First Use of Nuclear Weapons

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 03:01

From a rank outsiders' perspective, two items are missing from this discussion. First, does India have the political consensus and the institutional mechanisms to launch a speedy retaliatory strike or a time first strike? If so, then Two, can India make such a FU/NFU policy credible in the mind of its enemies?

IMO only, the answer seems to be a resounding NO to both the above questions.

A political consensus to launch a first strike against a moslem nation requires that your governments (both the liberals and conservatives) set aside oft-practised minority appeasement policies. I doubt your liberal Congress that is heavily dependent on moslems will muster the political will to do so. The same applies for a retaliatory strike. Unless the mechanism to speedily launch a retaliatory strikes are quickly put in place, endless debates, invocation of gandhi and the loss of innocent lives etc will almost assuredly hamstring your decision making ability.

In terms of credibility, I think India is woefully short on it. I doubt your islamic opponents (read porkistan) actually believe that you are capable of launching even a retaliatory strike. Further, by its very nature, the retaliatory strike cannot just target porkistan (assuming it is the porkis or their jehadi minions who carry out the first strike) but regimes that have supported it. That means taking on NK, China and other moslem states including the Sauds.

One rationale always used by the various anti-Israeli jehadi factions is that a single nuclear weapon in the 20-40 kt range can virtually wipe out all of Israel or otherwise render it non-inhabitable. The rationale further being that the Jewish faith will be wiped out but most of islam (read the holy sites of the Sauds will survice). The ONLY CREDIBLE DETERRENT against such thinking is Israels' un-stated though very credible (i say credible with some apprehension as this credibility has taken a beating with Olmert as the Israeli PM) response that islam itself would be targetted in the event of a nuclear strike on Israel. The ONLY CREDIBLE DETERRENT, from an Israeli perspective is retaliatory strikes against the Sauds, Iran, Syria as primary targets with Egypt & Lebanon as secondary targets. I sincerely doubt Israeli retaliation will hit Jordan for many reasons. What is obvious is that a lot of innocent lives will be lost. Israel will most certainly cease to exist in its current form and it will give jews no pleasure to wreak such devastation across the islamic world. But, that is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

And for that reason only, do i think that despite the maniacal ravings of this latter day mohammad (read ahmedinejad), Israel will still be relatively safe from a first strike. Even the mad dogs jehadis realize that if the Jewish faith itself is threatened with extinction, islam cannot count on escaping the same fate.

I sincerely doubt India is capable, in its current political and demographic climate, of taking such harsh (some might say even murderous) steps to ensure its survival. Which is why i think that a JDAM as you folks call it (jehadi delivered atomic munition) attack on India is not a case of IF but When. For the simple reason that the porkis and their moslem jehadi minions seem to be sure (and not unjustifiably in my opinion) that India with its vast islamic population and equally debilitating cohorts of gandian do-gooders and self-hating idiots will serve to cripple any retaliatory resolve. That's as far as a retaliatory strike goes. In terms of FU, sorry, i just dont see India initiating a FU nuclear strike for many reasons that most Indians will not consider too flattering.

Shalom.

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

Postby John Snow » 31 Oct 2006 03:22

Israel will most certainly cease to exist in its current form and it will give jews no pleasure to wreak such devastation across the islamic world. But, that is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.


Sadler sad to say I doubt it, If what you were to be true, then TS Pakistani Nukes and its proliferation would not have occured right under the nose of Israel.

Pakistan from day one right from 1972 was saying itsbomb is Islamic bomb period. If Israeli leaders had taken note of that, things would not have been what they are and moving towards.

Israel and India have the boon and curse of democracy thrust on them, where as the other side does not indulge in such Luxury

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Postby prahaar » 31 Oct 2006 03:25

Sadler, GOI has stood up and fought wars and won them in face of strong opposition. It is foolish for someone to say that a nuclear retaliatory strike does not have political consensus. Even in case of First Nuclear Strike - I am not quite aware of the policy... the PM of India has the needed authority to launch the strike.

Aap bataiye, Porkis have the bum for more than a decade now... but they $hit before the thought of doing anything funny with it. With the kind of hatred they have for India, it is only the RAPE's own safety that is stopping them from doing anything funny with atoms :twisted:

Please do not confuse the :( response to Terror with response to THE Bum. 48,65,71,84,99.... time and again they have been screwed......

It is Lahori logic to say that GOI will have discussions in Question Hour and call a joint session of Parliament and ask NDTV and ARoy before atomizing Pakistan.

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 04:03

John Snow wrote:
Israel will most certainly cease to exist in its current form and it will give jews no pleasure to wreak such devastation across the islamic world. But, that is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.


Sadler sad to say I doubt it, If what you were to be true, then TS Pakistani Nukes and its proliferation would not have occured right under the nose of Israel.

Pakistan from day one right from 1972 was saying itsbomb is Islamic bomb period. If Israeli leaders had taken note of that, things would not have been what they are and moving towards.

Israel and India have the boon and curse of democracy thrust on them, where as the other side does not indulge in such Luxury


I dont quite agree. The porkis have never directly threatened an attack on israel - conventional or nuclear. either in the past or now. IOW, there was no immediate imperative to take out porki nuclear facilities as was the case with Osirak. Moreover, given the distances involved, i am not even certain that Israel could (or can) have done much to destroy porki nuclear facilities. The same applies to proliferation.

I will agree however, that the credibility of Israeli response has been frayed somewhat in recent times with Olmert at the helm. I just dont see the steel in him or have the confidence in him as i (and other Israelis) had in Arik or Bibi.

In the light of recent revelations, i think most Israelis will agree that our ignorance at best or deliberately looking the other way at worst, of porki proliferation may well come back to hurt us.

Despite that, i stand by my earlier assertion. That given Israel's most definite extraordinary response in ensuring that most of the ME and islam in general will be dealt a mortal blow will ensure no nuclear strikes against Israel.

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 04:11

prahaar wrote:Sadler, GOI has stood up and fought wars and won them in face of strong opposition. It is foolish for someone to say that a nuclear retaliatory strike does not have political consensus. Even in case of First Nuclear Strike - I am not quite aware of the policy... the PM of India has the needed authority to launch the strike.

Aap bataiye, Porkis have the bum for more than a decade now... but they $hit before the thought of doing anything funny with it. With the kind of hatred they have for India, it is only the RAPE's own safety that is stopping them from doing anything funny with atoms :twisted:

Please do not confuse the :( response to Terror with response to THE Bum. 48,65,71,84,99.... time and again they have been screwed......

It is Lahori logic to say that GOI will have discussions in Question Hour and call a joint session of Parliament and ask NDTV and ARoy before atomizing Pakistan.


I sincerely hope that you did not construe my above comments as questioning Indian bravery or the steel in the Indian soldier. Even if i had any such doubts, the war in Kargil (i have bought/read quite a few Indian authors on the subject) would have laid such doubts to rest.

I have absolutely no doubt that in a conventional scenario, India would kick the porki butt all the way to freaking mecca if required. You Indians have shown that time and again, as you rightly pointed out.

I do disagree that it is foolish for anyone to doubt the credibility of a Indian nuclear response for the reasons stated earlier, your allegations of la(w)hori logic notwithstanding. From what i do know of india polity and the altogether human(e) reluctance to shed innocent blood coupled with earlier stated reasons will (i think) almost certainly hamstring an indian response.

With regards to FU, i stand by what i said earlier. Let me clarify one thing. It is not a question of cojones. Rather, the reluctance of the Indian ethos to shed innocent (collateral) blood. Having said that, please dont think that we jews care any less about spilling innocent blood and the guilt associated with it. Just that, we have thought such things over and will still do it. Consequences (and islam) be damned if our very existence is threatened.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 31 Oct 2006 04:48

Sadler wrote: Even the mad dogs jehadis realize that if the Jewish faith itself is threatened with extinction, islam cannot count on escaping the same fate.


Interesting statement, but a flawed perspective, nonetheless.

Salafis - the most likely ones who will target Israel - have a far more iconoclastic zeal than you realise.

Lobbing a nuke or two at Mecca or Medina wouldn't put a dampener on their quest to rid the world of Kufr.

Neither would lobbing nukes into Saudi Arabia, or even a wide swathe of the Middle East.

Don't forget that millions more Muslims live in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and several nations in Africa.

How many nations can, or will Israel target in response ?

Rather, the reluctance of the Indian ethos to shed innocent (collateral) blood.


You have hit the jackpot, but only partially.

Until very recently, both India and Pakistan were very careful about not targetting the population centers of the other side in their wars.

There was no Dresden or Tokyo type devastation wreaked in even the most fierce air campaigns,- they were restricted to bombing airfields and airstrips, cantonments and armouries.

Although the Rawalpindi GHQ organised jihadi attacks on India in the post-Soviet-Afghan-invasion era on innocent civilians have deeply disturbed that unwritten assumption, there are very good reasons to believe that Pakistan's First Use policy is restricted to attempts at stopping the Indian strike corps within Pakistani territory, when conventional attempts fail.

India's NFU pledge is deemed adequate to deter this possibility.

Any attack on Indian armed forces anywhere would invite an automatic and massive retaliation.

Mind you, the intention would be not just to punish Pakistan for its use of nukes against Indian troops, but also to prevent Pakistan from being able to launch nukes on those North Korean Ding-Dongs at India's population centers in their secondary response.

The currently-in-vogue NFU achieves that.

Now, if India detects Pakistani preparations to use missiles against Indian cities FIRST ( unlikely, but the possibility is always there ), you can rest assured that India would not hesitate to pre-empt it with all means at its disposal including nukes, no matter what its doctrine says ( FU or NFU ).

JYang

Postby JYang » 31 Oct 2006 07:31

I think people are mistakenly operating from an assumed given which is not neccessarily so. Can Pakistan's nuclear arsenal be pre-emptively destroyed by Indian forces in the event of nuclear escalation? I doubt it. If Pakistan does have several dozen mobile nuclear missiles targeted at India, it is unlikely that India will be able to neutralize them before several or even most can be armed and fired.

It's one thing to claim that India has the intent to pre-emptively strike Pakistani nuclear assets, it's another to claim the ability.

Case in point, despite overwhelming U.S. and coalition air power in Gulf War I, they were not able to neutralize scud batteries which made clever use of camouflage, mobility, decoys to avoid detection.. India neither enjoys that degree of overwhelming advantage and certainly Pakistan is going to go to far more serious lengths to protect it's nuclear assets.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Postby KLNMurthy » 31 Oct 2006 08:01

Sadler wrote:
A political consensus to launch a first strike against a moslem nation requires that your governments (both the liberals and conservatives) set aside oft-practised minority appeasement policies. I doubt your liberal Congress that is heavily dependent on moslems will muster the political will to do so. The same applies for a retaliatory strike. Unless the mechanism to speedily launch a retaliatory strikes are quickly put in place, endless debates, invocation of gandhi and the loss of innocent lives etc will almost assuredly hamstring your decision making ability.
Shalom.


War with Pakistan has never been a Hindu-Muslim issue for India. Hindu-Muslim relations in India are qualitatively different than Jewish-Muslim relations in Israel. Granted, Indian muslim community is not monolithic, and of late, some confused politicians are equating Pakistan with Indian Muslims, but by and large, Indian Muslims are not a fifth column for Pakistan. If they were, we wouldn't be thrashing that country with monotonous regularity all this time.

Pakistan is not synonymous with Islam, and certainly has no locus standi with regard to Indian Muslims. But one thing is for sure, we won't touch Mecca under any realistic circumstances.

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

Postby Vijay J » 31 Oct 2006 08:37

The more we talk about the institutional mechanisms and the political consensus, the more we risk compromising it.

Is our deterrence credible in the minds of our adversaries, I think it is but don't talk to me, ask them yourselves.

Is it always going to work? I don't know, no one does I venture.

Yes Talikota is a possibility.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 31 Oct 2006 10:44

Can Pakistan's nuclear arsenal be pre-emptively destroyed by Indian forces in the event of nuclear escalation? I doubt it. If Pakistan does have several dozen mobile nuclear missiles targeted at India, it is unlikely that India will be able to neutralize them before several or even most can be armed and fired.


As it stands right now, for its own survival, and the survival of the political/military leadership, Pakistan's nukes and delivery mechanisms are not mated.

The question, then, becomes not whether the nuclear arsental can be pre-emptively destroyed, but whether the C&C can be effectively pre-emptively destroyed with such a nuclear strike.

Nevertheless, if there is any possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike, no government in India will survive having effectively INVITED a nuclear strike on its own people.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 31 Oct 2006 14:28

JYang makes a good point. We cannot guarantee a win using a first strike, and now nor can any one else... (for the same reasons) - apart from a true decapitating strike - which the paks are not capable of in its entirety (China is a different matter though)

so at best pakistan can only waggle its genetalia at us like the barbarians before the roman legions, only to then be crushed beneath a wall of steel

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 31 Oct 2006 14:47

Lalmohan wrote:JYang makes a good point. We cannot guarantee a win using a first strike, and now nor can any one else... (for the same reasons)


By first strike do you mean only conventional weapons ? (in which case i would agree).Having said that a pre-emptive Nuclear strike(preferably a salvo of prithvi's and Agni's would surely obilterate the TSP).

1.I do not think TSP's BM's are mobile and transportable on Rails(since their main MRBM Ghauri is liquid fueled).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 31 Oct 2006 15:30

first strike in the context of this thread is nuclear only

the idea being that a first strike neutralises your enemies potential to retalliate in any meaningful way, so you have to destroy not just his command and control but all his retalliatory nuclear strike systems

so we would have to be able to hit all pakistans missile systems - almost all of which are mobile to some extent. we would need real time intel and surveillance on all their locations and be able to target them accordingly

this implies quite complex satellite, recon and other capabilities, which we are not known to have to anywhere near the same extent as unkil and big-bhaloo

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 31 Oct 2006 16:00

The onlee point which I want to make is if a pre-emptive strike on TSP would not guarantee complete destruction of its arsenal then it all the more points to the fact that Second strike would be useless(it would onlee ensure their destruction and not our survival)

1.The entire idea of NFU is in fact a byproduct of 'Napunsaktha' that GOI has exhibited in its foreign policy for all these years.

2.Even US and Russia who have a Gigantic nos of nukes piled up refrain from making such stupid assurances.

3.The whole Idea of having Nukes is to project military might in its most fiercest form ,policies like NFU undermine the same.

4.The whole idea of self defense has changed in todays context,unlike the past when attacked we could have reclaimed our land by sheer numeric and strategic supremacy over the adversary ,today any rogue state possesing nukes can be a serious threat to a Nation (US somewhere knows this and hence is hell bent on arm twisting Noko,Iran etc to abandon their N programme).

Having said that yes I agree to the point that to actually destroy the adversary via a pre-emptive strike we need a sophisticated Recon mechanism and up to date info about their Nukes ,but in absense of those Brute salvo of nukes would be just fine (at least it is our best chance against TSP and likes).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 31 Oct 2006 16:52

the US-USSR "balance of terror" was that every weapons system fielded by one would be counterbalanced by an equivalent or counter system fielded by the other. So that neither side could gain an advantage from first strike. whenever there was any hint of an advantage of first strike the balance went into crisis and the side dropping behind scrambled like mad to catch up. with two rational powers this was the stability of mutually assured destruction or MAD as its lovingly known.

in the india china context something similar (but not the same) exists, in the india pak context we have a whole different dynamic

NFU is fine as far as I am concerned, as long as assured retalliation will happen. we don't have any particular benefit (nor does any rational state) to threaten annihilation to a rival for the fun of it. We must threaten it to those who threaten us, in which case 2nd strike is fine. but for that, pak must not have any advantage in a first strike. with the resources at their disposal, the most likely scenario is that they destroy our conventional attacks on their soil or hit a few urban centres in india proper. i am intrigued by the scenarios painted above, need to think more, and hopefully this thread will explore these themes more fully.

in both the cases above, our stated policy recommends overwhelming retalliation. for this, we don't need advanced recon/intel. we just have to launch at broad targets in pakistan - by any means available, which allows for some redundancy

for china, it means longer range delivery systems (Agni III) and larger warheads (thermo or boosted) to be of any real deterrence value, and the ability to leave launch options open from ground, air, sea or undersea

china though has shifted its stance quite a bit. they recognise that there is conventional stability in the himalaya and they are not specifically interested in a nuclear confrontation with us. their national goals have shifted significantly into the economic arena, but it will come with a strong military backup - for which we have to be prepared.

ultimately, pakistan is a minor irritant and irrelevant in the big scheme of things, and this is what really gets their goat

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 21:22

S.Valkan wrote: ......you can rest assured that India would not hesitate to pre-empt it with all means at its disposal including nukes, no matter what its doctrine says ( FU or NFU ).


I disagree with most of your reply but especially the above. However, as always, i am willing to learn and be corrected.

What do you base this "no hesitation" on? Is this just your opinion? Or is there a published doctrine in place that would lend credence to your statement above?

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 21:33

KV Rao wrote:
Sadler wrote:
A political consensus to launch a first strike against a moslem nation requires that your governments (both the liberals and conservatives) set aside oft-practised minority appeasement policies. I doubt your liberal Congress that is heavily dependent on moslems will muster the political will to do so. The same applies for a retaliatory strike. Unless the mechanism to speedily launch a retaliatory strikes are quickly put in place, endless debates, invocation of gandhi and the loss of innocent lives etc will almost assuredly hamstring your decision making ability.
Shalom.


War with Pakistan has never been a Hindu-Muslim issue for India. Hindu-Muslim relations in India are qualitatively different than Jewish-Muslim relations in Israel. Granted, Indian muslim community is not monolithic, and of late, some confused politicians are equating Pakistan with Indian Muslims, but by and large, Indian Muslims are not a fifth column for Pakistan. If they were, we wouldn't be thrashing that country with monotonous regularity all this time.


I'll accept the above for now although there is evidence even on this forum that the gist of your arguments above are not strictly true.


KV Rao wrote: But one thing is for sure, we won't touch Mecca under any realistic circumstances.


This is precisely why you will almost certainly face a JDAM in the near future. In fact, when your last nuclear tests were conducted, CNN showed quite a few interviews with porki jehadis. Their rationale, the same as the jehadi threat that Israel faces, is that nukes will destroy the Hindus but islam will survive (EXACTLY the logic we face in that a nuclear strike will destroy the Jewish faith, but islam will survive).

Well in our case, islam will not survive. Arabs will pay the price and this includes their holy sites. To argue that islam would survive such devastation is wishful thinking.

I'll repeat. Your very reluctance to "touch" mecca will prove your undoing. When your enemy knows fully well that you will restrain yourself out of humanitarian concerns, he has already achieved a significant advantage. When that enemy is a moslem, that advantage becomes a crucial one.

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 21:39

Calvin wrote:
Can Pakistan's nuclear arsenal be pre-emptively destroyed by Indian forces in the event of nuclear escalation? I doubt it. If Pakistan does have several dozen mobile nuclear missiles targeted at India, it is unlikely that India will be able to neutralize them before several or even most can be armed and fired.


As it stands right now, for its own survival, and the survival of the political/military leadership, Pakistan's nukes and delivery mechanisms are not mated.


What do you base the above on? Can you point me towards any credible sources?

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

Postby Vijay J » 31 Oct 2006 21:42

Deterrence is just another human idea. It doesn't have to work. All the public drama stages as a part of deterrence is in someway only a part of the bigger picture.

Israel stages it big first use drama in the hope that some Jihadi lunatic will not gain control of a nuke and use it without thought to the consequences.

In substance, while Israel is the only real home the Jewish people have, if the needs of Israel come into conflict with the needs of international Jewish financial interests, who is to say what will happen?

As a external observer, I find the manner in which some Israelis talk about security matters amusing. There is all this zeal, gusto and desire to talk big and to tell others how to manage their security.

I don't mean to seem insensitive but when people talk big about things like deterrence and are unable to maintain physical security in an area the size of Gurgaon, I find it hard to pay attention beyond a point.

So here is the stinger,

do the Israelis feel the need to talk big because they can't really prevent sept 11 style attacks every two odd months inside Israel? is this talking down to other countries on how their national security is organised part of some deep seated inferiority complex in the Israelis?

or is it part of some pitch for some as yet untested, untried technology system that someone is floating a tender for?

I am okay with it being either but I ask you -

Do Indians call into question the competence or credibility of Israel's deterrence? Do we make public remarks about Israel's inability to defend its homeland from a daily stream of suicide bombers? Do we openly talk about the manner in which Israeli polity manages or should I say mismanages physical security?

If an Indian did this, would this be considered polite by Israeli society?

How would Israeli polity react if an Indian told them that they should give every Palestinian the right to vote? i.e. reduce the Jews to minority in Israel itself?

We offer you praise and positive encouragement with your national good health in mind, and you run us down in public?

Considering that you virtually ran 25,000 Indians out of perfectly lucrative jobs in Lebanon with your antics, frankly I feel we have been unusally silent. Should we change that?

If not then why do you feel the need to shoot off your mouth about how we do our deterrence? or handle our muslims?

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 21:46

There are two possible scenarios for an nuclear strike against India by the porkis.

One: Unlikely: Via either their F-16's or the ding-dongs mated with nukes.

Two: Most Likely: It is smuggled into India by the Kashmere "freedom fighters" with definite support from elements among Indian moslems. The combination of "freedom fighters" with "Indian moslems" to constitute deniability for porkistan.

My guess is that those who have disagreed with my earlier statements assumed a nuclear strike along the lines of the first scenario above.

My comments assumes Scenario Two, which is exactly where i see your decision making process get hamstrung by "political" considerations.

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

Postby B Singh » 31 Oct 2006 22:12

Sadler wrote:
KV Rao wrote: But one thing is for sure, we won't touch Mecca under any realistic circumstances.


This is precisely why you will almost certainly face a JDAM in the near future. In fact, when your last nuclear tests were conducted, CNN showed quite a few interviews with porki jehadis. Their rationale, the same as the jehadi threat that Israel faces, is that nukes will destroy the Hindus but islam will survive (EXACTLY the logic we face in that a nuclear strike will destroy the Jewish faith, but islam will survive).

Well in our case, islam will not survive. Arabs will pay the price and this includes their holy sites. To argue that islam would survive such devastation is wishful thinking.

I'll repeat. Your very reluctance to "touch" mecca will prove your undoing. When your enemy knows fully well that you will restrain yourself out of humanitarian concerns, he has already achieved a significant advantage. When that enemy is a moslem, that advantage becomes a crucial one.


Sadler has made some excellent points. However, Sadler, even if Israel goes completely ape in response to a JDAM or a direct Iranian attack and you convert the entire non-Israeli Middle east and a good part of the Sahara to green glass, Islam will still survive - there are now a lot of Muslims in Europe/US, plus Turkey, which has a deep hate / superficial love relationship with Israel, plus some 160 million Muslims in India, another 130 million in Bangladesh and the biggest - about 300 million in Indonesia + Malaysia.

While I completely agree with you that the lack of total bloodymindedness in India (and this extends beyond just the spineless leadership) does make JDAM attack on India more likely, and that Israel's lack of any useless compunctions makes a JDAM/otherwise attack on Israel less likely, Islam will survive even a full scale Israeli nuclear retaliation.

The Islamic cancer is too deep and too widespread to be taken out so simply, not to mention a little pointless as a lot of these nominal Muslims are not very serious about their faith to start with.

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

Postby B Singh » 31 Oct 2006 22:20

Vijay J wrote:do the Israelis feel the need to talk big because they can't really prevent sept 11 style attacks every two odd months inside Israel? is this talking down to other countries on how their national security is organised part of some deep seated inferiority complex in the Israelis?

or is it part of some pitch for some as yet untested, untried technology system that someone is floating a tender for?


I strongly disagree with either as an Indian.


I am okay with it being either but I ask you -

Do Indians call into question the competence or credibility of Israel's deterrence? Do we make public remarks about Israel's inability to defend its homeland from a daily stream of suicide bombers? Do we openly talk about the manner in which Israeli polity manages or should I say mismanages physical security?



Indian forces are yet to launch punitive raids inside Pakistani territory and raise the cost of the Jihadi enterprise to much higher levels for Pukistan. Israel has done that - and I submit that things would be a lot lot worse in Israel if they didn't.


If an Indian did this, would this be considered polite by Israeli society?



There is hardly a matter of politeness involved here. Israeli contributors on this forum are seeing the weakness in our response just like many of us do. Its the bitter truth.


Considering that you virtually ran 25,000 Indians out of perfectly lucrative jobs in Lebanon with your antics, frankly I feel we have been unusally silent. Should we change that?

If not then why do you feel the need to shoot off your mouth about how we do our deterrence? or handle our muslims?


Mianji, I somehow greatly doubt a vigourous Israeli criticism of India if we ran a lot of Israeli advisors to Pakistan (which do not exist) out in a punitive strike against the Pakistani Jihadi infrastructure.

Misdirected ammo, IMO.

Mohanraj Naidu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 01 Oct 2006 00:56

Postby Mohanraj Naidu » 31 Oct 2006 22:24

A possible scenario would be, eliminate all top leadership of TSP this will scare the s### out of Americans. They will do the clean up job of taking out nukes from pakland

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 22:27

Vijay J wrote:Deterrence is just another human idea. It doesn't have to work. All the public drama stages as a part of deterrence is in someway only a part of the bigger picture.


I am absolutely at a loss to see how deterrence does not have to work. In facing the threat of nuclear jehadism, you have an entity that DOES NOT THINK in rational terms. In human terms. If deterrence does not have to work, well, for your sake i hope you never have to find out.

Vijay J wrote:Israel stages it big first use drama in the hope that some Jihadi lunatic will not gain control of a nuke and use it without thought to the consequences.


Whoa, hold on to your horse there, boy! What drama are you alluding to? You may take your own survival rather cavalierly as a part of a "bigger" picture or un-necessary. To me (us), it is not. The threat of a jehadi gaining a nuke and using it against Israel is real. If you feel otherwise, you are certainly entitled to that opinion and i will respect that. I dont have to agree with it.

Vijay J wrote: In substance, while Israel is the only real home the Jewish people have, if the needs of Israel come into conflict with the needs of international Jewish financial interests, who is to say what will happen?


Ah! INTERNATIONAL JEWISH FINANCIAL INTERESTS! You've been watching too many Mel Gibson movies there. This comments is so disturbing to me on so many levels that i will leave it at that. Suffice to say, it is very rare that an Indian would make comments such as this.


Vijay J wrote:
As a external observer, I find the manner in which some Israelis talk about security matters amusing. There is all this zeal, gusto and desire to talk big and to tell others how to manage their security.


I can assure you that we do not find security matters amusing. To us, given our limited numbers, every jewish death is a serious matter. Our people do not have the cushion of a billion people to take lightly every terror attack on Israel.

Vijay J wrote: I don't mean to seem insensitive but when people talk big about things like deterrence and are unable to maintain physical security in an area the size of Gurgaon, I find it hard to pay attention beyond a point.


There is absolutely no harm in being insensitive. If there are tough questions that need an answer, ask them. However, your comment above basically states that if an Indian has no access to say drinking water, he should not really care if he gets incinerated in a nuclear holocaust. To me, your comment far exceeds just plain "insensitive."

Vijay J wrote:So here is the stinger,

do the Israelis feel the need to talk big because they can't really prevent sept 11 style attacks every two odd months inside Israel? is this talking down to other countries on how their national security is organised part of some deep seated inferiority complex in the Israelis?


First. I dont see any "stinger." Regarding talking big. We leave that to the likes of Arafat and hezbollah. You will seldom encounter a "vain" israeli commander. Even the likes of Dayan.

I will state again what i said in an earlier post. I do not doubt Indian courage, the courage of the individual soldier. What i certainly doubt is your political will to inflict unacceptable (unacceptable to your enemies that is) devastation in response to (and to deter) a nuclear strike. If you think that is talking down, too bad. In terms of having an inferiority complex, i dont even know where to begin. So i am letting that go unanswered.


Vijay J wrote:or is it part of some pitch for some as yet untested, untried technology system that someone is floating a tender for?


As far as i know, we were not begging you to buy Israeli weapons. Its a buyers market. Feel free to call/email your government to not buy Israeli weapons - tested or otherwise. BTW, it certainly comes as news to me that our AWACS are un-tested. But, you seem to be the expert here, so i will defer to you.

Vijay J wrote:I am okay with it being either


How gracious.


Vijay J wrote:but I ask you -

Do Indians call into question the competence or credibility of Israel's deterrence? Do we make public remarks about Israel's inability to defend its homeland from a daily stream of suicide bombers? Do we openly talk about the manner in which Israeli polity manages or should I say mismanages physical security?


Why dont you? You can certainly post on the israeli defence forum and ask/question any of israel's security postures. even criticize. Heck, the Hezbi arsenal caught us with our pants down? As long your criticism is seen as well-meaning, you will certainly be engaged in a civilized debate. If Israelis are increasing questioning our own incompetence (the recent Lebanese fiasco for eg), i certainly dont see the harm in you or other Indians questioning it. If i can see that your questions, even if they are brutal, are meant to provoke serious introspection and help me improve our defence capabilities, what's the harm? So, certainly. If you have any suggestions, remarks, criticism, feel free to post on IDF (www. israeldefenceforum.com). Looking forward to seeing you there.


Vijay J wrote:If an Indian did this, would this be considered polite by Israeli society?


I have stated often my reasons for asking/posing provocative questions. I am not going to add it to every response as a standard disclaimer. Feel free to search my earlier posts.

Vijay J wrote: How would Israeli polity react if an Indian told them that they should give every Palestinian the right to vote? i.e. reduce the Jews to minority in Israel itself?


We'll tell you exactly what we think of that idea and why? However, i suggest that you read up on Israel and its history before you pose such questions. By no means an india expert, i am certainly an indo-phile and know a bit more than most israelis.

Vijay J wrote:We offer you praise and positive encouragement with your national good health in mind, and you run us down in public?


Thank you for the praise although i must admit, i did not encounter any in your post. "We have run you down in public?" WTF are you talking about? I am just ONE JEW. There are others Jews on this forum and they might completely disagree with me. I certainly have not seen any Israeli govt make any statements on your nuclear posture or (un)stated deterrence. So, where does the "YOU run us down in public" come from? We are all individuals here expressing our individual opinions and nothing more.

Vijay J wrote: Considering that you virtually ran 25,000 Indians out of perfectly lucrative jobs in Lebanon with your antics, frankly I feel we have been unusally silent. Should we change that?


Well, i am sorry about the indian jobs. the next time two of our soldiers are kidnapped by the hezbollah, we'll be sure to keep that in mind.

"our antics". I hold that statement beneath contempt.

"unusually silent" Have you not read your own newspapers? Your government has been voting against Israel since the partition vote of 1948. Every time your govt votes against us, it becomes an uphill battles for jews like myself to defend India on the IDF. And your comments about Israel during the recent Lebanese action can hardly be termed as "unusually silent." Get your facts straight.

Feel free to do anything that is in the interest of India. Heck, you can confer your highest medals for valor on Ahmedinejad for all i care. in the final analysis, each of our countries will do what is its best interests. I would, for personal reasons, like to see those interests aligned for a while if not permanently.

Vijay J wrote:If not then why do you feel the need to shoot off your mouth about how we do our deterrence? or handle our muslims?


Mea Culpa. However, it does not take away from the fact that (AND GETTING BACK TO THIS THREAD), i my assessment only, i feel that your political will is completely lacking should there be a nuclear strike on India of the scenario two type i mentioned in my earlier post.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 31 Oct 2006 22:52

Sadler wrote:What do you base this "no hesitation" on? Is this just your opinion? Or is there a published doctrine in place that would lend credence to your statement above?


You have to understand the Indian subcontinent a whole lot better to realise that not everything is 'published'.

Some things are deliberately left unsaid, in a carefully nurtured strategic ambiguity.

The post-1998 India is a different animal than the post-1974 India.

Don't make that mistake about India's 'will' to employ nukes first if the need arises.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 31 Oct 2006 23:22

Sadler wrote:My comments assumes Scenario Two, which is exactly where i see your decision making process get hamstrung by "political" considerations.


You have raised a scenario that has very different implications than a military FU and NFU discussion.

Have you stopped to think why a jihadi would want to explode a nuke in a bustling Indian city ?

What would they hope to achieve by exploding a ( say) 15kT Chinese-designed Pakistani-built nuke and instantly killing 100,000 people in a metropolis ?

Please don't tell me that , being Muslim jihadis, all they want is some Hindus killed.

So, there must be some geopolitical motivation for their action.

Would India's grip on Kashmir be lessened an iota by the death of a few more thousands ? No, right ?

Would India's economy be made any worse than it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s of the last century ? No, right ?

Now, only a fool wouldn't be able to figure out where the jihadi nuke came from.

What does it gain Pakistan or China when India uses the same tactic on Pakistani and Chinese cities using its own 'resources' there ?

Don't forget that India has raised enough assets to stir the hornet's nest on both sides of the Karakoram.

So, you can take it for granted that Porkies won't be such a fool as to let jihadis go and explode nukes in India.

No, they won't do that.

Their intention - and you can take this to the bank - is to use their nukes as a SHIELD against India crossing the IB in response to their conventional provocations through jihadi cross-border terrorism and the occasional conventional military adventurism to alter some facts on the ground around the LOC.

They just hope to use the scare of nukes to deter India from marching into Lahore the next time a few jihadis plant gelatine sticks in a crowded Gujarati enclave of Mumbai, or use IEDs against Indian armoured personnel carriers in the Srinagar valley.

Now, that's the kind of bluff that India made a sincere but veiled attempt to call ( after the Parliament attack in 2002 ) with its Operation Parakram exercise.

Porkies know India's intentions and 'will' by now, especially after the Cold Start Doctrine was made public just for this explicit purpose. The US has 'facilitated' the transfer of that pertinent knowledge to the 'Pindi GHQ through Tony Zinni.

Hence the painful winding down of cross-border terrorism to the level of trickles that you see today.

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 23:38

S.Valkan wrote:
Sadler wrote:What do you base this "no hesitation" on? Is this just your opinion? Or is there a published doctrine in place that would lend credence to your statement above?


You have to understand the Indian subcontinent a whole lot better to realise that not everything is 'published'.

Some things are deliberately left unsaid, in a carefully nurtured strategic ambiguity.

The post-1998 India is a different animal than the post-1974 India.

Don't make that mistake about India's 'will' to employ nukes first if the need arises.


I'll take you at your word.

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

Postby akutcher » 31 Oct 2006 23:43

i dont wanna disrupt the quality discussion going on...... just want to add one point

wont any country, presuming that the leadership is sane and is in complete control on its nuclear assets warn the other side when its red line is about to be crossed.... or say wont Mushi warn India thru some sort of contact that the moment a single kaafir soldier steps into Islamabad consider a million yindoos dead

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

Postby Sadler » 31 Oct 2006 23:54

S.Valkan wrote:
Sadler wrote:My comments assumes Scenario Two, which is exactly where i see your decision making process get hamstrung by "political" considerations.


You have raised a scenario that has very different implications than a military FU and NFU discussion.

Have you stopped to think why a jihadi would want to explode a nuke in a bustling Indian city ?

..........................


I think the rest of your email did answer my questions. But, a jehadi is unlikely to act independent of the porkies. if anything, the jehadi will do so at the direction of the porkies.

What i see in terms of islamic terror in india is the increased tendency to use indian moslems to carry out attacks. and porkistan claiming that these were indians and therefore getting plausible deniability. Much like the london terror bombings where the porkes claimed the bombed to be "british."

that "increased tendency" will logically culminate in indian moslems solely carrying out future terror attacks. once that is established, on what basis can you retaliate against the porkies?? There will be a huge amount of pressure brought upon India to not retaliate. Both external and internal.

I am sorry, but as much as i would like to believe you, i cant based on what i read of indian politics today. we can leave this here.



Regarding deterrence in general: The issue of say the "mecca" retaliation.

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. The idea of deterrence is to make the damage unacceptable to the other side, not what you as an Indian think is unacceptable to the other side. Remember, we are taking about jehadis here, hardly the most rational thinking section of human kind. To me, telling a porki that islamabad will be wiped out for a strike on New Delhi might well be acceptable to the pj. In which case, your deterrence has failed. It matters little that you have in return wiped out porkistan. You have just lost New Delhi and will have to live with its aftermath. Millions of dead, dying. Devastated economy etc.

Again, the idea of deterrence is to prevent an attack in the first place. It is little solace to the victims if porkistan is wiped out.

What i am getting at is HOW does india prevent a P-JDAM in the first place?? That "how" is via a credible deterrence. And restricting a retaliatory attack against a populace that is perhaps the most jehadized in the world may not be sufficient deterrence unless indian polity is willing to spread the "hurt."


S.Valkan wrote:Please don't tell me that , being Muslim jihadis, all they want is some Hindus killed.


Does the above sound that impossible to you? That merely the death of the hated hindu (or jew) is not cause enough? If so, i'd say that BRF had just wasted a ton-load of bandwith over the past few months on the Islamism thread.

Neerajsoman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 05:25
Contact:

Postby Neerajsoman » 01 Nov 2006 00:25

"our antics". I hold that statement beneath contempt.


Kicking a bunch of Palestinians and Lebanese off their land after arriving in ships via the Med? If not fascist, are these not inequitable antics? Even if it was balfour who drew the line 30 or so years before, YES, they were your antics. Don't reply with religious arguments here; that would be equated to the irrational jihadist land grabbing of J&K.

Of course, the survivalist attitude is HUGELY admirable, something India should have the spine to emulate from time to time. But really, it would be rational to place most of the current conflict's historic blame squarely on israeli/american shoulders (it was the anti-semitic Americans, fearing the huge influx of Jews after WW2, that lobbied hard for Israel post-war).

Moving on, India being a multireligious society, its hard not to fear or suspect our muslim compatriots. This does not mean that every muslim is an anti-indian jihadist, merely that the most vocal voices of islam happen to be fundamentalist.

Hence it would seem plausible that a disillusioned member of the muslim community would seek to betray the country, smuggle in a nuke and blow half of Mumbai to smithereens. But really, that sounds like an episode of 24. Any bomb making materials that have been used in terror attacks in india are easily available domestically. It would take more than a magnesium/sodium dynamite fuze to detonate a bomb. Realise that Pakistan is yet to obtain a yield above about 12 kt, less than the Hiroshima bomb. This was a non-weaponised test explosion. To weaponise and miniatureise a bomb would take a lot more effort. Then to transport it past the pain-in-the-ass Indian customs via a third country (which would also impose it's custom regulations) is hardly a viable plan.

Neither is smuggling it through the desert or mountains. You don't get infiltrations by cars or choppers. People come across by mule-back or foot. I have yet to see that genetically modified mule that can carry that nuclear warhead weighing 500<W<1000.

The most plausible scenario would be that a dirty bomb is used in a city. Fissile material is scarce as it is in india, and such an attack (esp using Uranium) would imply pak involvement. Would this be considered a nuclear attack on indian soil, or simply a conventional terrorist bombing? [/i]

Neerajsoman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 05:25
Contact:

Postby Neerajsoman » 01 Nov 2006 00:41

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.

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

Postby Sadler » 01 Nov 2006 00:49

Neerajsoman wrote:
"our antics". I hold that statement beneath contempt.


Kicking a bunch of Palestinians and Lebanese off their land after arriving in ships via the Med? ...............

But really, it would be rational to place most of the current conflict's historic blame squarely on israeli/american shoulders (it was the anti-semitic Americans, fearing the huge influx of Jews after WW2, that lobbied hard for Israel post-war).[/i]



These two statements clearly show that you know didly squat about Israel and the events surrounding the partition vote of 1948. It is also rather obvious that no amount of throwing facts is going to change your opinion and i certainly am not going to waste time and bandwidth to convince you and folks who hold similar views about Israel any different.

Neerajsoman wrote:
"our antics". I hold that statement beneath contempt.



Moving on, India being a multireligious society, its hard not to fear or suspect our muslim compatriots. This does not mean that every muslim is an anti-indian jihadist, merely that the most vocal voices of islam happen to be fundamentalist.

Hence it would seem plausible that a disillusioned member of the muslim community would seek to betray the country, smuggle in a nuke and blow half of Mumbai to smithereens. But really, that sounds like an episode of 24. Any bomb making materials that have been used in terror attacks in india are easily available domestically. It would take more than a magnesium/sodium dynamite fuze to detonate a bomb. Realise that Pakistan is yet to obtain a yield above about 12 kt, less than the Hiroshima bomb. This was a non-weaponised test explosion. To weaponise and miniatureise a bomb would take a lot more effort. Then to transport it past the pain-in-the-ass Indian customs via a third country (which would also impose it's custom regulations) is hardly a viable plan.

Neither is smuggling it through the desert or mountains. You don't get infiltrations by cars or choppers. People come across by mule-back or foot. I have yet to see that genetically modified mule that can carry that nuclear warhead weighing 500<W<1000.

The most plausible scenario would be that a dirty bomb is used in a city. Fissile material is scarce as it is in india, and such an attack (esp using Uranium) would imply pak involvement. Would this be considered a nuclear attack on indian soil, or simply a conventional terrorist bombing? [/i]


Well, gee. Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? Lets close this thread already.

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

Postby S.Valkan » 01 Nov 2006 01:14

Sadler wrote:What i see in terms of islamic terror in india is the increased tendency to use indian moslems to carry out attacks. and porkistan claiming that these were indians and therefore getting plausible deniability. Much like the london terror bombings where the porkes claimed the bombed to be "british."


once that is established, on what basis can you retaliate against the porkies?? There will be a huge amount of pressure brought upon India to not retaliate. Both external and internal.


You miss an important fact,- "plausible deniability" works both ways.

If a nuke explodes in an Indian city, the source of the nuke would automatically be triangulated to the Porkistani GHQ at 'Pindi.

And, just like Porkistani cities like Karachi burned in the 80s in response to Punjab burning in India, a swift in-kind "deniable" retaliation would follow.

Along with Muridke, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and even Mangla and Tarbela dams would go up in "plausible deniability" smoke.

So would some areas of Guangdong, Shanghai and Shenzen, since it has to be made painfully obvious that the main proliferator and instigator behind this act must bear its own share.

That's not in Pakistani interest either.

And Pakistan knows this.

Regarding deterrence in general: The issue of say the "mecca" retaliation.

The cost of nuclear strike on India must be made prohibitive to the porkies.


Your understanding of what is "prohibitive" to Porkies is seriously flawed.

Nuking Mecca openly would only delight the Salafi jihadis who seek an armageddon, and are iconoclastic enough to raze all Islamic edifices themselves.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but the Saudi Salafis themselves would love to demolish a greater part of the "heritage" in Mecca and Medina.

Nuking Mecca gets you nowhere to making it "prohibitive" for Pakis.

The best medicine is the deniable nuking of the cantonments and the commercial hubs in Pakistan.

Porkies know this, and KNOW that India is capable of that, thanks to the cultivated assets of the last 60 years.

Does the above sound that impossible to you? That merely the death of the hated hindu (or jew) is not cause enough?


There is a fine line ( and I know many here don't subscribe to that ) between the stupid "armageddon" jihadi and the rational "remove kufr" jihadi.

Porky establishment is of the second kind. They would love for Hindus to be killed in small batches of RDX fireworks.

But they wouldn't allow things to escalate to the point of their own survival being questionable.

That's the basic key to understanding the game of Porky nukes.

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 » 01 Nov 2006 01:18

S.Valkan wrote:
Sadler wrote:My comments assumes Scenario Two, which is exactly where i see your decision making process get hamstrung by "political" considerations.


You have raised a scenario that has very different implications than a military FU and NFU discussion.

Have you stopped to think why a jihadi would want to explode a nuke in a bustling Indian city ?

What would they hope to achieve by exploding a ( say) 15kT Chinese-designed Pakistani-built nuke and instantly killing 100,000 people in a metropolis ?

Please don't tell me that , being Muslim jihadis, all they want is some Hindus killed.

So, there must be some geopolitical motivation for their action.

Would India's grip on Kashmir be lessened an iota by the death of a few more thousands ? No, right ?

Would India's economy be made any worse than it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s of the last century ? No, right ?

Now, only a fool wouldn't be able to figure out where the jihadi nuke came from.

What does it gain Pakistan or China when India uses the same tactic on Pakistani and Chinese cities using its own 'resources' there ?

Don't forget that India has raised enough assets to stir the hornet's nest on both sides of the Karakoram.

So, you can take it for granted that Porkies won't be such a fool as to let jihadis go and explode nukes in India.

No, they won't do that.

Their intention - and you can take this to the bank - is to use their nukes as a SHIELD against India crossing the IB in response to their conventional provocations through jihadi cross-border terrorism and the occasional conventional military adventurism to alter some facts on the ground around the LOC.

They just hope to use the scare of nukes to deter India from marching into Lahore the next time a few jihadis plant gelatine sticks in a crowded Gujarati enclave of Mumbai, or use IEDs against Indian armoured personnel carriers in the Srinagar valley.

Now, that's the kind of bluff that India made a sincere but veiled attempt to call ( after the Parliament attack in 2002 ) with its Operation Parakram exercise.

Porkies know India's intentions and 'will' by now, especially after the Cold Start Doctrine was made public just for this explicit purpose. The US has 'facilitated' the transfer of that pertinent knowledge to the 'Pindi GHQ through Tony Zinni.

Hence the painful winding down of cross-border terrorism to the level of trickles that you see today.


Valkan, a very clear and articulated breakdown. Might have been obvious to many, but in the middle of all these scenarious, it does put some perspective into how things stand currently and more importantly how they came to be in the first place. Good post.

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

Postby B Singh » 01 Nov 2006 01:23

S.Valkan wrote:
You miss an important fact,- "plausible deniability" works both ways.

If a nuke explodes in an Indian city, the source of the nuke would automatically be triangulated to the Porkistani GHQ at 'Pindi.

And, just like Porkistani cities like Karachi burned in the 80s in response to Punjab burning in India, a swift in-kind "deniable" retaliation would follow.

Along with Muridke, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and even Mangla and Tarbela dams would go up in "plausible deniability" smoke.

So would some areas of Guangdong, Shanghai and Shenzen, since it has to be made painfully obvious that the main proliferator and instigator behind this act must bear its own share.

That's not in Pakistani interest either.

And Pakistan knows this.


I seriously doubt that :

1. Pakistan has an internal fifth column that is willing to detonate nukes, no matter what their problems with Pakistan are - they are still Muslims, who will balk at mass murdering fellow Muslims.
2. China even has anything approaching a live dissident group with logistical capability of doing this.
3. Anyone in Indian leadership has any capability of transferring Indian strategic weapons to either of the two non-existent (IMO) entities that will do our bidding.

No. I think that the above is just empty posturing.

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

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2006 01:41

Err, Where did Valkan say 3)? It will be an Indian response to break down of deterrence.

The only corollary is due to the J18 hoopla PRC might not be so sure that its an Indian decision only. Hence it becomes a three power game.

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

Postby B Singh » 01 Nov 2006 01:42

Neerajsoman wrote:
<massive jholawala comment snip>

Hence it would seem plausible that a disillusioned member of the muslim community would seek to betray the country, smuggle in a nuke and blow half of Mumbai to smithereens. But really, that sounds like an episode of 24. Any bomb making materials that have been used in terror attacks in india are easily available domestically. It would take more than a magnesium/sodium dynamite fuze to detonate a bomb. Realise that Pakistan is yet to obtain a yield above about 12 kt, less than the Hiroshima bomb. This was a non-weaponised test explosion. To weaponise and miniatureise a bomb would take a lot more effort. Then to transport it past the pain-in-the-ass Indian customs via a third country (which would also impose it's custom regulations) is hardly a viable plan.



As long as China has miniaturized 12 kt+ warheads, you can rest assured that Pukis have it too. It might take time to translate from Chinese to Urdu, but that has been done in the past.



Neither is smuggling it through the desert or mountains. You don't get infiltrations by cars or choppers. People come across by mule-back or foot. I have yet to see that genetically modified mule that can carry that nuclear warhead weighing 500<W<1000.



Could you explain why you think that smuggling such weapons to Indian collaborators through our vast seacoast is not worthy of discussion ?

Pakistani fishermen regularly stray into Indian territorial waters.


Uranium) would imply pak involvement. Would this be considered a nuclear attack on indian soil, or simply a conventional terrorist bombing? [/i]


I don't know, but I am willing to bet you want to argue it is the second.

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

Postby B Singh » 01 Nov 2006 01:51

ramana wrote:Err, Where did Valkan say 3)? It will be an Indian response to break down of deterrence.

The only corollary is due to the J18 hoopla PRC might not be so sure that its an Indian decision only. Hence it becomes a three power game.


Quoting Valkan :

Valkan wrote:
And, just like Porkistani cities like Karachi burned in the 80s in response to Punjab burning in India, a swift in-kind "deniable" retaliation would follow.

Along with Muridke, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and even Mangla and Tarbela dams would go up in "plausible deniability" smoke.

So would some areas of Guangdong, Shanghai and Shenzen, since it has to be made painfully obvious that the main proliferator and instigator behind this act must bear its own share.



Its pretty clear what Valkan is driving at. And (3) is rather obvious - unless you want t to argue that India has developed links deep inside Puki and Chinese nuclear establishments which will allow our operatives to obtain the nukes locally.

No, its clear that Valkan is arguing that India could, in case of collapse of deterrence, transfer its own nuclear weapons into the hands of internal enemies of Pakistan and China, who will then proceed to detonate them, providing "plausible deniability" to our nuclear response.

I do not have any problems with basic premise of what Valkan is proposing, except that you are unlikely to find any Pakistani dissident group which will want to mass murder its fellow Muslims or a Chinese dissident group with a logistical capability that even exists.

Of course, I do not think that any Indian leader will have the guts or even the rank stupidity (its always a bad idea to hand dangerous weapons over to any entity over which you do not have complete control) to do (3) above.

Neerajsoman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 05:25
Contact:

Postby Neerajsoman » 01 Nov 2006 01:57

I
don't know, but I am willing to bet you want to argue it is the second.


Au contraire Mr. Singh...

I would argue that any attack that involves a radioactive device is, in essence, a nuclear attack. as for smuggling by sea, or rann of kutch, i would think that you would need more than a posse of islamists to unload & transport such a device into a city. It would require a lot of suspicious manuvering which, i dare say, is more likely to be intercepted than a Pakistani ballistic missile.

The Sum of All Fears scenario is unlikely. I was merely proposing that a dirty bomb would be a more realistic option for jihadists. 5/6 small ones around a city would result in a many civilian casualties. Simultaneous attacks have been demonstrated recently by the Mumbai train blasts. Now imagine these were all dirty bombs. What would the response of the governemnt be? Nuclear retaliation or ritual finger-pointing across the border? Where is the NFU line for dirty bombs?

Neerajsoman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 05:25
Contact:

Postby Neerajsoman » 01 Nov 2006 02:24

These two statements clearly show that you know didly squat about Israel and the events surrounding the partition vote of 1948


Don't bring up UN votes. Israel has little or no respect for the UN in any case viz the recent lebanese fiasco over 2 soldiers, occupation of 77% of territory, far beyond the already disproportionate 55% allowed, as well as erection of the border fence. Go read a neutral history book, not an israeli/american one. Resolution 181 may have been rejected by the Arab side, but it still stands as a UN resolution, and leaves israel in possession of illegal occupied territory in the Palestinian State.

Sorry admin, off-topic, but had to tie a few bits up.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests