Time to rethink NFU

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 28 Jan 2003 00:27

If India has to stick to NFU, that is fine. But IMO, atlest we must have pre-emptive strike as an option in our policy. Having NFU and pre-emptive strikes as our state policy should complement eachother, policywise.

The NFU policy should give India an option to preempt and stage an attack on our enemy with our superior and massive conventional strike capability, which can only be used to take out the enemy nukes + missile strike capability aimed at India, at the very begining of the war.

Having NFU as our state policy, must also ensure the rest of world that in case of an preemptive attack on the enemy, India will not be using WMD's, since we have NFU as our state policy. Hence, India must use the NFU as our state policy, to help India justify the eventualities of preemption policy. Also, on any day, by any policy, by any person of any stature and on any kind of national or international forums, India should never show the willingness to accept nuclear strikes/damage on our land/people, before we could ever use them on our enemies. India must tell the world that we are VERY sensitive to the nuclear damage on the Indian land and people, and we'll do everything possible to avoid India getting nuked. India should never commit the grave mistake of accepting a nuclear damage by any extent, not even with the smallest bomb our enemies got, NEVER. India should not tolerate even a single hit by a nuke as our state policy, while the NFU still stands. India will not use nukes first, but at the same time, we don't want to be attacked by the nukes either.

Political decisions and policies should only help to use our nuclear deterrence in the most practicable way possible. If our policies don't match our war making capabilities, then India could be in trouble, even when we can save ourself the trouble with some clear thinking. IOW, India & Indians should not be undone by our own follies of not having effective policies in place, to complement our practical capabilities.

So IMO, if India needs to stick to its NFU as a declared state policy, then India MUST adopt a preemptive strike policy as an option and declare it so. This can only complement the NFU policy with a gyaranteed second strkie / retaliation. What do you guys think ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2003 01:18

Hate to be a bother but why did TSP use chem weapons in Siachen in 1988? How and why did they think it was acceptable to break the norms? During the period Iraq was using such weapons against Iran to break the stalemate. Was the TSP use a precursor warning to India of some thing worse to follow? Or was it desperation over loss of control over Saltoro range? What did Uncle know and when did he know?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Jan 2003 01:47

IMO Unkil knew about the chemical weapons used by Pak and may have given the tacit approval just as it gave to Saddam. Chemical weapons as a means to exterminate nations and race was a major discussion in Pentagon during the late 60s and 70s.

1988 was a crucual year in many ways since Soviet Union was at the brink of explosion and there was a lot of reason for the Soviet Generals to really belligerent to stop the impending implosion. They could only attempt the internal coup but nothing more. In this scenario all local wars such as Iran-Iraq war and Siachen War was not in favour of US allies and they had to create enough scare to ward of defeat.

Sanjay Joshi · Post by **Sanjay Joshi** » 31 Jan 2003 02:17

What prevents us from canceling NFU at the last moment as we see fit? Have we signed a contract with anyone promising NFU? If not, all we have to do is swear by NFU and then change our stand when we decide on FU (no pun intended!).

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 31 Jan 2003 02:20

Finally we are ready to call the bluff game of Mushy rats in TSP.

This also means Mushy rats Trump cards are all gone and all he has is 2 and 3 club suite.

saint · Post by **saint** » 31 Jan 2003 03:23

Advantage: India

Simultaneously, it stepped up the psychological pressure on Pakistan. The first step was the dilution of the no first use of nuclear weapons policy, by asserting it could be revoked in case of a biological or chemical attack on Indian territory.

!!!!!!!!!

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 31 Jan 2003 03:27

If not, all we have to do is swear by NFU and then change our stand when we decide on FU (no pun intended

NFU has to be seen from the point of view of deterrence. It is a question of credibility. How credible is wht the leaders of India say . This is usually judged by actions. If for example India is going to the expense of building a muscular 2nd strike triad , that means she anticipates a 2nd strike although it doesnt preclude a first strike. Furthermore it is also a question of what capabilities India is willing to advertise. For example, does she have the capability to hit counterforce targets in a first strike (e.g. accurate missiles for the particular range in question )or is she content with countervalue targets. I do not believe India is ready as yet to announce a countervalue first strike doctrine.

This is a high stakes game and is not for the faint of heart and certainly has little to do with contractual obligations.

Kaushal

Kiran · Post by **Kiran** » 03 Feb 2003 11:27

Kaushal:

is it a matter of being ready? Perhaps the answer will be obvious if we evaluate the contrary opinion - i.e., disadvantages of a FU posture.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 03 Feb 2003 19:44

There is an element of making a virtue out of necessity here. Of course India has nowhere near a 1st strike capability, esp. w.r.t. China. A ist strike capability entails a credible counterforce strike capability.

Kaushal

Tim · Post by **Tim** » 03 Feb 2003 21:31

What chemical weapons did Pakistan use in Siachen?
When did they use them? Are there more informative reports available than a couple of lines in a newspaper article?

I ask because I don't know. Information on both Pakistani and Indian chemical warfare capabilities seems very limited to me, and I'd like to know more about what's available in open sources. This thread is the first I've ever heard of use on Siachen.

thanks.
Tim

O Vijay · Post by **O Vijay** » 03 Feb 2003 21:55

Regarding chemical weapon usage by Pakistan, read the following reports:
1. CSIS

2. FAS

It is widely believed in India that Pakistan used chemical weapons against Indian soldiers in Siachen in 1987. Reportedly when Pakistan used chemical weapons in Siachen against Indian troops there was panic in the defence headquarters and officials rushed to the defence research establishment in Gwalior in search of protective measures.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 04 Feb 2003 19:55

Those Fuzzy Red Lines

www.outlookindia.com

The UBB sw doesn't allow the full url to be posted

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 04 Feb 2003 20:19

Tim needs a "Chemical Smoking Gun" to show that Pakistan used Chemical weapons, but how could that be ? Pakistan is a rational nuclear Bio and Chemical weapon power who is a front line all_lie in the war against rogue regimes.

This Micheal Kreepon guy said India's Nuke deterent is insignificant because
a) India has not demonstrated its Nukes beyond doubt.
b) India has no declared doctrine (or its just WIP).
c) India's delivery systems are inferior to proven TS Pakistani systems.

The above was the refrain he sang full throat till recent times.

Now
That India has indicated
1) The systems software proceedures are in place with some what clear doctrine guiding the political and military leadership as to
a) when and in what circumstances to use Nucklear weapons ,
b) against whom it may be used
c) against whom it will never be used,

our Micheal Krepon moves the refrain to new higher note.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 04 Feb 2003 20:28

... and finally, you can't please some people any of the time because they bring their set-in-stone preconcieved notions and nothing will dislodge them.

Before the whine was "India doesn't have a proper nukiller doctrine." Now the whine is "Threatening total destruction will only invite total destruction." Is that not the foundation of nuclear deterance? What is he whining about? Someone please give that man some money so he can go and buy a clue. :p

Reg · Post by **Reg** » 04 Feb 2003 20:30

With my usual caveat: Eons ago, my American professor had difficulty distinguishing Pakistan from Palestine (granted, he was not a political science professor, but still...)

http://www.tradeprism.com/library/country/sensitive/pk.shtm

Chemical proliferation:

Pakistan has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and no independently verifiable evidence exists of Pakistan possessing a chemical weapons capability. However, Indian intelligence sources have stated that Islamabad has in fact been developing a chemical weapons programme and has produced blister, blood, choking and nerve agents, and have claimed that Pakistan used chemical weapons in Siachen, in 1987, against Indian soldiers. According to the US Militarily Critical Technologies List of 1998 Pakistan possesses the main critical elements of chemical material production and some critical elements of dissemination, dispersion and weapons technology.

O Vijay · Post by **O Vijay** » 04 Feb 2003 20:31

Spinster, I agree. Check out following two quotes:

Conversely, for most Pakistani military leaders India is mostly talk and little action, whose inherent weaknesses lie just beneath the surface of a growing economy.

if Krepon knows that the Pakis think like this, then why did he trash India's nuclear capability.

The US also adopted a doctrine of massive retaliation early in the Eisenhower administration. It was discarded almost as soon though because officials quickly understood the need for more options.

quick somebody better tell that to Rummy.

Reg · Post by **Reg** » 04 Feb 2003 20:38

Oh, my God, and here I am, thinking, Michael Krepon's "The doctrine of 'massive' retaliation may look good on paper but signalling a holocaust just invites one," was intended for George Bush.

O Vijay · Post by **O Vijay** » 04 Feb 2003 20:53

Lets do a N^3 on Micheal Krepon.

I am going to post some quotes of Krepon from the past.
Krepon's take on release of Nuclear Draft Doctrine

Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington-based research organization, said the document failed to say whether India would keep its missiles launch-ready and whether such missiles will be fitted with warheads. "Based on this document, it will be hard for other countries to believe in India's assurance of no first use," Krepon said. "To other countries it will look like readiness to use."

Contrast his view with that of

But the Carnegie Endowment's Cirincione said nevertheless that the draft document appears to be an attempt to reassure the world that India has a responsible, thought out nuclear arms policy and a clear command structure. "This says the weapons are not something that regional commanders will have unrestricted access to, which is a concern in a country with a history of poor communications between troops in the field and headquarters," Cirincione said.

http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990818nn.world2.htm

Reg · Post by **Reg** » 04 Feb 2003 21:00

QUOTE: Based on this document, it will be hard for other countries to believe in India's assurance of no first use," Krepon said. "To other countries it will look like readiness to use."

Precisely!

saint · Post by **saint** » 04 Feb 2003 23:50

perhaps yes, we should be moving away from NFU..

if unkil can test under CTBT,, why NOT us with no CTBT singed.

this is total aparthied.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=36496132

US testing 'small nukes' use against Iraq

..
so the equation is iraq, and in our case, it would be pakistan.. we can go now saying, we only test nukes pakistan specific.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 05 Feb 2003 06:36

All human being carry unpleasant biological matter, wherever they go, but some like Michael Krepon advertise its presence by its odor.

Kaushal

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2003 20:02

To be fair, the Indians and Pakistanis are being no more foolish about nuclear weapons than the Americans and Russians were fifty years ago, when they were at the same stage in the evolution of their potentially lethal nuclear relationship. On the other hand, they aren’t being any smarter about it either -- and they need to be a lot smarter, for India and Pakistan are far likelier to topple over the edge into a nuclear war than the United States and the Soviet Union ever were.

http://www.mmorning.com/article.asp?Article=4965&CategoryID=5

Who is this idiot ? Check for the last paragraph, anyways.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 08 Feb 2003 20:55

The guy is a Lebanese christian. He forgets the carnage that the Xtians and Muslims inflicted on each other not too long ago in Lebanon and the role that the lebanese christians played in massacring Palestinians in their refugee camps in Beirut. It is easy to give advice to others, much harder to follow it oneself.

Kaushal

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 08 Feb 2003 21:06

Thanks, Kaushall..

>> It is easy to give advice to others, much harder to follow it oneself.

This clearly shows in the last paragraph, of the article.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Feb 2003 02:50

Related

India developing missile shield

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030208/139/20wnu.html
New Delhi, Feb 8 (ANI): An Indian defence scientist said on Friday an anti- ballistic missile defence shield is next on the drawing board as part of the country's Integrated Missile Development Programme (IMDP).

India has demonstrated capability to fire shorter-range "Prithvi" and medium range "Agni" missiles upto 2,000 kms range with one-tonne conventional or nuclear warhead. It has already announced plans to test a longer range 3,000 kms missile in September this year.

However, in an obvious deviation from expanding reach and range of missiles to aim for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability, scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organistaion (DRDO) are now trying to acquire "the prohibitive and high technology" missile shield.

Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Director, "IMARAT" Research Centre, a unit of DRDO based in Hyderabad, said with the proliferation of missiles in India's neighbourhood, developing a reliable missile shield is imperative.

"As the threat in the arena is increasing, we know our enemies, our adversaries have acquired the ballistic missiles so we have to have both the postures. We have to have the offensive postures and we also should have the defensive postures. So as a country we have realised that having developed the Prithvis and Agnis which are of offensive postures, we got to have now technologies which are commensurate to give us a lead in the area of ballistic missile defence. So we have initiated technology development programmes in that area," Saraswat said in Bangalore on the sidelines of an aero-show.

Saraswat said India is scouting for partners and collaborators for developing the "guarded and critical" technology.

"Well, you know, it's a very, very guarded technology and it is also a very, very critical technology in terms of accuracy, precision, manoeuvrability and your capability to acquire the incoming ballistic missiles. So these are all the technologies which have to be developed and they are all presently state-of-the-art technologies which are already under development even in very, very advanced countries. So we have just started and it will take some time," he said.

Most of India's armed forces are equipped with weaponry and armaments procured from its strategic ally, Russia. Both countries are jointly developing BrahMos, India's first cruise missile.

Reports said Russia denied Pakistan, India's arch-rival, during President Pervez Musharraf's visit to Moscow earlier this week, to procure S-300 missiles.

The United States "Patriot" missiles and Russian S-300 are the only operational anti-missile missiles. Patriot missiles were used "with some success" in the 1992 Gulf War by the US in Israel against Iraqi Scuds.

There is no foolproof missile shield in the world today and a multi-billion dollar satellite-based "Star Wars" missile shield programme by Washington was stalled due to prohibitive costs and resistance by Moscow as part of strategic arms limitation treaties. (ANI)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2003 06:15

They should just say we are working on ABM defences and nothing more. ABM type of defences are needed part of the deterrent posture. A clarification that terrorist orgs operating from states are considered as part of extended forces of those states. That will make it clear to TSP that it has no cover and it is in its own interest to curb its terrorists.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2003 22:25

It is now well suspected,borne out with evidence, that Pak is secretly working on chem. warfare perhaps as an alternative to using nukes against India,apart from using chem. warfare also against Afghan forces.It probably feels that the use of chem. weapons in the Iran-Iraq war,which helped Iraq decisively in checkmating Iranian attacking forces,is less repugnant to the world than the threat of using nukes or biological weapons.The use of such chem weapons by Paki shock troops in a future conflict over Kashmnir cannot be ruled out.It is also apparent that India is well aware of this judging simply form the display of Indian chem-warfare shelters and eqpt.at the current Air Show in Bangalore.

It is in this context that India should carefully reconsider the NFU of WMDs at an enemy which is making rapid strides in acquiring these weapons.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Feb 2003 05:41

Pak hiding nukes in Chagai caves, tunnels: Brajesh

Munich, February 9: A day after India and Pakistan expelled each other’s mission heads to hit a new low in ties, National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra made the startling disclosure that Pakistan was hiding its nuclear weapons in ‘‘tunnels and caves’’ in the Chagai hills of Baluchistan.

It was at Chagai that Pakistan went nuclear in reponse to Indian N-tests in 1998.

Speaking at the Munich security conference, Mishra said the reports of hidden Pakistan nuclear assets made India’s concerns even more obvious. ‘‘Persistent reports of the freelance activities of some Pakistani nuclear scientists only add to our disquiet.’’

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 11 Feb 2003 01:28

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/10ashok.htm
A Strategic Forces Command, finally!

February 10, 2003

Much excitement was generated over the announcement of the formation of the long-awaited Strategic Forces Command and the nuclear chain of command, the Nuclear Command Authority, to order and implement a retaliatory nuclear strike.

Also debated in the media was the issue of alternate leadership, both political and military and its location in the event of a decapitating first strike as well as the soundness of No First Use. The matter gained prominence because General Pervez Musharraf declared on December 30, 2002 that Pakistan would have used its nuclear weapon even if a single soldier had crossed the Line of Control or the International Border during the 10-month Operation Parakram.

The internal debate following Musharraf's admission has revolved around the survivability after a First Strike of not just the nuclear arsenal but also of the NCA which is to ensure a devastating response in order to prevent the use of the nuclear option by Pakistan in the first place. It entails the protection of the political and the military authority and their standbys in the run up to a war-like or war situation in which the use of a nuclear weapon by the adversary is likely or imminent.

It will be instructive to recall that the threat of a Pakistan nuclear strike was taken seriously for the first time in 1987 during Exercise Brass Tacks when the Indian high commissioner in Islamabad was served a nuclear threat. At that time, Pakistan was known to have 5 to 7 bombs of 12 to 15 KT variety and India had none, though it had been nuclear capable since 1974.....
............................

SO India was not the first to Nucklearize the Sub continent, hope idiots like Bidwai, Arundhati etc note this.

Sridhar K · Post by **Sridhar K** » 13 Feb 2003 22:55

An Analysis from SAAG, but most of it has been discussed here.

INDIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURES REVIEWED

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 14 Feb 2003 02:29

Originally posted by Sridhar K:
An Analysis from SAAG, but most of it has been discussed here.

INDIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURES REVIEWED

Conclusion part ...

Conclusion:

India’s strategic postures need to be evolved keeping in mind India’s national security interests and objectives. In this evolution, India has to adhere to two major principles:

* Nehruvian mindsets of adopting high moral postures in strategic postures needs to be discarded completely and forever. They ruined India in the past</font>.

* India’s national security interests are not negotiable, nor open for barter and not permissive for external imposition.

In this connection, India needs to follow President Bush’s principle recently aired to the effect that:’ The course of this country will not be decided in foreign capitals.”

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 16 Feb 2003 00:25

Quote, from another board....

Why do you think about our nuclear bomb managers contending that India should review its no first-use nuclear policy given Islamabad's recurring threats?

This is a very dicey issue now that you know your main long-range adversary, China, is committed to a qualified no-first use, meaning essentially Beijing will not attack those who do not have nuclear weapons and those having nuclear weapons like India will be subject to their attack. So there is no sense in our politically giving up no first-use at this stage.

The option of pre-emption will always be there, we have enough information that Pakistan plans to use nuclear weapons in an attack mode, we can always pre-empt.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/20inter.htm

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 25 Feb 2003 00:39

Playing the nuclear game
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/23nad.htm

India's 'no first strike' rule is also not under any and all circumstances. It has a lot of ifs and buts attached to it. We have declared that in case of an attack against us by chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction we will not hesitate to reply with nuclear weapons. Even in conventional warfare, in the extreme circumstances where say the enemy makes spectacular progress on ground we will surely use nuclear weapons, at least the tactical variety, to halt his progress. Pakistan has said it will use the nukes only if it is attacked. Again basically both sides are saying the same thing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2003 01:13

I think Adm. Nadkarni is bitten by the Adm. Ramdas bug. What he wants is to prevent the IN from getting the weapons to provide a secure third leg to the doctrine. All his comments about the DND and the final doctrine adopted are humbug. I am now convinced that there is a group(UPSC and the selection board_ that ensures dupes like this are selected and rise to the top. Only that can explain this.

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 25 Feb 2003 01:31

>>I am now convinced that there is a group(UPSC and the selection board_ that ensures dupes like this are selected and rise to the top. Only that can explain this.

Ramana, carefull.

It's a short step from there to begin wondering just why it was so easy for the children/family members of certain groups of Senior Officers to get visas/GC's and other goodies during the 70's, 80's etc.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Feb 2003 01:50

This is subversion of the highest order.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Mar 2003 22:02

Pioneer OP-ed...
Unclear deterrence

Pravin Sawhney

By rejecting the Opposition demand for a parliamentary resolution to condemn the US war on Iraq, the Vajpayee Government has exposed its compulsion of not annoying the lone superpower. While Indo-US relations after Operation Parakram are no longer as warm as India had desired, years of pandering to the US since the 1998 nuclear tests has made India's national security dependent on Washington. Even as India slowed down its nuclear weaponisation expecting a tacit support from the US against Pakistan, Washington, after 9/11, had its own national security compulsions to back Pakistan.

Though India is not part of the UN Security Council, a parliamentary resolution against the imminent US's unilateral action in Iraq would have best conveyed the collective will of over a billion people of India through a unanimous all-party vote. This would have displeased the US. The Government instead sought to win brownie points by saying that India would not offer facilities to the US if it attacked Iraq. With a firm military foothold in the entire region after 9/11, why would the US seek India's facilities? By winking at US's action, India has both diluted its case in the world's opinion of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and has side-stepped the recently endorsed NAM resolution which sought a UN mandate for action against Iraq.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is playing its cards rather adroitly. Prime Minister Jamali recently said that Pakistan as the non-permanent member of the Security Council would find it difficult to vote with the US on the second resolution seeking immediate military action against Iraq. This was done to assuage the snowballing domestic religious disquiet against US high-handedness, and to seek further concessions from the US. Considering President Musharraf has not seconded his prime minister's declaration, a somersault by Pakistan is almost certain. The exit route for the same was left open by Mr Jamali when he said "national interest" would dictate the final decision. Amongst other things, General Pervez Musharraf would tell President Bush that in return of Pakistan's favourable vote in the Security Council, the US should not press him too hard on the so-called freedom struggle in Jammu & Kashmir.

Totally absorbed with Iraq, North Korea, the war against Al Qaeda, and the West Asian peace process, the US would be willing to accept General Musharraf's terms so long as cross-border terrorism in J&K remains in check. The recent telephone call by President Bush to Prime Minister Vajpayee is to be understood in this context. While seeking an accommodative opinion on Iraq, the US asked India to exercise self-restraint against continuing cross border terrorism. According to the US, the best option at present for India and Pakistan is to maintain the status quo; India need not talk with Pakistan as long as the latter does not completely stop cross-border terrorism and dismantle the infrastructure in PoK which supports it. It is clear as daylight that Pakistan would do no such thing.

This status quo, however, suits Pakistan eminently. There is a need for General Musharraf to end the three-month confrontation between Mr Jamali's Government and the opposition parties. The opposition has been protesting against the formation of the super-cabinet National Security Council, the continuation of General Musharraf as both the army chief and the President of the Islamic republic, and the controversial referendum which has conferred a five-year presidency to General Musharraf. There is also the need to discipline the provincial governments of Baluchistan and NWFP which are not in tune with his determination to end Talibanisation of Pakistan. Moreover, the army has to be cleansed of the jihadi sympathisers, which would be a long and arduous task. Probably the two most important issues confronting him are the need to steadily convert hardcore jihadi outfits like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Laskar-e-Tayyiba, which are still under the Al Qaeda and Taliban influence, to Pakistan's cause of wrestling J&K from India by the ongoing proxy war. The other important issue is to prepare Pakistan's armed forces for another showdown with India, which cannot be ruled out.

India, on the other hand, is in a dilemma. Even as Operation Parakram has failed to stop cross-border terrorism, there is little evidence to suggest that India is serious about rectifying the pivotal reason why it so happened. In hindsight, it was a blunder on India's part to have ordered the full army mobilisation against Pakistan in the hope that it would spur the US to put pressure on Pakistan to end terrorism in the border State. Cue was taken from the 1999 Kargil war when the US had come openly in support of India. President Clinton had unambiguously admonished Pakistan to not redraw borders in J&K by blood, and to maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control. However, the equations changed after 9/11. The US needed Pakistan more than India. It could no longer push General Musharraf too hard for terrorism in India.

Post-Parakram, India's best bet is simultaneous action on two fronts. There is a need for internal stability in J&K. Despite innumerable hurdles, the Mufti Mohammad Sayeed has so far managed to maintain his Government's credibility in the turbulent State. The dreaded Special Operation Group has been assimilated within the regular police, the use of POTA has been avoided, and bold measures have been announced against corrupt officers and for rehabilitation of the victims of terrorism. However, the central promise of the People's Democratic Party to request the Central Government to initiate wide ranging dialogue, without conditions, with members of the legislature and other segments of public opinion (read Hurriyat) remains elusive. The belated NN Vohra mission cannot achieve much until the Central Government clearly announces its terms of reference for talks in J&K.

The other issue demanding urgent attention is credible nuclear deterrence, one that deters Pakistan. Unfortunately, this does not seem probable as the defence services are willing to play the Government line on the issue of nuclear deterrence. How else can the recent interview by the Navy chief, Admiral Madhvendra Singh, who is also the chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, to The Hindustan Times be explained? He expressed happiness with the existing chiefs of staff committee system, something which has unequivocally been dubbed unsatisfactory by the Government's Group of Minister's report. The Admiral has implicitly ruled out the need for a Chief of Defence Staff, which would please the political leadership and the bureaucracy alike.

In the same interview, the Admiral has sought unity of command, which incidentally is not possible without a CDS. The newly created strategic force command under the chiefs of staff committee would remain nebulous without a CDS, and the Admiral knows it. Given the existing state of affairs, a credible nuclear deterrence seems more in the realm of fantasy, at least in the near future. Such a situation can only work to Pakistan's advantage and the US's comfort.

(The writer is co-author with Lt Gen VK Sood of the coming book, Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished)

kgoan · Post by **kgoan** » 12 Mar 2003 22:27

If I wasn't sure before, I sure as hell am now.

Sawhneys agenda is detremental to our interests. Because his agenda is Chinese.

If you exclude the "padding", the little SOB pushes every single button of the pro-Chinese agenda I've ever seen in a single article outside of the "usual suspects" group.

Sorry about the "french". But I used to like him before. Dunno whether he's been bought or just been "convinced". But he's definitely in the pro-Chinese camp now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2003 22:31

Just an observation.

Which country is not trying to win brownie points from the US, I wonder? In some shape of form they all are. Some being openly bought out with $$$. Each performs a very delicate dance with words and all.

Either way India needs and has the oppurtunity to get projects within Iraq. Rebuild if there is a war, else just plain build.

WRT nukes specifically, India has to keep China at the very center of the target. Others at this point in time are marginal at best. More important than getting tech help form the US, India needs sign-offs from the US on major tech toys like the Phalcon, Arrow and even getting more Tu22M3s and maybe even Akulas. Note all these toys are China centric and are a major component of an equation from an India perspective.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 12 Mar 2003 22:43

Dude.. this is a masterpiece.

" By winking at US's action, India has both diluted its case in the world's opinion of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and has side-stepped the recently endorsed NAM resolution which sought a UN mandate for action against Iraq. "

Mr. Sawhney seems to suggest that the GoI is bothered solely about cutting a dash on the world stage. Perhaps Mr. Sawhney can conjure up safe passage for our expats and our economic interests?

Just when you thought that was too much another masterpiece..

" Moreover, the army has to be cleansed of the jihadi sympathisers, which would be a long and arduous task. Probably the two most important issues confronting him are the need to steadily convert hardcore jihadi outfits like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Laskar-e-Tayyiba, which are still under the Al Qaeda and Taliban influence, to Pakistan's cause of wrestling J&K from India by the ongoing proxy war. The other important issue is to prepare Pakistan's armed forces for another showdown with India, which cannot be ruled out. "

if he is going to muzzle the JeM and the LeT, where does he want to add to his troubles by confronting India? Ab kya khaakh confront karega yeh Musharraf uski toh pyjame ki naadi choot gayi hai..

> However, the equations changed after 9/11. The US needed Pakistan more than India. It could no longer push General Musharraf too hard for terrorism in India.

Aha.. so there is more to appeasing the US after all. It is not about getting a seat on an increasingly defunct UNSC.

> The other issue demanding urgent attention is credible nuclear deterrence, one that deters Pakistan. Unfortunately, this does not seem probable as the defence services are willing to play the Government line on the issue of nuclear deterrence.

Yeh lo.. chai mey namakh daal raha hai.

yaar, Sawhneyji aap apne name ka TV channel khol do, kuch nahi toh chaubees ghante entertainment toh hoga.