Deterrence

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Nov 2015 03:40

ramana wrote:Please use following links for above talk:

http://www.independentnews.com/labs_lin ... 5fce6.html

And see the other links on the right hand column.

Josh: IIRC, this video has been posted earlier in the thread. Anyways.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2015 09:19

ShauryaT Are you attending BK book launch? Give my regards.

member_29004 · Post by **member_29004** » 06 Nov 2015 11:20

Shaurya,

Didnt know that, as usual BR is ahead of the curve! Great presentation! It seems we still dont know how to handle a war with nuclear Pakistan and conventional attacking China!

Ramana,

Thanks for the link!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Nov 2015 00:10

ramana wrote:ShauryaT Are you attending BK book launch? Give my regards.

Planning to, will do.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Nov 2015 07:56

The Pakistan Nuclear Nightmare

With as many as 120 warheads, Pakistan could in a decade become the world’s third-ranked nuclear power, behind the United States and Russia, but ahead of China, France and Britain. Its arsenal is growing faster than any other country’s, and it has become even more lethal in recent years with the addition of small tactical nuclear weapons that can hit India and longer-range nuclear missiles that can reach farther.

These are unsettling truths. The fact that Pakistan is also home to a slew of extremist groups, some of which are backed by a paranoid security establishment obsessed with India, only adds to the dangers it presents for South Asia and, indeed, the entire world.

Persuading Pakistan to rein in its nuclear weapons program should be an international priority. The major world powers spent two years negotiating an agreement to restrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon. Yet there has been no comparable investment of effort in Pakistan, which, along with India, has so far refused to consider any limits at all.

The Obama administration has begun to address this complicated issue with greater urgency and imagination, even though the odds of success seem small. The recent meeting at the White House on Oct. 22 between President Obama and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan appears to have gone nowhere. Yet it would be wrong not to keep trying, especially at a time of heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and terrorism.

What’s new about the administration’s approach is that instead of treating the situation as essentially hopeless, it is now casting about for the elements of a possible deal in which each side would get something it wants. For the West, that means restraint by Pakistan and greater compliance with international rules for halting the spread of nuclear technology. For Pakistan, that means some acceptance in the family of nuclear powers and access to technology.

At the moment, Pakistan is a pariah in the nuclear sphere to all but China; it has been punished internationally ever since it followed India’s example and tested a weapon in 1998. Pakistan has done itself no favors by refusing to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and by giving nuclear know-how to bad actors like North Korea. Yet, it is seeking treatment equal to that given to India by the West.

For decades, India was also penalized for developing nuclear weapons. But attitudes shifted in 2008 when the United States, seeking better relations with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies as a counterweight to China, gave India a pass and signed a generous nuclear cooperation deal that allowed New Delhi to buy American nuclear energy technology.

American officials say they are not offering Pakistan an India-like deal, which would face stiff opposition in Congress, but are discussing what Pakistan needs to do to justify American support for its membership in the 48-nation Nuclear Supplier Group, which governs trade in nuclear fuel and technology.

As a first step, one American official said, Pakistan would have to stop pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, which are more likely to be used in a conflict with India and could more easily fall into the hands of terrorists, and halt development of long-range missiles. Pakistan should also sign the treaty banning nuclear weapons tests.

Such moves would undoubtedly be in Pakistan’s long-term interest. It cannot provide adequate services for its citizens because it spends about 25 percent of its budget on defense. Pakistan’s army, whose chief of staff is due to visit Washington this month, says it needs still more nuclear weapons to counter India’s conventional arsenal.

The competition with India, which is adding to its own nuclear arsenal, is a losing game, and countries like China, a Pakistan ally, should be pushing Pakistan to accept that. Meanwhile, Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions. The nuclear arms race in South Asia, which is growing more intense, demands far greater international attention.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Nov 2015 18:27

^^^

India’s prime minister, has done nothing to engage Islamabad on security issues, and he also bears responsibility for current tensions.

One of the usual ignoramus half-wit nincompoops has written one more space filler

These morons do not knoe that there is nothing India can do other than surrender its sovereignty - which is what Pakshitstan wants and no one else minds. India is simply going to allow the crisis to reach a crescendo.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Nov 2015 01:16

US says deterrence is about:
1) Prevent nuke war
2) End nuke war
3) Extended deterrence: If you nuke allies you get nuked
4) Expanded deterrence: If you use Chemical and Biological weapons you get nuked.

India has NFU and 4)

So what strategy will lead to 1) which is more important that 2)?

In Pakistan context?
In China context?

In Pak-China together context?

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 11 Nov 2015 08:35

Ramana Guru,

First In China context (since they are percieved more rational of the two) for 1) to happen
1. desh would need to occupy POK no alternatives to it, their direct land access to Porkistan has to end no two ways about it and we in turn get connection to afghan.
2.Have SLBM's with proven MIRV and long range m. go on regular testing from deep seas that is the only true deterrent they will see in addition to if possible bomber acquisitions

For our irrational neighbor's"
1. The artificial entity created during partition has to be dismantled no options to this
2.I do not see that for sure can prevent is unless you are able to strike their clown jewels first or steal them and encircle them via direct link to afghan and sea lanes in record time
3. Make sure leadership indicates/shows pakjab would be barren land for any first strike

For combined context I would add a line to our doctrine that any attack on desh would also invite attack on the attacker and the financer(s) military/monetary of the same and their allies (make sure we have enough maal to boost the claim) see than what happens. Do combined exercises to demonstrate will to fight under such umbrellas with open shelter build for public and have some training given to population from time to time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Nov 2015 13:26

ramana wrote:US says deterrence is about:
1) Prevent nuke war
2) End nuke war
3) Extended deterrence: If you nuke allies you get nuked
4) Expanded deterrence: If you use Chemical and Biological weapons you get nuked.

India has NFU and 4)

So what strategy will lead to 1) which is more important that 2)?

In Pakistan context?
In China context?

In Pak-China together context?

ramana, there is only one context which is the India-Pakistan context. Once this is taken care of, China will almost fall into place and there will be no Pak-China context either.

We know that the Pakistani maal is Chinese and the delivery platforms are Chinese. The overly cautious Chinese have made Pakistan the fall guy vis-a-vis India and we make him well & truly fall.

And, we shall follow what Sun Tzu says, "Subdue the enemy without fighting". We shall subdue both Pakistan and by extension China without firing a shot. We have been discussing this here for a long time. The trick is to internally destabilize Pakistan without getting destabilized ourselves in the process. If Pashtunistan, Balochistan and Sindhudesh secede, the rump Pakistan loses some of the most vital sources sustaining Pakistan. It loses immediately the 'geographical locational advantage' that Jinnah downwards have boasted of and overplayed.

Though all three provinces seceding simultaneously is unrealistic, the best first option from India's PoV must be the separation of Sindudesh. That, by itself, might be a mortal blow for Pakistan. Pakistan would lose the only maritime access and the biggest generator of federal revenues, Karachi. There won't be any more Pakistan Navy. Sonmiani & Karachi are also important nuclear weapon & delivery sites. The Chinese ambition to take over Gwadar as a full-fledged PLAN base would become more difficult and CPEC would lose almost all the steam, even if GB is not taken over by the Indian Army. If Afghanistan slips out of the firm grasp of Pakistan, India could exert a lot of pressure from the west on Pakistan too.

If Balochistan follows suit or at least makes it very difficult for the PA, that would be a bonus too. That would stop Gwadar in its tracks and CPEC would go kaput.

Once these happen, the US too would be compelled to tone down its anti-India activities through Pakistan and its double game.

China would remain the only power to be taken care of in Asia. Even the Chinese behaviour might change especially if its economy remains subdued for a long time and simultaneously our economy does well during the corresponding period. Otherwise, a natural alliance of sorts has to develop among Asian powers such as India, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines. This could take the form of an Asian NATO with the US playing its part too. They need not necessarily be converging on a single-point China-agenda explicitly but such a grand alliance would prevent a nuke war between India and China, especially with the vanishing of Pakistan.

In any case, the dismemberment of Pakistan in its present form is a sine qua non for India to deter others from attacking her with n-weapons.

The problem I see is that no other government than the incumbent one would even attempt this scenario and the present government must have at least two terms. The US would mount enormous internal pressure through its various proxies within India against this project.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 Nov 2015 00:01

SSridhar wrote: In any case, the dismemberment of Pakistan in its present form is a sine qua non for India to deter others from attacking her with n-weapons.

The problem I see is that no other government than the incumbent one would even attempt this scenario and the present government must have at least two terms. The US would mount enormous internal pressure through its various proxies within India against this project.

Sridhar: Do you have any substantiation for the above belief? Not looking for some official signed document et al, but maybe a series of articulations available to the public domain that has led you to believe the above that this government "may" attempt a dismemberment scenario.

I am not looking for a set of actions that this government has done as far as its foreign policy steps go neither seeking to challenge the claim that "dismemberment of Pakistan in its present form is a sine qua non", which you have made it well known through your articulations on the forum, but specific military oriented steps that you believe this government or its future avatar is likely to undertake to put into action the plains centric strike capabilities of the army towards the above goal, maybe other covert actions that you believe is a change from previous governments that indicate a potential dismemberment plan, other foreign policy actions in the geo-political domain to undertake such a plan, articulations of members of this government before they joined, articulations of non-partisan serious geo-political observers on the matter that dismemberment is a key objective.

I am a skeptic on the assertion made but am open to arguments presented towards the point of view.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2015 02:39

We can come back for this later. Its only last statement in his long essay.

Why not discuss all of it rather than jump to end and stop the thought process?

And enve if its true will we find open evidence.

In Hindu schools of philosophy, intuition is also a tool.
Not just direct evidence unlike Aristotelian.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2015 03:27

SSridhar, I agree Pakistan is the key.
Question is what deterrent policy is suitable for Pakistan?

anyone can participate.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Nov 2015 04:44

edited

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Nov 2015 06:04

ShauryaT, No, I have none. I articulated my position and I simply said that if at all any government could implement that project, it would be this government. That's all. There is no need to seek any further supporting proof, nor am I a even a 4-anna member of the BJP (or whatever), much less a member of the inner most core drafting such objectives. In my opinion, no government is worth its salt if it does not exploit the blatant faultlines of its well-known enemy. There is nothing radical either in the suggestion, Ralph Peters downwards, it has been discussed in recent times. Mrs. IG was rumoured to have entertained such thoughts too. No more discussion from me on this.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2015 06:07

ramana wrote:US says deterrence is about:
1) Prevent nuke war
2) End nuke war
3) Extended deterrence: If you nuke allies you get nuked
4) Expanded deterrence: If you use Chemical and Biological weapons you get nuked.

India has NFU and 4)

So what strategy will lead to 1) which is more important that 2)?

In Pakistan context?
In China context?

In Pak-China together context?

ramana US nuclear doctrine when looked at objectively is contradictory/paradoxical. Check this:

1) Prevent nuke war
2) End nuke war

versus this

3) Extended deterrence: If you nuke allies you get nuked
4) Expanded deterrence: If you use Chemical and Biological weapons you get nuked.

What the US nuclear doctrine says is that we do not want others to fight nuclear war but we retain the right to start a nuclear war under certain circumstances. The US nuclear doctrine was born out of having waged the first nuclear war and then believinng that the US is powerful and just and these weapons must not be wielded by others.

This is such a hypocritical position that India took a stand against it long before India got nukes, leading to various mocking accusations of how the weak cannot dictate to the powerful etc. The powerful did not give a damn.

It was after India faced nuclear threats from China and saw the brazen nuclearization of Pakistan that India had to take a stand. India's stand was instantly mocked as hypocritical - never mind the fact that the US stand is hypocrisy personified. India's stand was dubbed hypocritical because on the one hand India had been calling for a ban on nuclear weapons and on the other hand India was developing nuclear weapons. In reality this hypocrisy is understood by everyone.

So, in answer to your question, India's stand does not prevent nuclear war at all. India's stand only says that we will not start nuclear war. India does not say anything about preventing nuclear war (*I will add a footnote about this). It only says that we will join a nuclear war that someone else starts. . This applies to both China and Pakistan.

Pakistan, China, the US and Russia all have doctrines that say that they are willing to start nuclear war. With this sort of doctrine the idea that nuclear war can be prevented is complete nonsense.

*Footnote: As long as any country has a doctrine that allows them to initiate nuclear war, it cannot be prevented. The method that the US uses to try and "prevent nuclear war" is "restrictive" - where the US (ineffectively) tries to stop other nations from making nukes or offers them a nuclear umbrella in exchange for not making nukes. Unfortunately for the US and the world there are several things that go against this idiotic doctrine
1. You have to be either with the US or against the US - a binary with no wiggle room. There is no room in the world for a total ban on nuclear weapons.
2. The US itself is too weak to stop others from making nukes and its policies are laughably hypocritical. Allies can't do much but adversary nations can see this out in the open. The US tries to create poverty and want imagining that people do not want to go back to the stone ages and that they will be sent there if they don't comply with US power. But the US underestimates the ability of people to live in the stone ages while somehow acquiring nuclear weapons.
3. With the US itself being hypocritical of who its allies are and who can develop nukes - the system is a cartload of crap that is simply held together by the world muddling through from crisis to crisis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2015 06:34

On the general topic of "prevention of nuclear war" there is only one sure-fire method - i.e no one should have nuclear weapons. This, like my aunt's moustache(or dick), to make her my uncle, is unattainable.

Next best come two methods. Neither is perfect
1. Prevention of nuclear war by prevention of proliferation and spread of technology and the use of clubs and punitive methods. This method is looking more and more and more stupid as time goes by because nuclear bombs are 1940s tech and expecting that people outside of P5 countries cannot achieve 1940s tech after 70 years is laughably naive
2. Prevention of nuclear war by cooperative disarmament and incentives to use peaceful nuclear technology. This simply ain't workin'.

Let me jump into a bit of philosophy here. The resources of the world that are grabbed the the most powerful nations are grabbed by the ability to exert military power if it comes to a crunch - with nuclear weapons at the apex of that ability. If that power is limited, then the most powerful nations will lose their ability to dominate and exert their power to the extent that they can now. If that happens they will become poorer relative to what they were while someone else gets richer. This is already happening in various ways.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 Nov 2015 07:04

>>Shiv
>>US nuclear doctrine when looked at objectively is contradictory/paradoxical.

True, and guess who is copying from that model? TSP. In fact, I believe TNW of TSP is with the tacit acknowledgment and will even go to the extent of saying with the help of western theorists, who have studied war gaming in a nuclear scenario, keeping in mind India's doctrine on the matter.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 Nov 2015 07:31

ramana: The only way I see to prevent nuclear war in context of Pakistan is for Pakistan to be convinced of the following:

1. India's nuclear doctrine is non-negotiable and guaranteed to annihilate Pakistan with 100+ TN weapons, even after a massive first strike
2. India has the wherewithal to survive a first strike and even then annihilate the Pakistan army - even using conventional means. So the conventional prosecution shall not stop on first strike. The circa 5:1 fire power differentials have to be more than doubled.
3. India has the wherewithal to keep the US and China at bay
4. India has overwhelming dominance in C^4ISR to detect and respond to ANY preparations of a first strike
5. The last but not the least and not as a replacement for the above, let US and China be convinced, through covert actions of India that the nuclear arsenal of TSP is a threat to their interests

Believe that there is no replacement to the idea of responding to power, but invest in hard power of our own - that is requisite number one, all other stratagems can follow. Pakistan likely response would be to try to invest in its own defensive mechanisms to such power maneuvers of India. India's deployment of an ABM would be responded to by a second strike acquisition capability by way of SLBM's and if they can through deep seating their assets in FATA and beyond. This is exactly what will destabilize them, they will falter in trying to be tactically smart, invest beyond their means and be in confrontation with not only India but other vested interests.

Having said that, do not believe that space for limited conventional action has ceded, if objectives are managed and communicated clearly. Underlying belief is TSPA is as rational as any other professional army around, given their raison d'être to exist - as they see it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2015 07:59

ShauryaT wrote:ramana: The only way I see to prevent nuclear war in context of Pakistan is for Pakistan to be convinced of the following:

The way to reduce the possibility of nuclear war with Pakistan is to increase the risk of nuclear war with Pakistan.

This sounds paradoxical, but the key lies in the words "possibility" and "risk"

Both words summarize probability or likelihood of an event. Pakistan needs to be assured destruction even at the expense of destroying large parts of India. If they can be suicidal so can we. Why do I say this?

I say this because entities like Al Qaeda, ISIS and Pakistan (and Islamic doctrine itself) operate on the premise that their adversaries value luxuries and long safe lives. That can be defeated by a person or group who care for neither luxury nor life because all rewards come in the afterlife. Pakistan needs to have a blatant Hindu India opposing it - a Hindu India that says "My faith offers me an endless number of lives and your killing me does not matter. I will finish you off" Moderation does not work with Pakistan. This is rationality beyond irrationality.

Beyond a point ideology and strategy must converge because both dictate human behaviour.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 12 Nov 2015 08:25

It should be worded with something like this : "Any attack perceived as a WMD attack from Bakistan will be responded with multiple nuclear warheads aimed at decapitating the military and civilian governance centers, until complete destruction of these two entities is achieved".

Basically, we will hit you where it hurts and hit your bunker (or where-ever you are hiding) enough number of times to melt your bunker and turn it into a lava-lake.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 12 Nov 2015 08:35

if preventing nuke war is the intention, the lowering of the nuke threshold by the way of introducing TNWs by Pakis is working against that goal. With the success of A4, lets say we work on the concept of 'smart pebbles' as opposed to ground based BMD thereby leaving no strategic depth either inside or outside of Paki's political boundaries, their ability to wage nuke war diminishes, then their deterrence talk shifts to ensuring survival of the arsenal.

now if west has to choose between

a second strike option of an Islamic nation, any SLCM mated nuke warheads are a threat to the west as well even if nuke smuggling in not Pakis day time job, a counter value proposition or

an even more direct impacting 'smart pebbles' option from India where even their arsenals are potentially threatened, especially China, a counter force proposition,

they wouldn't want either India or Pakis to go that development route.

For them to back pedal on the TNWs of Pakis, and thereby not allow them to lower the threshold, we should go ahead with the 'smart pebbles' sort of overarching concepts as our response, while braving the lowered nuke threshold with cold start doctrine can be made a fallback scenario as it currently doesn't impact the sponsors as much other than leaving them with a neutered geopolitical pawn.

we shouldn't be worried about cost of fielding such a system as demonstration of capability is what is needed and probably sufficient, if the German response of supplying magnesium alloys to India when the first MIDHANI made alloy was rolled out for Prithvi is taken as a reference

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 12 Nov 2015 20:05

@Sridhar,

One nitpick, there is currently no possibility of secession in Sindhudesh. It has to be Balochistan and Pak-Taliban taking over parts of NWFP and entire FATA. To effectively force secession IMO the Baloch need a force of 100,000 (judging from Mukti Bahini nos) armed with things like ATGMs, MANPADS, etc (judging from Syria), etc. Which means full-scale involvement. A few covert operations will not do it. In my scenario Baloch open up areas in Balochistan and is then aided by India to hold and expand. India gives full-scale military help including nuclear umbrella in exchange for Lasbela district for military base (access to Hinglaj) which is used to destabilize Karachi through MQM. Once Karachi goes Sindh separates by Yugoslav effect. The rest is a rump. POK is gotten somewhere in between. IMO it is superpower scale effort that is required. I am not sure whether India is able or keen to do it in the next two terms.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Nov 2015 22:54

Making Sindhudesh is easier than freeing Balochistan which will come naturally as Bonus once Sindh aligned its interests with greater Hind for Water and economic security. This alignment can be manufactured by control of water or will be natural outcome once India achieve economic prosperity way above Poaker Joker of Pakjabistan ( in a decade and half).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2015 03:06

My thoughts on the Indian MND:

- NFU. This means India will not use nuclear weapons first. Also means its not a war prevention doctrine.
- Massive retaliation is the response. Means total destruction. No escalatory ladder tit for tat response.
This is the nuclear war prevention clause. The massive retaliation to any nuke use should make the user think twice. So in essence by invoking massive retaliation, they have de-facto nuke war prevention goal.

-Expanded deterrence is to prevent CBW usage and is in accordance with P-5.

A few more thing that are stated but not part of the doctrine are:

N+1 country syndrome.
Early formulators used to say that an Indo-Pak exchange cannot be seen in isolation and the backers would also get retaliated against. What this means is PRC would also get some flowers if TSP gets out of control therefore its in PRC interest to prevent breakdown of deterrence.

However there are dangers in this stance. PRC might not know if India is a proxy for P5 and would lob a few all over (rest of P-5) just to ensure its not being taken down alone.

Now knowing this, the rest of P-5 would all be encouraged to lob more at India to prevent PRC getting nuked by India.

In one game/scenario the US players (Inderfurth) prompt resolution is to nuke India! Add insult to injury.

So one thought expressed is if TSP initiates a nuke without direct PRC involvement then no point in initiating the N+1 syndrome.
What this does is assure PRC and the rest of P-5 the game stays at regional level.

And assures TSP of certain total destruction.
So these two massive retaliation with no N+1 in effect is a war prevention doctrine.

As for breakdown of TSP is concerned Peaceful Implosion of Pakistan (PIP) was already advocated.
And is not part of deterrence discussion.

I think with this chances of nuke
with TSP are minor,
with PRC are remote,
with P-4 are extremely remote.

There are no Non State Actors with nukes.

Only states with non state actors.

Shiv wrote: The way to reduce the possibility of nuclear war with Pakistan is to increase the risk of nuclear war with Pakistan.

This sounds paradoxical, but the key lies in the words "possibility" and "risk"

Both words summarize probability or likelihood of an event. Pakistan needs to be assured destruction even at the expense of destroying large parts of India. If they can be suicidal so can we. Why do I say this?

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Nov 2015 05:55

^^^^^^

I agree with entire post except from assuring TSP of total destruction that part is not working. They believe with TNW they can deter entire destruction with confidence (misguided to an extent as usual) of P5 entering and stopping desh including India being nuked by Massa just to prevent total destruction and political leadership being banya not have guts to pull the trigger (too soft to act) that is the part we should discuss and or focus to reinforce the believe that we mean business when we say it.

To me that is real deterrence what enemy perceives and fear that invokes in them

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2015 06:30

krishna_krishna wrote: They believe with TNW they can deter entire destruction with confidence (misguided to an extent as usual) of P5 entering and stopping desh including India being nuked by Massa just to prevent total destruction and political leadership being banya not have guts to pull the trigger

As I had stated in an earlier post, the acid test for whether they really believe India's threat or not depends on how far they are going to take terrorism. So we don't know yet.

If Mumbai/Parliament type attacks start again then it mean that Pakis are confident that any Indian response can be taken care of by TNW and that bania will not hit back

But of the terror option starts drying up then it means that they do not have full confidence that they can get away. I repeat. This is a mind game. Pakistanis have to see India as an irrational Hindu country that really believe there is life after life and that India will be reborn after nuclear war. By making this threat India is "daring" them to use TNWs on India. India is saying (via people like Army chief) that India is ready for short sharp wars under a nuclear threat. That means India will hit fast and hard and Pakistan will be under pressure to make a quick decision about TNW. In order to respond Pakistan will have to deploy their nukes all along the border in the hands of people of lower ranks or else they will not have time to respond, India's threat is to force the Pakis to start such frontline deployment of nukes so that they can respond within 24-48 hours. Such deployment will be visible to every satellite and spy agency on earth

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Nov 2015 06:41

shiv wrote: But of the terror option starts drying up then it means that they do not have full confidence that they can get away. I repeat. This is a mind game. Pakistanis have to see India as an irrational Hindu country that really believe there is life after life and that India will be reborn after nuclear war. By making this threat India is "daring" them to use TNWs on India.

After 14.5 years , right conclusions are now being drawn to how to clean,slice ,dry & fry Paki Pra(w)n on crazy Yindoo front Lawn chanting the Naam of Bhagwan from ancient Yudh Puran.
Terrorist Paki Nikat Na Aavve
350kt Jubb Jalak Dikhave .

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Nov 2015 06:43

^^^ I slightly disagree Shiv, if someone says that if you hit me nothing will happen to me from midget like you and it will go on. This is like poison you do not test it by having a sip to say if someone is bluffing by caring a bottle labeled poison with them, atleast from rational point of view.
I have something else in my mind to deter pakis :
a. to start with what about nuclear bunkers for general population, drills done from time to time on what to do if nuclear strike happens there are so many videos of it from Massa on youtube. Also if you go around nyc there are still some shelters that you can see. Why not show them threat is real to desh and we take it very seriously and we are prepared to defend it to what extent it takes, this is less hostile yet powerful message to send.

b.Also show that our nuclear submarines do from time to time dooms day exercises when alternate hierarchy launches test authorization and so on. Have people that matter like IA chief say from time to time we are ready for war under nuclear umbrella.I agree even after these two steps another mumbai happens than let them commit suicide.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2015 07:03

krishna_krishna wrote:^^^ I slightly disagree Shiv, if someone says that if you hit me nothing will happen to me from midget like you and it will go on. This is like poison you do not test it by having a sip to say if someone is bluffing by caring a bottle labeled poison with them, atleast from rational point of view.
I have something else in my mind to deter pakis :
a. to start with what about nuclear bunkers for general population, drills done from time to time on what to do if nuclear strike happens there are so many videos of it from Massa on youtube. Also if you go around nyc there are still some shelters that you can see. Why not show them threat is real to desh and we take it very seriously and we are prepared to defend it to what extent it takes, this is less hostile yet powerful message to send.

b.Also show that our nuclear submarines do from time to time dooms day exercises when alternate hierarchy launches test authorization and so on. Have people that matter like IA chief say from time to time we are ready for war under nuclear umbrella.I agree even after these two steps another mumbai happens than let them commit suicide.

No no no!!!

Nuclear bunkers mean we are afraid of them and afraid of dying. That will only encourage them. We have to be as irrational as they are. We don;t give a shit about their nukes. We will simply eliminate them is the message. We have to look irrational and crazy. Mad Hindutvavadis

The message should not be "We want to live. We are afraid you will kill us.We will spend great effort in trying to live after you attack us by building shelters". If we do that they simply have to increase their threat - they need never nuke us.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Nov 2015 07:42

Well I do not view it that way to me that is more of statement that we understand you are eager to bomb us but being calculative baniyas we are we are ready to protect our every single munna and even after you have expended your clown jewels we would have our people safely shielded although same is not applicable to you and the clown jewels are of no consequence to us.

I am not saying that we should not be irrational hindus as you are suggesting we should do that as well read b. in my post. We definitely should do that but deterrence is not one strategy but multiple in parallel approaches. We should be as irrational or Mad hindutavas as one can be on our posture at the same time we should have other avenues to deter them

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 13 Nov 2015 07:54

What PA (and their global backers) need is a leaked video of an Indian jernail Turgidson elaborating to a poker faced Shree Modi, about "India's options in dosa-fying pakistan". The jernail should have that brillaint O-face at at 00:40 and the subsequent mijjile-fire he had, to rub in the point (phrasing!) that we have some gnarly jernails that out-gnarly their worst jihadis but with better grooming and wardrobe

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 13 Nov 2015 08:06

Pakistan's strategy of building up TNW is a well thought out one.

They will keep the bulk of them to the West of the Indus to keep their provinces from seceding in the event of war and will allow them to relocate more assets to the Eastern front.

The PA is a criminal enterprise and they are too selfish to let things get out of hand even if they lose 20-30 km chunks of their periphery.

Like Ramanaji said, they won't cross the red line otherwise they will face complete annihilation.

By shifting strategy to TNW they are essentially admitting that India simply doesn't factor much into their strategic calculus anymore contrary to what they parrot on TV.

It's those fugging Balochis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Shias etc that will eat them from within.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2015 08:59

krishna_krishna wrote:Well I do not view it that way to me that is more of statement that we understand you are eager to bomb us but being calculative baniyas we are we are ready to protect our every single munna and even after you have expended your clown jewels we would have our people safely shielded although same is not applicable to you and the clown jewels are of no consequence to us.

In my opinion this viewpoint fails to take into consideration two significant Pakistani attitudes:
1. You Indians may care about keeping people alive, but we are all willing to die for Islam if we damage you sufficiently
2. Any damage we do to you is a victory for us. Any fear we cause shows our superiority

So any action on India's part that indicates fear is a signal that Pakistanis must ratchet up the action that caused fear in India so that India spends more and more and more on a completely useless exercise to protect 1.2 billion people in bunkers - an idea that the US with 1/10th the number of people realized was useless in the 1950s.

No bunker-shunker business. Just an assurance that we are willing to get hit with whatever our ABM systems do not intercept but we will eliminate you. You Pakis can start spending more on more nukes and ABMs if you can afford it.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Nov 2015 09:22

shiv wrote:So any action on India's part that indicates fear is a signal that Pakistanis must ratchet up the action that caused fear in India so that India spends more and more and more on a completely useless exercise to protect 1.2 billion people in bunkers - an idea that the US realized was useless in the 1950s.No bunker-shunker business. Just an assurance that we are willing to get hit with whatever our ABM systems do not intercept but we will eliminate you. You Pakis can start spending more on more nukes and ABMs if you can afford it.

Just like China , India is the only other country which can afford to sacrifice half a Billion lives to achieve permanent peace on borders. Paki and their 4.5 Ravishers know this reality. There is only one weakness,
Indian have not yet raised additional armed 10 -15 millions Million chaps who will be doing combing, occupying the empty land mass left by enemies like Paki and Saaki.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2015 11:11

KK they are worried about massive retaliation. Their backers.in US chatteratti keep questioning Indian interlocutors. This TNW is a US thinktank response to Cold Start. And is fizzling.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Nov 2015 16:56

^^ Ramana and Shiv agree 200% salwar gets browned by massive retaliation I do not have any doubts on this. All I am saying is in addition to there anything else we could do.

And I also agree that this was west sponsored and or thinktank response given in bakshish to protect their munna. To me if we split artificial entity "Na rahega baas na bajegi bansuri"

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Nov 2015 18:45

LokeshC wrote:It should be worded with something like this : "Any attack perceived as a WMD attack from Bakistan will be responded with multiple nuclear warheads aimed at decapitating the military and civilian governance centers, until complete destruction of these two entities is achieved".

Basically, we will hit you where it hurts and hit your bunker (or where-ever you are hiding) enough number of times to melt your bunker and turn it into a lava-lake.

No, no. No counterforce targeting business, Pakistan as a whole and all its urban centers, all its infrastructure and massive millions will die. It is Pakistan that wants to reduce the use of nuclear weapons to counter force, we should unequivocally state that we will not play that game and our response is firmly in counter value and shall be punitive and massive.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2015 19:21

ShauryaT wrote:It is Pakistan that wants to reduce the use of nuclear weapons to counter force, we should unequivocally state that we will not play that game and our response is firmly in counter value and shall be punitive and massive.

Absolutely. If Pakistan want to start the nuclear game they must be ready to go the whole hog.

It is not so easy for them.

Let me ask a question - I want opinions from people and I will state my view later.

Imagine that Pakistan launches a tactical nuclear strike at an attacking Indian tank force that has entered Pakistan in response to a terrible terrorist attack. Imagine that news of this nuclear strike - that has taken out maybe 10 tanks and 150 men has hit the airwaves and is being reported across the world as breaking news.

India has not yet done anything. It is just hours after the attack. (This is a totally theoretical scenario - as if Intel would not have noticed the mobilization/deployment of Paki missile forces and readied Indian forces for retaliation)

What would happen then?

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 13 Nov 2015 19:28

Massive retaliation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2015 19:31

prasannasimha wrote:Massive retaliation.

massive meaning? how many mile radius you want the impact?

nuke war, we have to ensure some 1/4 billion to move away from bordering states