First Use of Nuclear Weapons

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

Postby shiv » 01 Nov 2006 22:11

The reason why Islamism works is exactly because of what people have said on this page:

Islam has a reputation of hitting back or threatening to hit back. That reputation has sunk in deep enough into the psyche of people that the overall reaction of most people on this forum is that the act of nuking Mecca will inflame global Islamic passion.

On the other hand, the idea of nuking Tirupati is not looked at as an event that will invite Hindu wrath. A roundabout argument is brought up to say how nuking Tirupati would be of no use (presumably to a militarily clever opponent) because nuking Tirupati would leave the armed forces unscathed.

If Tirupati were nuked, corporate India would beg the government and say that a war would stop investments and that corporate India would build another Tirupati bigger than the original. To echo Vijay J, we call the government weak. But it is we who are weak and we help make the government weak by offering the government only weak support for strong action and powerful support for weak action. Guess who asked for no war in 2002? Guess who gets blamed for weak knees in 2006? Guess who asked for making a deal with terrorists in the 1999 hijacking? Guess who is being accused of weakness in 2006? The government that does what the voters ask for is playing it safe and is no more cowardly that the voters. The bold government that takes risks and does not do what the voters beg for (and starts a war) had better ensure victory in a war. We don''t want war. We want victory, that is all. War is the problem. But hey who doesn't want that?

Our statements here show that nodody here is saying "I will nuke the sh1t out of any fukker who dares to nuke Tirupati or any place held sacred by me"

We don't have the balls to say that - but we are adept at recogniszingthe fact that islam has balls- such is it's reputation among us.

Hindus are weak by nature - but those of us, as individuals who feel bold do not want to admit that we live in a nation of peacable cowards. Nothing wrong in that - but if we are clever - we will recognise this fact and factor that into our calculations.
Last edited by shiv on 01 Nov 2006 22:16, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2006 22:11

Among nuke states the idea of investing in conventional assets is to keep the nuke threshold high. IOW the nuke option should be considered as last resort.

However as many on the Forum and even Jaswant Singh have noted whenever TSP gets Western/US assistance it takes it as green signal to go ahead with mayhem in India. Now the Western powers are aware of this from all the scholarly reports- Uneven, Anatole Leiven etc.

So in that sense VijayJ is right that in case of TSP bolstering their conventional strength will not add to deterrence stability.

However the West is sure that India will not act on TSP or Western interests for various reasons. Actually India does not have to act but take up the Nallapayyan mode and thats what Cold Start is all about.

However when UPA comes with its hand wringers and nullifies Cold Start even after smoking gun it makes the Indian task more difficult.

What Sadler was talking about is the demonstration of 'will'/resolve to do something about the problem. Hand wringing is a good excuse.

In Rye's analogy Nallapayyan got it becuase he did not show the resolve that he would use his stuff to protect his domain and that led to breakdown of deterrence.

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

Postby Vijay J » 01 Nov 2006 22:13

Rye,

It could be stabilise or introduce what they think is a controlled instability.

They say they want to stabilise, they keep telling us that if Pakistan gets conventional arms, it will then be less inclined to use nuclear weapons.
Musharraf always tells the Americans that if America had not abandoned Pakistan, sept 11 would never have happened.

This is what all the Pakistanis meeting the Americans have been telling them. After a point, people simply find it easier to believe.

I am asking if this is really a controlled instability. If it is, then the Americans should prove to us that their arms sales will not cause Musharraf to shift the red line.

If not then maybe the instability is not so controlled after all.

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

Postby Johann » 01 Nov 2006 22:30

Re. operating on a nuclear battlefield;

This is a very complicated subject because there are so many variables.

What is the military objective?

How many nukes does the other side use? How are advancing forces arranged?

What is the momentum of advancing forces?

Do they have reinforcements to maintain momentum?

What kind of radiation exposure and related losses is the leadership willing to accept?

What is the enemy's conventional situation? Were the nukes his last rolll of the dice? How many more does he have?

This is one of the reasons tactical nuclear use will lead to escalation, to attempt to cut through the uncertainty.

Anoop wrote:In the total battle of attrition (ideological, military, economic), what avenues are open to India to de-legitimise Pakistan's nuclear weapons program?


I think you have pointed out the inherent contradiction.

In a fundamental conflict between two systems you cant just delegitimise their nukes.

You delegitimise the other system, the regime.

The USSR, Apartheid South Africa, the military dictatorships of South America.

As I have said many times here it is India that is in the best position of any country in the world to delegitimise the Pakistan Army.

It has the greatest ability and motivation of any country to collect, collate, distil and rebroadcast and amplify the many deep discontents within Pakistan, even within Punjab against the PA, and even the Tanzim leaders who sacrifice little but gain much.

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

Postby Rye » 01 Nov 2006 22:46

Vijay J. wrote:
I am asking if this is really a controlled instability. If it is, then the Americans should prove to us that their arms sales will not cause Musharraf to shift the red line.



I am not sure that it is the Americans' job to prove such a thing to us --- why should they? They only have to claim that Musharraf is reasonable, even if he is not -- India has to accept those claims at face value even if we know better, if we are going depend on the Americans to control pakistan. We can try providing "proof" that Musharraf is not reasonable based on the terrorist attacks in India with the pakistani army's fingerprints all over it, but we all know what happens to "proof" that is given to the Americans.

It is our job to ensure that any destabilizing action by ANY entity (including the US) will have repercussions -- and not just make idle threats of that nature, but actually follow through.

America is just "hedging its bets" in the Indian subcontinent....it is no skin off the american nose if all their hedging and "balance of power" leads to a severe breakdown in stability in India's neighbourhood --- they just need to move their troops far away from the subcontinent in such an event.

Seeing all the cockups by the US in Iraq and Afghanisthan, do we really think that they are capable of controlling stability in the Indian subcontinent? As per the most recent news story, the US seems to think that getting NATO troops killed by the Paki Talibunnies is quite okay, and are willing to go with that as a long-term strategy for Afghanisthan.

I am starting to see your point about criticizing the Indian govt. for just following the will of the people (or won't of the people, as in India's case), which is a self-defeating exercise.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 01 Nov 2006 23:32

shiv wrote:The reason why Islamism works is exactly because of what people have said on this page:

Islam has a reputation of hitting back or threatening to hit back. That reputation has sunk in deep enough into the psyche of people that the overall reaction of most people on this forum is that the act of nuking Mecca will inflame global Islamic passion.

On the other hand, the idea of nuking Tirupati is not looked at as an event that will invite Hindu wrath. A roundabout argument is brought up to say how nuking Tirupati would be of no use (presumably to a militarily clever opponent) because nuking Tirupati would leave the armed forces unscathed.


Our statements here show that nodody here is saying "I will nuke the sh1t out of any fukker who dares to nuke Tirupati or any place held sacred by me"


That's the basic difference between a "rational" response and an "armageddon jihadi" response.

It would be rational to clearly state that India would 'nuke the sh1t out of any fukker' if they dared to nuke Bangalore, Mumbai, or Delhi.

After all, those places represent the technological, economic and political hubs of India.

Not Tirupati, Somnath, Kashi Visvanath or Kamakshya Kamarupa.

Tirupati and the likes may have a special place of significance in the hearts and minds of many Hindus, and nuking it may bring a sense of grief, and perhaps a psychological scar or two.

But it doesn't threaten to bring the Indian state, or the Indian nation, to its knees.

Same goes with Mecca.

Who do you deter, or bring down to the knees, by threatening to, or actually evaporating the Baitul-Ma'mur aka Kaaba ?

Surely not the armageddon jihadi or even the imperial Islamist "Mughalstan" general at 'Pindi GHQ ?

So, what's the purpose of floating this suggestion ?

Why not say that either 'Pindi, Muridke, Karachi and Islamabad will become the world's largest open air glass museum, or that the headwaters of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab will be diverted for good ?

Which one do you think would have a better impact of showing that "weak" Hindus actually have rocky mountain oysters larger than a prairie bull ?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Nov 2006 23:37

If India were to adopt an explicit FU policy, it would be deterimental to our armed forces as that would give our leaders (some) one more reason not to invest in conventional force strength due the the sense of security (false, maybe) provided by a doctrine of first use. So, NFU is beneficial to our armed forces? True? Just some questions.

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

Postby asharma » 01 Nov 2006 23:44

Act appropriately to every transgression, starting now, and pretty soon NFU will be seen as adequate by your enemies. Deterrence does not lie in policy statements

Shiv, Rye, the populi everywhere in the world always clamours for the "least troublesome" option, Indians are nothing exceptional in that regard. But just as Churchill persisted (to give just one example), it is the responsbility of the NBJprie to act in a far-sighted manner.

My 2 cents

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

Postby Rye » 01 Nov 2006 23:49

Valkan S.wrote:
That's the basic difference between a "rational" response and an "armageddon jihadi" response.

It would be rational to clearly state that India would 'nuke the sh1t out of any fukker' if they dared to nuke Bangalore, Mumbai, or Delhi.

After all, those places represent the technological, economic and political hubs of India.

Not Tirupati, Somnath, Kashi Visvanath or Kamakshya Kamarupa.


And why is your definition of rationality to be considered credible or reasonable? Isn't the point here that using nukes against India is unacceptable? Or does your nuclear doctrine say "We will retaliate with the fury of a 1000 demons only if you nuke one of the following places in India" -- otherwise, have a nice day and Enjoy!


Tirupati and the likes may have a special place of significance in the hearts and minds of many Hindus, and nuking it may bring a sense of grief, and perhaps a psychological scar or two.


This is exactly the kind of nonsense that shiv alluded to in the earlier post -- coming up with too-clever-by-half "erudite" excuses for not creating fear and doubt in the adversary's mind.

Why not say that either 'Pindi, Muridke, Karachi and Islamabad will become the world's largest open air glass museum, or that the headwaters of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab will be diverted for good ?


If the Pakis believe "hindus"/Indians/GoI are weak and cowardly, even if it is only an incorrect perception, they will not care if you threaten to take away their lollipop or convert their country to a parking lot, because they don't believe you have the resolve to follow through in either case. If this happens, there is no deterrence at play.

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

Postby Johann » 02 Nov 2006 00:01

Israel executing a Samson Option might well decide to retaliate against Islam's holiest cities. That is for two specific reasons

- Most of the Islamic world considers Israel the enemy. If Israel is destroyed, they intend to return at least some of that sentiment back.

- It would take a relatively small number of nukes to destroy to Israel, which means the risk of national destruction is far higher than for most other countries.

So far neither of those are true in India's case. Although Islamists the world over support Pakistan's jihadis against India, the majority of Muslim states do not hold India's destruction to be any sort of priority. Pakistan can give India some really nasty flesh wounds in a nuclear exchange, but no more than that.

India might chose to destroy every Pakistani city with a population over half a million in exchange for Tirupati, but I dont see it threatening Mecca and Medina until the Muslim world as a whole turns on it, which probably wont happen unless things between Muslims and non-Muslims in India get *really* bad.

Pakistan's goal in provoking communal violnce isnt just to create drag and friction within India that would slow its ascent. It is to decisively swing opinion in the Muslim world against India, to turn it in to an icon of hatred like the Israel, the US and Russia.

vishalb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Apr 2006 00:31
Location: mumbai

Postby vishalb » 02 Nov 2006 00:10


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

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Nov 2006 00:16

Rye wrote:And why is your definition of rationality to be considered credible or reasonable? Isn't the point here that using nukes against India is unacceptable? Or does your nuclear doctrine say "We will retaliate with the fury of a 1000 demons only if you nuke one of the following places in India" -- otherwise, have a nice day and Enjoy!


Most of you have misunderstood the point I am raising.

It is not that India shouldn't respond to a nuke attack on Tirupati.

It is that India's response need not be nuking Mecca, but a more painful one ( strategically, economically ).

That means a clear enunciation that any attack anywhere on India or Indian interests would be a punitive retaliation against both military/economic and geographic assets in Pakistan, and - resources permitting - in China as well.

Now, you are free to interpret it as a "weakness" or as a "rational" response, depending on your individual proclivity.

In my personal view, attacking a black stone 1500 miles away in an Arabian desert in response to a Porky jihadi attack on India - under the aegis, guidance and instructions of the 'Pindi GHQ - is a rather pitiable decision, logically.

Taking out 'Pindi, Muridke, Dar-ul-Uloom Binoria/Haqqania and a few other "hotspots" - along with a complete destruction of Khushab, Kahuta, Chasma/Kanupp, Sargodha and other places of concern serve a much better purpose.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that shiv alluded to in the earlier post -- coming up with too-clever-by-half "erudite" excuses for not creating fear and doubt in the adversary's mind.


Please point out the "fear" that is created in the mind of a Salafi , or an average Pakistani general ensconsed comfortably with a glass of scotch whisky in the 'Pindi GHQ, about the possible destruction of Kaaba ?

What, in your opinion, would their reaction be if the threat was carried out and Mecca was vapourised ?

Would they simply wobble at the knee, and collapse like a house of cards at the destruction of the physical center of their "faith" universe ?

Why not the P-5, India and Israel get together and nuke Mecca now, and get it over with about this global menace of Islamic terrorism business then ?

Obviously, it doesn't generate either fear, or capitulation.

because they don't believe you have the resolve to follow through in either case. If this happens, there is no deterrence at play.


Now, please explain why they would EVER believe that India has the resolve to nuke Mecca and antagonise 1.3 billion Muslims across the globe, but not Pakistan itself ( a dirtbag nation of only 150 million Muslims despised globally ) ?.

Is that a logical statement on your part ?

How will deterrence work at all in such a case ?
Last edited by S.Valkan on 02 Nov 2006 01:12, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Vijay J » 02 Nov 2006 00:34

Rye,

if they don't give us a credible assurance, then we will either have to do something serious to oppose the sale of arms or we will have to do something to adjust to a shifting of the redlines.

The problem is two fold, the shifting of the red line itself is escalation prone but more importantly, each arms deal is lathered with loads of bribery in Pakistan. Every time there is a big arms deal, the crore commanders fall over each other to get a cut. This puts the chain of command at risk.

What if some commander in Pakistan becomes upset with Musharraf for having eaten too much money in the arms deal with America? What if he does something to weaken Musharraf ? What if the very act of bribing people to get the deal signed on the Pakistani side causes the Musharraf regime to collapse?

Will our deterrence breakdown then? I think it will.

So I can't say I favour arms sales to Pakistan. They may simply be too destablising.

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 » 02 Nov 2006 01:00

shiv wrote:Guess who asked for no war in 2002? Guess who gets blamed for weak knees in 2006? Guess who asked for making a deal with terrorists in the 1999 hijacking? Guess who is being accused of weakness in 2006? The government that does what the voters ask for is playing it safe and is no more cowardly that the voters. The bold government that takes risks and does not do what the voters beg for (and starts a war) had better ensure victory in a war. We don''t want war. We want victory, that is all. War is the problem. But hey who doesn't want that?


Shiv, I follow what you say and its very insightful and provides food for thought and can be factored into a lot of other discussions going on.
But for the sake of correctness/completeness, can we really say that the 2002 call off was a collective sentiment expressed by the people. Wasnt it really a coterie (OK ITvity folks) with a really greasy and big stick. So where from this sentiment, that the govt followed the peoples mandate and yet is blamed for its pusillanimity.

I am just trying to see how strong the argument is.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3519
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 02 Nov 2006 01:09

JCage wrote:
KV Rao wrote:
Neerajsoman wrote:
The cost of nuclear strike on India must be made prohibitive to the porkies. If the porkie-jehadis (pj, hereafter) are willing to sacrifice a part or whole of their country using the rationale that their "faith will survive", then you have no deterrence unless you are willing to lash out. Apparently indiscriminately, if necessary.


Sadler you forget that india has a large muslim minority numbering 160 million. Thats more than the population of Bangladesh. Imagine for a minute that the political leadership has the balls to nuke mecca. Now imagine the fallout (no pun intended) at home. There wouldn't just be chaos, the whole of india would burn, inside out. You have seen what havoc the jihadist palestinians can play. Now imagine that those Jihadist Palestinians occupied the highest positions of your institutions, and you'll see what India would be like if it nuked mecca.


I don't know why we are even discussing nuking Mecca. Every culture has some essential characteristics. Are we a culture that nukes holy places of another religion? that too, when they are arguably, 'our' holy places, since Indian Muslims are 'our' people. In any case, what is the upside of nuking Mecca for India?
Now, if it is a matter of nuclear blackmail of saudi arabia to force them to make Mecca an international site, with Indian Muslims getting a proportional share of the management, I'd be all for it.


I cant even figure out that entire culture bit.

If tomorrow a KSA/ Pak combo threaten to nuke Tirupati or the like, then what? I even read a Pak policy paper that made the claim that since the Ramayana claims that Hinduism will be around as long as the Vindhyas are, how can one take the Vindhyas out, would nukes work? :roll:

I would rather we are a culture pragmatic enough to fight so as to win, not just survive, lick our wounds and then doff the moral hat, whilst inwardly raging at the indignities India has already suffered under imperial Islam. Yes, nukes sound very harsh- but one wonders how many non Muslim read Hindu/ Buddhist holy places were happily razed by all the but shikans and ghazis.

India has always deluded itself that its struggle with Pak has nothing to do with Islam and that bad bad Pak apart, Islam is actually getting on quite well with India and other religions. Were that the truth was so simple.

As you have earlier noted, in Pak we face a dangerous imperialist motivated by religion. Again, its not all Paks fault- Islam by itself has had a role to play in the whole process. We have to look at it dispassionately.

The only rational explanation for not nuking Mecca is that it would cause a huge problem for India with so many Indian Muslims, as you have pointed out. There are and always have been issues of integrating Mulsims into the mainstream, nuking Mecca or the like will put paid to that and cause a civil war.

That apart, I couldnt give a damn, this culture shulture business is pointless. Israels Samson option has worked for it, we cannot use it because of our substantial Muslim population, but thats about it.

Lets leave morals out of it please. The other issue with an Indian samson option is world opinion, to which we are still beholden. The mere mention of any such opinion would have them rip into hindu fascist indians who are oppressing the poor muslims and missionaries and the like.


Talking of 'culture' is shorthand for approaches and attitudes that have proved survivable up to this point. When making a decision to depart radically from those approaches ('culture') there needs to be a great deal of thinking and clarity. Otherwise we fall into the same trap as our dear leftist comrades who simply dismiss everything that India has ever been about.

As you noted, attack on Islamic icons will result in open civil war within India. If that is a goal, why not just have the civil war now, without the nuclear dimension and uniting all the world's muslims against us by nuking Kaaba? I am just trying to point out the absurdity of going after people's holy places. We are respectful of other religions not so much because of any goody-goody sentimentality, but more because it is a proven stable strategy.

Of course we have problems of integration of Muslims into the Indian mainstream, and of course part of the problem is the enforced code of silence about what Hindus had to endure due to Muslim conquest. But there is a huge gap between this problematic state and an open imperialistic hostile entity like Pakistan. On balance, Muslims of India are on the side of the Indian worldview, whether due to compulsion or due to conviction we don't know for sure, and it doesn't matter at some level. The challenge is to modify their imbibed worldview which includes aspirations of Islamist reich to enable them to be content with the alternative empowerment that a pluralistic democratic and increasingly poweful India offers, in partnership with their Hindu compatriots.

The Congress party leaders of the Freedom Movement days were not stupid about this--they had solid historical instincts about this problem. I think they took a chance on the proposition that it is possible to craft a new pluralistic partnership. It takes work and it takes a very long time to come to fruition.

We are in the 'middle game' as it were, with lots of maneuvring and position play. It is in Pakistan's interest to force us prematurely into the 'end game' or showdown. And it is in our interest to keep pushing Pakistan back, while strengthening and stabilizing our position to the point that would lead, among other things, Muslims to see that the superiority of the Indian model is a no-brainer, and they have a solid stake in its survival and dominance. That may never happen (which is Pakistan's game), but for us to play India's game, we have to believe in that goal.

The day we have started to accept Pakistan's two-nation theory, we would have conceded the game, and we can look forward to a collection of fragmented dhimmi-states in place of a soverign India.

Equating war with Pakistan with war on Islam or by implication Indian Muslims is the ultimate anti-Indian psyops.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 01:12

Valkan S., forget about the Mecca distraction (I am in agreement with you on that). I am just talking in general terms of having to create credibility by our actions instead of just coming out with a policy statement.
Last edited by Rye on 02 Nov 2006 01:26, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 01:17

Vijay J. wrote:
if they don't give us a credible assurance, then we will either have to do something serious to oppose the sale of arms or we will have to do something to adjust to a shifting of the redlines.


Vijay, You seem to think the american assurances are credible. I don't think their assurances are worth the paper it is written on, given India's history with the USA. India should not even be asking for or accepting any sort of assurances made by America on behalf of Pakistan -- if the GoI does that, it is their fault, and you cannot dump on people here for calling the GoI out on that kind of idiocy.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Nov 2006 02:02

Rye wrote:I am just talking in general terms of having to create credibility by our actions instead of just coming out with a policy statement.


I will just give you a few small examples, and let you decide on the merits of it.

Pandit Nehru had declared after the 1953 ratification of the Instrument of Accession by the J&K Assembly that "Henceforth, any attack on Jammu and Kashmir will be treated as an attack on India".

This statement was not deemed credible by FM Ayub Khan, who felt emboldened to attempt Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam.

Lal Bahadur Shastri's decision to cross the IB and march towards Lahore demonstrated the seriousness of India's commitment to J&K, and substantiated that credibility.

After the nuclearisation of the Indian subcontinent, the Mushy-rat tinpot felt emboldened to test the credibility of India's resolve to maintain the inviolability of the LOC as per Shimla Accord in the face of an implied revisionist nuclear threat.

India's use of IAF squadrons against the Northern Lightly-Crisp Infantry once against demonstrated that India means business.

The third incident was India's fateful decision to ready its Strike Corps for Operation Parakram, after the Parliament attack, despite the implied threat by Pakis that nukes would be used on an Indian spearhead.

If you have observed carefully, the threshold of a firm and credible response has gradually been lowered by India, as its muscles have grown, and as the international situation has begun to turn in its favour.

The public enunciation of the Cold Start doctrine is a case in point.

Pakistan knows this.

That's why you see all these "out of the box" suggestions coming forth like a wellspring from the Ashraf tinpot jurnail, rather than the "1000 year war" rhetoric by his predecessors.

Rest assured that India's willingness to engage Pakistan in a nuclear showdown ( if the need arises ) is now taken very seriously in the 'Pindi GHQ.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Nov 2006 02:19

S.Valkan wrote:
JCage wrote:If tomorrow a KSA/ Pak combo threaten to nuke Tirupati or the like, then what?


Are you being serious, or ridiculous ?

The target of a nuclear strike is either counter-force or counter-value.

It makes no strategic or tactical sense for KSA or Pakistan to nuke either Tirupati or Kashi Visvanath, while leaving Indian Air Force, Indian Naval Expeditionary Force and Indian Army Strike Corps free to do their business, or Indian economic assets to keep humming the war machine.

The Taliban types may blow up Bamiyan Buddhas and - in doing so - destroy world heritage sites.

What advantage does it confer ? Do the Buddhist nations capitulate and embrace Islam at the sight of the crumbling sandstone at Bamyan ?


I take it that you have not conferred with the gentle souls across the border. What seems ridiculous to you or anyone else is hardly ridiculous in the real world- they march to their own logic.

The point about Tirupati or the like vz some disused Bamiyan Buddhas is also different- the former is not some world heritage site alone, it represents the heart and soul of belief for many Hindus. In the past and even now, many Muslims will not hesitate to strike against it- it simply represents polytheism in their worldview, so as far as they are concerned, its a valid target. They arent going to sit around and say "chee thoo, thats not what we do".

My entire point is that this entire: "our culture does not allow us to target holy sites of other religions (sic.)" is nothing to be proud of or pat ourselves on the back about. I am not picking on KV Rao in particular- I daresay what he said is a common self belief. If the Pakistanis routinely target whatever they perceive to be the core things that are dear to Indians, then we have to draw a line in the sand and find Pak targets to deter them- it could be Tirupati, the Golden Temple or IISc.

I'd rather, that India make its point clearly rather than us taking things for granted and giving them a clean chit because "after all, we dont do such things, we are after all too moral".

Lets leave morals out of it please.


The logic of not nuking Mecca is grounded in reality, not morals.

The external military adversary in question here is the Pakistani state, not Islam ( although an internal threat of rising Islamic fundamentalism does indeed exist as a challenge ).

No matter what the Ashraf Syeds in Pakistan say or think, Mecca isn't any dearer to the scions of Rawalpindi GHQ than their "pure Arab blood" family sipping Lassi and munching Yakhni Pulao in Lahore and Multan.

That should keep things in proper perspective.


I agree about most of this part, except viz the part in bold:

Mecca is indeed the heart and soul of their "born again" ethos. It would impact them, if we were indeed serious about carrying out such a threat, which realistically speaking we cant.

Since, reality dictates that targeting Mecca is pointless- the US could get away with it despite the world of hurt it would cause them, not India- what with how energy dependent we are, and how its early days yet for our economic growth, plus the # of Muslims etc. But its best that the issue is discussed dispassionately and rejected, rather than looking at it viz. the prism of morality (we dont do such things) and perish the thought!
Last edited by JCage on 02 Nov 2006 02:45, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Vijay J » 02 Nov 2006 02:33

Rye,

If we say that the US has no credibility, which we can say then we have to treat every attempt they make to say something as a form of subterfuge. We have to treat every communication from them as an attempt at subversion. We have to assume that they are leading us on each time around and their only intention is to cause us grief. Their actions are narrowly defined by their self interest and ultimately in bilateral ties, the only way their can get a rise out of us is by running us down.

Unfortunately no one in India right now feels the US is acting solely with the aim of running India into the ground.

Some older people retired from the Indian intelligence community do believe such things, but no one in the rest of the Government of India believes them because everyone in India feels this is a Soviet influenced point of view. The military for one craves for American arms. The public at large craves for MacDonalds burgers and Coca Cola and the latest fashions from America. There is a lot of positive feeling in India towards the US and people find it hard to imagine that the US might be acting in a way that deliberately seeks to harm India's interests. The troubled times in the 80s, Super 301, are all a faded photograph.

However if the India-US deal falls through or is subject to some unnatural acts, the community of people that will question US credibility will rise dramatically.

If the India-US deal does not come through, then we will have to question whether the US has India's good anywhere in its strategic calculations and thus all the assurances that they have given will have to questioned.
Last edited by Vijay J on 02 Nov 2006 02:47, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Nov 2006 02:44

KV Rao wrote:Talking of 'culture' is shorthand for approaches and attitudes that have proved survivable up to this point. When making a decision to depart radically from those approaches ('culture') there needs to be a great deal of thinking and clarity. Otherwise we fall into the same trap as our dear leftist comrades who simply dismiss everything that India has ever been about.

As you noted, attack on Islamic icons will result in open civil war within India. If that is a goal, why not just have the civil war now, without the nuclear dimension and uniting all the world's muslims against us by nuking Kaaba? I am just trying to point out the absurdity of going after people's holy places. We are respectful of other religions not so much because of any goody-goody sentimentality, but more because it is a proven stable strategy.


KV Rao, our "culture" as you put it has been one of seeking stability- but then again, never before have we had the ability to strike back as we do now, so the point is moot whether one should stick to culture for cultures sake. Now, when you say- its not goody-goody sentimentality- I beg to disagree. Perhaps you meant otherwise, but frankly- I would have reacted far more strongly than you did, and partly out of goody-goody sentimentality, when discussing this a decade back.

I see no absurdity in going after peoples holy places when they go after mine etc. Shiv got what I was trying to say.


Of course we have problems of integration of Muslims into the Indian mainstream, and of course part of the problem is the enforced code of silence about what Hindus had to endure due to Muslim conquest. But there is a huge gap between this problematic state and an open imperialistic hostile entity like Pakistan. On balance, Muslims of India are on the side of the Indian worldview, whether due to compulsion or due to conviction we don't know for sure, and it doesn't matter at some level. The challenge is to modify their imbibed worldview which includes aspirations of Islamist reich to enable them to be content with the alternative empowerment that a pluralistic democratic and increasingly poweful India offers, in partnership with their Hindu compatriots.

The Congress party leaders of the Freedom Movement days were not stupid about this--they had solid historical instincts about this problem. I think they took a chance on the proposition that it is possible to craft a new pluralistic partnership. It takes work and it takes a very long time to come to fruition.

We are in the 'middle game' as it were, with lots of maneuvring and position play. It is in Pakistan's interest to force us prematurely into the 'end game' or showdown. And it is in our interest to keep pushing Pakistan back, while strengthening and stabilizing our position to the point that would lead, among other things, Muslims to see that the superiority of the Indian model is a no-brainer, and they have a solid stake in its survival and dominance. That may never happen (which is Pakistan's game), but for us to play India's game, we have to believe in that goal.

The day we have started to accept Pakistan's two-nation theory, we would have conceded the game, and we can look forward to a collection of fragmented dhimmi-states in place of a soverign India.

Equating war with Pakistan with war on Islam or by implication Indian Muslims is the ultimate anti-Indian psyops.


KV Rao, we have played the war against Pak is not equal to war with Islam bit for ages, but frankly- many Islamic countries themselves dont buy it. Its simple we are a non Muslim country and hence Pak always ranks higher than us. Our diplomacy and all sorts of maneouvering has helped us mitigate their hostility to quite some extent, but it still exists.

We have negotiated from a position of weakness, historically, and hence its been contingent upon us to make the most of our relatively weak position and manage as best we can. The Congress Party Leaders- well, without distracting this thread further- let me just say they were as human as the rest of us, and made some good decisions, and some terrifically bad ones, the former of which helped us, the latter of which we are still being affected by. Note I am not referring to the incorporation of IMs in the Indian Union, but the way in which Nehru et al saw the development of India.

My point is that India has to do what is in its interests, period. It owes no gratitude or love to the Islamic world, because of the # of Muslims it has, or for that matter some overly sensitive tip toeing about anything Islamic because it will offend them.

It is the kind of attitude which insists that non Muslims, including Indians have to be scrupulously sensitive about anything Islamic because we must and we are far and above all, in terms of integration and being nicey-nicey. The post independence attitude and worldview has been strongly shaped by Messrs Gandhi & co in the Congress. A lot of which I agree with, and a lot of which, after having given it some thought over the past few years- I disagree with.

You make the point that the day we accept Paks two nation theory we will be fragmented etc- I daresay not. India can and is stronger than that. This is a big bogey that has been used to drum us all in line. The two nation theory came about because of the inability of political Islam to coexist as a peer, not superior to non Muslims- that is a problem which India & many other nations are still facing today, its something which we have to address via dialogue. This is a tendency which springs up from the religion itself- it cannot have anyone else "usurp" its authority and allow integration- which are basically what a secular state does. So this conflict is bound to endure unless the state involves itself in "changing" the direction of locally practised Islam. Its not just Islam which has behaved this way- there have been several religious political movements which have acted similarly, but Islam is unique in that it has so many "safeguards" built into it that ensure that its authority is not challenged by any secular state or otherwise. But its not relevant to this thread, so I'll stop.
Last edited by JCage on 02 Nov 2006 02:53, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Nov 2006 02:47

shiv wrote:The reason why Islamism works is exactly because of what people have said on this page:

Islam has a reputation of hitting back or threatening to hit back. That reputation has sunk in deep enough into the psyche of people that the overall reaction of most people on this forum is that the act of nuking Mecca will inflame global Islamic passion.

On the other hand, the idea of nuking Tirupati is not looked at as an event that will invite Hindu wrath. A roundabout argument is brought up to say how nuking Tirupati would be of no use (presumably to a militarily clever opponent) because nuking Tirupati would leave the armed forces unscathed.

If Tirupati were nuked, corporate India would beg the government and say that a war would stop investments and that corporate India would build another Tirupati bigger than the original. To echo Vijay J, we call the government weak. But it is we who are weak and we help make the government weak by offering the government only weak support for strong action and powerful support for weak action. Guess who asked for no war in 2002? Guess who gets blamed for weak knees in 2006? Guess who asked for making a deal with terrorists in the 1999 hijacking? Guess who is being accused of weakness in 2006? The government that does what the voters ask for is playing it safe and is no more cowardly that the voters. The bold government that takes risks and does not do what the voters beg for (and starts a war) had better ensure victory in a war. We don''t want war. We want victory, that is all. War is the problem. But hey who doesn't want that?

Our statements here show that nodody here is saying "I will nuke the sh1t out of any fukker who dares to nuke Tirupati or any place held sacred by me"

We don't have the balls to say that - but we are adept at recogniszingthe fact that islam has balls- such is it's reputation among us.

Hindus are weak by nature - but those of us, as individuals who feel bold do not want to admit that we live in a nation of peacable cowards. Nothing wrong in that - but if we are clever - we will recognise this fact and factor that into our calculations.


Well said!

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

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Nov 2006 02:50

JCage wrote:My entire point is that this entire: "our culture does not allow us to target holy sites of other religions (sic.)" is nothing to be proud of or pat ourselves on the back about.


I'll agree with you there, but make a small correction.

The culture of "Ayam Nijo Paroveti Gananam Laghuchetasam Udara Charitanam Tu Vasudha Eva Kutumabakum" is definitely something to be proud of at the back of your mind, but not necessarily good to advertise it to the barbarians of lower intellect.

Mecca is indeed the heart and soul of their "born again" ethos. It would impact them, if we were indeed serious about carrying out such a threat, which realistically speaking we cant.


It is not a question of whether it will impact them ( of course it will ), but rather a question of what will impact them the most.

The idea of a punitive response is to extract a jaw for a tooth, rather than an eye for an eye.

Nuking Mecca for Tirupati may be eye for an eye, and even affect their soul and their afterlife.

But laying waste to the nerve centers of Pakjabi-stan economically, militarily and geographically affects them a whole lot more in this life.

The most punitive response must be credibly advertised as a complete and utter decapitation of Pakistan as a viable entity.

That would do the trick. Not a threat to the Baitul-Ma'mur in Mecca.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 02:50

Vijay J. wrote:
If we say that the US has no credibility, which we can say then we have to treat every attempt they make to say something as a form of subterfuge. We have to treat every communication from them as an attempt at subversion. We have to assume that they are leading us on each time around and their only intention is to cause us grief. Their actions are narrowly defined by their self interest and ultimately in bilateral ties, the only way their can get a rise out of us is by running us down.


Vijay J.,

Ding! This is exactly how India has to view the US --- of course, anyone who pays attention to US behavior to other third parties will come to the above conclusion. Why do you think Putin threw out all the Georgia subversives from Russia last month? Who do you think was paying the Georgians to undermine Russia from within, while pretending to "build bridges" with Russia AND working on getting Gazprom contracts for US companies? The US's behavior is very obvious, and I am just staggered that it has taken so long for us to figure this out.

Why do you think Mulford is openly saying that the deal fell through because India did not put FBRs on the civilian list? We know that doing such a thing would basically amount to capping our strategic program, and yet Mulford thinks we are all fools when he and his colleagues lie to us that "the deal is not aimed at India's strategic program". Do we need anymore proof that we are dealing with a bunch of consummate liars?

Why do you think the US State dept. is so "worried" about Dalit welfare in India? Do you really think they have any good intentions? I mean, these are the same people handing out weapons to Pakistan and we are supposed to believe that they care for the welfare of a specific subset of Indians who happen to be vulnerable?

BTW, we are straying from the Topic and should probably move this to the Indian Nuclear thread.
Last edited by Rye on 02 Nov 2006 03:03, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Nov 2006 02:54

JCage wrote:The two nation theory came about because of the inability of political Islam to coexist as a peer, not superior to non Muslims-


I most vehemently disagree.

The Two Nation Theory has its own unique set of reasons,- some fact, some perception, some fiction.

But it is definitely off the topic, and no point straying into that controversial matter here.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Postby hnair » 02 Nov 2006 03:15

I do not know why nuking Tirupati is causing so much debate - Tirupati is a part of our land and is as valuable and sacred to us as any other square inch of India including POK. Gen Padmanabhan, during Operation Parakram days talked about how any usage of nukes against any Indian soldier anywhere will be construed as a nuke attack against India and invite massive retaliation.

So why do we think that wont be the case with Tirupathi? Why create new seemingly valuable targets?

Plus Mecca would not be in the thoughts of any surviving islamist struggling to standup without slipping, on a smooth and glassy Muridke. Israel has a reason for targeting them - they are big population centers of an enemy. If we really want to waste nukes for flattening religious places, we are better off targeting Faisal mosque or better still the ugly mug of Mao in Tiannenmen square. Anyway, the only advantage with targeting Mecca is that the true believers no longer would have to die when "stoning the devil".

Shiv's point about the assumption of assured retaliation from Islamists for anything construed as an affront to islam is more interesting. There are no true non-violent ways to address it. And most of them is based on myths carefully created. One day or the other, we have to cross the LoC to lay those myths to rest or create new ones. The downed Atlantique was in the right direction, but then we just walked away.

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

Postby Rye » 02 Nov 2006 03:28

Valkan S. wrote:
I will just give you a few small examples, and let you decide on the merits of it.


Only we seem to be talking about how "the threshold is being lowered"....the pak jurnails maybe giving a lot of hot air out of the box on Kashmir, BUT they are also creating a new front in Bangladesh, Nepal, the North East, and in Sri Lanka. How is the Indian government deterring pakistan at all from behaving in such a manner just because it possesses nuclear weapons?

How many other countries with credible deterrents get screwed around by much weaker neighbours, like we are by Pakistan and Bangladesh? How come these countries have managed to scare the pants off their adversaries in their neighbourhood? How come the resolve of these countries to use their deterrent is not questioned by their neighbours, whereas the Pakis and the Chinese don't really give a damn that India has nukes when they openly create trouble in India and mock our resolve openly? How come we have not created fear and uncertainty in their minds?

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

Postby asharma » 02 Nov 2006 03:50

At least to me, the idea that we are lowering the threshhold with Pubistan is laughable.... all their actions would suggest that they (and the Chinese) are crossing every previously perceived red line-

1. Attack on Parliament
2. Threatening Bangalore (and by implication the IT industry)
3. Opening 3rd fronts via BD
4. Subversion of Nepal
5. Controlling ports in Lanka

Sorry, someone forgot to tell the Pandas and Pubes that India is lowering the threshhold........... :D

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

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Nov 2006 04:03

Rye wrote:BUT they are also creating a new front in Bangladesh and in Sri Lanka. How is the Indian government deterring pakistan at all from behaving in such a manner just because it possesses nuclear weapons?

How many other countries with credible deterrents get screwed around by much weaker neighbours, like we are by Pakistan and Bangladesh?


First of all, how many NWS nations in the world have nuclear armed neighbours that are smaller than them in more ways than one, but adversarial and prickly nonetheless ?

None.

Pakistan is a unique entity in this class.

Now, let's look at the situation with this context in mind.

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".

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.

Don't forget that the capability AND the will to employ it exists.

It was demonstrated in Karachi in the 80s when the Khalistani tap was turned on.

The question of Bangladesh is rather different.

India's kid-glove response to Bangladesh is partly in an attempt to keep Bangladeshis from becoming a fully pro-Pakistan state ( unfortunately, that is precisely what it is becoming thanks to Salafi money and preachers ) or a Chinese satellite state.

Teaching Bangladesh a lesson would be very easy. But what are the repurcussions of it ? A complete undoing of the strategic gain from 1971.

That's something to ponder.

The only issue at hand is the fact that economic migration ( where else can they go ? Even Mexicans do the same with US. ) is offset by the problem of an Islamist threat from migrants.

This needs a creative solution, and I am not certain it can be done easily and quickly without jeopardising other pressing Indian interests like an alternate land access point to the Seven Sisters ( other than the Chicken Neck Siliguri corridor ).

How come these countries have managed to scare the crap out of their adversaries in their neighbourhood?


There are no adversaries in their neighbourhood.

That's the advantage they have.

How come the resolve of these countries to use their deterrent is not questioned by their adversaries, but the Pakis and the Chinese don't really give a cr@p that India has nukes? How come we have not created fear and uncertainty in their minds?


I think you are oversimplifying it.

The resolve of these countries to use their deterrent is not questioned because of the specific nature of the threats they face, and the specific tailor-made guaranteed response that they can deliver.

The threat - until now - is a nuke delivered by a plane or missile. Period.

The response is well known,- nukes delivered by a survivable triad.

The game is well rehearsed.

Now, let's change the scenario just a little bit.

What would be their response if briefcase bombs - made with stolen nuclear material surfaced out of nowhere and exploded in London, Paris, Moscow or Washington DC ?

Which countries would they nuke ?

What happens to their deterrence ? What happens to their "scare the crap out" posture ?

I hope you see the picture.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Nov 2006 04:04

JCage wrote:The two nation theory came about because of the inability of political Islam to coexist as a peer, not superior to non Muslims-


JCage: I agree with you but as Valkan noted OT.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1534
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 02 Nov 2006 04:08

Rye wrote:How many other countries with credible deterrents get screwed around by much weaker neighbours, like we are by Pakistan and Bangladesh? How come these countries have managed to scare the pants off their adversaries in their neighbourhood? How come the resolve of these countries to use their deterrent is not questioned by their neighbours, whereas the Pakis and the Chinese don't really give a damn that India has nukes when they openly create trouble in India and mock our resolve openly? How come we have not created fear and uncertainty in their minds?


Because:

1. Indian leaders are afraid of retialiation.

2. Indian leaders are afraid of personally being targeted inspite of cowering behind Z+ layers of security.

3. Because all said and done India is a porous state with a level of routine corruption which makes it currently IMO impossible to as a matter of routine procedure to intercept plots inluding those for the ingress in of JDAMs. For a short period during a heightened state of altertness this may not apply but what India is in, is a long term battle of attrition which requires a high degree of alertness over a prolonged period of time measured in years and decades.

4. The current political infrastructure is IMO hardpressed to transform India into a hard state which will be willing to play hardball in the gray area between total declared war and peace i.e. in the world of plausible deniability, of JDAM threats and the hard knuckle realm associated with it, the suppleness needed for seamless cooperation between incountry law enforcement, home intelligence, ability to carry out third country strikes and retaliations.

5. Because all of India's responses have been in the realm of open war or a threat to declare open war i.e. Parakram, Kargil, Bangladesh, 1965 etc. and India's credibility is established there. So the enemy has shifted gears to the opaque and grey areas of clandestine warfare and unfortunately India has not yet been able to find an effective answer there whether it be Nepal, BD, the internal Maoist threat, things such as the Mumbai blasta or the effort to bring about heightened dissatisfaction among IMs.

6. The danger is that a non response in this grey area will invite a JDAM on India. Shifting to a FS policy is not going to solve this particular weakness.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Nov 2006 04:34

To what degree does NFU provide a cover for operations such as cold start and salami slices?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Postby hnair » 02 Nov 2006 04:38

ldev wrote:
1. Indian leaders are afraid of retialiation.

2. Indian leaders are afraid of personally being targeted inspite of cowering behind Z+ layers of security.



ALL leaders the world over are scared of retaliation and personal well-being, ever since professional military generals took over the task of personally eye-balling the bad guys. Why else did Dick Cheney scamper to his bat cave after the militarily puny 9/11 attacks? And Mush for all his claims, loves his sorry ass so much that he does GUBO and U-turns with just a phone call and the sound of Indian Army boots at the border.

While I am not in agreement with the Indian leadership's lack of new ideas to get over the alleged military equivalent of the Sharjah factor, I think bringing in these two points would not be effective to explain that.

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

Postby akutcher » 02 Nov 2006 04:57

How many other countries with credible deterrents get screwed around by much weaker neighbours, like we are by Pakistan and Bangladesh? How come these countries have managed to scare the pants off their adversaries in their neighbourhood? How come the resolve of these countries to use their deterrent is not questioned by their neighbours, whereas the Pakis and the Chinese don't really give a damn that India has nukes when they openly create trouble in India and mock our resolve openly? How come we have not created fear and uncertainty in their minds?


I think this provides us the "other side's persecpective" vis-a-vis pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k96YoVPoPSo

What we got here is three guys who have not only seen the face of Islamic fundamentalism but have been a part of the terror machine, and they somehow managed to see the logic in the western world. Anyways they talk about the process of islamic indoctrination, one of them says "We (US in this case) do need to be agressive, that is the only way. The mentality of the culture we are discussing here only understand retalition. In other words if they know there will be ramifications for their actions then there will be much less (terrorist) activties".

Lkawamoto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 09:56
Location: zz_ota-ku

Postby Lkawamoto » 02 Nov 2006 05:03

no first use is a wrong policy. if you have nuclear weapons, and declare that you won't use it unless someone else attacks you with nuclear weapons that is 1/2 the battle lost.

this is why pakistan is emboldened to carry out the terrorist activity as indian nuclear threat has simply vanished

as long time observer of forum discussions, i wonder why such policies were put in place (it only makes situation worse) similarly the quota system

i believe india is the only country with such wide-spread state-sponsored discrimination using the quota system.

either the indian politicians do these things for political gains and / or there is a lack of understanding of the real problem.

even though japan is the only country to be attacked by nuclear weapons, the japan right wing will eventually prevail in getting the JDF acquire nuclear weapons and there shall not be such policy of no-first-use

or such policy will be left as "wabi-sabi" (deliberately ambiguous), please do not confuse it with "wasabi" 8)

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

Postby shiv » 02 Nov 2006 06:29

S.Valkan wrote:That's the basic difference between a "rational" response and an "armageddon jihadi" response.

It would be rational to clearly state that India would 'nuke the sh1t out of any fukker' if they dared to nuke Bangalore, Mumbai, or Delhi.

After all, those places represent the technological, economic and political hubs of India.

Not Tirupati, Somnath, Kashi Visvanath or Kamakshya Kamarupa.

Tirupati and the likes may have a special place of significance in the hearts and minds of many Hindus, and nuking it may bring a sense of grief, and perhaps a psychological scar or two.

But it doesn't threaten to bring the Indian state, or the Indian nation, to its knees.


With respect Valkan I would like to point out that there is another way of looking at this.

What is the "heart" of Indian identity? There is no clear answer to that question. Bangalore would certainly be a big part of that heart to say Narayanmurthy ,of Infosys, but India's "heart" may be its sacred places to a devout Hindu.

You may be thinking too "modern" (maybe I should say "modren") and not basic enough in giving different values to economic targets and lesser values to culrutal-religious targets. But their value lies in the fact that they form part of the Indian identity and Islamism chooses to hit at the identity of rival religions/cultures.

Specifically in the case of Islamism and islamists it is important to threaten do a tit-for tat hitting back at their cultuiral icons. Islamist culture has only a few holy places (a few idols that attract worshippers) and it is well within the realm of possibility to take them all out with 15-20 nukes. OTOH the cultural heart of india lies in every stream, tree and stone. If any one of them is touched by an Islamist trying to touch the cultural heart of India expect Islamic cultural icons to be decimated in return.

Screw Bangalore. Screw Mumbai. Screw Delhi.

The response to a religious-cultural attack should NOT be - "hey they are not touching our economy - so it's OK." The West is welcome to do that. Hit back not where it hurts most. Hit back to kill, and wipe the snot forever and never stop hitting till the snot is wiped perfectly clean.

Our nuclear response should have this - written or unwritten does not matter - but it should be stated.

i
Last edited by shiv on 02 Nov 2006 06:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

Nuking Mecca

Postby G Subramaniam » 02 Nov 2006 06:34

A few years ago, I was on another forum under an assumed name
I had a discussion with a Paki
His logic was that even if Pakistan is destroyed , it is worth it since all hindus would be killed and there are several other muslim countries

When I told him that Mecca and Medina would be nuked, he had a panicked response

Pakistan is islam and islam is Pakistan
and yes a CREDIBLE threat to destroy Mecca and Medina will deter Pakistan or better, force its Saudi masters to reign in Pakistan

To make a CREDIBLE threat, hindu society needs a lot of restructuring, which I dont want to discuss in this forum

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

Postby Johann » 02 Nov 2006 06:45

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?

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

Postby shiv » 02 Nov 2006 06:47

Note that the overall thrust of Islamists against the West is economic targets. The Mecca of the west is its economy. Islamism has basic rules that looks within and says "This is me, this is what I value".

It then looks at others and says "This is them - and that is what they value"

Islamism then thits at that which other value. Its function, its raisin dieter is to bring down rival cultures by hitting them repeatedly.

One response to this would be to make a threat to hit back at them as I have detailed above.

Imagine a scenario where a rival breakaway violent Hindu faction were in a position to "take control" of Indian nuclear arms. What woudl other nations see that as? At least some would be worried at the thought - just as we talk about jihadis taking over nukes.

In fact even when the toothless BJP was in government the entire world media, and half of India were worried that "Hindu fundamentalists" had taken over.

"Fundamentalism" or an appeance of fundamentalism, or the posibility of irrationality has its uses - if applied cleverly. We claim that we have a lot of clever people don't we?

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

Postby shiv » 02 Nov 2006 06:55

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?


What is the relationship between fundamentalist Muslims and all other Muslims?

Let state it plainly. I may love my Muslim brothers but unless they help me thwart an attack on my culture and my identity from Muslim fundamentalists I will be forced to fight that myself and anyone who is not with me is against me and any target is OK for me after that.

It is only when we take a wishy-washy uncertain attitude about who or what is going to be taken out in war that weaknesses and rifts appear.

Rationalty can go only so far in a fight against forces that threaten to use irrationality at every step. Recall for example that Pakistani generals do not believe a word of India NFU pledge. They are sure that India will use a nuke first and blame it on Pakistan. They are sure that India may use a nuke on one of its own towns or in the derest andblame that on Pakistan and use it to hit Pak with nuke.

Good. India should keep that as an option. Nuke some sand dunes. Film that. Publicise that. Blame it in Pakista and nuke Pakistan.

NFU zindabad.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest