Nuclear Deterrence: What's all the fuss about?

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

Postby shiv » 14 Sep 2005 21:35

Rudradev wrote:You gotta admit the occasional peek is entertaining though-- ever notice how the paunchy little RAPE-lets posting there style themselves as "General", "Colonel", "Brigadier", "Field Marshal", "Joint Chief of Army Staff".... :rotfl:


Rudradev - two problems with linking.

One is they gets hits from us and I can't take it

Second - Indians visit there and believe all the stuff and come and whine on here. I don't know which is worse.

Ochoaomar is testing his luck. I am seeing him link more Paki sites than I am comfortable with. Sunils track pee diplomacy mey be killed by me in his case if I get pissed off enough.

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Postby Sunil » 14 Sep 2005 22:01

Sigh..

and I thought for once someone had posted something besides an IB4TL on the forum.

Ochoaomar,

The day we on BRF reach Pakistani levels - I fell the Republic and everything that it stands for will have come to an end.

There is enough on the scenarios thread to scare the living daylights out of them. There is no need for Saggu to bring up the nuclear issue. Escalatory rhetoric is one thing but making irresponsible statements is completely different. If BRF can show sense that most Pakistani general staff lacks - then I think that says a lot about the Pakistani General staff.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 14 Sep 2005 22:03

Shiv, I think the BRF has enough membership for critical mass. I think we should go to membership by referral. I see a lot of pillais and munnas joining up and changing the email ids to bogus ones. The forum can be red only for them.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 14 Sep 2005 22:12

ramana wrote: I think we should go to membership by referral.


good idea.

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

Postby shiv » 15 Sep 2005 06:51

ramana wrote:Shiv, I think the BRF has enough membership for critical mass. I think we should go to membership by referral. I see a lot of pillais and munnas joining up and changing the email ids to bogus ones. The forum can be red only for them.


No ramana - I think that Paki fora should be allowed to live completely separate lives away from us. Just because we allow select Pakis on here does not mean that we need to get into some kind of "relationship"

I very strongly believe that we will end up "indirectly" talking to PakRAPE kids. That may be fun, but it hardly represents Pakistan. Besides I have learned even more about Pakistan over the years and know that talking is not on the same wavelength. Indians tend to stick to fairly stupid and naive satyameva jayate and PakiRAPE tend to bullsh1t and we have people howling on here.

Any association has to be private, personal and with nothing to do with BRF. I am telling you we are only going to go downhill the day we start linking with Pakdef or any other Paki forum because Indians are obsessed with Pakistan. They are welcome to be that way but ne need to bring it on here.

Unrelated to this. just look at the abs-crap news that is linked on here from some media. People fall for such news instantly without giving a millisecond's thought about DDM or other ulterior motives behind news. That is exactly what people do with pakRAPE quotes on Pakfora.

Indians are welcome to visit Paki fora and take membership and live on there 24x7 under the following conditions:

1) Do not link and give Paki fora any hits from here. They have to earn their popularity. Why the fck should my work and others work on here be shagged away in making Paki fora popular?. I will not accept this in the near future.

2) Do not bring any discussions and whines from Paki fora on here asking for "help" in some discussion or pointing out something to go and laugh at.

Leonard
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 15 Nov 2000 12:31

Postby Leonard » 16 Sep 2005 04:33

Take it FWIW ----Don't Know anything on reliability of FORCEINDIA ...

http://www.forceindia.net/cover1.asp

Babur's Flight

{Fair use of copyrighted material
: #1 You are responsible for copyright consequences.
#2You are cautioned not to violate copyright by posting full article from subscription website. Fair-use law only permits relevent excerpting and referenceing the source.

BTW Prasun is a compulsive plagurizer will little original content or thinking. So take that for useless stuff.

Also please note that FARCE or Prasun are person-non-grata on BRF

- Arun_S Admin Hat on.
}


S^2 ---- Isn't this open violation of the DETERRENCE Paradigm by the LIZARD ???

How do we respond to this ???? :evil:

We badly need to STICK a broom up the LIZARD's Musharraf very soon !!!

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 16 Sep 2005 05:07

And contrary to popular speculation, present plans call for this cruise missile to be armed with only conventional high-explosive and blast-fragmentation warheads.

Well, it is Sengupta writing that but, taking that into consideration, and despite all Pillai's bravado, it appears that the Paks have buckled and confirmed that it isn't nuke armed after all.

Nice to know that if the Pakees get smacked across the head often enough, they can respond in appropriate ways.

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 629
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Vamsee » 18 Sep 2005 08:05

Up

Sunil garu. You have promised to elaborate on factors specific to Indian Subcontinent which are not present in conventional deterrence paradigm.

:-)

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 18 Sep 2005 10:43

There is enough on the scenarios thread to scare the living daylights out of them. There is no need for Saggu to bring up the nuclear issue. Escalatory rhetoric is one thing but making irresponsible statements is completely different. If BRF can show sense that most Pakistani general staff lacks - then I think that says a lot about the Pakistani General staff.


Sunil Babu...
Was poor ol' me bein' reffered to????
And pray why should I be spared the special attention. Everyone gets to have his say, the way he /she feels. That's what BRF is all about, that's what India is all about.

Sure the pakistanis read BRF. They love it like hell too. Sure as hell, almost all paki fauji's (The who's who) visit BRF. Wether its Good ol' Mushy, Gul baba, or Poor ol' Gohar. They visit , they learn, then wonder why some of their own pakistani fora couldn't be more like us. The views posted here are like a window bringing in fresh air for their goat-smelling ghettoes. The air washes away some of the heady flatus they pass and inhale all the time.

I will concede some of them this... Some, and the rare gifted ones, are intelligent enough to know the difference between reality and fiction. Unlike us poor jingos who have little other sources of info, they probably have their own other sources...

I agree only and only on one point.
Sometimes we ALL go overboard with what we say. Sometimes what we want to say differs with what gets written. But at the end of the day what we put up is something that is simply SEUPERBA...

Membership by INVIATION???
Perish the thought. Who the hell in this world would ever refer me? Naw let everyone join in for the ride... Ignore the posts that make NO sense (This one being a case in point)...

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 20 Sep 2005 02:38

Proliferation of conventional arms is one thing; WMD proliferation is entirely different and grossly disproportionate. It is a gigantic step up the ‘escalation ladder’. By engaging in WMD proliferation, the proliferator displays an intent that is clearly beyond mere engagement, containment, and destabilization.

When china proliferates to Pakistan, knowing fully well that these weapons can only ever be used against India, it displays an intention, emotion that goes way beyond mere containment. It does so with the full knowledge of how weak Pakistan’s systems are. How this nation, dangerously on the brink of collapse can easily get itself into a corner, in a situation where it may either lose control of its WMD assets to madmen, or use them in a moment of insanity. It mortally endangers India’s security.

When Pakistan proliferates to North Korea, a nation lead by a person with controversial antecedents, it horribly endangers the security of neighboring South Korea and Japan. All this occurs while china smiles and plays the fiddle, the US looks the other way, and India and Russia blink in disbelief.

In both situations, China emerges as the puppeteer, Pakistan as the villain. China is seen as having crossed the line - to hell with plausible deniability.

Haven’t the Chinese done a Pakistani thing, by first proliferating and allowing things to get out of hand, and then bringing in the powers that be to work out a solution, as in North Korea’s case? Similarly there has been much speculation that pakistan has already been ‘dealt with’ albeit somewhat discreetly.

Has china has already ‘jumped off’ the escalation ladder? Then maybe not.

From India’s point of view, the great game has just started. As we ascend the progress ladder, and make space in the big boys club, the game only gets uglier.

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Postby Sunil » 27 Sep 2005 01:38

Hmm..

I shall use this article by Ammara Khan to illustrate common flaws in Pakistani thinking about deterrence.

In short, an unofficial and undeclared nuclear arm race has nearly completed its first lap.


What race my dear? There is none. The Pakistanis want to race India but they can't and that is the simple fact.

The theory of deterrence, having a high status in strategic planning and existing more in belief than in reality, was styled in the early days of cold war. Conceptually, the theory of deterrence envisages a relationship between two adversaries in which the threat of unacceptable devastation due to a nuclear exchange prevents them from taking overt hostile actions. In support of deterrence philosophy a fearsome concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, most appropriately called MAD, was coined. According to MAD the capability of wrecking complete destruction upon each other can serve to restrain the hand from trigger. Analogically speaking, if two persons were carrying the same kind of guns with same number of bullets, they will never attempt to shoot at each other for fear of mutual destruction.


This is fine up to the last part - both sides have to be convinced that the other is armed with a weapon of equal calibre and that the opponents aim is atleast as good. There is a lack of appreciation on the Pakistani side for exactly how good India's aim is.

This, in essence, is the philosophy behind deterrence. Now the question, whether it can dovetail in the South Asian context in the twenty first century, is something that needs to be analyzed in detail. Primarily, the theory of deterrence was framed in the back drop of the cold war between two super powers. It was basically an equation between the two with no third factor. Nonetheless, South Asia, with two neighbouring nuclear powers with a third one perched on its periphery, i.e., China, is too complex for the simplistic presumptions of the deterrence theory.


This is just completely wrong. The US had to simulataneously face down two opponents the nuclear armed Chinese and the Soviets. The similarly the Soviets had to face down half a dozen opponents including the Chinese. The deterrence theory extends to more than one player.

For example, India not only based its venture in the nuclear sphere due to security concerns with regard to China, quite recently, spurred by the DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 of China, it has sought to ramify it nuclear capability in various direction. Such ambitions of India create a natural anxiety in Pakistan and thus we too have to jump the bandwagon to restore the precarious balance of power. Far worse is the jolt that the 10 year defence accord between India and the US has inflicted on the region’s balance of power and the consequent apprehension in Pakistan.


Given the expense involved in these deterrence technologies, it is unclear why India should range systems against Pakistan that it has developed solely for use against China. Why will we waste a 100 kT warhead on a Pakistani city when we can use a 10 kT warhead to do the required damage. It gains us nothing.

Unless Pakistan chooses to field Chinese missile systems on its soil - target them at India - there is no reason for India to target Pakistan with its systems.

Another aspect of deterrence that needs to be analysed critically is whether the strategic arm parity is responsible for deterrence or is it simply the threat of inescapable consequences that act as deterrent. From Cuban missile crisis, where the philosophy of deterrence actually worked, it can be shown that it was not the superiority or inferiority in number of arms that restricted the two sides. The United States have a clear superiority over Russia, but it exercised a restraint. Why? Because it knew there was no way it could come unharmed out of a nuclear confrontation. This realization can be detected in the statement of Kennedy when he said to his advisor, “What difference does it (strategic balance) make? They have got enough to blow us up now any way”.


Again - this is a misunderstanding - the US did *not* have the arsenal it needed to *prevail* in the conflict. It had an arsenal that was marginally superior. Pres. Kennedy's statement is aimed to stem the flow of nuclear warfighting ideas in vogue at the time - it has nothing to do with the validity of stockpile comparisons. That is an unrelated point.

Thus the blind chase by India and Pakistan to enrich their cache
of nukes is nothing but waste of precious resources. They have acquired what was needed - the ability to destroy each other completely - the rest is mere foolhardy.


You can tell this to the Pakistanis and see if they listen. My guess is that they won't. They will argue that as the Indian economy grows Pakistan's limit arsenal will not be able to carry out an effective damage of the Indian economy with a few strikes they will be able to get off before Indian retaliation hits Pakistan. For this reason and this reason alone there is no chance that Pakistan will cease efforts to expand its arsenal.

As long as Pakistan continues to expand its arsenal targetted at India, India will have to keep examining the state of its arsenal.

So can Pakistan and India afford to be ambiguous? Certainly not.


Yes there can be no ambiguity on the issue of mating warheads to delivery systems.

For how long will Pakistan resist the temptation of crossing the forbidden boundary, if it found it self at a tactical disadvantage is a question that needs consideration.


Now my dear - we are coming to the red meat of deterrence theory. That is precisely the choice that Pakistan has to make. At which point will it scream out "the Indians are coming" and press the red button. Will it do it if India attacks LeT camps at Muridke and Samahini? Will it do it if Indian forces pinch Haji Pir Pass? Will it do it if the Indians breakthrough the defences in Sialkot sector? Will it do it if the Indians break the defence lines south of Lahore? Okara Sahiwal? Fort Abbas? or further south? or will Pakistan use a nuke if India asks it to renegotiate the IWT? or if India helps someone in Baluchistan? Karachi? ... or will it happen when India creates a TV channel aimed solely at Pakistani youth?

You have to decide that - Pakistan is the first use power right? then it must make the call on when to use the bomb.


Thus, as we saw, the crumbling edifice of the deterrence theory does not provide much refuge to the security concerns in South Asia. What we really don’t need now is a bury-your-head-in the-sand approach toward a theory that has outlived its utility. What we do need is a national consciousness that is alive to the peril of living under a constant shadow of a nuclear war, but which is also capable of taking concrete steps toward disarmament and denuclearization in collaboration with our neighbour.


Not so fast kid... you abandon deterrence theory - if you do - then India has to act and hit you - because it means you are saying - "I will not be deterred - you see I don't believe in deterrence theory".

I think what you are mixing up deterrence theory with is actually escalation prone behavior. What has happened in the past decade is that Pakistan's incentive to escalate has minimized and I am all for Pakistan abandoning its escalatory behavior. I am a 100% percent supporter of it - but I am told Gen. Musharraf is only a 500% supporter of it.

The day Pakistan want to abandon escalation prone behavior in the nuclear arena - it should start by saying the words "Pakistan subscribes to no-first-use".

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 27 Sep 2005 02:26

N Korea has acquired uranium technology from TSP - USA says

The Bush administration has for the first time presented North Korea with specific ‘evidence’ that it secretly obtained uranium enrichment technology from the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, senior administration officials said here.

Dishing out the evidence that North Korea obtained technology from the network built by Abdul Qadeer Khan, is significant because it is an effort to break an impasse over the scope of North Korea’s nuclear programme, two officials told The New York Times.

Nav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 20:58
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Nav » 10 Dec 2005 02:42

My question to the Deterence Gurus is in our current deterence program do we have some sort of clause where we hit china in case we are targetted by pakistan with nuclear weapons. Considering China provided the technology to Pakistan china is indirectly involved knowing that these weapons are only against India. Would that not put pressure on Bejing to put pressure on Pakistan to lower the Rhetoric?? After all is it gona be worth loosing all that china has built in last 50 years just because pakistan wants to attack india? I would think this would be a good way to counter china's Deniable involvement or am I totally out to lunch on this.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Lack of delivery vehicle

Postby AJay » 10 Dec 2005 20:32

Nav wrote:After all is it gona be worth loosing all that china has built in last 50 years just because pakistan wants to attack india?


I am a "shishya" in defence matters (and several other matters besides :)) but let me attempt a Fermi Solution like answer.

China would not loose all the progress in the last 50 (sic - should read 25) years unless a one or two of their large cities - say Shanghai and HK-Macau -
are destroyed beyond repair. Going by the information out in the open, India has neither the measn of delivery nor the requisite (M)tonnage to do that kind of damage. Of course, Indian sceintists could be working smart and found solutions to both the problems, but that is not clear from open sources.

Omar
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 07:03
Location: cavernous sinus

Postby Omar » 17 Feb 2006 12:21

I guess this thread is the successor to the threads that covered the launching of Babur missile by Pakistan, the subsequent exchanges between a certain Gp. Cpt. Hali and BRF

While revisiting this long finished issue here is a photo of Gp.Cpt.Hali:

Image


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests