Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby abhishek_sharma » 17 Feb 2011 09:29

For people who are suffering from memory problems about Pakistani nuclear weapons programme, please see here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3631&start=280

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Pranav » 17 Feb 2011 09:31

A_Gupta wrote:None of the above excuses Unkil for arming the pathetic excuse for humanity that constitutes the Pakistani army.


Why does "Unkil" need to make any excuses.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby abhishek_sharma » 17 Feb 2011 09:39

Regarding sanctions on Pakis in 1990s: We know that there are many ways to work around those sanctions, right? Arms can be sent through countries like Jordan and Turkey, remember? (It has been done before.) It was discussed in another thread 2-3 days ago.

Moreover, it is not just about supply of arms, it is also about direct encouragement of terrorist groups. For example:

X-post from India-US Thread

SSridhar wrote:Abhishek, books, I don't know if there are any. See this article by Shri B. Raman
Excerpts
The problem of terrorism/religious extremism faced by China in Xinjiang has certain similarities with that faced by India in the Punjab in the past and in J&K presently. The first similarity relates to the role of some members of the diaspora in fomenting terrorism. In India, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab was initially started by some members of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, the USA, the UK and other Western countries, with the encouragement of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the USA's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the Nixon Administration, but it could never gather much support from amongst the Sikh population of Punjab.

ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ManuT » 17 Feb 2011 10:07

Very small nitpick, in case this news was missed.
somnath wrote:Look at North Korea...Just by having a suspected nuke it is able to defy the US and the rest of the world...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_North ... clear_test

The 2009 North Korean nuclear test was the underground detonation of a nuclear device conducted on 25 May 2009 by North Korea.[2] This was its second nuclear test, the first test having taken place in October 2006.[3] Following the nuclear test, Pyongyang also conducted several missile tests.

---
Cosmo_R wrote:A bipartisan bill in parliament that says: "The MoD is hereby prohibited from purchasing from any vendor that supplies arms to Pakistan that can be used against India. The stipulations under this bill are not retroactive but shall be effective this date forward"

Let the GoI/MEA/MoD act helpless. See what pressure Boeing/LM bring to bear on GOTUS

Another variation will be to award contract to the Swedes.


At this point I'll only say this, TSP's basic aim of joining different pacts from the 50s was to get access to weapons against India. This cannot be restricted to 1965 or a few cases of WLR. It is small solace that it did not change the outcome but it did cost lives.

What does 'it only makes the task a little harder' mean? It means more loss of life that does come out of someone pocket.

Stinger (from soviet-afghan era) was used to bring down the Mig 27 of Ajay Ahuja  (more were captured by the end of Vijay) in 1999. TSPA did not buy those, nor were they supplied to them for their use. Mysteriously appeared with NLI, they were used against India. 

Therein lies the bottomline for India.

One weapon less for TSPA is one weapon less for IA to face and it is easier to try to deny access to them using diplomacy and awarding of contracts than disable them later at the cost of blood. That is not very bright, IMO.
---
Also, 'enemy's enemy is a friend' is a dangerous business.  

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby jrjrao » 17 Feb 2011 10:34

taaliyan! band bajayeeh gaa Kayani rajaaa

Case adjourned till March 14. Now, Raymond deserves a laptop, a fast wi-fi, and a new subscription to Netflix, to pass time:

Pakistan court adjourns U.S. prisoner case
The case was adjourned till March 14.


because of this:

Davis case: foreign ministry seeks more time
http://geo.tv/2-17-2011/78401.htm
ISLAMABAD: The ministry of foreign affairs has sought more time from the Lahore High Court to file reply in Raymond Davis case, Geo News reported.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ManishH » 17 Feb 2011 10:55

A_Gupta wrote:
somnath wrote:US bribe for Pak's continued cooperation on the Af-front..Thats all..


And why does Pakistan want them? Surely they know their nukes are an effective shield (using VikramS's terms). Please answer why these weapons are an effective bribe.


Pak's intention is to use the F-16 as a nuclear delivery system. AMRAAM's increases chances that the F-16 reaches it's
target. Anyone with nukes wants redundancy in the delivery systems too, so they don't just rely on missiles.

US is well-aware of Pak's intentions, but publicly pretending both are conventional weapon sales. India has breathing space
till US is in the region - we need to make use of this time to create rifts between the two - just enough so that US realizes
it's bribe was ineffective and didn't achieve _it's_ aims.

US will desist from aid only if it sees it's aims unfulfilled in coming months, not if it sees it harming India.

I'm advocating using RAW and special ops in Afghanistan and Karachi/NWFP to create a perception of unfulfilled US aims.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby VikramS » 17 Feb 2011 11:11

shiv:

There is a huge difference between complaining about selective amnesia and accepting US aid to TSP as a fait-accompli.

Almost everyone is aware of the three friends; heck even the WSJ is printing articles about them. So your periodic MUTU hunting trips do not provide any new information.

However, they do set the tone of the discourse on a very narrow path. Essentially the tree in the forest analogy.

I feel that of the three friends, it is only the US which has any interest in ending the current geo-political status quo within the TSP; Ralph Peters after all is an ex-Pentagon Guy.

And if the US completely washes its hands with TSP, the remaining two friends are likely to more hostile to India's interests. With the US it was primarily a case of either ignoring India's interest or creating some sort of strategic impasse to preserve the TSP. The two other friends are overtly hostile towards India.

abhishek: The issue is not US Aid; the issue is the continuous selective focus on US Aid/Arms while ignoring the much bigger problem at hand.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shravan » 17 Feb 2011 11:34

Karachi: Blasts hit Shah Latif Town rail track

KARACHI: The spate of railway track blasts continuing as miscreants Thursday exploded two bombs at rail track in Shah Latif Town locality of Karachi.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby abhishek_sharma » 17 Feb 2011 11:41


Charlie
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 05:49

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Charlie » 17 Feb 2011 11:57

Herald exclusive: Pakistan’s nuclear bayonet by Pervez Hoodbhoy

Read in full. A very good summary of the ground situation.

Pakistan’s nuclear success changed attitudes instantly. A super-confident military suddenly saw nuclear weapons as a talisman; having nukes-for-nukes became secondary. “The Bomb” became the means for neutralising India’s far larger conventional land, air and sea forces. This thinking soon translated into action. Just months after the 1998 nuclear tests, Pakistani troops and militants, protected by a nuclear shield, crossed the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir into Kargil. Militant Islamic groups freely organised across Pakistan. When the Mumbai attacks eventually followed in 2008, India could do little more than froth and fume.

A third purpose, which is still emerging, is subtler but critically important: our nukes generate income. Hard economic times have befallen Pakistan: loadshedding and fuel shortages routinely shut down industries and transport for long stretches, imports far exceed exports, inflation is at the double-digit level, foreign direct investment is negligible because of concerns over physical security, tax reform has failed, and corruption remains unchecked. An African country like Somalia or Congo would have long ago sunk under this weight. But, like nuclear North Korea, Pakistan feels protected. It knows that international financial donors are compelled to keep pumping in funds. Else a collapsing Pakistan would be unable to prevent its 80+ Hiroshima-sized nukes from disappearing into the darkness.

Over time, then, the country’s nuclear bayonet has gained more than just deterrence value; it is a dream instrument for any ruling oligarchy. Unlike Napoleon’s bayonet – painful to sit upon – nukes offer no such discomfort. Unsurprisingly, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf often referred to them as Pakistan’s “crown jewels”. One recalls that immediately after 9/11 he declared these “assets” were to be protected at all costs — even if this meant accepting American demands to dump the Taliban.

But can our nukes lose their magic? Be stolen, rendered impotent or lose the charm through which they bring in precious revenue? More fundamentally, how and when could they fail to deter?

A turning point could possibly come with Mumbai-II. This is no idle speculation. The military establishment’s reluctance to clamp down on anti-India jihadi groups, or to punish those who carried out Mumbai-I, makes a second Pakistan-based attack simply a matter of time. Although not officially assisted or sanctioned, it would create fury in India. What then? How would India respond?

There cannot, of course, be a definite answer. But it is instructive to analyse Operation Parakram, India’s response to the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001. This 10-month-long mobilisation of nearly half a million soldiers and deployment of troops along the LOC was launched to punish Pakistan for harbouring the Jaish-e-Mohammad, which, at least initially, had claimed responsibility for the attack. When Parakram fizzled out, Pakistan claimed victory and India was left licking its wounds.

A seminar held in August 2003 in Delhi brought together senior Indian military leaders and top analysts to reflect on Parakram. To quote the main speaker, Major-General Ashok Mehta, the two countries hovered on the brink of war and India’s “coercive diplomacy failed due to the mismatch of India-US diplomacy and India’s failure to think through the end game”. The general gave several reasons for not going to war against Pakistan. These included a negative cost-benefit analysis, lack of enthusiasm in the Indian political establishment, complications arising from the Gujarat riots of 2002 and “a lack of courage”. That Parakram would have America’s unflinching support also turned out to be a false assumption.

A second important opinion, articulated by the influential former Indian intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Vikram Sood, was still harsher on India. He expressed regret at not going to war against Pakistan and said that India had “failed to achieve strategic space as well as strategic autonomy”. He went on to say that Musharraf never took India seriously after it lost this golden opportunity to attack a distracted Pakistan that was waging war against the Taliban on the Durand Line. Using the word “imbroglio” for India’s punitive attempt, he pointed out that no political directive had been provided to the service chiefs for execution even as late as August 2002. On the contrary, the Chief of Army Staff was asked to draw up a directive that month to extricate the army.

Now that the finger-pointing, recriminations and stock-taking are over, one can be sure that India will not permit a second Parakram. Indeed, a new paradigm for dealing with Pakistan has emerged and is encoded into strategies such as Cold Start. These call for quick, salami-slicing thrusts into Pakistan while learning to fight a conventional war under a “nuclear overhang” (by itself an interesting new phrase, used by General Deepak Kapoor in January 2010).

On this score, recent revelations by WikiLeaks are worthy of consideration. In a classified cable to Washington in February 2010, Tim Roemer, the US ambassador to India, described Cold Start as “not a plan for a comprehensive invasion and occupation of Pakistan” but “for a rapid, time- and distance-limited penetration into Pakistani territory”. He wrote that “it is the collective judgment of the US Mission that India would encounter mixed results.” Warning India against Cold Start, he concluded that “Indian leaders no doubt realise that although Cold Start is designed to punish Pakistan in a limited manner without triggering a nuclear response, they cannot be sure whether Pakistani leaders will in fact refrain from such a response.”

Roemer is spot on. Implementing Cold Start, which might be triggered by Mumbai-II, may well initiate a nuclear disaster. Indeed, there is no way to predict how such conflicts will end once they start. Therefore a rational Indian leadership – which one can only hope would exist at that particular time – is unlikely to opt for it. But even in this optimistic scenario, Mumbai-II would likely be a bigger disaster for Pakistan than for India. Yes, Pakistani nukes would be unhurt and unused, but their magic would have evaporated.

The reason is clear: an aggrieved India would campaign – with a high chance of success – for ending all international aid for Pakistan, a trade boycott and stiff sanctions. The world’s fear of loose Pakistani nukes hijacked by Islamist forces would be overcome by the international revulsion of yet another stomach-churning massacre. With little fat to spare in the economy, collapse may happen over weeks rather than months. Bravado in Pakistan would be intense at first but would fast evaporate.

Foodstuffs, electricity, gas and petrol would disappear. China and Saudi Arabia would send messages of sympathy and some aid, but they would not make up the difference. With scarcity all around, angry mobs would burn grid stations and petrol pumps, loot shops, and plunder the houses of the rich. Today’s barely governable Pakistan would become ungovernable. The government then in power, whether civilian or military, would exist only in name. Religious and regional forces would pounce upon their chances; Pakistan would descend into hellish anarchy.

In another scenario, could Pakistan’s nukes be stolen by Islamist radicals? America’s worries about this are dismissed by most Pakistanis who consider these fears to be unfounded and suspect such US claims to be hiding bad intent. They point out that the professionalism of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD), which has custodial responsibility of the weapons, has been praised by many visitors. Reassuring words have also come from visiting American politicians like Senator Joe Lieberman. With US tutoring and funds, SPD says it has implemented various technical precautions such as improved perimeter security, installation of electronic locks and security devices such as Permissive Action Links, and a personnel reliability programme.

For all this, procedures and technical fixes are only as good as the men who operate them. For example, more or better weapons could not have prevented Governor Salmaan Taseer from being gunned down by his own guards. This incident, as well as numerous insider attacks upon the military and Inter-Services Intelligence, raise the spectre of a mutiny in nuclear quarters. Given Pakistan’s radicalised and trenchantly anti-American environment, it is hard to argue that this would be impossible in a state of crisis.

Since the nukes may not be safe from radicals, it is logical to assume that the US must have extensively war-gamed the situation. Contingency plans would be put into operation once there is actionable intelligence of Pakistan’s nukes getting loose, or if a radical regime takes over and makes overt threats. What could these plans be, and would they really work?

An article published in The New Yorker in November 2009 by Seymour Hersh created waves in Pakistan. He wrote that US emergency plans exist for taking the sting out of Pakistan’s nukes by seizing their trigger mechanisms. He also claimed that an alarm, apparently related to a missing nuclear bomb component, had caused a US rapid response team to fly to Dubai. The alarm proved false and the team was recalled before it reached Pakistan. The Pakistan foreign ministry, as well as the US embassy in Islamabad, vigorously denied any such episode.

What should one make of Hersh’s claim? First, it is highly unlikely that the US has accurate knowledge of the storage locations of Pakistan’s nukes, especially since they (or look-alike dummies) are mobile. Extensive underground tunnels reportedly exist within which they can be freely moved. Second, even if a location is exactly known, it would be heavily guarded. This implies many casualties on both sides when intruding troops are engaged, thus making a secret operation impossible. Third, attacking a Pakistani nuclear site would be an act of war with totally unacceptable consequences for the US, particularly in view of its Afghan difficulties. All of this suggests that Hersh’s source of information was defective.

How would the US actually react to theft? Ill-informed TV anchors have screamed hysterically about Blackwater and US forces descending to grab the country’s nukes. But in a hypothetical crisis where the US has decided to take on Pakistan, its preferred military option would not be ground forces. Instead it would opt for precision Massive Ordnance Penetrator 30,000-pound bombs dropped by B-2 bombers or fry the circuit boards of the warheads using short, high-energy bursts of microwave energy from low-flying aircraft. But deeply buried warheads, or those with adequate metallic shielding, would still remain safe.

A US attack on Pakistan’s nuclear production or storage sites would, however, be monumental stupidity. Even if a single nuke escapes destruction, that last one could cause catastrophic damage. But the situation is immensely more uncertain and dangerous than a single surviving nuke. Even if the US knows the precise numbers of deployed weapons, it simply cannot know all their position coordinates. India, one imagines, would know even less.

Hence the bottom line: there is no way for any external power, whether America or India, to effectively deal with Pakistan’s nukes. Is this good news? Yes and no. While nuclear survivability increases Pakistani confidence and prevents dangerous knee-jerk reactions, it has also encouraged adventurism — the consequences of which Pakistan had to pay after Kargil.

An extremist takeover of Pakistan is probably no further than five to 10 years away. Even today, some radical Islamists are advocating war against America. But such a war would end Pakistan as a nation state even if no nukes are ever used. Saving Pakistan from religious extremism will require the army, which alone has power over critical decisions, to stop using its old bag of tricks. It must stop pretending that the threat lies across our borders when in fact the threat lies within. Napoleon’s bayonet ultimately could not save him, and Pakistan’s nuclear bayonet has also had its day. It cannot protect the country. Instead, Pakistan needs peace, economic justice, rule of law, tax reform, a social contract, education and a new federation agreement.

The author is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad

Last edited by Charlie on 17 Feb 2011 12:00, edited 2 times in total.

Narad
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 15:15

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Narad » 17 Feb 2011 11:58

KARACHI: The spate of railway track blasts continuing as miscreants Thursday exploded two bombs at rail track in Shah Latif Town locality of Karachi.


OT: How about referring such strategic assets as "mujahids" instead of "miscreants"? They sure deserve our moral, political and diplomatic support, in the struggle for their legitimate rights :)


Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Airavat » 17 Feb 2011 12:24

Pakistani gets 30 years for killing daughter

Mohammed Saleem told authorities that Hina was shaming the family by living her life in the way that she did. Saleem slit his daughter’s throat twenty-eight times, but claimed that he did not want to kill her.

Mohammed Saleem believed that his daughter’s lifestyle changed “all of a sudden”, he saw his daughter move to Italy as an Asian girl and grown to become a Western woman. Hina refused to have her marriage arranged, lived with her Italian boyfriend and smoked. This was normal for Hina but was an act of treason for her father. Hina threatened the pride of her father, his dignity and the family’s standing within the Pakistani community.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Pranav » 17 Feb 2011 12:35

Civil Unrest in Pakistan

Like many parts of the developing world, civil unrest in Pakistan can quickly turn to extreme violence. One example that must certainly be on the minds of the security personnel at the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. consulates in Pakistan is the November 1979 incident in which an enraged mob seized and destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. While there were only two Americans killed in that incident — a Marine security guard shot as he stood on the roof of the embassy and an Army warrant officer who died when an apartment building on the embassy compound was torched — the fire that the mob set inside the building very nearly killed all the employees who had sought shelter in the embassy’s inner safe-haven area. Two local Pakistani staff members were also killed in the fire.

The 1979 attack was said to have been sparked by reports that the U.S. government was behind an assault on the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Saudi militants the day before. In reality, the mob that stormed and torched the U.S. Embassy was at least tolerated, if not orchestrated, by the Pakistani government, which was angry that the United States cut off financial aid to the country in April 1979. Not only did the Pakistani government facilitate the busing of large numbers of protesters to the U.S. Embassy, its security forces also stood aside and refused to protect the embassy from the onslaught of the angry mob. The embassy assault was Pakistan’s not-so-subtle way of sending a message to the U.S. government.


http://www.speroforum.com/site/article. ... vil+Unrest


Did the US cut off aid to the Paks in 1979?

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Anujan » 17 Feb 2011 12:55

I wont spoil it for you guys, but watch between 2:00 and 2:10 :mrgreen:


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 17 Feb 2011 13:10

Anujan wrote:I wont spoil it for you guys, but watch between 2:00 and 2:10 :mrgreen:

:rotfl: :rotfl: Senator Mai-Baap!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 17 Feb 2011 15:51

X-Posted from Managing Pakistan's Failure Thread

VikramS wrote:Sometimes I imagine a nightmarish scenario where the TSPA goes for a Samson choice first strike on India with everything they have (50-100-150). The SDRE are so shocked that the response is muted with the Chipanda scooping in to destroy anything which is left, lest the SDRE imagine getting even with the Chipanda. Then the millions of Jehadis who are now running out of land and water, swarm into India armed with the 20 million AKs they have....


VikramS ji,

For a state like Pakistan, which does not have much going for it, its nukes are its only bargaining chips, and it uses it well for extortion. So Pakistan will continue to increase the level of fear in the world of its nukes, but not to an extent that the world decides to do something about it.

Actually regardless of how others think, I very much share your fear, and I am more than willing to put on a dhoti and shiver in it at your side. There are three ways of steadying our shivering legs.

1) We get other big powers in the boat and get it crowded enough so that our legs do not find much space to shiver in. That is the conventional BRF wisdom. If the others don't come to solve the nuclear problem of Pakistan, then we take the nuclear problem of Pakistan to the others. We globalize the fear of Pakistan's nukes.

And the method that is being proposed here on BRF is to change the trust level between the big powers (USA, PRC, KSA, etc) in the custodians of Pakistan's nukes, either by changing the custodians or by making their stability suspect, through the spread of the Taliban virus, which we believe would by itself culminate in a serious threat for the status quo.

This solution makes several assumptions:
  1. Spreading the risk does not necessarily mean that the risk to India decreases.
  2. The others could decide in favor of letting themselves be blackmailed of even larger sums of money, rather than forcing Pakistan's denuclearization.
  3. The others may not have the intelligence and the capacity to denuclearize Pakistan.
  4. During the efforts to denuclearize Pakistan, the situation can get out of hand, and in fact our shivering legs get evaporated.

Since GoI does not seem to be doing anything actively or at least publicly to deal with the situation permanently, the dynamics of the evolving situation in Pakistan is our only comfort, and as such this solution finds most favor amongst us, because it is the solution of auto-pilot and passivity on our part. Whether it truly represents a solution or not, any further analysis on that would only disturb our comfort. GoI does its part in comforting the masses by not publicizing the danger too much from any nuclear attack on India.

Of all the possible solutions, this is the only solution actively being pursued - by doing nothing.

2) Ukraine Solution

Just like in the FSU everybody wore communism on their sleeves, in Pakistan everybody wears Pakistaniyat on his salwar! As long as FSU was a unified country, it was difficult getting rid of communism. But when it broke up, suddenly the various republics and their people could feel the freedom from a suffocating identity, and could return to their old ethnic identities. The earlier identity, which was mission-enabled, wanting to turn the world communist and fight the capitalist West, required that FSU keep a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. When FSU dissolved, new republics like Ukraine and Kazakhstan, did not see any need to prolong this mission or their past enmities, and decided to disarm their nukes.

If Pakistan breaks up into smaller provinces, and Pakjab becomes a land-locked province cut off from both China and the Sea, then it too could have its Ukraine moment and see that they cannot continue on the same Pakistaniyat course and enmity with India. The Punjabi identity may reassert itself, and the need for such military capacity is seen neither as useful nor as sustainable.

However it is unlikely that ideological fervor and past enmities would completely be allowed to be cleansed from Pakjab's body politic, and it is unlikely that the TSPA or their Talibanic successors would loosen their control over Sindh or Gilgit-Baltistan or be willing to disarm.

3) Game of Chicken

India can of course opt to actively do something against the nuclear threat from Pakistan. We can let them know that we take their nuclear threat seriously, and in nuclear deterrence if one sides takes the threat seriously, the other should too.

In order to play the Game of Chicken, we would have invest heavily in nuclear bunkers and other infrastructure which allows India to pick up the thread again, after taking everything Pakistan has to throw at us. We have to credibly show that we are prepared to take a nuclear hit. We have to show that our Civilization would survive, that our scientists, engineers, doctors, cultural elite, administrators, political class all the way down to village level, school children, elite students, all would survive a nuclear exchange.

We need to credibly show that we have enough storage of food and water, which will remain uncontaminated and can be used by the public, that there is a post nuclear exchange plan in place for the whole society.

We have to conduct regular drills in our offices, factories and schools to deal with a nuclear attack alert.

Parallel to this preparations, we also have to work on a credible BMD shield.

And most importantly we need a fleet of nuclear powered nuclear armed second strike submarines to sow real fear into the hearts of Pakistanis and other countries who have helped Pakistan in the past.

Last but not least, the whole Indian Population would have to be told to get rid of fear. Death will come, when it comes and we will face it!

If all this infrastructure, organization and the shield are in place, then we are ready to play a game of chicken with Pakistan, through conventional military incursions into Pakistan and shriller rhetoric. We would then have turned the game around, and Pakistanis would have to live under the fear of our nukes, for we will be posing the question to them: We are ready, are you?

At some point, Pakistan would have to decide that the threat to them, especially from a first nuclear strike from India is just too much and it is better to verifiably denuclearize.

4) Happy Surrender Solution

This solution involves that India robs Pakistan of all its dreams and its capacity to hate India. If we change the situation and Pakistan's perception of us in such a way that the likelihood of Pakistan attacking India is not much more them attacking Mecca, then a nuclear disarmament of Pakistan can be initiated.

For an elaboration of this please refer to my ebook!

IMHO, I think such a solution would the least costly in lives, resources and worry, and most likely to bring about Pakistan's disarmament! As a side note, it may also save our Civilization.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11637
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Feb 2011 16:24

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e27441.htm

There have been several reports in the Pakistani press, unmentioned by Perlez, that the two men he killed were not, as initially reported by the US, petty thieves, but were actually agents working for Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI. Today, ABC’s Nick Schifrin, who has been the best reporter on this story in the US corporate media, reports that while the State Department “adamantly denies” the claim (big surprise, that!), four Pakistani officials, off the record, have told ABC that the two men Davis killed were ISI agents assigned to tail Davis because he was a spy who had “crossed a red line.”

What “red line?” Again there is speculation in Pakistan’s media that Davis may have been involved in some kind of covert US program to actually finance or orchestrate some of the bombings that have been rocking, and destabilizing Pakistan. (Certainly that could explanation for all of those cell phones recovered from Davis’s car, which could serve nicely as bomb detonators--a popular method adopted by terrorists everywhere. That theory might also explain his stop at an ATM to withdraw a bundle of cash.)

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11637
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Feb 2011 16:30

http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/17/lhc-to-h ... claim.html

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday adjourned until March 14, without ruling whether a US official accused by police of murdering two men qualifies for diplomatic immunity.

“As the deputy attorney general has requested three weeks to submit a reply on the status of Raymond Davis, the case is adjourned until March 14,” LHC Chief Justice Ejaz Mohammad Chaudhry said.


Anything can happen in three weeks.

In 3 weeks, Pakistani domestic attention will be consumed by something else. In the US, if the Republican Congress does not raise the debt limit for the Federal Government, the Federal Govt shuts down on March 4. In any case, American attention is likely to be consumed by the domestic battle of the budget.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 17 Feb 2011 17:00, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11637
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Feb 2011 16:32

Pranav wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:None of the above excuses Unkil for arming the pathetic excuse for humanity that constitutes the Pakistani army.


Why does "Unkil" need to make any excuses.


Why do desis need to make excuses for Unkil?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11637
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Feb 2011 16:35

Don't know about the legitimacy of this news source:
http://centralasiaonline.com/cocoon/cai ... feature-01

LAHORE – Interior Minister Rehman Malik has ruled out foreigners as the driving force behind Pakistani terrorism and places the blame on Pakistani citizens.

"There is no association of external hands in terrorism in the country. The locals are supporting terrorism," Malik told Central Asia Online earlier this month. "We should put our own house in order before blaming any other country. … Al-Qaeda, Taliban and especially the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) are trying to destabilise Pakistan in co-ordination with each other."

Some religious groups support terrorists and have been trying to divide Pakistan, he said. One such group is the LeJ, a splinter group of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) that is working with al-Qaeda.

Since being banned, jihadi organisations have operated in small groups to help the Taliban attack important government, military and police installations, he said.


The problem extends to Punjab, security analyst Brig. (ret.) Rashid Malik told Central Asia Online. "The Punjabi Taliban in past were either 'waging jihad' in Jammu and Kashmir or carrying out sectarian killings in the country and have now become entangled with al-Qaeda-linked militants who currently operate under the banner of the TTP," Rashid said.

"Since Pakistan outlawed these groups, attacks in Kashmir and Pakistan have been carried out under other guises. ... Often these groups pose as charitable organisations to avoid government sanctions," he said.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Pranav » 17 Feb 2011 17:10

A_Gupta wrote:
Pranav wrote:
Why does "Unkil" need to make any excuses.


Why do desis need to make excuses for Unkil?


We need not make excuses either for "Unkil" or for feeble-minded, corrupt Indian political elites.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Gagan » 17 Feb 2011 17:16

Have you all noticed something.

This Raymond Davis episode is proving to be the beginning of Nawaz Sharif's rehabilitation and rapprochement with the west.
Massa's politicians are calling him up, because they know that he runs things in Punjab. And he is sitting in Lahore.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2011 17:21

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote: Could I ask you why Pakistan is receiving F-16s and AMRAAMs as part of US aid in the "war on terror"?

If those arms are not going to defeat terror, why is the US supplying them to Pakistan?

US bribe for Pak's continued cooperation on the Af-front..Thats all..Strategically, if we are to do something, it should be about breaking that dependence...


Oh? That's all? The US is supplying F-16s and AMRAAMs that are useless to Pakistan in the war against terror as a bribe? And it's as simple as that? Not for a simpleton like me.

Why on earth would Pakistan want such a bribe? Do you have a clue? why would the Pakistan army take, as a "bribe", something that is utterly useless to them in their war against terror?

Somnath wrote:which part of the american conventional arms aid to Pak do you think helps them quell the Baloch insurgency?


Sorry sir. I have already stated my opinion about arms to Pakistan and insurgencies. But are they quelling the insurgency, since your question, (in your words) imply that?

(This question is a double question in which any attempt at answering the first part demands the acceptance of the second half of the sentence. Like "When did you stop beating your wife". :rotfl: No sir. Not good enough)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2011 17:26

habal wrote:
Without US arms and international support, Pakistan is only worth the geopolitical weight of a UP, if a state like UP were to be made a country.

And pakis realize that quite well, and repeatedly say that pakistan will be like bhutan to India, if they lose their strategic privileges, IOW they recognize their uselessness if not for US-boosted nuisance value.


Well said sir. Well said. I am pleased to see a great many people being more and more aware of what Pakistaniyat means.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11637
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Feb 2011 17:26

Pranav wrote:We need not make excuses either for "Unkil" or for feeble-minded, corrupt Indian political elites.


Why the equal-equal? Why is it obligatory to bring in "corrupt Indian political elites" everytime Unkil is criticized?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2011 17:30

Karna_A wrote:
shiv wrote:I would dearly like to know exactly what ideas are being put forward to deal with Pakistani nukes. After all our nukes are not a deterrent and in any case Pakistan will chuck all their nukes at us in one go making all our deterrence meaningless. We actually need not do anything about Pakistan or China in the way we did not do anything about US arms aid to Pakistan.


The way to deal with TSP nookes is to have 3x TSP nookes and keep 1x for TSP and rest to make Arabian sands hot.
Just like Hamid Gul is fond of saying no matter who hits TSP, they hit India.
Just like that Indian policy has to be no matter why or when TSP uses nookes, Arabian Sands will melt.
Just as Israel says that it has to be like a mad dog so no one messes with it, India too has to be like a mad dog in case of TSP attack, that the response would be very obnoxious to everything that TSP cherishes.
And if 26/11 can unite Indians so much a naked nook attack would definately mean that 3500 KMS around India is also burning.


Thanks for being forthright enough to state an opinion on this. I don;t know if I agree or not - I have not thought about it - but it is certainly one option.


But a Pakistani nuke hitting a US target and in Xinjiang or Tibet would make both those countries aware of the consequences of their actions.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Pranav » 17 Feb 2011 17:31

A_Gupta wrote:
Pranav wrote:We need not make excuses either for "Unkil" or for feeble-minded, corrupt Indian political elites.


Why the equal-equal? Why is it obligatory to bring in "corrupt Indian political elites" everytime Unkil is criticized?


Actually it is not equal-equal. Our complaints about others have little value when we're doing nothing to fix our own house. So we need to be much harsher on corrupt and feeble-minded Indian political elites than on "Unkil".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2011 17:39

VikramS wrote:
I feel that of the three friends, it is only the US which has any interest in ending the current geo-political status quo within the TSP; Ralph Peters after all is an ex-Pentagon Guy.



Vikram. Please pardon me for saying this. You are speaking like an American in America. I have no clue who Ralph Peters is (is he a comedian?), and have no insight into what one individual from the Pentagon might or might not do. I am chary of Americans naming American names as people who will achieve something because that is what I have heard the entire American nation say each time a new President is elected, And each time it is same ol. Nothing much changes for those of us outside America. And I have been watching US Presidents since Lyndon Johnson.


VikramS wrote:And if the US completely washes its hands with TSP, the remaining two friends are likely to more hostile to India's interests. With the US it was primarily a case of either ignoring India's interest or creating some sort of strategic impasse to preserve the TSP. The two other friends are overtly hostile towards India.


Thanks for stating your assessment here. My assessment is different. Will state my thoughts some time down the line because the topic (of America possibly washing its hands off Pakistan) is vast and I cannot sum up my thoughts in a couple of sentences.

Mihaylo
BRFite
Posts: 762
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 21:10

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Mihaylo » 17 Feb 2011 18:50

jrjrao wrote:taaliyan! band bajayeeh gaa Kayani rajaaa

Case adjourned till March 14. Now, Raymond deserves a laptop, a fast wi-fi, and a new subscription to Netflix, to pass time:

Pakistan court adjourns U.S. prisoner case
The case was adjourned till March 14.


Possible scenarios:
RD is bumped off somehow
RD is released
RD stays longer in prison

All three scenarios are bad for Pakistan :twisted:

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby somnath » 17 Feb 2011 19:07

shiv wrote:Why on earth would Pakistan want such a bribe? Do you have a clue? why would the Pakistan army take, as a "bribe", something that is utterly useless to them in their war against terror


Pakistan does not need these toys for their "war on terror", in fact the basic truth is that the Pak Army is not even convinced that it is "their war" in many ways...The F16s, the AMRAAMs are for the Pak Army to "match up" in some ways to the Indian Army..I said before, barring a few perceptive analysts, bulk of the Pak establishment still wants to maintain conventional parity of some sort with India...It doesnt make a major difference (to the balance) - there is only so much that aid money can buy, compared to the massive amounts India can/does spend - but that is a fetish...People like Ejaz Haidar have pointed this out many times...From our perspective, we should be encouraging the Pakis to acquire a few more of their toys, up that defence/GDP ratio to 7% or higher - just get them a bit closer to economic implosion..

shiv wrote:Sorry sir. I have already stated my opinion about arms to Pakistan and insurgencies. But are they quelling the insurgency, since your question, (in your words) imply that?


I have completely lost you here...What is your point? In various places you have claimed that these conventional arms 1) allow Pak to quell their insurgencies, 2) arm terror groups that they launch against India...Both are hard to justify, as I have pointed out...

the Pakis (at least majority of them) think that these toys help them bridge the gap with India...In reality the gap is too vast to be bridged, and it does not come all that much in India's considerations...India's prime consideration is the Paki nuke capability - that has been proven time and time again since 1990....Thats the main point...

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby pgbhat » 17 Feb 2011 19:37

Pranav wrote:Actually it is not equal-equal. Our complaints about others have little value when we're doing nothing to fix our own house. So we need to be much harsher on corrupt and feeble-minded Indian political elites than on "Unkil".

More self flagellation. :roll:

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Venkarl » 17 Feb 2011 19:47

somnath wrote:...From our perspective, we should be encouraging the Pakis to acquire a few more of their toys, up that defence/GDP ratio to 7% or higher - just get them a bit closer to economic implosion....


:roll: Sir..I have a psycho neighbor who is hellbent on destroying me and my future....but has no parity with me financially or by any other means...I can encourage him to put his hard-earned money on things to destroy me....which may starve him to death eventually....but what if some Mr.Rich A$$, for his own interests, is not only feeding him but arming him to fight...how should I react to this? still encourage him thinking he'll starve to death some day? ...... frankly....this strategy won't work out...it may even become suicidal...he'll die anyway once orphaned by Mr. Rich A$$ ...but with what ever he got from Mr. Rich A$$....one fine day he will take my arm or leg with him..leaving me handicapped.

And Dr.Shiv is talking about Mr.Rich A$$ is.... :P
Last edited by Venkarl on 17 Feb 2011 19:57, edited 2 times in total.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby jrjrao » 17 Feb 2011 19:51

Chai-biscoot time onlee. It is Khan vs. AmeriKhan awam now.

Khan says:
http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=11267
He is an American Spy and terrorist who all have been involved in all terror activities in Pakistan since last couple of years. All suicide bombings,shopping malls, and other terrorist activities in Masjids and Holy places are being done and carried out by these American agents roaming arourd in our beloved country. This is our Government fault giving open access and visas to these suspected agents. May Allah save Pakistan and People of Pakistan. Live Long Pakistan.

Salman Khan
Pakistan

While the AmeriKhan is also getting worked up:
Link

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2011 19:56

somnath wrote:
Pakistan does not need these toys for their "war on terror", in fact the basic truth is that the Pak Army is not even convinced that it is "their war" in many ways...The F16s, the AMRAAMs are for the Pak Army to "match up" in some ways to the Indian Army..I said before, barring a few perceptive analysts, bulk of the Pak establishment still wants to maintain conventional parity of some sort with India.


Thank you for stating the truth plainly

somnath wrote:It doesnt make a major difference (to the balance)

Utter balderdash. A cop out.


somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:Sorry sir. I have already stated my opinion about arms to Pakistan and insurgencies. But are they quelling the insurgency, since your question, (in your words) imply that?


I have completely lost you here...What is your point? In various places you have claimed that these conventional arms 1) allow Pak to quell their insurgencies, 2) arm terror groups that they launch against India...Both are hard to justify, as I have pointed out...


:D Surely you jest sir. The particular items that the Pakistanis find useful are night vision goggles, communication equipment, body armor, helicopters and intel sharing. Also reconnaissance pods and UAVs that are to be delivered if they have not yet been delivered. While these items are used against Baluchis and fellow Pakistanis they are also used by Pakistan against India.

It is not clear what point you are trying to make. But you are not making any point that alters the lethality of US perfidy vis a vis India and the contrasting uselessness of the aid with regard to defeating insurgents. Is it possible that you are merely trying to prolong an argument without actually being able to post facts? If you are unable to understand what I am talking about I suggest that you and I stop addressing each other about this issue and continue to post our opinions without trying to reply to each other. That IMO would make our opinions clear to everyone else without the trouble of having to reply to each other.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby putnanja » 17 Feb 2011 20:51

somnath wrote:
shiv wrote:Why on earth would Pakistan want such a bribe? Do you have a clue? why would the Pakistan army take, as a "bribe", something that is utterly useless to them in their war against terror


Pakistan does not need these toys for their "war on terror", in fact the basic truth is that the Pak Army is not even convinced that it is "their war" in many ways...The F16s, the AMRAAMs are for the Pak Army to "match up" in some ways to the Indian Army..I said before, barring a few perceptive analysts, bulk of the Pak establishment still wants to maintain conventional parity of some sort with India...It doesnt make a major difference (to the balance) - there is only so much that aid money can buy, compared to the massive amounts India can/does spend - but that is a fetish...People like Ejaz Haidar have pointed this out many times...From our perspective, we should be encouraging the Pakis to acquire a few more of their toys, up that defence/GDP ratio to 7% or higher - just get them a bit closer to economic implosion..


Regarding the bolded part, you are talking like a true american. In fact, US uses that very sentence "won't alter balance in the region", when it transfers all these weapons to Pakistan. US supplied over 2000 TOW missiles and hundreds of AMRAAM missiles for free. It may not alter the balance in the end, but why should Indians be killed for it? If and when a war occurs, if these missiles means destruction of additional tanks and aircrafts, then it is a loss for India. A war which may end in a few days may get dragged on couple of weeks because of these additional weapons. It also is factored in when India thinks of any punitive strikes.

And don't forget the psychological boost that the pakis get when they have all these weapons. It makes them more belligerent and willing to indulge in carrying out more terrorist strikes in India.

Please don't raise this "balance won't be altered" BS here. If US was really true to it, one wonders why they protest whenever anyone sells any weapons to Cuba, Iran or Venezuela. After all, a few anti-aircraft radars and missiles won't alter balance between US and these countries, right? :roll: That is real national interest, not parroting what other countries say about the balance.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby VikramS » 17 Feb 2011 21:06

shiv:

I can not believe you do not know who Ralph Peters is, especially in the days of Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Pete ... ime_change

You do not expect TSPA to ask for hunting knives? How many F-16s did they get? And how much GUBOing did it take? In an earlier post I had requested a detailed analysis of US arm supplies to TSP over the last two decades and the strategic/tactical/economic impact of those weapons, keeping in mind the alternatives the TSPA had. None of the MUTU-hunters have responded.

Keep in mind Karna's blocking issue paradigm. If the TSPA made the F-16 and the AAMRAMs a blocking issue, the US had very few alternatives. And while these weapons makes Indian tactics more difficult, it does little to alter the overall strategic situation; especially given Indian attitudes (unwilling to fly a few minutes across the LOC to destroy the TSPA artillery batteries during Kargil).

I am looking forward to your position piece on how the TSP will look if Uncle decides to cut back its role, and cede that sugar-daddy position. Do you think that TSP elite have not thought this thing through?

Within the TSP establishment, the calculus is that sooner or later Uncle will cut and run; it us just a question of TSP holding on for long enough. The TSP elite have multiple generations of experience in negotiating with pay-masters. We might laugh at their GUBOing but they have succeeded in punching way ABOVE their weight level; they are not idiots. Why do you think that they are so sanguine about the US leaving? I am looking forward to learning what you feel the TSP Elite have not factored in.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby somnath » 17 Feb 2011 21:13

for everyone here who thinks that the extra two squadrons of F16s (or the extra 200 NVGs!) made a difference to India's strategic response calculus in 1998, 2001 or 2008 - well, I have nothing to say (balderdash, cop out et al)...The chaps who actually made policy durign those occasions dont articulate such reasons! Their concentration seems to be pretty focused on the nukes...

Re insurgencies - it has to be a leap of faith to conclude that American equipment is trickled down to India-focussed groups - there is no evidence of that...It is also unclear how the Pakis can win against the Balochs with dribs of the stuff that the Americans themselves arent finding terribly useful against sundry similar groups!

For about 40 years, barring occasional inspirations, all that India did was to complain - of imperialism, US perfidy, Southern economic slavery..It was the reflection of a failed national generation (in fact two)...All that they ever did was to complain, our foreign policy became known for its shrill victimhood-based noises...Unfortunately, almost never any options...One example of that is a fetish of "equality" - does the US allow others to sell weapons to Iran, Cuba etc etc...Now, neither is India US, nor is Pak's geopolitical position vis a vis India comparable to America's vis a vis Cuba or Venezuela...The strategic realities and therefore options are very different, so our responses need to be different as well, no? Or is it that data/facts should never interfere with ideological predilections?

We dont like yanks giving arms to Pakis...So we complain..then? Do we have options to convince the Americans otherwise? Some would say - lets understand WHY the americans are doing so, and lets see if we have options there...But no, "I dont care why the americans are doing it, we need to complain"...Of course, questioning the very basis, are the Americans really "changing the game" in favour of the Pakis? - that of course is balderdash and cop out...Of course they are, perfidious yanks!
Last edited by somnath on 17 Feb 2011 21:35, edited 1 time in total.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby somnath » 17 Feb 2011 21:24

VikramS wrote:Why do you think that they are so sanguine about the US leaving? I am looking forward to learning what you feel the TSP Elite have not factored in.


Because of the new game in the "great game" town -china...China has already made large investments in Central Asia (in fact outbidding India a few times)..they have already invested a billion in a copper mine in Afghanistan as wel..When the US leaves, the new game will be China..And China will need a "muslim chowkidar" to guard its interests with boots on the ground...Pak fits the bill perfectly...In any case Pak is China's proxy to fight India...With the Great Game thrown in, the "taller than mountain" friendship is destiend for the moon!

And China in fact will prefer a scenario where it remains the only benefactor of Pak, somehwat similar to the NoKo situation...then Pak will remain as beholden to it as NoKo...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ramana » 17 Feb 2011 21:32

ManishH wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: ....

And why does Pakistan want them? Surely they know their nukes are an effective shield (using VikramS's terms). Please answer why these weapons are an effective bribe.


Pak's intention is to use the F-16 as a nuclear delivery system. AMRAAM's increases chances that the F-16 reaches it's
target. Anyone with nukes wants redundancy in the delivery systems too, so they don't just rely on missiles
.

US is well-aware of Pak's intentions, but publicly pretending both are conventional weapon sales. India has breathing space
till US is in the region - we need to make use of this time to create rifts between the two - just enough so that US realizes
it's bribe was ineffective and didn't achieve _it's_ aims.

US will desist from aid only if it sees it's aims unfulfilled in coming months, not if it sees it harming India.

I'm advocating using RAW and special ops in Afghanistan and Karachi/NWFP to create a perception of unfulfilled US aims.


Nightwatch comments on RD affair:

Pakistan: Update. The Lahore High Court will be informed by the U.S. Embassy that Raymond Davis, accused of murdering two Pakistanis, qualifies for diplomatic immunity by being a member of embassy administrative and technical staff, under the Vienna Convention, an official said, Dawn News reported.

The Pakistani government will inform the court that the domestic law and Foreign Ministry's regulations require Davis to be registered with authorities as a diplomat, which could not be done because of unresolved queries, an official said. The system of accreditation followed was not in accordance with international law nor prevalent in many countries, including the United States, and the matter should be left up to judicial interpretation, according to the official.

Comment: The Pakistani Taliban threatened reprisals in the event Davis is released. Davis might have a diplomatic passport, but his immunity might still be limited. This is arguably one of the worst times for such a stress-point to emerge. Large anti-American demonstrations are likely. If past is prologue, Pakistani authorities will not intervene, even if the demonstrators burn down the US Embassy in Islamabad.


Lets hope law takes its own course.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests