First Use of Nuclear Weapons

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

Postby B Singh » 03 Nov 2006 02:03

akutcher wrote:
B Singh wrote:
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.


For one, we buy the denial each time a mass murder of Indians is carried out by Pukislamist (for BRF) operatives in India and India does not respond militarily.

I can easily envisage India being asked to not jump to conclusions and cause untold death and destruction to Pakistan, and some of our leadership buying into that bullshit for some sop.

As to proof about the origin of the bomb, the world knows that many old Russian nukes are loose and now lil Kim is willing to sell nukes for a good price - what makes you think that blame will not be placed on evil terrorists buying weapons on the black market ? And it even might be so, with Pakistan merely providing the cash for the purchase and manpower for the attack. If any country knows anything about how to beat international nuclear arms / technology black market, it is Pakistan. If it is a suicide attack, we all know there will be no evidence left behind to implicate anyone.

No, I think that a combination of the extremely weak position of India in the geopolitics, the usual spinelessness of our leadership, a general hostility towards India in the international jholawala crowd, and fundamental plausible deniability could easily make this the ideal way to commit genocide against India. That this has not already happened might have more to do with logistics than anything else.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 02:09

B Singh wrote:what makes you think that blame will not be placed on evil terrorists buying weapons on the black market ? And it even might be so, with Pakistan merely providing the cash for the purchase and manpower for the attack.


Exactly the same would hold true when a similar "terrorist nuke" explodes in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Jhang, Muridke, Islamabad [and - hopefully - Guangzhou, Shenzen and Shanghai as well].

After all, Pakistan claims to be a victim of Islamic terrorism, and India accepts it! :)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 03 Nov 2006 02:10

Rye wrote: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.


How do you propose to do . Get in Nuke war with everyone and say Ram Naam Sat hai for the whole world.

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

Postby B Singh » 03 Nov 2006 02:15

S.Valkan wrote:
B Singh wrote:what makes you think that blame will not be placed on evil terrorists buying weapons on the black market ? And it even might be so, with Pakistan merely providing the cash for the purchase and manpower for the attack.


Exactly the same would hold true when a similar "terrorist nuke" explodes in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Jhang, Muridke, Islamabad [and - hopefully - Guangzhou, Shenzen and Shanghai as well].

After all, Pakistan claims to be a victim of Islamic terrorism, and India accepts it! :)


Your knowledge of India's contacts in the nuclear blackmarket and shadowy mass murdering groups on the fringes of Pakistani society exceeds mine, so I will let that pass :)

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

Postby Abhijit » 03 Nov 2006 02:20

Valkan:
Exactly the same would hold true when a similar "terrorist nuke" explodes in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Jhang, Muridke, Islamabad [and - hopefully - Guangzhou, Shenzen and Shanghai as well].


Are you suggesting that in reponse to a JDAM attack, India will/should retaliate in a furtive manner? using a bullock cart for delivery mechanism? :roll:

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 03 Nov 2006 02:24

At what stage (economic and politcial)India can get away with pre-emptive Nuke strike on land of Bakis, assuming Pukes stupidity will provide the excuse.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 02:26

B Singh wrote:Your knowledge of India's contacts in the nuclear blackmarket and shadowy mass murdering groups on the fringes of Pakistani society exceeds mine


It may not have been that obvious, but the question is one of deniability.

If the logic that nukes came from North Korean sales and loose Russian ones is bought for an explosion in India, it can surely be bought for a similar explosion in Pakistan.

Surely, the MUNNA is a victim of terrorism, as per the mass media ?

Why can't they have been at the receiving end of a loose Russian nuke used by Osama types ?

In any event, who says "fringe mass murder groups" would be used, and not planted "assets" like Sarabjit ?

BTW, you think AQ Khan is the sole genius in this world with contacts in a nuclear blackmarket spanning Europe to Australia ? :lol:

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 02:27

Valkan S. wrote:
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 ).


Nonsense. NFU does not deter a nuclear strike, as much as you would like to pretend it does. This is well understood, so don't start making up stuff.

And isn't it rather convenient to pretend that WMDs that cannot deter the enemy from attacking you with conventional weapons, will somehow deter him from attack you with nukes? How do we know that the enemy has been "deterred" as opposed to "just waiting until the time is right"? Can you tell the difference? how?


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


Err..um...maybe it is just my faulty logic engine, but common sense would dictate that if a WMD cannot deter "mild damage to socio-economic infrastructure", then it cannot deter "serious damage to socio-economic infrastruture"....or does one have to be a Vulcan to figure this one out?


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


Ah, right. As my buddy in college said:

There are only 5 uses for nuclear energy because that is all that is in the syllabus. Don't confuse me with reality.


So what if it is not covered under the "normal deterrence" paradigm but only in the "Extended gonzo edition deterrence" paradigm? Reality is still the same, is it not? Or are we going to pretend that if a textbook claims that under a certain model (that was authored by people based on a different reality), proxy warfare cannot be dealt with, then we are all supposed to ignore proxy warfare just so we can neatly fit reality into the textbook model?


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


We all have seen, and continue to see, the response of the Indian govt. to an ever-detriorating internal and external security environment. I double dare you to prove to people here that the events, as reported in the aftermath of 7/11 upto the present time, do not present a "forgiving image of India". Maybe the Indian govt. is extremely furious deep inside, but that is not being reported in the newspapers last I saw.

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


Really, why don't you spell out what these quid-pro-quos were for the last 10 terror attacks in India. And no "cancelling secreatary level talks" does not count.

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


There is a logical reason for giving a kick in the groin, so cut the nonsense about this being some sort of emotional demands from "hyper nationalists".
If you cannot give a rebuttal that is fine, just don't pull stuff out of your hat.

So tell me, what are these "results" you talk about? Is the mumbai train bombing the "result" of some earlier "quid pro quo"? Let us see what
Pakistan has gotten after bombing mumbai: intel sharing, plausible deniability for conducting terrorist ops in India, the recent shipping agreement, to name just a few. Why don't you spell out what pakistan gave up for all of this?

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.


Err...in case you have not been paying attention, Pakistan's options have increased all around India. How does this amount to "limiting Pakistan's options"? Or are we going to pretend that the Indo-pak border is all of pakistan's options?

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


Yes, yes, denial is only a river in Egypt.



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".


Sounds like a wonderful paradigm, as long as one's arse is not hanging from the lamppost after a terrorist attack. No, I don't crave for a showdown or a bakeoff with Pakistan, but if we supposedly have a "credible deterrent", it better deter attacks on India that seem to happen on a monthly basis.
Last edited by Rye on 03 Nov 2006 02:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 02:27

Abhijit wrote:Are you suggesting that in reponse to a JDAM attack, India will/should retaliate in a furtive manner?


It achieves exactly the same results without the unnecessary diplomatic fallout, doesn't it ?

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 02:33

Prem wrote:
How do you propose to do . Get in Nuke war with everyone and say Ram Naam Sat hai for the whole world.


I did not say I knew the answer. I am just pointing out that if a third entity is responsible for providing material support to Pakistan, and I mean nuclear material and technology, not "diplomatic and moral support", then they cannot be allowed to get away with it.
Last edited by Rye on 03 Nov 2006 02:48, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby B Singh » 03 Nov 2006 02:42

Rye wrote:Prem wrote:
How do you propose to do . Get in Nuke war with everyone and say Ram Naam Sat hai for the whole world.


I did not say I knew the answer. I am just pointing out that if a third entity is responsible for providing material support to Pakistan, and I mean nuclear material, not "diplomatic and moral support", then they cannot be allowed to get away with it.


I am also certain that in the minds of our security establishment, we are not allowing Pakistanis to "get away" with Mumbai.

Talk is cheap.

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

Postby B Singh » 03 Nov 2006 02:44

S.Valkan wrote:
B Singh wrote:Your knowledge of India's contacts in the nuclear blackmarket and shadowy mass murdering groups on the fringes of Pakistani society exceeds mine


It may not have been that obvious, but the question is one of deniability.

If the logic that nukes came from North Korean sales and loose Russian ones is bought for an explosion in India, it can surely be bought for a similar explosion in Pakistan.

Surely, the MUNNA is a victim of terrorism, as per the mass media ?

Why can't they have been at the receiving end of a loose Russian nuke used by Osama types ?

In any event, who says "fringe mass murder groups" would be used, and not planted "assets" like Sarabjit ?

BTW, you think AQ Khan is the sole genius in this world with contacts in a nuclear blackmarket spanning Europe to Australia ? :lol:


Except that the Osama types won't do mass murder in a country that supports them 9 to 1 as far as popular support goes.

Deniability decays with each retaliation cycle.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 03 Nov 2006 02:48

Rye wrote:Prem wrote:
How do you propose to do . Get in Nuke war with everyone and say Ram Naam Sat hai for the whole world.


I did not say I knew the answer. I am just pointing out that if a third entity is responsible for providing material support to Pakistan, and I mean nuclear material, not "diplomatic and moral support", then they cannot be allowed to get away with it.


This does narrow down the targets from Casablanca to Qiqihar within 4k mile range.

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 02:51

Prem wrote:
This does narrow down the targets from Casablanca to Qiqihar within 4k mile range.


Has to be one of the P-5, no? The rest of them do not have nuclear programs to give designs to others. I am not advocating taking on the P-5. Just saying that the set of culprits is narrower than you would think.
Last edited by Rye on 03 Nov 2006 02:55, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 02:55

Rye wrote:Nonsense. NFU does not deter a nuclear strike, as much as you would like to pretend it does. This is well understood, so don't start making up stuff.


I am not sure what suddenly made you feisty enough to write such a long angry post, but I'll try and respond to some important points.

The uncontested fact is that an NFU is a statement of implied threat to respond in kind to a nuclear attack.

If that doesn't deter a nuclear attack, pray can you explain what does ?

common sense would dictate that if a WMD cannot deter "mild damage to socio-economic infrastructure", then it cannot deter "serious damage to socio-economic infrastruture"


This is precisely where "red lines" and "escalation rungs" come into the picture.

It is not a black and white issue.

Would you nuke Pakistan, if an IAF plane was shot down like the Atlantique across the LOC ?

Where is your red line ?

It has to be an 'unacceptable' damage to your infrastructure.

There's a wide latitude where conventional response happens to 'small' damages.

Same holds for terrorist attacks aka "bleeding".

Nukes are there for the 'big ticket' deterrrence, not to sweat the 'small' stuff.

Reality is still the same, is it not? Or are we going to pretend that if ... proxy warfare cannot be dealt with, then we are all supposed to ignore proxy warfare


I am not sure why you are drifting on a banana boat here.

Nobody suggested that you ignore proxy warfare.

What you do is to respond appropriately.

The steps have been outlined in the last post.

why don't you spell out what these quid-pro-quos were for the last 10 terror attacks in India. And no "cancelling secreatary level talks does not count".


You missed the operative words "upped the ante".

Kargil upped the ante. There was a quid pro quo.

Parliament attack upped the ante. There was a quid pro quo.

The rest - and I humbly request you to fight back your emotions and consider it rather objectively - didn't.

You have to differentiate between what the GoI has come to accept as 'tolerable' under the managed conflict doctrine, and what is not.

Your personal level of tolerance may be different than what is under statecraft.

Why don't you spell out what pakistan gave up for all of this?


I'll only suggest you take a closer look at Balochistan, Karachi and a few other places.

No, I don't crave for a showdown or a bakeoff with Pakistan, but if we supposedly have a "credible deterrent", it better deter attacks on India that seem to happen on a monthly basis.


Excuse me for being a little jocund here.

Suppose you have Neosporin at home to respond to dangerous bacterial infection.

Do you suggest that it better deter common cold as well ?

If you seek the level of psychological deterrence of "lay off, or you are toast", you need non-porous borders, complete conventional superiority over Pakistan AND China combined, and a complete missile shield.

Until then, be prepared to face subconventional warfare.

The US does too. And it has a Full Spectrum Dominance over every single nation on earth.

There is simply no magic pill.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 03:00

B Singh wrote:Except that the Osama types won't do mass murder in a country that supports them 9 to 1 as far as popular support goes.


But the nuke would be exploding near the GHQ and other Paki establishments that are taking on the 'Osama types', arresting their brethren, and killing innocent women, children and infants in Bajaur and North Waziristan.

Surely that's acceptable.

Deniability decays with each retaliation cycle.


Only if it is perceived as a retaliation, and not simply a distributed retribution by the terrorists against the two 'victims'.

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

Postby B Singh » 03 Nov 2006 03:09

S.Valkan wrote:
B Singh wrote:Except that the Osama types won't do mass murder in a country that supports them 9 to 1 as far as popular support goes.


But the nuke would be exploding near the GHQ and other Paki establishments that are taking on the 'Osama types', arresting their brethren, and killing innocent women, children and infants in Bajaur and North Waziristan.

Surely that's acceptable.




The destruction radius of even tactical nukes is enough to destroy nearby population centers - no one is going to buy that Osama types did that, so close on heels of a JDAM in India.

Deniability decays with each retaliation cycle.


Only if it is perceived as a retaliation, and not simply a distributed retribution by the terrorists against the two 'victims'.


Few people in the West see Pakistan as a victim of terrorism. None of the smart ones do. Smart ones generally are close enough to the levers of power to make themselves heard.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 03:16

B Singh wrote:The destruction radius of even tactical nukes is enough to destroy nearby population centers - no one is going to buy that Osama types did that, so close on heels of a JDAM in India.


Nobody would buy that Osama types had the expertise to assemble a nuke on their own, carry it to India, and explode it there either.

If the terrorists can do that in India, they surely can do so in Pakistan.

Few people in the West see Pakistan as a victim of terrorism. None of the smart ones do.


Plausible Deniability is not meant to hoodwink the smart ones.

It is to obfuscate the issue for the common man on the street.

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 03:16

Valkan S. wrote:
I am not sure what suddenly made you feisty enough to write such a long angry post, but I'll try and respond to some important points.


Urm. I am not angry at all, and I appreciate your responses. It does grate me when reasoning is ignored by labeling it as "emotional". That is no rebuttal.

The uncontested fact is that an NFU is a statement of implied threat to respond in kind to a nuclear attack.

If that doesn't deter a nuclear attack, pray can you explain what does ?


I sense a logical knot here:

1) If there is a nuclear attack on India, then it implies that India's NFU deterrence doctrine has failed
2) NFU threatens a nuclear response to a nuclear attack
3) NFU deters a nuclear attack.

Q.E.D: NFU works.

So, basically, the proof of the NFU doctrine's success is its failure to deter an attack?


Reality is still the same, is it not? Or are we going to pretend that if ... proxy warfare cannot be dealt with, then we are all supposed to ignore proxy warfare

I am not sure why you are drifting on a banana boat here.
Nobody suggested that you ignore proxy warfare.

What you do is to respond appropriately.



I hear you when you say "respond appropriately" and I am willing to concede that the Indian govt. is responding appropriately.

You missed the operative words "upped the ante".

Kargil upped the ante. There was a quid pro quo.

Parliament attack upped the ante. There was a quid pro quo.

The rest - and I humbly request you to fight back your emotions and consider it rather objectively - didn't.


Okay, I will take what you say at face value, because I don't think I am helping with this line of argument. If you claim that the GoI has everything under control, great! I will stop now.

I'll only suggest you take a closer look at Balochistan, Karachi and a few other places.


If you claim that the GoI is doing all that, again I will take you face value and say "good going GOI".



If you seek the level of psychological deterrence of "lay off, or you are toast", you need non-porous borders, complete conventional superiority over Pakistan AND China combined, and a complete missile shield.

Until then, be prepared to face subconventional warfare.

The US does too. And it has a Full Spectrum Dominance over every single nation on earth.

There is simply no magic pill.


Okay. Agreed.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 03:30

Rye wrote:I sense a logical knot here:

1) If there is a nuclear attack on India, then it implies that India's NFU deterrence doctrine has failed
2) NFU threatens a nuclear response to a nuclear attack
3) NFU deters a nuclear attack.

So, basically, the proof of the NFU doctrine's success is its failure to deter an attack?


No.

NFU is simply a statement of intent from me.

Now, whether you are deterred by this statement of intent is upto you,- your faith in your ability, and a concurrent faith in the lack of mine.

It is supposed to deter by the implied threat of punitive retaliation ( and, hence, mutually assured destruction ).

There is no irrefutable proof, however, that ANY deterrence would work if you are either irrational or have no regards for your own well-being.

That's a case of a complete breakdown of deterrence and Darwinian "survival angst" paradigm.

NFU's 'success' is either its ability to deter aggression, or - failing that - its ability to punish the aggressor.

Would you knowingly take the chance of nuking me, given my intent to obliterate you in response ?

If the answer is "no", you know that this statement of intent ( NFU ) works as a deterrent.

JYang

Postby JYang » 03 Nov 2006 03:36

All this talk of nuking China is hollow bravado. You aren't even certain of GOI's response towards Pakistan in the advent of a JDAM. In any case, any JDAM's going off in Shanghai will be met with the 2nd artillery sending India back into the stone age, short trip as it is.

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 03:41

Valkan S. wrote:
Would you knowingly take the chance of nuking me, given my intent to obliterate you in response ?

If the answer is "no", you know that this statement of intent ( NFU ) works as a deterrent.


But the answer to the question is "yes", IMO, since everyone does stuff "knowingly" only based on their limited view of reality, and if different sides perceive reality differently, then one side can definitely "knowingly" (in the limited knowledge of that side) take the chance if there is a gap in perception of the intent of the other side.

We cannot call this action irrational, because it is certainly rational within the domain of limited knowledge and perception of the side that lobbed the first nuke. Let us not even throw in paki delusions into the mix for now.
Last edited by Rye on 03 Nov 2006 03:44, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 03:41

JYang wrote:In any case, any JDAM's going off in Shanghai will be met with the 2nd artillery sending India back into the stone age, short trip as it is.


One has to first prove that India was behind it, no ?

All indications would point to some disaffected Uighur trained by Al Qaeda to exact revenge on the Chinese kufr for the persecution in Xinjiang.

And just in case the PLA was nice enough to send India back to stone age, could the stone age in China be far behind ?

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 03:47

Rye wrote:But the answer to the question is "yes", IMO, since everyone does stuff "knowingly" only based on their view of reality


The seed of doubt has been planted by my statement of intent, coupled with the demonstration of my ability ( Smiling Buddha ).

Now, you are free to choose your own action based on your perception, inference, and testimony from authorities.

The question still remains,- would you willingly take that chance that your well-being and survival may be at risk ?

Probability and statistically verified Darwinian model suggests "no".

The rest is upto the individual quirks in your DNA.

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 03:50

Valkan S. wrote:

The question still remains,- would you willingly take that chance that your well-being and survival would be at risk ?


Typically, "no", unless your well-being and survival is already at significant risk from other factors. I will stop here. Thanks for the responses.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Thanks the Porkies

Postby Prem » 03 Nov 2006 04:01

JYang wrote:All this talk of nuking China is hollow bravado. You aren't even certain of GOI's response towards Pakistan in the advent of a JDAM. In any case, any JDAM's going off in Shanghai will be met with the 2nd artillery sending India back into the stone age, short trip as it is.


J YAng widen your horizon and imagine couple of dozens other places alongwith Shanghai.
To Parody an English poet,
If Nukes come , will the stone age for China be far behind?

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

Postby ShauryaT » 03 Nov 2006 04:42

Rye - I liked your responses on post 279411 :)

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

Postby Abhijit » 03 Nov 2006 04:46

Valkan is giving a new theory of JDAM deterence and it is certainly intriguing. I think I like the idea that if there is a jdam incident in India (let's take it one step at a time - start with a dirty jdam) that results in a large loss of life due to radiation and population density, it will be followed by (after a suitable gap) similar incidents in karachi and beijing. But this supposes the following:

- that GoI is super chankian and also super caliber and has done the following: Procurred external nuke material (at least for a dirty bomb or two) through clandestine means, slipped in this material in a ready to go or ready to assemble form inside chini and paki borders, has primary and back up teams that will be able to detonate (must be remote-controlled or some falun gong/tibetan dissident and some great grandson of bugti ready to do allah-ho-akbar) inside the enemy territory.
- it also supposes that plausible denaibility is readily available for these indian actions, especially since it will be considered far too great a coincidence
- that Indian janta will be ready to wait for suitable time (living on empty goi promises of stern and 'mooh-tod' jawaab) before lynching the goi itself for dereliction of duty.

Of the 3 above, I can only be optimistic (!) about the third one.

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

Postby ldev » 03 Nov 2006 05:41

Abhijit wrote:Valkan is giving a new theory of JDAM deterence and it is certainly intriguing. I think I like the idea that if there is a jdam incident in India (let's take it one step at a time - start with a dirty jdam) that results in a large loss of life due to radiation and population density, it will be followed by (after a suitable gap) similar incidents in karachi and beijing.


IMO, this is not a practical proposition:

It gives the initiative to the other side to initiate a JDAM at a time and place of their choosing. India then has to respond. Any state whether it be China or Pakistan which sponsors such an event will ensure that all of its forces including border and internal security are on a full state of alert expecting any and all kinds of Indian responses including a counter JDAM. Any Indian effort at inflitration then will have the odds stacked against it.

A proponent of this option might then say that India could preposition JDAMs in target countries. But this is a slippery slope to pursue. Because India is all too vulnerable in this respect. It is best that a counter JDAM option is not on the table at all.

From an Indian perspective Pakistan is like a North Korea i.e. unmanageable in terms of a dialogue. So the US has set up 6 party talks and is talking to North Korea through its primary sponsor, China.

Pakistan similarly has sponsors in China, KSA(and the larger Muslim world) and the US. The only workable option is for India to reach a level of economic and military strength such that India's *suggestions* that these sponsors either reign in Pakistan, or stop being sponsors, otherwise India will hold them responsible for any JDAM action of their protege, are taken seriously be these sponsors.

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

Postby Abhijit » 03 Nov 2006 06:18

yes ldev. this strategy essentially trivializes a JDAM as just another attack that will be responded 'in kind' instead of with overwhelming force. Also as you suggest, having a prebuilt JDAM capacity is a huge risk for India because the plausible deniability is much thinner and it doesn't fit into our philosophy. But I still like the romanticism in concocting a scenario whereby the Indian super sleuths have actually built a jdam mechanism and delivery service just in case. :twisted:
A JDAm, even if a small one with a dirty nuke that kills a few people should be taken as a redline and not trivialized as just another of those thousand cuts. But since we did not respond to anything so far...

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

Postby Vijay J » 03 Nov 2006 20:26

A recap of key views here. Please add to this list if you feel it is inadequate.

======

Like all human ideas, deterrence can break down.

A static ideas of stability are incompatible with reality. Stability is a moving target

There are no non-state actors, they are sponsorred by states with finite numbers of nuclear weapons.

Targetting Mecca will create a power vacuum in the Islamic world. New Medinas will emerge to take its place.

There is no shortage of bullock carts in South Asia.

Resolve is part of establishing credibility in the mind of the adversary.

Questions that seem to come up.

Q1: When does NFU cease to be an effective deterrent posture?

My answer, probably only partly correct, when we can no longer read Pakistan's intentions on the nuclear issue.

Q2: Can going to a First Use posture deter subconventional attacks?

My Answer, no it cannot. proxies will always offer deniability and loss of life in a terrorist attack does not legitimise a nuclear strike.

Q3: Is it sufficient to keep deterrence credibility limited to declared adversaries or should it be credible to others with whom one has no declared conflicts?

My Answer, deterrence has to be broadly credible, but deterrence can be recessed or graduated depending on the specific context in which it is being mentioned.

Q4: Does open discussion on deterrence help?

My Answer, only if it bolsters deterrence in a specific context. Uninformed comments by idiots do not help move things in the right direction.
Last edited by Vijay J on 11 Nov 2006 02:14, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2006 20:36

VijayJ couldnt you have come to this list without launching polemics on the members? Remember by being on the board they already have made a choice of being supportive of India that is Bharat. Its a matter of how far they are from the engine and not being on the track. So no more polemics. Thanks, ramana 8)
Last edited by ramana on 03 Nov 2006 21:13, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Rye » 03 Nov 2006 21:10

Vijay J. wrote:
Q3: Is it sufficient to keep deterrence credibility limited to declared adversaries or should it be credible to others with whom one has no declared conflicts?

My Answer, deterrence has to be broadly credible, but deterrence can be recessed or graduated depending on the specific context in which it is being mentioned.


If we move away from talk about the NFU policy as being only Pakistan-specific (as most of the posters seem to do on this thread), the it stands to reason that if India's policy is to be credible across the board (present and future adversaries with whom we have open conflicts), then the value of an acceptable minimum in "Minimum Credible Deterrent" must rise significantly, as opposed to talking about it only in a pak-specific context. It is also not enough to stand still after convincing pakistan, if there are others that need convincing. I will stop stating the obvious now.

BTW, Vijay J., your list is incomplete.

"Resolve is part of the....???"

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

Postby S.Valkan » 03 Nov 2006 22:17

Rye wrote:it stands to reason that if India's policy is to be credible across the board (present and future adversaries with whom we have open conflicts), then the value of an acceptable minimum in "Minimum Credible Deterrent" must rise significantly


Not really.

Although "minimum credible" is a fluid concept, the implication is one of maintaining a survivable and accurately deliverable nuclear capability that can provide an 'unacceptable' punitive retaliation.

If the CEP of missiles are within specified tolerance limits, the terminal guidance systems are flawless, and the yield of the warheads (SIRV or MIRV) are considered sufficient, the actual numbers need not be significantly high.

Credibility lies in the demonstrated ability to survive a tentative first strike attempt at nuclear decapitation, and then deliver an irrevocably punishing response.

What is needed at the earnest is, therefore, a series of flawless tests of Agni III ( and perhaps Surya ) , a demonstration of the capability to thwart boost-phase interception systems aimed at both road/rail-mobile and sea based assets, and the introduction of a significant number of fully-functional ATVs that are able to evade detection by PLAN and NATO hunter-killers, and then launch SLBMs and SLCMs while submerged.

That's sufficient to destroy every major military and economic assets and population centers of possible adversaries, or a combination thereof.

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

Postby Sadler » 03 Nov 2006 22:26

shiv wrote: 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


Could'nt have said it better.

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

Postby Sadler » 03 Nov 2006 22:36

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...


Precisely what i was trying to say when the discussion got side-tracked with visions of international jewish financial interests!

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

Postby akutcher » 03 Nov 2006 23:06

All of us have been discussing how GOI would respond but none of us have taken into account the reaction of Indian populace.

Does anyone remember the response when Kargil hit frontpages on our national newspapers? Do you remember how the patriotic feeling of the common man spiked to unprecedented level, and what was pakistan's response at the time? They were still saying that it was the 'freedom fighters' not them.

The moment a few hundred thousand Indians are incinerated, every single channel/paper/magazine will dedicate all its sources to this incident and more than 99% will carry a headline like 'Pakistan sponsored terrorist wage a nuclear war', forget about going into a 'CBI investigation' the second this news spreads among the Indian populace their will be a huge outcry, the scale of which will be impossible for any government to ignore. We all know that every political party in India wants to be in power, and MMS/Sonia know if they start dillydalying on this issue they can kiss the chances of Congress coming back into power goodbye. Not just this the whole UPA will explode, yes there are shitholes like Lalu holding big-ticket positions but when the existence of India as a state is under such an obvious threat every Indian will demand a retaliation and those few calling for restraint howsoever patriotic will be labelled as tyrants.

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

Postby Vijay J » 04 Nov 2006 00:14

Ramana,

Clown school taught me that if I don't wear my clown suit I might be mistaken for someone serious. If I don't wear my clown suit just right, I might be mistaken for a sloppy clown.

Rye,

I think I addressed the resolve part when I said deterrence has to be credible in the mind of the adversaries.

So example, for India's leadership to maintain the credibility in Pakistan with regards to its resolve to use nuclear weapons, all they have to do is demonstrate the willingness to take Pakistani life.

All deterrence related communications are for Pakistan's or our adversary's ears only. Unlike the Pakistani leadership which may pursue a graduated deterrence strategy involving a "nuclear demonstration" on its own territory, Indian leadership does not intend to use the bomb on Indians, so it doesn't matter if Indians themselves believe that their leaders are capable of using the bomb.

Pakistani leadership both in the Army and in the Jihadi groups knows full well that the Indian leadership will not blink twice before taking Pakistani lives. Unlike Indians, the Pakistanis have to attend the funerals of Jihadis and intelligence agents killed by Indian security forces on a daily basis. Every Pakistani news broadcast begins with the words "in Maqbooza Kashmir Kaafir Army have killed..." They know we can do this, what the Indians living cushy lives in their cities choose to believe has no impact on the Pakistani knowledge. Even if every Indian living everywhere else in the world were to say, yes I don't believe that GoI will use the nuclear bomb, then also the Pakistanis will have to reconcile that to the certain knowledge that the next body we send floating down the Jhelum isn't actually saying the complete opposite thing.

The only thing that this discussion on resolve does is draw attention to GoI's lack of regard for human life. In a bid to assuage the ruffled feathers of the well meaning Indians who ask such questions, one has to draw attention to unpleasant business of government. This damages the image of the Government of India as a democratic, secular leadership which is seeking to bring peace to the region and no one wants that. Much as I love the Government of India, even I cannot defend the truth that the Government does not really care what happens to the lives of those people who get in the way of its aims.

Shivji has the right idea when he says, GoI is not cowards, it is we who lack the imagination to think of ourselves as being brave.

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

Postby Rye » 04 Nov 2006 00:24

Vijay J. wrote:
Pakistani leadership both in the Army and in the Jihadi groups knows full well that the Indian leadership will not blink twice before taking Pakistani lives. Unlike Indians, the Pakistanis have to attend the funerals of Jihadis and intelligence agents killed by Indian security forces on a daily basis.


Vijay J., I have never doubted the resolve that the GoI has in taking out pakis -- I do read the news daily, you know. But Musharraf launched kargil even after the above ruthlessness had been exhibited by the GoI -- the problem here is that Musharraf and his jurnails are fools who do not understand deterrence, even if they pretend to. They have already tried to pull stunts like proclaim that they are going to mate nukes with cruise missiles that they intend to place in their submarines (they tried that stunt right here on BR) --- so how much brains do you think the paki generals have? The paki leadership tries very hard to win a Darwin award for their country, and they can't even succeed at that.

That is all I am saying, but then again, why am I complaining...the sooner we have a large radioactive parking lot instead of pakistan, the better.


The only thing that this discussion on resolve does is draw attention to GoI's lack of regard for human life. In a bid to assuage the ruffled feathers of the well meaning Indians who ask such questions, one has to draw attention to unpleasant business of government. This damages the image of the Government of India as a democratic, secular leadership which is seeking to bring peace to the region and no one wants that.


The main problem with all this is the GoI's inability to spread its views first, without yielding to mischievous elements that try to confuse the message. It does not matter how good the GoI is, if every single english newspaper prints lies about the GoI's intent, and these lies are repeated all over the world, why is it the fault of the average Indian who is being fed lies?

Most of these liars are ex-government officials who have held high positions in the GoI...people like Kuldip "WKK" Nayar, AG Noorani, and their ilk. How come these people are allowed to weaken India's credibility and no one in the govt. blames them?


Much as I love the Government of India, even I cannot defend the truth that the Government does not really care what happens to the lives of those people who get in the way of its aims.


I think Indians are willing to accept that casualties are going to be there, as long as the perception that these lives were not lost for nothing stays in the public mind. I am sorry to say that making up with pakistan barely one month after the bombay attacks is not conducive to spreading such a perception.

Maybe the real problem here is the image the GoI portrays of itself rather than what it really is. The GoI needs to manage the Indian media better, and remove the mischiefmongers, some of whom are openly in the payroll of foreign powers.

If deterrence is part mind game, then we need all the hometown advantage that we can get.
Last edited by Rye on 04 Nov 2006 00:41, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby Vijay J » 04 Nov 2006 00:28

I note our Israeli friend has returned to talk about how India should run its deterrence regime. It seems he missed what I said earlier that I do not appreciate this kind of thing from even one Israeli. So I am going to once again very pointedly criticise this behaviour in the hope that it stops right now.

Until Israel has tested its nuclear weapons, I don't think any Israeli should consider it his place to advise anyone else on issues of nuclear credibility.

I know Ahmednijad is saying he will wipe Israel off the face of this earth and India is supposed to be friends with Iran, but what are you Israelis doing besides cowering under Hamas and Hezbollah rockets? do you really think that bombing some shiite women and children in Lebanon is going to scare Ahmednijad?

Yes I know that Israel has demonstrated through agressive security policy that it can kill Arabs and Muslims without batting an eyelid, but equally well, Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups have indicated that they can kill the Israelis in their own land!

As far as Ahmednijad, Nasrallah and company is concernced, the Israeli nuclear bomb does not exist and if the Israeli leadership does not have the balls to actually test the ones they claim to have, how will the claim their claim of first use have any credibility? To them and to anyone else who knows how things are done, this claim of a samson option is simply reciporcated by a claim of a samsonite option.

Who will believe the Israelis when everyone can see that they have no guts to even test the damn thing?

The great patriot Vanunu had the guts to come out and say what needed to be said, his single act of courage despite all the pain he knew it would cause gave Israel a sense of security it would not have had no matter how much squirriling around at Dimona they would have done.

Unless we see some real bravery from Israel's leadership, all the sacrifices of the past are going to be in vain.

Are there such patriots in Tel Aviv? Or are we seeing people who put Manhattan's interests ahead of Jerusalem's?
Last edited by Vijay J on 04 Nov 2006 00:39, edited 4 times in total.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests