• Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Nuclear Deterrent

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

  1. Jay_

    Jay_ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 4 / -0
    You assume the big guy will not shoot first, there goes your game theory.
    Assumption is the mother of all f*uck up's
     
  2. Jay_

    Jay_ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 4 / -0
    So, there is much more room for India to fight/win a war with Pakistan without threatening the survival of Pakistan.
    So I take that, you do agree the big guy small guy gun story is all crap and will never work in this context.
     
  3. Sid

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    It hasnt.

    Numerous books say that (Chinese LOCs collapsed or were on the verge of).

    There's a difference between 'tactical' nukes and ones that are kept for a last ditch attempt for mutually assured destruction.
     
  4. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Only within Pakistan.

    Did those books say the Chinese won or lost?

    Tac nukes by definition are under the command of division and brigade commanders. Pakistan don't have tac nukes.
     
  5. Sid

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    That's an open-ended arguement.
     
  6. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    No, it is not.

    Tac nukes are meant to be used on the ever changing battlefield where entire lines are changed 10-20 miles within a couple of hours. Such deployment requires an immediate release authorization by brigade, at most division. Anymore than that, than the battle lines would have shifted beyond the immediate target acquisition and require a whole new targetting procedure.

    So, unless you're telling me that Pak Army brigade and division commanders got release authority, then Pakistan does not have any tac nukes.
     
  7. Sid

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    619
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 22 / -0
    That, I'm sure you know, you'll never be able to find out since such things never get released to the public domain. Especially in the subcontinent's situation since you have two nuclear powers sharing a common border.

    If I were to make the sensational claim of Pakistan Army Brigade and Division Commanders having release authority (whether true or not - I'd prefer to leave that to ambiguity for now), it wouldn't be a wise thing to do.
     
  8. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    You forget which army I served and which front we've prepared for. There is nothing India and Pakistan and even China that is doing that we have not seen before.

    Determining which division or brigade have tac nukes is the easiest thing to do. Watch whichever division or brigade that requires NBC qualifications every year or every two years, especially the infantry.

    Nuke release authority does not only just mean deploying a nuke. It also means you have to know where, when, and how to deploy the nuke. Not only do you have to hit the enemy, you must also avoid hitting your own people. Instead of stopping the enemy, you could have blast open a door for them or vice versa.

    Train as you fight. Fight as you train. The more you train, the better prepared you are but the more noticeable you are. The less you train, the more invisible you are, and also alot more unprepared.

    As of right now, we have not seen the prep work we and the Soviets had done during the Cold War.
     
  9. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Have you played chess Jay? Would you make a move that resulted in Check mate? Would it be a terrible assumption to say that you would not make a move that deliberately resulted in Check mate?

    Does the Assumption that you would not deliberately put your king in checkmate mean that it is the mother of all **** up's? And could you clear out your foul language?
     
  10. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    Now, you're moving to chess after we shot down your example. Face it. You're wrong.
     
  11. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight? What do you mean by that. The gun represents nuclear weapons, the stick represents conventional forces. If you have nuclear weapons, why wouldnt you bring it to the fight?

    The british Mughal eg doenst capture the situation properly, to make it closer you must add that the Mughal empire also had guns in addition to sticks. Secondly that while the British could threaten them with an army of gun carrying soldiers, the Mughal's also had an army in Ireland with guns ready to invade Britian.

    1. Yes it is
    2. It might, Im still doing the unit, have 2 wait 4 results
    3. Your thinking is absolutist, does the husband threaten the wife divorce if she doenst do the dishes?

    I havent studied the game theoretic explaination of the Cuban missile crisis, but i plan to within the next two weeks.

    Game theory is useful in explaining situations where there are interactions and where interaction can affect the payoffs of players. Such a situation exists in biology, economics and military. That is why it is becoming more important.

    2.) Im trying to have a discussion on this forum, not fool people.


    No, because if the choice is between nuclear destruction and conventional destruction it makes no difference which u chooce. (what difference does it make if your hit over your head with a club or shot?)

    However, Pak. committing to being destroyed by India's nuclear weapons rather than India's tanks does have a benefit in terms of payoffs should it not be destroyed. (In an eerie way, even if your never destroyed the way you choose to be destroyed can have an impact on the present.)
     
  12. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    I was just saying that Jay was wrong in saying that Assumptions invalidate the model we use.
     
  13. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    The step down by Pak. in Kargil was because the leadership realised that the entire operation was a mistake. It wasnt worth escalating for. However Indian troops breaking across the LOC in Punjab or so forth will certainly result in escalation and probable nuclear exchange.
     
  14. sigatoka

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,013
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Ratings:
    +0 / 29 / -0
    I didnt invent game theory mate.
     
  15. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Ratings:
    +0 / 20 / -0
    It means that the guy bringing the gun is ready to kill, not to fool around. Your example is getting weaker and weaker.

    So, now, you're re-inventing history. This is getting more stupid by the minute. British Regiments were in India. Mughal armies were never in Ireland.

    Go ahead and delude yourself.

    And keep watching me tearing your theory apart.

    Thinking absolutetist? You are both blind and stupid. I've given you HISTORICAL EXAMPLES WHERE THIS HAPPENNED EXACTLY THE WAY I SAID IT DID. You can try to twist everything you want but it does not change the fact the only concession the small guy got was not being blown to smithereens.

    And your example will FAIL because you're using 20/20 hindsight. Damn nice to fit the theory when you know the outcome. I'll throw in a twist for you. Castro grabs hold of the rockets.

    People ain't games.

    Discussion? You throw this tibit out that India is scared crapless of Pak nukes. I challenge you to answer a simple question and you went on a tangent with big boy-small boy and then go around with game theory and when shot down, go onto chess.

    You can't stay focus. You can't admit to being wrong, even when provided the proof in your face. Well, you are wrong.

    Then what makes you think India would be cowed by Pak nukes?