crossed an invisble line by talking about India's deterrence issues. I would like you to go back across that line. I don't think anyone in India welcomes that kind of things you have talked about, I don't think anyone sensible in Israel wants India to talk about Israeli deterrence.

You have made a claim that Israeli will to use nuclear weapons is beyond doubt in the minds its adversaries. I accept what you are saying. I do not question you. If you reciprocate the sentiments I have no reason to go on.

As you have concerns so do I. I do not claim to be an expert. I only say what I see but I wonder delicately without a sense of prejudice towards my friends in Herzilya, what will become of a Middle East where Israel's adversaries enjoy the same sense of ambigiuity in nuclear affairs that only Israel has enjoyed thus far. I wonder also again without any prejudice to my friends in Herzilya what will become of a world where Israel is no longer able to rely on its friendship with America.

Neither of these musings on my part should be taken to reflect anything that suggests that I do not believe what you have said about Israeli will. These are just the idle musings of a incoherent mind in the emptyness of cyberspace.

I am having the last word here because you took the liberty of having the first.

Rudradev,

I think as long as people don't suggest that the GoI will not use the weapons either because of capability or credibility, they can discuss whatever they want without fear of actually damaging anything credible.

The key idea in deterrence is to prove to your adversaries that there will be an unacceptable response if they choose to let escaltions breed.

In keeping with the NFU framework, we avoid any real rhetorical escalation for the most part, so no danger there, not that there is much any way.

The NPT regime appears to be undergoing a controlled demolition by Chinese interests. Will sparks fly as the NPA predict? if so what implications does this have for deterrence as a whole? I don't know the answer to that. I am keen to learn.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 07 Nov 2006 03:44

Rudradev,

Whether we can read their intentions is something for us to know and them to guess, we can make no public statement of our thinking. So let the Jernails talk.

I reject the redlines idea on the basis of the fact that it presents an excessively static environment and gives third parties all kinds of ideas on how to provoke escalations. Perhaps you can see now why I was so upset by Sadler's behaviour? You do realise that an actual shift from NFU to FU will be seen as extremely escalatory by Pakistan?

If the terrorist attack is of a WMD type, deterrence will have been said to be breached. Once deterrence is at an end, the entire NFU/FU condundrum will cease to exist. There will be nothing to stop Russia from launching its nuclear missiles at the US or vice versa because once the idea of deterrence has failed, your entire stockpile is only worth the number of targets you can immediately hit with it. If ever such an event occurs, then the pressure in the international community will be to restore the idea of deterrence.

A third party cannot evaluate the "overall degree" of the deterrent. The communication is specific to whoever is being deterred, the rest of the people only see a distorted contour of reality. If Indians living in India can be misled about their country's nuclear posture, can jihadis in Pakistan get wrong ideas? most certainly, but it is a lot easier to communicate with the Jihadis in these matters than it is to communicate with everyday Indians. The Jihadis are a sharp bunch, lets just say that natural selection has a way of ensuring that only the smartest in that community survive. By contrast, everyday Indians live in a world where selection pressures are far weaker, and most retain exaggerated ideas of their personal competency and the government's incompetence.

If we think a Jihadi is getting out of line, we can set him straight on the facts of life but if a Praful Bidwai or Arundhati Roy gets confused we have to live through several decades of poorly written opinion editorials and seminars at Harvard and Stanford. Our boredom grows with each passing minute and yet we are forced to endure this nonsense.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 07 Nov 2006 04:28

Vijay J wrote:A third party cannot evaluate the "overall degree" of the deterrent. The communication is specific to whoever is being deterred, the rest of the people only see a distorted contour of reality. If Indians living in India can be misled about their country's nuclear posture, can jihadis in Pakistan get wrong ideas? most certainly, but it is a lot easier to communicate with the Jihadis in these matters than it is to communicate with everyday Indians.


Vijay,

This is what I had said a few pages ago on this thread to dissuade a discussion of GoI's will and ability to use such weapons. On an open forum this essentially becomes one person's word against the other with no forward movement.

The Pakistanis and Chinese seem to have taken our deterrence seriously and that is all we need now.

Let's focus on how they'll respond to a gradual shift in posture from NFU to ambiguity.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 07 Nov 2006 08:14

Anoop,

Yes I saw it back there. The problem is everyone here wants to talk but no one wants to listen.

I feel any attempt at moving towards ambigiuity will be greeted as an escalation on the Pakistani side with all the attendant consequences.

Given how much has been invested in de-escalatory language, it seems that a move away from NFU would set the clock back, perhaps even a couple of steps farther then what Vajpayee's badal-bijli poetry sought to achieve. Any Pakistani who was unversed with the fine art of poetry would have to take considerable pain to ignore the presence of four Para battalions in Kupwara at the time of the speech.

Does one really want a return to those times? All those software people will have to waste so much time writing emails to the PMO! the poor jamadar who has to read all those emails will get tired of pressing the delete button.

That said all this North Korean business does create a lot of ambiguity that is unfavourable to us, so who is to say we are out of line. These people have still to cooperate effectively in the bombay blasts investigation, we have identified the shooters and told them also, but He seems to be busy selling his bloody book.

An open discussion on a tentative plan to resolve the situation, among Indians alone is hardly out of place.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 07 Nov 2006 11:22

[quote="Vijay J"] These people have still to cooperate effectively in the bombay blasts investigation, we have identified the shooters and told them also, but He seems to be busy selling his bloody book.
quote]

Vijay, do we really expect Mushy to give up these folks, wont he be bringing down the roof on himself if he does that. Do you think there is there more chankianess at play here, to box him in with a covered exit point?

If you deem this inappropriate for open discussion, then so be it, we'll leave it at that.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 07 Nov 2006 20:17

Nonsense, it is not like we are asking him to hand over Osama Bin Laden, if he can't deliver two nameless nobodys what is the point. For England America he can deliver any number of nameless idiots whose lives are of no consequence, why not for India? We will give him the same even bigger than Allah status that the Americans and British give him, we will ensure that his book sells in India, what more does he want?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12859
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 07 Nov 2006 20:51

he wants to irk India, to hurt India, until his last drop of blood. the entire pakistani leadership is consumed by its hatred of all that is India and Indian. this is fundamental

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 07 Nov 2006 21:04

or they are convinced that the only way to stay in power is through controlled provocations with India.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12859
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 07 Nov 2006 21:07

its not OR its AND

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 07 Nov 2006 22:30

I dont know. I was just asking an honest question with the broader context of trying to understand the utility of the framework.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 08 Nov 2006 02:15

Sadler wrote:Briefly, i can think of the following reasons for the nuclear ambiguity.

(1) Sanctions: the US would be automatically required by law to impose sanctions on Israel, which would cut of the flow of high-tech weaponry.

(2) An Israeli promise to the US not to be the first to overtly introduce nuclear weapons in the ME.

(3) The ambiguity has served us well to now. Howver, if iran openly declares, my guess is that so will Israel.


A few other points:

The UK and France have had more to do with Israeli nuclear weapons than the US.

Israel would use nukes, although they would be more tactical in nature in the event of impending defeat in a conventional scenario as well. There is widespread belief that Israel had readied nukes during the initial stages of the Yom Kippur war.

Not sure if that answers the questions you posed. Thanks and Shalom.


I think one plausible reason for the ambiguity has to do with what I'd call morale and unity of US Jews in their support for Israel. Openly declaring nukes would make it that much more a topic of discussion, with the likelihood of dissension within the ranks--some influential US Jews concerned about the morality of nukes may feel compelled to come out against Israeli nukes, which would be disruptive to the unity that is essential for Israel.

So, as long as your enemy knows you have them and are willing to use them, there would be no gain in talking about it openly given that there would be a price.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 08 Nov 2006 03:45

Vijay:

I simply cannot see Musharraf or any Pak Army/RAPE/ISI_LeT type *ever* agreeing to hand over *any* Jihadi type regardless of how unimportant they are, to India openly.

If they do so, even *once*, they would break their own backs - because no anti-India killer they've sponsored would ever again be able to be 100% sure that they are safe in Pakistan *from* Pakistanis.

And without that 100% surety of anti-Indian safety, they'd undermine their own rule, undermine the Nazaria-e-Pakistan and wreck the confidence the Chinese and Americans place in them to keep India in check, since that's their primary, and only, utility to our Natural Allies and Asian Brothers. The repercussions of something like that are enormous for the Pakees^^.

That's why none of the Khalistanis have been handed over as yet.

GoI has been trying to get this little wedge tactic to work for donkeys years. It won't.

They may quietly dispose of them themselves, a la the mango crated previous Air Chief Marshall. But they'll never hand over an anti-Indian terrorist that they've previously backed themselves.

Not now. And IMO, not ever.

^^If you recall during Parakram, when it looked liked they might hand over some, every section of the Pakee elite went ape - the Sethi/DT/TFT types were the loudest. Recall also, that when the US and China were placing them under enormous pressure earlier, Beg came out and openly backed a Pak-Indian "understanding" with Iran on nukes.

i.e. He threatened the Chinese and Americans with the one thing they simply can't afford - Pakistan bandwagoning with India. Keep in mind Advanis "condominium" and George Kakas "unitary strategic space".

After that the pressure on the Pakees dropped almost to nothing. Hence the situation in Afganistan today. No amount of Euro screeching or dead Americans and blown up Canadians is going to make the US and China risk pushing Pakistan to the stage where they bandwagon with India. Because therby the US and China risk unleashing a strategically unconstrained India.

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

Postby Johann » 08 Nov 2006 05:25

kgoan wrote:And without that 100% surety of anti-Indian safety, they'd undermine their own rule, undermine the Nazaria-e-Pakistan and wreck the confidence the Chinese and Americans place in them to keep India in check, since that's their primary, and only, utility to our Natural Allies and Asian Brothers. The repercussions of something like that are enormous for the Pakees^^.

... Recall also, that when the US and China were placing them under enormous pressure earlier, Beg came out and openly backed a Pak-Indian "understanding" with Iran on nukes.

i.e. He threatened the Chinese and Americans with the one thing they simply can't afford - Pakistan bandwagoning with India. Keep in mind Advanis "condominium" and George Kakas "unitary strategic space".

After that the pressure on the Pakees dropped almost to nothing. Hence the situation in Afganistan today. No amount of Euro screeching or dead Americans and blown up Canadians is going to make the US and China risk pushing Pakistan to the stage where they bandwagon with India. Because therby the US and China risk unleashing a strategically unconstrained India.


:lol: I think the American establishment would be incredibly flattered by both the foresight and the success you ascribe to them.

Americans dont like to chose.

They have strived, and failed to fix the situation in such a way that they can turn everyone in the subcontinent in to a close, effective ally.

The reality has generally been that Pakistan deals at a very high price with lots of entanglements, while India samples a few of the free appetzers and then prefers to go on its own way.

The real American fear is not an 'unconstrained India' - it is having absolutely zero permissible high-level access to the Subcontinent and Central Asia.

They can be surprisingly patient and persistant - it took them three decades to turn Israel, Jordan and Egypt in to allies. They havent yet given up on India and Pakistan, even though time will tell them wrong.

As for Pakistan, no one really thinks they are capable of strategically aligning with India without the US (or possibly China - that is where an element of Sino-American rivalry lies). Iran and Pakistan, yes, thats certainly possible, its hapened both in the Pahlavi and the Mullahs era. But not India and Pakistan, or India, Pakistan and Iran.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 08 Nov 2006 21:42

The state departments and its hand maidens in the media are quite capable of portraying anything as being equivalent, I am keen to give them that delusion.

The Pakistanis hostility towards India is something that the Americans have very carefully nurtured. If they want to take credit for making it more manageable, that is a fiction I am happy to see them perpetuate on themselves.

Independent of all things, a fact stands, the makers of Pakistan have dabbled with forces beyond their comprehension. In their lust for power they have resurrected an old evil that few understand and none truly controls. If they desire an illusion that makes them feel they are in control of this beast, then they can have it. If the illusion shatters, they have to live with the consquences.

Kgoan,

You are correct, but how can the language of peace continue when there is no visible progress?

If the Indian government continues down this road where Musharraf claims to have secretly eliminated anti-India threats, without public scrutiny, then the Indian public will accuse the Indian government of incompetence.

If the Indian government persists in following this route where it repeatedly allows Musharraf to get away without a public acknowledgement of cooperation. Then the Indian people will certainly accuse their government of being anti-national.

If the Indian government tries to deflect the blame by saying look America wants Musharraf to look strong, and that is why India cannot have a public cooperation from Musharraf, then Indian people will accuse the Government of being a bunch of CIA agents.

Once the Indian people call their government CIA agents, they will ask what payment is India getting in return for this service to America's interests. If the India-US nuclear deal went through as is, then the Indian Government could say that we have been well rewarded otherwise the Indian people will say the Indian Government are bunch of complete fools.

Do people really expect the Indian government to sit around and take such humiliation?

Why persist in pushing us towards choices that no one really wants us to make? Why not accomodate the desires of a billion people to see their democratically elected government be strong and positive in its leadership? Why insist on making a bunch of drug dealing whores in uniform seem like a capable leadership at our expense? It is one thing if you don't have an alternative to the Escobars, the Orujuelas, Bustamantes, and the Montoyas of this world, but why impose your misfortune on us?

Yes ofcourse Pakistan's image will suffer if they hand over terrorists to India, but is there any image left? If Musharraf's honour and dignity has not already been raised to unbelievably high levels by selling his book, and declaring himself the victor of Kargil, how about extraditing them to a third country like Kenya, we can pick them from there?

Sure there will be problems, Musharraf will probably have to face several assasination attempts, but its not like that isn't already happening.

And where does anyone get off thinking the Government of India places a single Pakistani life above its collective electoral well-being.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 09 Nov 2006 07:12

Vijay J wrote: Given how much has been invested in de-escalatory language, it seems that a move away from NFU would set the clock back, perhaps even a couple of steps farther then what Vajpayee's badal-bijli poetry sought to achieve. ---Does one really want a return to those times?


Vijay,

I think we should distinguish between a war of words when armies are mobilized and a shift in doctrine. To me, the war of words is entirely superfluous as far as communication with the adversary goes - after all, the mobilization is a much stronger signal of intent than any words.

On the other hand, a shift in doctrine during peace-time can lay the foundations for a much more lasting change - for the better or for the worse! The key to making it a change for the better would be to retain the initiative.

So let us hypothesize that Pakistan would react badly to what they see as India's gradual shift from NFU. Their only real weapon to use on India remains high profile terrorism of the kind seen in the Parliament attack. However, after Op. Parakram, it is highly unlikely that India would mobilize like that again. So at worst, we have to deal with one or two high profile acts of terrorism (and that is terrible enough, lest you think I take that lightly). On the positive side, it may make the Pakistanis less inclined to share nuclear weapons with the jihadi crowd because now the very act of attempting to share crosses the red-line, as opposed to the jihadi crowd actually using it on India in a deniable act of WMD attack on Pakistan's behalf.

The key to retaining the initiative is to be able to credibly detect such a transfer from the PA to the jihadis. I am assuming that the actual process of transfer can be concealed from India effectively; we may only be tipped off about the PA's intent to transfer. Given that we are currently operating with rather limited assets in Pakistan's apex decision making bodies, this new posture must rely on the PA's fear of India's seriousness, rather than on India's ability to actually detect. If (and this is a big if) this fear can be implanted, then it is likely that Pakistan's FU posture becomes more scaled back i.e. greater security of their weapon cores, greater separation of cores and delivery systems, more PAL, a more unified and transparent communication protocol with India on nuclear matters and a tone down in the rhetoric of nuclear weapons being weapons of war as opposed to weapons of deterrence. I dare say that these are all positives, if we can swing it.

What do you think?

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 09 Nov 2006 20:01

Anoop,

The words provide a substitute for action. Words carry credibility when backed by preparedness otherwise they are just talk, you know like us on this board.

With public shifts in doctrine, we risk pushing them into a use/lose barrier. That doesn't end well. Even if we just gently push them against the barrier, if I were in their shoes I would respond by launching high intensity terrorist strikes inside India and then using rhetoric to suggest that the strikes could easily have been nuclear. Recall that Zia had used such tactics in the past, and as in the past we would have to back away.

If the objective is to prevent further terrorist attacks on Indian soil, then a public shift away from NFU doesn't seem to step that way. A more reasonable policy may be to reinforce the current joint counter-terrorism mechanism and secure the public release of persons on the wanted list. If they hand over people for the Mumbai blasts, I am sure that the GoI will find it in their heart to spare a life or two? who know what will happen when the joint counter terrorism mechanism starts working.

On the other hand, if the objective is to prevent the sale of American arms to the Pakistanis, and we are willing to put up with a few terrorist attacks, then maybe you are right, the NFU needs to go the way of the cutlass and the longbow. But the caveat here is that once we say no to NFU we are going to have to answer any number of questions about redlines and things like that. That is going to make room for third party troublemakers to function in a space that they have traditionally not really had access to. I don't know what will happen if the third parties start accessing that space. I fear both sides will end up surrendering escalation dominance to a third player whose interests will rule us. I think if we take away NFU, then we won't be buying any American arms even through other channels. From a DRDO perspective, that is good.

If the idea is to deter irresponsible behaviour by the Pakistani Army, then I think the Pakistanis have to be made to see that a Jihadi munition could be transported with much greater ease into the open space outside the Aiwan-e-Sadr than to Mumbai or Delhi.

Their short attention span is killing the process of communication but there may be some possibility of getting that across to them without excessive hammering.

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

Postby asharma » 10 Nov 2006 03:23

Vijay J,

Maybe I am the dumb one here (as usual), but what causes me REAL unease are the two assumptions I sense in your comments:

1. That jehadis are separate from PA.... I think the general consensus is that the two are only only as separate as changing uniform into mufti
2. That global nuclear disarmanent is potentially possible

Pray tell me that we also have policies which do not rely on the above solely....

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 10 Nov 2006 06:50

Vijay,

Those are very good points, particularly the post-NFU repeal agenda being set by a third party.

Vijay J wrote: If the idea is to deter irresponsible behaviour by the Pakistani Army, then I think the Pakistanis have to be made to see that a Jihadi munition could be transported with much greater ease into the open space outside the Aiwan-e-Sadr than to Mumbai or Delhi.


True, which is why the actual transfer of such a weapon to jihadi hands is a clear indicator that the PA is sufficiently reassured that it will be used in India/elsewhere, not in Pakistan. In the absence of such a certainty, they cannot simply transfer one or a few functioning nuclear weapons outside direct PA control and wait for an opportune time - who knows what will happen in the intervening period? The corollary is that such a transfer (done for deniability) is almost guaranteed to be followed very quickly with a use, mostly against India. Thus, the very act of transfer to non-PA hands crosses (or should cross) an Indian red-line. So my question is - what can be done to nip this thought in the bud, rather than give the PA the illusion that it can do a deniable strike?

Let's assume that the Americans, with their presence in Pakistan, and their concerns of a dirty nuke, know the signatures of all Pakistani nuclear weapons, this being their insurance against a nuclear 9/11. What are the chances of India getting access to those signatures? What about the Indian threat to move to a non-NFU posture unless we get those signatures - this being the Indian insurance against the same dirty nuke attack?

Their short attention span is killing the process of communication but there may be some possibility of getting that across to them without excessive hammering.


It is inconceivable that this is not a deliberate tactic to avoid being communicated to. The question is - how do we get their attention? My suggestion is that non-GoI actors float some non-NFU trial balloons of our own; after all, this seems to be the season for inflated balloons, all Pakistan inspired and Kashmir related.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 10 Nov 2006 21:12

Sharmaji,

I am making no assumptions about the Pakistan Army-Jihadi duality.

All I am saying is that if we cannot make no determination that there is no ambiguitiy in their desire not to use nuclear weapons then our publicly stated posture loses its deterrence value and can be considered automatically void.

Please understand I have deliberately worded it this way to eliminate all possible misreadings of that statement.

As I said, global nuclear disarmament will be possible if people want to use these materials as sources of energy than as ways of killing other human beings.

This will cause nations to trade off actual stockpiles for the ability to amass stockpiles. This prowess will provide the same kind of deterrent that the current stock of missiles and warheads do, I venture it will probably much better deterrence as we all know most of those missiles and warheads are old and unreliable.

This is the view in India, it has been expressed publicly by several people.

Pressure on Carbon fuels due to limited access and environmental concerns will force a move towards nuclear energy.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 10 Nov 2006 21:37

Anoop,

This distinction between Army and Jihadis is something Musharraf insists on because his American friends do not like to be seen talking directly to terrorists, it is some fashion trend popularised by American media houses.
We only do it to appease him, he thinks that all those journalists from India who visit him might not think so highly of him if we addressed him as Jihadi-Jang-e-Lat or something like that.

Coming to more topical matters, if we sit and try to track the actual transfer, I fear we will be left staring into a dark hole. On the other hand we apply the idea that there is no difference between the Pakistan Army and the Jihadis and instead simply say, if we can't figure out what you are thinking, no first use declaration is voided, then even without a public statement to this effect, if this is only implicit in the language, I feel we are fine. Remember if they don't understand what we are saying that is their fault not ours.

Do you see, this way the onus of finding out how we are reading their mind is on them. We on the other hand simply have to make a decision, go or no go. We can make that decision based on any input, something some brigadier says when he is drunk with his girlfriend or boyfriend in Karachi or if Musharraf says India with the wrong accent. Its all up to our whim.

They have gone to such great lengths to look martial in public, and they have said first use will be done. We have quite naturally said, okay but when will you first you? Musharraf has come up with broad redlines where he claims he will use if his loo doesn't flush properly. We say okay we won't do anything to your loo, but does the rest of the Pakistan Army or Jihad machinery get the same privileges as Musharraf does? If it does then what makes Musharraf so special? if it doesn't who in the rest of the Army would like to live without a loo that doesn't flush as well as Musharrafs?

I suppose some Pakistani officer could get some ideas, but what if we say that the response will be so severe that their ability to continue in any form of fray will end. Will that deter him? I don't know, what if someone on some crazy internet forum were to say something totally insane like this;

If Pakistan uses a nuclear bomb on India, the Indian army will invade Pakistani Punjab and then capture all the women capable of bearing children, and use them to clean up the radioactive waste where the bomb was dropped.

Will that deter the Pakistani officer who might be considering something like this?

What if some lunatic in India were to say something totally insane like, we will dump the radioactive waste from the blast site into rivers going into Pakistan?

What impact will that have?

I think we have to keep trying like this, and they have to keep remembering that even after the first nuclear bomb is used by their side, there will still be many of them who will live, want to live and worse have to live. Where will that leave them? this is the strain of thinking we must inspire in Pakistan, it will keep the Die For Allah people in check.

That is what I think is the best we can do. If they don't want to communicate then we may have to change our mind.

We have told them, please behave in a civilized fashion in public, but they keep prattling about how public hostility towards India is something Pakistan cannot do without. I am telling them that the Indian people will not be able to understand the visible lack of progress especially when there is no other tangible payoff.

Am I not stating something obvious when I say, Pakistani life does not really have a value in Indian calculations? Do the Pakistanis doubt that if India could somehow do away with all 150 million Pakistanis in the blink of an eye and that somehow made India's life a little easier, would we think twice before doing it?

So where does the doubt come from? Anyway let them develop doubts, we will humbly remind them that nothing is assured from our side either.

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 10 Nov 2006 21:48

A request Vijay. Why dont you write up a SRR type article/paper.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 11 Nov 2006 01:57

To write this in anything might accidentally lend it credibility.

Why ask for credibility when you don't want any.

As things stand I have not really spoken and they have not really heard anything. Why change that?

Gharibnawaz ke paas koi tab hi jaata hain jab Gharibnawaz ka bulawa ho.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 11 Nov 2006 05:49

Vijay J wrote: Pakistani life does not really have a value in Indian calculations

http://kashmirdiary.rediffiland.com//sc ... 1159434315

I reach them. Look down. Both as dead as dodos.

Abu Kamaal of Pakistan. Abu Hamza of Pakistan. Harkat Ul Ansar. Good bye!! Pity you never even got to know who or what hit you, but then, you chose this path.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20875
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 11 Nov 2006 06:24

shiv wrote:
Vijay J wrote: Pakistani life does not really have a value in Indian calculations

http://kashmirdiary.rediffiland.com//sc ... 1159434315

I reach them. Look down. Both as dead as dodos.

Abu Kamaal of Pakistan. Abu Hamza of Pakistan. Harkat Ul Ansar. Good bye!! Pity you never even got to know who or what hit you, but then, you chose this path.


Deep down Paki know this as they always complain about India not accepting Baki burden on Mother Earth.
How do you deter Paki dreaming of sacrificing themselves for glory of Allah and the destruction of Kuffar? Bakis need to know in plain language as they are too thcik to understand that Ummah will accompany them to hell for not onlee their sacrifice will go in vain but hasten the end of all they hold dear and revere.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest