• Thursday, November 21, 2019

Nuclear Deterrent

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by sigatoka, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Pakistan's nuclear capabilities ensure that India will never be able to destroy Pakistan without being destroyed. It superiority in tanks, planes and ships have become irrelevant.
     
  2. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    That is the just a whole lot of bull!
     
  3. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Why is it? Can you elaborate?
     
  4. Jay_

    Jay_ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 4 / -0
    How many times do you want it to be elaborated? One word, Kargil.
     
  5. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Here's a clue. Would Pakistan back down in face of an Indian nuclear threat?
     
  6. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Nuclear deterrent doesnt preclude conventional fighting, no one ever said that. However lets make up a little story.

    One big man with stick, one small boy with stick; they both fight and usually the big man wins. Suddenly you introduce a handgun, so both of them at any time can choose to stop fighting with the stick and shoot the other.

    Now it doesnt matter that the big man can kill the small boy with the stick and the revolver, the important point is that both can kill the other now.

    Now through backward induction, from the point where they both kill each other with the revolver you can see that one can not destroy the other without being destroyed.

    For those interested in game theory the book Games of Strategy by Avinash Dixit is quite good.
     
  7. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    That is the stupidest example I've heard. Here's a clue. The big guy shoots first. Game theory! Jeeze! You're betting your life on game strategy.

    Answer the question. Will Pakistan cow before an Indian nuke?
     
  8. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    You should read the book, its quite informative and doesnt involve maths (except one chapter).

    Game theory is a rapidly developing field, now extensively used in economics, biology and military strategy. Its a good book colonel, youll be pleasantly suprised.
     
  9. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Answer the Question!
     
  10. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    The big guy doesnt shoot first, in fact thats totally contrary to their optimum strategy which is to keep the conflict conventional. If anything, the incentive is for the small guy to threaten escalation of the conflict into the nuclear sphere to gain concensions.

    So you are wrong.
     
  11. Sid

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    IMHO, Kargil proved that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent worked. If it wasn't for that, India could've simply attacked across the international border and gained some ground to use as bargaining chip to make the mujahideen back down from the peaks; but instead they resorted to limited fighting in the concerned sectors only taking one peak at a time.
     
  12. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    As I said before, you know alot less than you pretend to know. Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight? To show off how shiny it is? Then, the British should not have used their firepower on the Mughal Empire and instead used stick and stones. Wake Up.

    1 - your example ain't about nukes.
    2 - your game theory sucks
    3 - what concessions? That you won't be blown out of the sky?

    So, here we are gentlemen, a kid trying to tell me about war. You're telling me I'm wrong?

    The Cuban Missile Crisis - the Soviets backed off
    The Berlin Crisis - the Soviets backed off
    The 1973 Arab-Israeli War - the Soviets backed off
    The late 60s-early 70s Sino-Soviet Border clashes - the Chinese backed off

    So, what do these examples all have in common? The small guy threaten nuclear escalation and the big guy said, "Bring it!" The small guy chickened out!

    1) Don't try to apply other disciplines to military studies. At best, they explain factors within military studies (game theory, economics, politics, diplomacy), they DO NOT DEFINE military studies to which you're clearly trying to do.

    2) You know alot less than you pretend to know. You may have been able to fool this forum before military professionals got here but as of right now, you have at least 4 people with the rank of LCol and above. You're making a fool out of yourself right now.

    3) FACTS, especially historic facts, states your all theoritical examples belong in the toilet.

    NOW, FOR THE LAST TIME, ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION! WOULD PAKISTAN COW BEFORE AN INDIAN NUKE?!?!?!

    No, it doesn't work. Pakistan lost. Don't give me that you guys gave up. India won in the diplomatic, political, propaganda, and military levels. Pakistan could not keep her gains.

    If the nuke threat had worked, you would have kept those hills.
     
  13. TexasJohn

    TexasJohn SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,262
    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 530 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    OOE I have a strong feeling he will not answer the question. That would blow his theory to bits!!!:lol:
     
  14. Sid

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    Nah. As much you'd like to throw your weight around being a military guy, I'd still disagree. Pakistan lost on the diplomatic, political and propaganda levels which made a military withdrawal a must from Kargil along with some shortsighted strategy planning.

    And nuke threat is only there if Pakistan's survival is threatened as underlined numerous times by Pakistan. It doesn't mean that if India just crosses the int'l border, that Pakistan would start throwing nukes India's way.
     
  15. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Translation: you've lost. Look, we can examine all the details and note the exact failure points but it does not change the fact that history has recorded this a lost for Pakistan.

    Case in point, the 1962 Sino-Indian War. How many history books said the Chinese won? How many history books said that the Chinese LOCs collapsed and that they had no choice but to withdraw?

    Another case in point. The American Vietnam War. How many major battles the Americans won? How many North Vietnam Armies were destroyed by the Americans? Did the Americans accomplished all her strategic goals? And yet, who won the Vietnam War?

    A Vietnamese general's reply to an American observer comment on the NVA entering Saigon that had the Americans still been there, the NVA would have been crushed. His reply was "So?"

    So?

    That's not what you said.

    So, which is it? National survival or nukes as barginning chips? Either way, you're wrong. Pakistan's national survival was not threatened (1 Indian corps can do that?) in which case the nuke threat was a bluff everybody can see through or your nukes were barginning chips which again it failed. You've got nothing.