Armitage on Pakistan's Tactical Nukes & Afghanistan's Future

[Rank]

And that ladies and gentlemen is the biggest mistake in PA's thought process. I don't think they have read India's nuclear doctrine which very clearly lays out that even if a tactical nuke is used against Indian assets, India will respond with full force of its nuclear arsenal. Not only would there be a counter force response but a counter value strike (counter city as some would call it).

Therefore Pakistan using tactical nukes under the impression that a nuclear exchange with India would be a localized affair is way off the mark and a bad idea. There would be no graduated response from the Indian side. It would be total all out nuclear war with India responding with all its nuclear assets.

Pata nahe kya bakwaas likhay ja raha hey asa lag raha hey pee hoi hey kuch samaj nahe araha kya likhna hey kya nahe ... India response full force bla bla ***** non-sense

 

[Dazzler]

judging from the current global financial/ political scenario, after 25 years, there will be an Afghanistan, and Pakistan for sure.

Cant say the same about United States.

 

[Slayer786]

US is no enemy of Pakistan, Pakistan is not up to the standard of being an Enemy for the US. Because it is such an immensely powerful country, US policy seeks the furtherance of her national interests as they are perceived at any given time, by bending the policies of other states to further US interests - in our region those interests include the disruption of terrorist networks, keeping open sea lanes to commerce, ensuring supplies of hydrocarbon energy at REASONABLE prices, the protection of allies and ensuring US preeminence (commercial, military and cultural) - Pakistan cannot seriously negatively effect any of these objectives and so Pakistan is not an enemy, on the other hand, it's no friend either.

Pakistan's enemies are inside Pakistan, it's major enemy is the ideology of Islamism, that the state itself perpetuates and which is mothers milk to the Army, it corrupts the mind and spirit of nation, robbing it of it's history, culture and even it's future.

Before Pakistan exploded the nuclear device, I would have totally agreed with you. That for USA Pakistan is nothing more than a mere thought. But after the tests, the parameters have changed. A muslim country having nuclear power is unacceptable for USA and Israel. If this statemnt is a surprise and shocking for anyone, than I can only call them naive.
Recently some senators in USA declared a resolution stating that Pakistan should give Balochs a referendum to decide to stay with Pakistan or not. Not very friendly, is it?

Then we have the drone attacks, which have killed many more innocents than actual terrorists, which is acceptable to USA as collateral damage, again not friendly.

We have the secret plan ready by USA where they come secretly and steal our nuclear assets, but it is for our own good(thats what they believe anyway). Can u feel the luv?

Then we have the so-called accidental killings of our 30 or so soldiers by USA when one of its helicopters fired missiles at our army post. HMMMM!!!! Cant see the friendly vibe emanating here. ??????

Ofcourse, the ultimate humiliation, when they entered Pakistan without permission and killed OBL(not a bad thing) and left without informing their so-called allies, which is us Pakistan. So much trust they have. So much respect they have for us.

Now you mention disruption of terrorist network in our region. LOL. Before USA came and started this war, we did not have the4 Pakistani taliban, we were forced to fight them by USA and created this monster. Before we had the Al-Qaeda who were either killed or captured in Afghanistan and only Afghan taliban were left who were not terrorists. It was USA who decided to get rif of taliban so that a puppet govt can run Afghanistan who will bow down to the almighty USA. After losing 2000 soldiers and going bankrupt by spending US$ 1 trillion, they decide that to talk with the taliban. Now it is the USA policy necer to negotiate with terrorists, so that means that Afghan taliban are not considered terrorists by USA then. Hmmmm! Interesting.

And why would the sea lanes in our backyard be blocked for USA to keep the aircraft carriers there? Thats just an excuse. All the countries in the region know that they will lose financially if someone tries to block the lanes. Iran is a major oil supplier and why would it block the sea lanes. It is only that USA tries to bully Iran and other countries in the region that there is tension. Before the USA came, the sea routes were never a problem, and business was being conducted as normal. It is an excuse by USA to divide and rule us all.

I accept Pakistan's main enemies are inside Pakistan and we need to deal with this menace, but I am sure that this menace is being financed by outside powers which could include USA and India and Israel, three countries which are enemies of Pakistan.

So we obviously are not their friends, but I still insists that USA is our enemy, trying to destabilize us and together with India have nefarious designs.

It is really hilarious that there our some Pakistanis who like to believe that their thinking, their mind-set, their political acumen is above us ordinary Pakistanis.

But i as an ordinary Pakistani like to call a spade a spade.

Pakistan Zindabad.

 

[RazorMC]

..... I don't think they have read India's nuclear doctrine which very clearly lays out that even if a tactical nuke is used against Indian assets, India will respond with full force of its nuclear arsenal. ....

Technically, the Indian doctrine is to use nukes even against a perceived threat of a nuclear-attack.

 

[RazorMC]

judging from the current global financial/ political scenario, after 25 years, there will be an Afghanistan, and Pakistan for sure.

Cant say the same about United States.

I'm sorry to disagree, but the United States is no longer just a country. It's pace of development and achievements have transformed it into a civilzation. A modern Rome whose influence is still visible even after centuries of its demise.

-- RazorMC

 

[Argus Panoptes]

judging from the current global financial/ political scenario, after 25 years, there will be an Afghanistan, and Pakistan for sure.

Cant say the same about United States.

I am quite dazzled by that brilliant thought, Sir.

Would you please care to explain your rationale that led you to this brilliant conclusion, so that we may understand it too?

 

[muse]

Before Pakistan exploded the nuclear device, I would have totally agreed with you. That for USA Pakistan is nothing more than a mere thought. But after the tests, the parameters have changed. A muslim country having nuclear power is unacceptable for USA and Israel. If this statemnt is a surprise and shocking for anyone, than I can only call them naive.
Recently some senators in USA declared a resolution stating that Pakistan should give Balochs a referendum to decide to stay with Pakistan or not. Not very friendly, is it?

Then we have the drone attacks, which have killed many more innocents than actual terrorists, which is acceptable to USA as collateral damage, again not friendly.

We have the secret plan ready by USA where they come secretly and steal our nuclear assets, but it is for our own good(thats what they believe anyway). Can u feel the luv?

Then we have the so-called accidental killings of our 30 or so soldiers by USA when one of its helicopters fired missiles at our army post. HMMMM!!!! Cant see the friendly vibe emanating here. ??????

Ofcourse, the ultimate humiliation, when they entered Pakistan without permission and killed OBL(not a bad thing) and left without informing their so-called allies, which is us Pakistan. So much trust they have. So much respect they have for us.

Now you mention disruption of terrorist network in our region. LOL. Before USA came and started this war, we did not have the4 Pakistani taliban, we were forced to fight them by USA and created this monster. Before we had the Al-Qaeda who were either killed or captured in Afghanistan and only Afghan taliban were left who were not terrorists. It was USA who decided to get rif of taliban so that a puppet govt can run Afghanistan who will bow down to the almighty USA. After losing 2000 soldiers and going bankrupt by spending US$ 1 trillion, they decide that to talk with the taliban. Now it is the USA policy necer to negotiate with terrorists, so that means that Afghan taliban are not considered terrorists by USA then. Hmmmm! Interesting.

And why would the sea lanes in our backyard be blocked for USA to keep the aircraft carriers there? Thats just an excuse. All the countries in the region know that they will lose financially if someone tries to block the lanes. Iran is a major oil supplier and why would it block the sea lanes. It is only that USA tries to bully Iran and other countries in the region that there is tension. Before the USA came, the sea routes were never a problem, and business was being conducted as normal. It is an excuse by USA to divide and rule us all.

I accept Pakistan's main enemies are inside Pakistan and we need to deal with this menace, but I am sure that this menace is being financed by outside powers which could include USA and India and Israel, three countries which are enemies of Pakistan.

So we obviously are not their friends, but I still insists that USA is our enemy, trying to destabilize us and together with India have nefarious designs.

It is really hilarious that there our some Pakistanis who like to believe that their thinking, their mind-set, their political acumen is above us ordinary Pakistanis.

But i as an ordinary Pakistani like to call a spade a spade.

Pakistan Zindabad.

First, my thanks and congratulations, those are the kinds of responses I think all forum readers look forward to reading from you. However, before we get to the substance, allow me a critique to help refine your future responses - please organize the elements of your response, don't allow readers to conclude that you are meandering -- Tell the readers what you will say, then say it, follow that up by telling them what you said - I hope you will take this critique in the constructive spirit it is offered

Ok - now to substance, you say US finds a nuclear Pakistan unacceptable, that it seeks to "steal" Pakistani "strategic" assets, that militancy started in Pakistan when US invaded Afghanistan, that US is forcing Pakistan to fight Islamist militants -

But then you lose the plot so speak, you say you agree that Pakistan's enemies are internal bu that they are financed by the unholy trinity (US, Israel and India) You end by saying that you like to call a spade a spade (that is if only you could identify spades correctly?)

Now it's important that arguments be internally logically coherent --- If US finds Muslim Pakistan unacceptable, how is it that it continues to offer financial support, increased trade and Pakistani armed forces especially the Air Force publicly affirm that US supplied aircraft form the "spear" element of it's ability to defend Pakistan? Isn't it INCREDIBLE, that we should be using armaments provided by an "ENEMY" to defend ourselves??? So, either the US is not an enemy or Pakistan Armed Forces are a traitorous bunch, isn't it?

You assert that Pakistan did not have a Islamist militancy problem before the US came to town, but is this a factual statement? I think if you will research, you will find that Al Qaida was established in Western and Northern Pakistan much before the US came to town, indeed, if you do the research, you fill find that Waziristan had in effect been ceded to the islamist militancy much before the US came to town, and of course, you do not deal with the context of how it was that the US came to be in Afghanistan to begin with (9/11)

And to your final point that the US finances the islamist militancy in Pakistan - Nek Mohammad and Wali ur Rahman and the leader on run, Hakeemullah are testament to such financing, Won't you agree?


So, your argument is flawed, because it does not have internal logical coherence and is factually incorrect.

So does that mean that you are entirely wrong that the US is a enemy?? US itself says that it has "complicated: relations with Pakistan and US officials have coined the word "Frenemy", to suggest that they employ a mix of carrots and sticks to shape not just Pakistani policy but the environment it is meaningful in -- yes, certainly, US is not the kind of friend that China is, in the sense that China, when it finds Pakistani policy objectionable, prefers to deal with it behind closed doors, whereas the US is persuaded that going public helps it shape not just policy but the environment in which policy is meaningful.

 

[Slayer786]

First, my thanks and congratulations, those are the kinds of responses I think all forum readers look forward to reading from you. However, before we get to the substance, allow me a critique to help refine your future responses - please organize the elements of your response, don't allow readers to conclude that you are meandering -- Tell the readers what you will say, then say it, follow that up by telling them what you said - I hope you will take this critique in the constructive spirit it is offered

Ok - now to substance, you say US finds a nuclear Pakistan unacceptable, that it seeks to "steal" Pakistani "strategic" assets, that militancy started in Pakistan when US invaded Afghanistan, that US is forcing Pakistan to fight Islamist militants -

But then you lose the plot so speak, you say you agree that Pakistan's enemies are internal bu that they are financed by the unholy trinity (US, Israel and India) You end by saying that you like to call a spade a spade (that is if only you could identify spades correctly?)

Now it's important that arguments be internally logically coherent --- If US finds Muslim Pakistan unacceptable, how is it that it continues to offer financial support, increased trade and Pakistani armed forces especially the Air Force publicly affirm that US supplied aircraft form the "spear" element of it's ability to defend Pakistan? Isn't it INCREDIBLE, that we should be using armaments provided by an "ENEMY" to defend ourselves??? So, either the US is not an enemy or Pakistan Armed Forces are a traitorous bunch, isn't it?

You assert that Pakistan did not have a Islamist militancy problem before the US came to town, but is this a factual statement? I think if you will research, you will find that Al Qaida was established in Western and Northern Pakistan much before the US came to town, indeed, if you do the research, you fill find that Waziristan had in effect been ceded to the islamist militancy much before the US came to town, and of course, you do not deal with the context of how it was that the US came to be in Afghanistan to begin with (9/11)

And to your final point that the US finances the islamist militancy in Pakistan - Nek Mohammad and Wali ur Rahman and the leader on run, Hakeemullah are testament to such financing, Won't you agree?


So, your argument is flawed, because it does not have internal logical coherence and is factually incorrect.

So does that mean that you are entirely wrong that the US is a enemy?? US itself says that it has "complicated: relations with Pakistan and US officials have coined the word "Frenemy", to suggest that they employ a mix of carrots and sticks to shape not just Pakistani policy but the environment it is meaningful in -- yes, certainly, US is not the kind of friend that China is, in the sense that China, when it finds Pakistani policy objectionable, prefers to deal with it behind closed doors, whereas the US is persuaded that going public helps it shape not just policy but the environment in which policy is meaningful.

USA has given this AID to us as it was compelled to do so after we agreed to join them in the so called 'War on terror'. Nothing is free in this world. It has given about US$20 billion, of which half of it is for the services we have rendered and half in the form of military and economic aid.
ALthough, economists have stated that Pakistan has lost more then US$60 billion in economic terms since we joined the war on terror. So in the end, we have suffered more by getting AID from USA. And we have lost countless lives fighting the Pakisani taliban.
Lets not think for a moment that USA is concerned for Pakistan's well-being. It has abandoned Pakistan countless times before during the 60's, and then 70s, then because of Soviet occupation we again became USA'd darling, but then left out again after the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan and placed into sanctions again. Then only to be suddenly their allies because of the agreement to help them fight the 'War on Terror'.
In politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies. It depends on the circumstances. For example, the USA and Saudi Arabia govt are quite close, although Saudi Arabia is a muslim country. But the ruling family is a puppet govt running the country with USA's backing. Same goes with all the oil-rich countries in the region except for Iran whose govt is not a puppet govt controlled by USA.
Now when we talk about the Waziristan. It was not ceded because the Al=Qaeda was trhere and Pakistan govt gave up control. Pakistan govt never had any control over it from the moment of its existence in 1947. The proud tribes of the area only reluctantly accepted the Pakistan's sovereignty if they were left alone. And it was only recently that after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan was forced to ener their areas for the first time after independence. Now those tribes had given sanctuaries to Al-Qaeda, but Pakistan was not concerned before 9/11 as they were not attacking Pakistan. Infact, Pakistan had been giving training to a lot of militant groups who are now fighting Pakistan, for example LeJ which is now allied itself with the Pakistan taliban. Pakistan created this monster and many others to fight India's designs in IOK, but after they were reigned in by Musharraf govt. they turned on Pakistan itself.
Now we can continue to argue about the real intentions of USA in helping Pakistan by giving us AID money. Which may confuse liberal Pakistanis to think that they are not our enemies, if not our friends. But remember they have spnet over US$ 2 trillion in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where both the countries have suffered more than before, but to USA it was a strategic move to come into the neighborhood and keep an eye on us all. Money is nothing to them. CONTROL is everything.
India is not our friend and USA has made it very clear that it favors India over Pakistan by giving it a more special status than us. By investing in its infrastructure, be it so-called civilian nuclear technology or setting up call centres or IT firms.
After 2014, when USA withdraws from Afghanistan and USA wont be needing Pakistan anymore. Lets see how they treat their ally(which is us by the way).
I predict, Suddenly there will be tension between Pakistan and India, a terrorist action will take place inside India and India will mobilize its army. World will get nervous. USA will suddenly change its stance on Pakistan nuclear policy and pressure it to give up its nuclear arms. It will place sanctions on it. World will follow, except for China maybe.

 

[Dazzler]

I am quite dazzled by that brilliant thought, Sir.

Would you please care to explain your rationale that led you to this brilliant conclusion, so that we may understand it too?

Who am i to explain anything to you Mr. know it all? You r too intelligent to handle.

I'm sorry to disagree, but the United States is no longer just a country. It's pace of development and achievements have transformed it into a civilzation. A modern Rome whose influence is still visible even after centuries of its demise.

-- RazorMC

and what happened to Rome's fate, and by whom?

No matter how overwhelming, every rise has must see a fall

 

[Argus Panoptes]

judging from the current global financial/ political scenario, after 25 years, there will be an Afghanistan, and Pakistan for sure.

Cant say the same about United States.

I am quite dazzled by that brilliant thought, Sir.

Would you please care to explain your rationale that led you to this brilliant conclusion, so that we may understand it too?

Who am i to explain anything to you Mr. know it all? You r too intelligent to handle.



and what happened to Rome's fate, and by whom?

No matter how overwhelming, every rise has must see a fall

Name calling aside Sir, which I will just ignore, as only a member, I was impressed by the certainty of your conclusion that while Pakistan would be existing 25 years from now "surely", as a respected Think Tank of this forum, you were not sure whether USA would survive for that long. Naturally, I find that interesting, as a student.

I was only requesting an explanation of that rationale Sir, so that I may benefit from your farsighted wisdom, that is all.

However, if you are unwilling or incapable of explaining that conclusion, I will understand.

 

[RazorMC]

....
and what happened to Rome's fate, and by whom?

No matter how overwhelming, every rise has must see a fall

True, everything is faani and must perish one day. But as regards Rome, it did last for over 1400 years (incl Byzantine) and was possibly the largest and most powerful empire on earth - i.e. until the rist of the United States.

But why would I equate the US with Rome?

For one, the Americans took the Roman republic as the political role-model. Second, there is no country on earth that could threaten America's existence (much like Rome during the expansion). Third, its socio-cultural influence is evident even in very conservative societies (incl KSA and Pakistan). And fourth, it's economy is still the largest in the world and will remain so.

And with the way things are progressing, the United States seems to be the top-dog for decades to come.

This is why I disagree with your point about the US not existing 25 years from now.

-- RazorMC

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Technically, the Indian doctrine is to use nukes even against a perceived threat of a nuclear-attack.

That may or may not be considered to be the only interpretation. Why else has the GoI clearly adopted a "No First Strike" position. So that it can clearly state grounds for a "Nuclear Response". Apart for maintaining a clear Conventional Superiority. To also avail of options below the Nuclear Overhang.

 

[surya kiran]

And like i had mentioned, it has begun....

UK 'open' to better relations with Iran

LONDON: Foreign secretary William Hague says Britain is open to better relations with Iran on a "step-by-step" basis and he is willing to meet with Tehran's foreign minister.

The Foreign Office says Hague stressed the need for "urgent progress" to resolve the West's concerns about Iran's nuclear program in a phone call with foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

It said Thursday that Hague "made clear that the UK was open to improvements in the bilateral relationship with Iran, on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis" and is willing to meet in New York in September during the United Nations General Assembly.

The call comes after Hasan Rouhani won Iran's June 14 presidential election.

Rouhani has pledged to follow a "path of moderation," reviving hopes for easing tensions with the West.

UK 'open' to better relations with Iran - The Times of India
@muse @RazorMC

 

[Capt.Popeye]

And like i had mentioned, it has begun....

UK 'open' to better relations with Iran

LONDON: Foreign secretary William Hague says Britain is open to better relations with Iran on a "step-by-step" basis and he is willing to meet with Tehran's foreign minister.

The Foreign Office says Hague stressed the need for "urgent progress" to resolve the West's concerns about Iran's nuclear program in a phone call with foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

It said Thursday that Hague "made clear that the UK was open to improvements in the bilateral relationship with Iran, on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis" and is willing to meet in New York in September during the United Nations General Assembly.

The call comes after Hasan Rouhani won Iran's June 14 presidential election.

Rouhani has pledged to follow a "path of moderation," reviving hopes for easing tensions with the West.

UK 'open' to better relations with Iran - The Times of India
@muse @RazorMC

Any surprises? Hell no; its just inevitable. Bot the West and Iran will have to climb down. Its the only realistic thing to do. And Iran needs to be given the status that it deserves in the region. But Iran has to remain worthy of it. Instead of trying to act as some renegade nation just to give the impression of being the "fountainhead of eternal revolution".