First Use of Nuclear Weapons

G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Postby G Subramaniam » 02 Nov 2006 07:23

Johann wrote:Shiv, GS,

I think the question is how do you think the other three quarter of a billion Muslims, including 140m+ Indian Muslims are going to react to threats against their most sacred sites.

Are these Muslims relationship with India as hostile as their relationship with Israel?


Johann,
IMHO, the failure of the congress leadership to do a population exchange in 1947, has left a ticking time bomb in India and it will explode sooner or later
if not for the nukes, then for Ayodhya or Article 370 or UCC or whatever
This time bomb will eventually explode even without Pakistan, except that Pakistan makes it more explosive

The hindu public has been fooled by rewriting history about the role of muslims in residual India during the pre-partition period, 1900-1947

As long as the threat is CREDIBLE by say someone like Modi

As far as the rest of the Ummah is concerned
they have always been enemies
Indonesia in 1965
Iran, Jordan in 1971
Saudi Arabia ever since 1971

In anycase, about 40% of the Ummah is an enemy anyways and already resides in south asia

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5163
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Nov 2006 07:30

Johann wrote:Are these Muslims relationship with India as hostile as their relationship with Israel?
Yes, they are but only one way :twisted:

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20762
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 02 Nov 2006 07:39

The MND should have provision for the ultmate option.
If the physical survival of India and its civilization is in danger, the retaliation ought be in same proprotion. This is where the wisodm of 2 hajar bums plays its part.At present the danger is coming from Islamist side , they should know all they hold dear materially and spritually can go in puffs caused by their own deeds for forcing civilized world to make survival choice of either them or rest.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20762
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 02 Nov 2006 07:42

G Subramaniam wrote:
Johann wrote:Shiv, GS,

I think the question is how do you think the other three quarter of a billion Muslims, including 140m+ Indian Muslims are going to react to threats against their most sacred sites.

Are these Muslims relationship with India as hostile as their relationship with Israel?


Johann,
IMHO, the failure of the congress leadership to do a population exchange in 1947, has left a ticking time bomb in India and it will explode sooner or later
if not for the nukes, then for Ayodhya or Article 370 or UCC or whatever
This time bomb will eventually explode even without Pakistan, except that Pakistan makes it more explosive

The hindu public has been fooled by rewriting history about the role of muslims in residual India during the pre-partition period, 1900-1947

As long as the threat is CREDIBLE by say someone like Modi

As far as the rest of the Ummah is concerned
they have always been enemies
Indonesia in 1965
Iran, Jordan in 1971
Saudi Arabia ever since 1971

In anycase, about 40% of the Ummah is an enemy anyways and already resides in south asia


If Indians are gonna react negatively at the destruction of Indians' existential adversary/enemy , they will cease to be Indian at that point.

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

Postby Johann » 02 Nov 2006 07:52

Shiv, GS,

My question is not about rationality - in a really crazy situation craziness can make a crazy kind of sense.

My question is about circumstances.

You must agree that any official or semi-offical this kind of deterrence will preciptate an escalation in violent disagreement between Muslims and non-Muslims in India, and between India and the Muslim world. The moment that comes out you are pretty much writing off all of them, including most of India's Muslims. It isnt simply saying we dont care if you are neutral or friendly - its saying 'bring it on', like Bush to the Sunni Arab Iraqis

If you think thats the case just when India ought to start saying things of that sort - today? tomorrow if retired Pakistani generals start talking about threatening India's cultural and religious heart? some other time?

At what point in your view should India simply accept the cost of being marked and treated as one of the main enemies by the Muslims world, right up there with Israel, ahead of even the US and Russia?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5163
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Nov 2006 07:57

Johann - The answer should be clear. The point at which India clearly realizes that Islamism, which is rooted in Islam is the mortal enemy of the Indian nation and state. The day India comes to this realization is the day it gets marked by the wider non Indian sub continent muslims also.

Apologies for butting in.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 08:04

Valkan S. wrote
Deterrence against Pakistan - in India's case - is mainly against Pakistan's use of nukes on an Indian conventional response to Paki adventurism.

It is not meant to deter Pakis from "war of thousand cuts".


If Indian nuke cannot deter the pakis from launching a conventional terrorist attack every month, why on earth would it deter them from a nuke attack, especially if they think they can create sufficient plausible deniability for the same and more importantly, if they believe India is too weak to respond? All that is needed is the pakis to get a little more delusional than usual and start believing that India is on the verge of collapsing (they have entertained such notions many times before, so why should they stop now?).

In the Nallapayan analogy, Nallapayan was attacked because, according to the (wrong and mistaken) calculations of his enemies, the *perceived risk* of attacking him was low. The real risk was always very high after N. declared that he was armed and dangerous, but that was not sufficient to deter a devastating attack on Nallapayan's person, family, and property. What do you think are the chances that some paki bonehead general in the future won't miscalculate India's resolve and launch a nuclear Kargil?

The attack on N was a miscalculation, but a miscalculation that resulted from Nallapayyan's own reasonable and "forgiving" behaviour.


A standard "tit-for-tat" response doctrine against this "bleeding" tactic is there, but is not being employed for unstated reasons, which may not immediately be obvious.


If the GoI cannot use India's nukes to deter such "bleeding tactics", as you have euphemized, why do they need nukes? Why not just give it all up if they don't have balls to use the weapons our scientists have created? Doesn't the fact that they are responsible for 1 billion people give them the right to do what they think is needed without anyone's consent? Or is their brilliant plan to make sure that everyone earns a good living and India has a wonderful economy right upto the point where these Indians are radioactive roast?

I think all of this points to the fact that a First Use Doctrine is a necessary first step, but it is not sufficient.
Last edited by Rye on 02 Nov 2006 10:40, edited 15 times in total.

G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Postby G Subramaniam » 02 Nov 2006 08:10

Johann wrote:Shiv, GS,

My question is not about rationality - in a really crazy situation craziness can make a crazy kind of sense.

The moment that comes out you are pretty much writing off all of them, including most of India's Muslims. It isnt simply saying we dont care if you are neutral or friendly - its saying 'bring it on', like Bush to the Sunni Arab Iraqis

At what point in your view should India simply accept the cost of being marked and treated as one of the main enemies by the Muslims world, right up there with Israel, ahead of even the US and Russia?



Israel has a much higher internal muslim %, 17% vs 13% in India

Except for a small minority like Kalam, yes the average hindu has written off IMs
Many hindus may do vote deals with a muslim, but it is simpy a utilitarian relationship
Even commies and casteist votebankers, in their private life

For 1300 years, Hindus have already been the main enemy of the muslim world
80 million dead hindus already, thats more than a nuclear war

Actually this open declaration of war must have been done in 1947-48, after partition



Islamism only respects brute force

I will also give you my census analysis
India has 13% muslims, of this, 8% live in hindu super majority districts
In these areas, the oil drops are village or city sized
and even if they wanted to create disturbance, sheer demographics
means that any disturbance is local
The other 5% live in 50 SMP districts ( India has 600 districts )
Of these 50 districts, 6 are in JK, which has heavy deployment of the Indian army. In the remaining 44 districts, there is heavy deployment of RAF, anti-riot police etc, and thanks to history of local muslim rioting, the local hindus are also armed
Hence the IM problem is localised
The reason that the IMs are able to riot is because of political appeasement and not due to capability of the state

I looked up wikipedia
India has 1.1 paramilitary and including reserves, about 3.5 million in armed forces

In addition, each state has 0.1 million cops, adding the cops takes the total to about 5.5 million, about 97% kafir

What the Indian state is lacking is will, not capability to prevent internal disturbances
Last edited by G Subramaniam on 02 Nov 2006 08:29, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 02 Nov 2006 09:24

Johann wrote:At what point in your view should India simply accept the cost of being marked and treated as one of the main enemies by the Muslims world, right up there with Israel, ahead of even the US and Russia?


Sorry - I am guilty of having muddied the picture by going off onto ideological issues - but perhaps they are relevant.

Once again let me say it bluntly - if there is such a thing as a "Muslim world" that lumps all Muslims together and in agreement with each other and disagreement with everyone else - then clearly 85% of Indians are excluded from that world.

What choice do 85% of Indians have under the circumstances?

Recall that the expression "Mulsim world" is used in a fuzzy manner by everyone, including Muslims.

When an Islamic terrorist is killed, islamist leaders speak of the wrath of the Muslim world and I am supposed to think that my inocent muslim neighbor next door is angry with me.

Islamic fundamentalism survives because of this switchable dual identity used by Islam, where any Muslim speaks for any other Muslim whenever that is considered necessary. The rest of the world are expected to acknowedge this dual identity in the following way:

1) Accept that all Musims are one and one can speak for the other

2) But accept that your muslim neighbor, (who considers all muslims as one and does not protest when a terrorist leader speaks for him) is actually a totally innocent man

There is an easy way to deal with this:

Your muslim neighbor is definitely innocent and you have nothing against him, but if an Islamist leader claims to lead all muslims threatens my existence then I have to choose between me and all Muslims. The choice is a no brainer.

There is an added bonus of threatening to nuke the middle east - because it puts us on a warpath against the US and China - but hey what's new?

Nuke the middle east and China and the US get less oil, and guess whom that is good for? Nuking oil installations is useless. That is like nuking Tirupati. Nuking proper religious targets in the middle east is a juicy thing to do when my existence and my way of life are threatened by a world that does not seem to give a sh1t for me.

For me, that is rational thought.

It pays to have a democracy where such thoughts can be expressed and if people think they are wrong they have to work to weed out the thought process.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 02 Nov 2006 10:37

As long as the stability of Pakistan is at question India will have to spend heavily on arms purchases. That is exactly what you see now. Having a military dictator as a stabilizing factor just shows how weak Pakistan's democracy really is ..... Pakistan == its army which is really sad. Civilians don't have any real power in there.

The Pakistan Army needs to be lead by a moderate who would call for immediate elections rather than appoint key posts on its own. Pakistan is a military state and not a normal democracy ..... so spending on conventional arms purchases is a stabilizing factor .... Let Musharaf step down and invite Benazir and Shariff and other smaller parties back. And release AQKhan for interogation by the nuclear community. Let the people of Pakistan choose thier leader without fear and you will see the wonders that will do to reduce tensions and arms buildup.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 10:45

akramas wrote:
Let the people of Pakistan choose thier leader without fear and you will see the wonders that will do to reduce tensions and arms buildup.


Please read the links in the first post of the Pakistani thread and get some background on Pakistan before saying such things. Benazir and Nawaz Sharif and the rest of the Paki RAPE are no different from the paki generals --- two-faced, duplicitous scumbags, the entire lot of them. The J&K trouble started during Benazir's time and continued with unabated support from Nawaz Sharif.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 02 Nov 2006 11:04

I agree with you Rye that they were also predators. All I wanted to say is that "It is justified to purchase arms" i.e build up arms when ur neighbor is not stable ..... I was trying to justify Indian arms expenditure .... so long as their leader is not democratically elected ....

Musharaf may have saved Pakistan from anarchy ... but its not a permanent solution dude. If Musharaf doesnt trust Benazir or Sharif atleast the entire political setup in Pakistan can step up and create a successful election can't it? Let them choose a moderate educated person like we did in 1991 when we chose Mr.Manmohan Singhji. I hope I am not ambigous anymore. :)

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 11:07

akramas wrote:
Musharaf may have saved Pakistan from anarchy ... but its not a permanent solution dude. If Musharaf doesnt trust Benazir or Sharif atleast the entire political setup in Pakistan can step up and create a successful election can't it?


Wrong thread for this discussion.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 02 Nov 2006 11:09

My point is "justification for arms expenditure" by India. And that is relevant.

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 11:49

As long as the stability of Pakistan is at question India will have to spend heavily on arms purchases. That is exactly what you see now. Having a military dictator as a stabilizing factor just shows how weak Pakistan's democracy really is ..... Pakistan == its army which is really sad. Civilians don't have any real power in there


Why exactly do u think we need to reduce our defense expenditure once there is a "democraticaly elected" government in pakistan. Is this based on the assumption that a so called stable pakistan with its rational leadership will stop the anti-YYY teachings in the madarsas?

I dont understand this mentality of disengagement, our economy is doing well and now is the time we can easily provide 3% of GDP to the armed forces. What we ought to be doing right now is engaging TSP in an arms race, a race which can push them further into an economic disarray. It is well known that pakistani economy will go back into depression once America cuts off its $1billion+ economic aid, not to forget an additional military aid of some $700 million. Once Bush stops dangling out more bones in front of his favorite lapdog, they will be back to where they were in 1990s[/quote]

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 02 Nov 2006 11:52

Kutcher-ji how are your nights with Demi going ? :oops:

maybe the plan is lull america/china into a sense of security so that they
stop the aid packages to TSP. with India 'disengaging' TSP has no more handle to scream about indian threat and ask for handouts.

US tends to stop both arms and free economic aid together. TSP has plenty of arms but if the economic handouts are throttled, their internal situation tends to get precarious. we saw this in 1990s. ultimately it results in political upheaval and splintering of factions as the pie becomes smaller and regime change and discredited rulers infront of the people.

or am I being too reverse-chankian here, ascribing intelligent design to apathy and incompetence ? am I seeing too much in random pattern of pigeon bones ?

with India off their case, the Pakis can make the usual spectacle of themselves pursuing mushraffian model of democracy and with no India to unite them, it would be the usual dog-eat-dog scene.

India meantime can focus on long term projects/TOT rather than emergency purchases like krasnopol or T90 at unfavourable terms. the requipment of the infantry is continuing and the ability to cause damage with minimum resources increasing via BFSR, lorros , ACCN etc..
Last edited by Singha on 02 Nov 2006 11:58, edited 2 times in total.

B Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 11:33

Postby B Singh » 02 Nov 2006 11:54

akutcher wrote:Why exactly do u think we need to reduce our defense expenditure once there is a "democraticaly elected" government in pakistan. Is this based on the assumption that a so called stable pakistan with its rational leadership will stop the anti-YYY teachings in the madarsas?

I dont understand this mentality of disengagement, our economy is doing well and now is the time we can easily provide 3% of GDP to the armed forces. What we ought to be doing right now is engaging TSP in an arms race, a race which can push them further into an economic disarray. It is well known that pakistani economy will go back into depression once America cuts off its $1billion+ economic aid, not to forget an additional military aid of some $700 million. Once Bush stops dangling out more bones in front of his favorite lapdog, they will be back to where they were in 1990s
[/quote]

I could not possibly agree more.

The internal stability of Pakistan is orthogonal to its designs for India. This "democracy brings peace" nonsense has gone on long enough, and the results are there for everyone to see in Iraq.

If anything, a truly democratic Pakistan would be even more reactionary than it is right now, and would be a more enthusiastic supporter of actions against India. The resultant marginalization of the army would only lead its top brass into more misadventures - most India Pakistan conflicts have occured when Pakistan was enjoying one of its rare bouts of democracy (no matter how sham).

B Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 11:33

Postby B Singh » 02 Nov 2006 11:59

shiv wrote:Once again let me say it bluntly - if there is such a thing as a "Muslim world" that lumps all Muslims together and in agreement with each other and disagreement with everyone else - then clearly 85% of Indians are excluded from that world.



Worse than excluded. Since most of these 85% of Indians (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.) do not belong to a religion of the book, we are active targets for any Islamic bloodlust, with hardly any restrictions.

Recall that the expression "Mulsim world" is used in a fuzzy manner by everyone, including Muslims.



The Ummah is a rather well defined term.

There is an added bonus of threatening to nuke the middle east - because it puts us on a warpath against the US and China - but hey what's new?

Nuke the middle east and China and the US get less oil, and guess whom that is good for? Nuking oil installations is



The US and China are less dependent on oil/gas imports than we are. But no major disagreement with the rest of what you say.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Nov 2006 13:00

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote:At what point in your view should India simply accept the cost of being marked and treated as one of the main enemies by the Muslims world, right up there with Israel, ahead of even the US and Russia?

There is an added bonus of threatening to nuke the middle east - because it puts us on a warpath against the US and China - but hey what's new?

Nuke the middle east and China and the US get less oil, and guess whom that is good for? Nuking oil installations is useless. That is like nuking Tirupati. Nuking proper religious targets in the middle east is a juicy thing to do when my existence and my way of life are threatened by a world that does not seem to give a sh1t for me.

For me, that is rational thought.

It pays to have a democracy where such thoughts can be expressed and if people think they are wrong they have to work to weed out the thought process.

Indeed :)

But on a different note...why would the TSP thugs plan to nuke any Indian symbol of significance?

The way I see it, (no NFU or not) will GoI be play WKK if a nuke lands up in a religious or economical place of significance?
Some may argue that given our fatalist philosophy we will take it in our strides and let it pass, in that case sorry, Darwin's theories have proved to be true. If we have the lost the zeal to preserve the vestiges of our civilization/nation state, then let those that are capable may try their luck in flying their flags atop the Red Fort.

On the other hand, such an nuke attack will atleast invite atleast a *nominal* retaliation. Done?

So, what does TSP thugs gain? Lest we forget, TSP considers itself the worthy inheritor of the Mughal empire. Going by the logic the IM, the physical assests of present day India are too good to lose for them.

Will it not be logical for those thugs to gradually weaken our socio-political system (read make it more amenable to Islamic takeover...the marriage of demography and democray :) )?

If I were a Puki General, all Indian Metropolises and Religious spots will always be withholds. Yeah, they make good bargaining chips during face offs.

Nukes will be reserved for military assests. I guess this is what Gen. Paddy had in mind when he threatened the Pukis with retaliation if even a single soldier was harmed (from nukes of course) .

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 13:41

Kutcher-ji how are your nights with Demi going ? :oops:

She has got a great set you know :D

maybe the plan is lull america/china into a sense of security so that they
stop the aid packages to TSP. with India 'disengaging' TSP has no more handle to scream about indian threat and ask for handouts.


During cold war, yes US provided military aid to pakistan in order to deter India, but today this F-16s deal is strictly business where Bush feeds the dog to keep him quiet

As per china you r plain wrong, they always have and will continue to arm TSP to further their contain-India policy. They are already funding TSP's A/N/AF by providing long-term zero-interest loans for F-22, Thandar and numerous other things and India's 'disengagement' will further help them by bringing the threat perception down to a level where the PRC regime can simply ignore it by using pakistan as a proxy
Last edited by akutcher on 02 Nov 2006 14:33, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 02 Nov 2006 13:54

folks what is a JDAM detonates in a unusual place Ahmedabad ?

wont the media be out in full force the next day saying it was "revenge for godhra" and that india should "keep a calm head and takeup the instant offer by TSP to jointly hunt the culprits" ? a few would even go to justify it against the "fascist" Modi Govt and "reap as you sow" ?

Unkil/UK would be working the lines to Dilli suggesting revocation of GC process for the kids of our elites if India didnt sit across the table with muskrat than fry his a$$ ?

you never know...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 02 Nov 2006 14:02

one of you should write up a scenario in the Mil forum dealing with the moment of JDAM detonation and going forward....forget about the devasted g-zero and relief ops (we know it will be a royal mess)...deal with control-plane signaling issues between D.C. , london, Delhi, state capitals, army commands, beijing, rawalpindi and state capitals.

take some easy target like A'bad or Faizabad, where native IMs are supposed to harbour greviences...

I wish S2 were here, his presence is much missed in such scenarios....

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 02 Nov 2006 14:16

kutcher,..,.. why r u generalizing my opinions and concluding that I am against India being battle-ready andhaving credible second-strike capacity??!!

Contrary all I am trying to convey boss , ... is that a military dictatorship in our neighborhood justifies more expenditure. Your frustations about terrorists and terrorism emanating from pakistan doesnot mean that they cannot recover internally as a moderate state. They just need to reset their priorities and support a legitimate moderate economist .

Coming back to topic, I believe NFU is a positive stance. The fact that the US ignores Pakistans real ground realities and arms her is definitely not my mistake .... Go talk to the US president. I am all for a reliable devastating nuclear second strike triad for India. Conventional superiority included. Pakistan is a mess I know, but thats a freaking reality until they get back to democracy as a society not as a mockery of it as was the case with Sharief and Benazir.

And I do believe we would destroy Pakistan in a week if they ever dared to start a nuclear war with us. Except their population centres nothing else will exist. :twisted:

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 15:18

kutcher,..,.. why r u generalizing my opinions and concluding that I am against India being battle-ready andhaving credible second-strike capacity??!!


I apologize if my comments made you feel that way.

Contrary all I am trying to convey boss , ... is that a military dictatorship in our neighborhood justifies more expenditure. Your frustations about terrorists and terrorism emanating from pakistan doesnot mean that they cannot recover internally as a moderate state. They just need to reset their priorities and support a legitimate moderate economist .


I dont think this is the appropiate thread to be dicussing this but this is where i disagree with you. No leader of pakistan whether democratic or dictatorial can alter the process of indoctrination in a forseeable future. Musharraf hates India more than anyone in this world but i dont think he's an islamic fundamentalist, and you can see that even after using some serious military power he has been completely ineffective in changing the islamic ideology of pakistani people.

Anyways, the point was "Indian defense expenditure" in order to maintain a comfortable superiority in both conventional and unconventional foras. What i am trying to say is irrelative to the type of regime in pakistan we need to maintain a minimum defense to GDP ratio. Besides directly shifting the balance of power towards India it provides GOI with innumerable indirect benifits. That is the pressure from internal elements in pakistan to compete with India so as to maintain parity in every field, this will ultimately weaken their economy and help GOI project pakistan as a hardliner state

Harish
BRFite
Posts: 138
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 10:30
Location: Bharat

Postby Harish » 02 Nov 2006 17:49

Singha wrote:folks what is a JDAM detonates in a unusual place Ahmedabad ?

wont the media be out in full force the next day saying it was "revenge for godhra" and that india should "keep a calm head and takeup the instant offer by TSP to jointly hunt the culprits" ? a few would even go to justify it against the "fascist" Modi Govt and "reap as you sow" ?

Unkil/UK would be working the lines to Dilli suggesting revocation of GC process for the kids of our elites if India didnt sit across the table with muskrat than fry his a$$ ?

you never know...

Singhaji, why are you so pessimistic when evaluating India's response to a nuclear attack on her soil?

You are over-estimating the reach and influence of the English media. Besides, the media dare not indulge in the usual psy-ops in the aftermath of a nuke attack for fear of getting their musharrafs ripped off... There are also plenty of local language publications that have no love lost for Pakistan. Pinkos can only do so much.... and besides, in a nuke attack a few of the pinkos themselves would get atomized for sure...

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 18:30

folks what is a JDAM detonates in a unusual place Ahmedabad ?

wont the media be out in full force the next day saying it was "revenge for godhra" and that india should "keep a calm head and takeup the instant offer by TSP to jointly hunt the culprits" ? a few would even go to justify it against the "fascist" Modi Govt and "reap as you sow" ?

Unkil/UK would be working the lines to Dilli suggesting revocation of GC process for the kids of our elites if India didnt sit across the table with muskrat than fry his a$$ ?


Forget Ahmedabad, even if TSP nuked a remote village in Madhya Pradesh that has got nothing but a prison holding 100 convicts all on deathroll India would retaliate with all its might :evil:

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 19:17

akarmas wrote:
Coming back to topic, I believe NFU is a positive stance. The fact that the US ignores Pakistans real ground realities and arms her is definitely not my mistake .... Go talk to the US president.


akramas, you will never find me disagreeing with any view that supports increasing India's defence budget. :) But let's take discussions about BB or some other paki dork to the Pakistan thread.

W.r.t. NFU, the NFU is a moronic stance in deterrence -- I know that this is how it is viewed in western schools that teach foreign policy, and you can bet that the pakis have the same view since they don't have brains of their own. Pakistan openly says that India is lying about its NFU stance, so where is its utility?

The reason why NFU is considered moronic w.r.t. deterring the first strike is that the whole point of deterrence is to *deter the first attack* on your territory, and NFU depends on the enemy (1) knowing your resolve (2) having enough fear and uncertainty about the consequences of using WMD on you. Where NFU falls apart is that in the real world, the probability of your enemy miscalculating 1 or 2 is non zero, and that translates to "you have not deterred a first attack on you". Thus, NFU is useless in deterring the first attack.

It is a different matter that the people in charge of India seem to think that it is okay to get a bunch of Indians get nuked elsewhere in India, as long as New Delhi and other "economic hubs" (where presumably their families live) are safe -- don't worry that you are now doing a atomic-level tango with radioactive material due to a paki JDAM, the Indian govt. is preparing a response and already "secretary level talks on underwear export from Pakistan to India have been cancelled" and the Indian PM has already said a lot of bad words to the Pakistani leadership and thus demonstrated his resolve and shown the international community that we are no pushovers. In short, after Pokharan, India claimed to have a "new deterrence paradigm" but all it has done is lower the bar from "deter the first strike" to "deter the second strike"...and then goes on to talk about how Pakistan will be incapable of a second strike, and somehow the inherent contradiction here is apparently acceptable. Maybe western psyops on "kashmir nuclear flashpoint" forced them to consider "how worried the international community might become", instead of considering the consequences of espousing a doctrine that will not deter pakistan from any nuclear foolishness. On top of that, look at the response to the Mumbai train bombings, and what kind of resolve has the Indian leadership exhibited to third parties?

Even FU is useless if, say, Gandhi (and I don't mean the macho Mrs. Indira Gandhi, bless her soul) or Mandela come out with a FU nuclear doctrine to protect their country -- the enemy will just have a good laugh and wipe their butt with the doctrine, since they know what these two gentlemen of peace are capable of, when it comes to doing something that will kill a lot of people.


Does it really matter whether it is Bush's fault or Britney Spears' fault that pakistan got delusional, after Hyderabad/<insert some part of India> is nuked by a JDAM?
Last edited by Rye on 02 Nov 2006 20:19, edited 12 times in total.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 19:24

Harish wrote:
Besides, the media dare not indulge in the usual psy-ops in the aftermath of a nuke attack for fear of getting their musharrafs ripped off.


I don't see how you can give such credit to scumbags in the Indian English media. Their Musharrafs are quite intact after years of supporting the Pakis and the Paki army at India's expense. Folks need to remember that concepts like "credit history" etc. exist because the pattern of behaviour exhibited by individuals in the past are likely to be repeated in the future, in the absence of external force/influence that forces a behavioral change.

Singha wrote:
maybe the plan is lull america/china into a sense of security so that they
stop the aid packages to TSP. with India 'disengaging' TSP has no more handle to scream about indian threat and ask for handouts.


Singhaji,

US and China will still arm Pakistan under the excuse of Afghanisthan or Iran...or maybe they won't even bother to provide an excuse. The puppetmasters will find new uses for their mercenary buddies in Pakistan.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Nov 2006 20:29

Singha wrote:one of you should write up a scenario in the Mil forum dealing with the moment of JDAM detonation and going forward....forget about the devasted g-zero and relief ops (we know it will be a royal mess)...deal with control-plane signaling issues between D.C. , london, Delhi, state capitals, army commands, beijing, rawalpindi and state capitals.

take some easy target like A'bad or Faizabad, where native IMs are supposed to harbour greviences...

I wish S2 were here, his presence is much missed in such scenarios....

Up front we should accept the fact that if TSP is planning JDAM type stunts and if it intends to "lose" few nukes in transit (which will naturally fall into hands of Jihadi nutheads), there is no stopping them unless there is a reciprocal threat.

NFU or FU doesn't makes sense to me. Remember the school day fights? The other guy daring you to hit him first and you hoping that he hits first and gets the blame? I guess most of us remember and usually, unless both the parties were lily livered little boys, one side used to call the bluff and punch the other one in the face.

NFU is just one of those little boys antics played at international stage. But you cannot get away with audacity of hitting first at nation state level and hence the possibility of JDAM type stunts. That does gives them plausible deniability.

Solution is JDAM type equivalent from GoI. Plant a device somewhere in the industrial junkyards of Karachi. And let it be known that JDAM stunts will be retaliated by us with equally credible plausible deniability.

But wait there's more. How about a Surat type plague breaking out in TSP within a fortnight of JDAM attack in India? Pass the info to IM's. It will make its way to Pindi and entire TSP awam will come to know as well. They hit us we hit them, but no official apparatus involved. Pukis on the street will have the Mullahs by the balls.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2006 20:33

See 9/11 has changed the deterrence paradigm. Prior to that we had deterrence between states. After 9/11 we are seeing states support non-state actors with palusible deniability. So the question at hand is how to deter such challengers?

Its not a joke for nuke materials to leak out despite what ever Msuhy spins, without state support. In other words the game of isolated terrorist group staeling nukes from collapsing FSU is not the threat but Terrorists state carrying out a delegated/distributed strike is the possibility. Now such a strike will be only a disruptive and not an end of the world. Such a strike needs to be authenticated and appropriate action taken. From IAEA records most of the fissile materail is already tagged and its a matter of hours to locate the origins of the material. The possibility of deniable origins for the materials has to be taken into account. IOW the terrorists could mask the origin by sourcing material from outside their masters reactors. So the situation becomes complicated.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12673
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 02 Nov 2006 21:45

with non state actors deterence per se is no longer valid. they hold nothing dear so will see anything obliterated. therefore the only option is capability denial OR find their masters - against whom deterence may still be valid

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 22:46

with non state actors deterence per se is no longer valid. they hold nothing dear so will see anything obliterated. therefore the only option is capability denial OR find their masters - against whom deterence may still be valid


I couldnt possibly agree more. This is why US goes crazy when it comes to rogue states and nukes, they cant accept a threat to the american homeland from a non-state actor simply because they have no way to deter it.

The ongoing discussion about TSP using a proxy to do a JDAM and the following Indian reaction is hollow. People all over the world know which countries have the capability to detonate a nuclear warhead and the one responsible can be zeroed-in rather easily by the process of elimination, so the claim that TSP can use a proxy for a JDAM on say Ahemadabad and then get away with it just by a simple denial doesn't hold ground

B Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 11:33

Postby B Singh » 02 Nov 2006 22:51

akutcher wrote:
with non state actors deterence per se is no longer valid. they hold nothing dear so will see anything obliterated. therefore the only option is capability denial OR find their masters - against whom deterence may still be valid


I couldnt possibly agree more. This is why US goes crazy when it comes to rogue states and nukes, they cant accept a threat to the american homeland from a non-state actor simply because they have no way to deter it.

The ongoing discussion about TSP using a proxy to do a JDAM and the following Indian reaction is hollow. People all over the world know which countries have the capability to detonate a nuclear warhead and the one responsible can be zeroed-in rather easily by the process of elimination, so the claim that TSP can use a proxy for a JDAM on say Ahemadabad and then get away with it just by a simple denial doesn't hold ground


How is that different from Puki attacks on Mumbai, for instance ? JDAM has deniability built into it.

Of course, the outrage at such an act might force to the normally supine and spineless Indian political leadership to actually take action, but the deniability is always there.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2006 23:07

err non-state actors are not swyambu- self emergent. They are all products of states who train, nurture and sustain them. And there are other states that provide same services to those states. All I am saying is all those in the food/terror support chain are legitimate targets. Its only the degree of support- moral, financial and material support. Any state that provides any such support (despite what ever reasons it proclaims) has to be considered as part of the terrrorist supply chain.

Eg. UK is terrorist central providing moral and fiancial support. Its another matter that it has statered feeling the heat but throughout the post WWII period it has palyed this role through its media and Lord Avebury et al.

B Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 11:33

Postby B Singh » 02 Nov 2006 23:19

ramana wrote:err non-state actors are not swyambu- self emergent. They are all products of states who train, nurture and sustain them. And there are other states that provide same services to those states. All I am saying is all those in the food/terror support chain are legitimate targets. Its only the degree of support- moral, financial and material support. Any state that provides any such support (despite what ever reasons it proclaims) has to be considered as part of the terrrorist supply chain.

Eg. UK is terrorist central providing moral and fiancial support. Its another matter that it has statered feeling the heat but throughout the post WWII period it has palyed this role through its media and Lord Avebury et al.


Of course, but any state arming or supporting any such outfit always has deniability. Like Pakistan does.

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

Postby Arun_S » 03 Nov 2006 00:38

See French exponding their position

AW&ST
M51 Gives France More Flexible Deterrent To Meet Changing Threats
Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/23/2006, Michael A. Taverna
Cherbourg, Biscarrosse and St. Medard, France

A mammoth project to modernize France's nuclear arsenal will mark a milestone this year with the first land launch of the next-generation M51 ballistic missile.

Developed by EADS, the M51 will weigh half again as much as the existing M45, allowing it carry up to six warheads over an intercontinental range--classified, but in excess of 6,000-8,000 km.--with higher performance and safety margins. The M51 will be installed on second-generation Triomphant-class ballistic missile-carrying submarines, ... .. . . . .

... .. . . . .In addition to vastly increased throwweight and accuracy, the M51 and its aerial adjunct, the improved ASMPA nuclear cruise missile, will offer greater operational flexibility. This is in line with France's changing nuclear doctrine--notably with respect to regional powers. In an address at the Ile Longue nuclear submarine base in Brittany on Jan. 19, President Jacques Chirac said France would reserve the right to strike strategic nerve centers with a graduated deterrent as a "final warning" to enemy aggression--a veiled reference to North Korea and Iran.

A graduated deterrent--for example, ICBMs equipped with less than a full complement of warheads configured to explode at high altitude--could use electromagnetic shock waves to knock out enemy electronics, minimizing collateral damage.

Chirac insisted that the principles underlying French nuclear doctrine have not changed: There is still no question of fielding battlefield nuclear weapons or authorizing preemptive strikes, despite pressure to do so (AW&ST June 6, 2005, p. 27). "But the manner in which these principles are implemented has changed and will continue to change to meet 21st century threats," he said.

Chirac reiterated an offer to give the French nuclear arsenal a "European dimension." The offer is meant to encourage neighboring nations--notably the U.K., Europe's only other nuclear power--to adopt a European stance with respect to emerging threats, or even to share in future developments
... .. . . . .

akutcher
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 21:54

Postby akutcher » 03 Nov 2006 01:28

B Singh wrote:
ramana wrote:err non-state actors are not swyambu- self emergent. They are all products of states who train, nurture and sustain them. And there are other states that provide same services to those states. All I am saying is all those in the food/terror support chain are legitimate targets. Its only the degree of support- moral, financial and material support. Any state that provides any such support (despite what ever reasons it proclaims) has to be considered as part of the terrrorist supply chain.

Eg. UK is terrorist central providing moral and fiancial support. Its another matter that it has statered feeling the heat but throughout the post WWII period it has palyed this role through its media and Lord Avebury et al.


Of course, but any state arming or supporting any such outfit always has deniability. Like Pakistan does.


With all due respect how many people are going to buy such a denial? Israel also denies the existense of nuclear weapons on its soil but how many people in this world buy that? plausible deniability is effective in order to avoid tough questions from the media but it cant provide a safety umbrella to a JDAM attack on Indian soil, not to mention that the onus will be with TSP to prove that the nuke didnt come from its arsenal and not the other way round.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 01:32

Rye wrote:If Indian nuke cannot deter the pakis from launching a conventional terrorist attack every month, why on earth would it deter them from a nuke attack,


The question you asked is rather disingenuous.

Nukes, by their very nature, are meant to deter/respond to a very strong tactical conventional manouvre ( FU ) , or to deter a nuclear strike ( NFU ).

In other words, their use is to deter serious damage to socio-economic and military infrastructure.

Subconventional warfare and terrorist threats with plausible deniability are not covered under the "deterrence" paradigm.

The only response that works - short of threatening a full scale war ( as was done during Parakram ) under such situations - is the implied threat, or actual demonstration, of a tit-for-tat deniable subconventional warfare and terror reposte.

That's precisely what was used against Pakistan in Karachi during the Khalistan episode of the 80s.

The attack on N was a miscalculation, but a miscalculation that resulted from Nallapayyan's own reasonable and "forgiving" behaviour.


This "forgiving" image of India is rather over-hyped.

Pakistan has been forced to make quid-pro-quo concessions every time it mistakenly upped the ante.

Although this falls short of the "kick it in the groin" demand from hyper-nationalists here, it is the results that count.

The strategy of this game is to limit Pakistan's range of options and tire it out, while isolating it diplomatically with regards to J&K.

By any and all measure, India has been reasonably successful in this endeavour.

If the GoI cannot use India's nukes to deter such "bleeding tactics", as you have euphemized, why do they need nukes?


Once again, this emotional outburst is not entirely a logical one.

India is not a subscriber of the Nuclear Utilisation Theory ( NUTS ) doctrine so carefully nurtured by the US and Soviet Union.

India's nukes are there as a currency of power (great power status), as a simple but effective response against nuclear blackmail by hostile nations, and for a calibrated punitive response when MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) deterrence fails.

As for the Pakistani tactics of "thousand cuts", the deterrent response lies elsewhere ( see above ).

Also, while RMA modifications would take some years, the groundwork for a fast, effective Cold Start Doctrine has already been laid.

It may not satisfy your appetite for a final crushing showdown ( "Ispar Uspar" according to ABV ), but it is an effective policy of carefully calibrated escalation called "managed conflict".

To make sure that this escalation ladder is fullproof and workable, India needs the nukes as the NFU backup.

Does that answer your question ?

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 01:37

The real problem here I think is not Pakistan's deniability, but the deniability of those that provide the maal to pakistan. India needs to maintain its own database of all such nuclear signatures, so that it can make such evaluations independently. Asking IAEA or the "international community" to evaluate the signatures after a JDAM attack is going to be a futile exercise.

Whatever new doctrine is enunciated, it has to state that everyone in the food chain that supplied the nuke material will be nuked -- the bigger problem is getting to the elements above pakistan's food chain, and we already have US, UK, and China as possible suspects up the food chain.

It is not sufficient to just bomb pakistan without causing a lot of pain to its puppermaster that was responsible for providing the nuke. But it does not matter, unless such threats to the puppetmasters of pakistan are also in the doctrine -- the paki fools will be willing puppets to whichever state (belonging to the P-5) that wants to mess with India.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 02:03

Rye wrote:The real problem here I think is not Pakistan's deniability, but the deniability of those that provide the maal to pakistan.


The problem is, the "maal" is Pakistani.

Only the design and technology is not.

And we all know who supplied AQ Khan and Samar Mubarikmand those designs and technologies.

The million dollar question is,- how far should PRC be made to pay for its sins, if indeed a JDAM explodes in India ?


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest