A Normal Nuclear Pakistan

[vsdoc]

That stage will come not simply from anybody's epiphany, but when the costs of such policies exceed the ability to afford them.

Or the ability to hit back.

 

[VCheng]

Or the ability to hit back.

With MAD applicable, there will be no direct hits, by either side. In a post-nuclear scenario, economic warfare is the best option.

 

[vsdoc]

With MAD applicable, there will be no direct hits, by either side. In a post-nuclear scenario, economic warfare is the best option.

A nuke is not the only way out for a nuclear armed state to hit back.

Neither is it going to be limited to the bean counters.

A bankrupt Pakistan is a lot more dangerous than a Pakistan that is tired of burying its dead.

 

[VCheng]

A nuke is not the only way out for a nuclear armed state to hit back.

When the conventional disparity is 7:1, then one side may rely on nukes more than the other, naturally.

 

[vsdoc]

When the conventional disparity is 7:1, then one side may rely on nukes more than the other, naturally.

It might.

Naturally then the other side would have to kill it.

 

[niaz]

An excellent summary of the situation, Sir, and it was useful for us all to read it, surely. Thank you for putting it up. It explains the matter in very reasonable terms. In terms of strategy, I have to point out that there is an extremely hazardous alternative left, which will be far worse for both countries even than a limited-scope war, of the sort conjured up as a justification for proliferating tactical nuclear missiles, let alone a full-scale war a outrance, which was obviously not to be ruled out in any of the cases cited, considering the flagrant provocations, and their impact on Indian intent.

However, I must also share with you my utter revulsion at this sentence:

And then the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks with its alleged base in Pakistan; an arrogant, economically rejuvenated, imperious India could only reverberate in frustration, having to eschew what its impulse dictated despite the clamour to punish Pakistan. It is true that nuclear deterrence imposes its own rationality forever changing the nature of conflict, if not entirely eliminating conflict.

Source: A Normal Nuclear Pakistan | Page 3

I found it in appalling bad taste. It left me dumbfounded, that an apparently sensible, balanced individual should write this.

That sentence alone leaves me bereft of any conciliatory spirit, and pondering very seriously the hazardous alternative that is open to a justly indignant nation. It is sad to think that without the grossly provocative sentence in question, I would have found myself in perfect understanding with the strategic explanation offered.

I concur that the language is bombastic as well as insulting. However these are views of a retired Airforce Officer who was otherwise unknown but is now called ever so often on TV talk shows as a ‘Military Expert’. I wouldn't have liked it either if the same was said about Pakistan.

AVM Chaudhry is obviously playing into what he thinks ordinary public would like to hear. Notwithstanding the paragraph in question; his articles are nothing to be sneered at. We must also remember that art of statesmanship, that is, skilled handling of the national affairs, has never been a plus point with the military men. I am therefore neither amazed nor disappointed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sweet dreams Joe.

When you wake up, Pakistan will still be there.

As will its cause for existing.

As will the terrific guys here and on PTH.

They exist side by side. And we do not have the luxury of choosing. Its a package deal.

Cheers, Doc

Thank you, Doc, that was nice to wake up to.

Of course it's a package deal. If I have to accept you, I have to accept some whose company you frequent, who remind me, those whose company you frequent, of nothing more than some indescribable remnants on the lid of an overused public toilet. Look at the sacrifices I am making on this side of the Radcliffe.

I concur that the language is bombastic as well as insulting. However these are views of a retired Airforce Officer who was otherwise unknown but is now called ever so often on TV talk shows as a ‘Military Expert’. I wouldn't have liked it either if the same was said about Pakistan.

AVM Chaudhry is obviously playing into what he thinks ordinary public would like to hear. Notwithstanding the paragraph in question; his articles are nothing to be sneered at. We must also remember that art of statesmanship, that is, skilled handling of the national affairs, has never been a plus point with the military men. I am therefore neither amazed nor disappointed.

@niaz

This is to apologise for an inappropriate response to something that you posted with care and deliberation. All who have read your posts have come to respect you, and I count myself as second to none in that regard. It is inappropriate not to have taken time to imbibe the whole article's message and to try to understand the thinking.

I am sorry that I replied as I did. It was entirely a surprise, and a great shock. I am about to delete that post, if it is still open for deletion.

Let me just say that the vast bulk of the article explains the strategic situation with sobriety and in detail, and from that point of view, I do agree that it makes sense. Ignoring, for the moment, the authorship of the various provocations mentioned by the post itself.

Once again, my sincere apologies.

A nuke is not the only way out for a nuclear armed state to hit back.

Neither is it going to be limited to the bean counters.

A bankrupt Pakistan is a lot more dangerous than a Pakistan that is tired of burying its dead.

What I hinted at. This is not a theme to be developed. It is so facile, yet so fundamentally harmful a solution,harmful far, far beyond the capacity of war.

OH come on!! Please act your age!! When have you not seen a writer taking a slightly biased perspective to his own narrative. Or is it because you have nothing that can better the argument and therefore you are acting like a cry baby and resorting to a behaviour which is ------ PUTTING IT MILDLY, of a child throwing his toys around. Get above the sentence and start your own narrative and then we can talk. You are allowed to take your own artistic licence and we will get above it and debate.
A

Thank you for your answer. It is neither a case of a writer taking a slightly biased perspective, nor of having nothing with which to better the argument. Quite possibly my behaviour was immature, and I note your comments. However, this is not really something that will reward further discussion, given that there seem to be some fundamental characterisations which cannot be resolved. If one side thinks that a bloody massacre of the other's civilians is acceptable and consistent with a desire to engage, the other side is sometimes left tongue-tied. It is perhaps better to remain quiet and concentrate on flinging around my toys.

 

[fatman17]

Pakistani and Indian leaders and esp. military men are not fools. notwithstanding the statements they have to make to please their public on both sides of the border, about surgical strikes limited wars and befitting replies etc. these events will not take place because both sides know that the consequences of such actions is a full scale war (God forbid).

some sobering thoughts as to why....

1. Pakistan and India have AGREED not to attack each others nuclear facilities and exchange data every 1st Jan. they can very easily withdraw from this agreement based on the poor state of relations (since 1989) but have not.

2. even during the height of the Kargil conflict, the DGMOs of both sides AGREED that each country's air forces will not violate each others airspace and their jets will stay 10KM away from the international border. just imagine the excitement and the urge to shoot each other's aircraft down would have been extremely high as pilots of the respective air arms locked on to each others aircraft. However the air forces did not violate this agreement.

my point remains that both armies are professional and disciplined enough to know that any false moves can have devastating after affects.

Pakistan can never match India's military buildup in the conventional sense.

it can hold its own in a short and limited war (this again is a topic for another day) but India's overwhelming superiority will overcome Pakistan in a war of significant length and duration. that is where the full spectrum doctrine will make its play.

Pakistan (and India) also know that the international community will be quick to push both sides to cease their hostilities (our history is replete) within days of any such hostilities and now with nuclear weapons the desire to do so would be much higher.
Pakistan and India need to meet and start negotiations on similar fashion as the US-USSR meetings in the 80s (START?) to reduce nuclear weapons and I know Indian posters will quote the China card but that is a topic for another time and place,

 

[GURU DUTT]

A nuke is not the only way out for a nuclear armed state to hit back.

Neither is it going to be limited to the bean counters.

A bankrupt Pakistan is a lot more dangerous than a Pakistan that is tired of burying its dead.

And loosing half the country did not?? We moved on. It is time you all moved on and tackle the real issue between the two nations.

Using Mumbai as a an excuse to not sit and talk is wearing thin very fast. In fact this very act is playing in to the hands of non state actors (or for that matter within state actors) that exactly wanted our two nations to be at logger heads.

In a Nuclear neighborhood sanity should prevail instead of rhetoric.

but why shopuld india always show initiative why not pakistan ?

why pakistan has to keep fingering india ?

sorry but too many peace initatives had been taken by india and every time it was backstabed directlli or inderctlli by pakistani security establishment and its croonies with full backing of pakistani nation as a whole so its better to have mutual enemy like relatioons than bogus and fake friendly relations

 

[vsdoc]

Thank you, Doc, that was nice to wake up to.

Of course it's a package deal. If I have to accept you, I have to accept some whose company you frequent, who remind me, those whose company you frequent, of nothing more than some indescribable remnants on the lid of an overused public toilet. Look at the sacrifices I am making on this side of the Radcliffe.

Some perspective and balance would be nice seeing the topic being discussed, who the participants are, and which side you stand on Joe.

You may dislike "my friends" greatly.

They would still be shooting and bleeding on the same side.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

Some perspective and balance would be nice seeing the topic being discussed, who the participants are, and which side you stand on Joe.

You may dislike "my friends" greatly.

They would still be shooting and bleeding on the same side.

Cheers, Doc

I strongly doubt it. They are chairborne warriors.

 

[vsdoc]

I strongly doubt it. They are chairborne warriors.

Wishing us all a very happy Dussehra.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Wishing us all a very happy Dussehra.

A happy Vijaya Doshomi to all.

 

[fatman17]

All lovey Dover Joe and doc

 

[Aamir Hussain]

If we want to live in the past then your argument is valid Dutt! All the power to you!

But this and other statements like that won't get us or for that matter India anywhere viz a viz this sore point on your Western borders.

Dreams, wishes and prayers of Pakistan imploding have been there from the time of partition -it has not happened as yet and it ain't gonna happen!!

Setting aside my optimistic outlook, the ground reality is that China needs us badly, and you r slowly but surely moving into the US block.

China can not afford to have a weak Pakistan, it will invest and indicators are that this time around we will take full advantage of the situation. And I'm confident that it will be a longer term engagement that will span atleast a decade and a half if not more.

So my friend it ain't gonna happen or as you say "Nailed it." Likelihood of strike on the thumb would be in order though

So, it is in the interest of India to stop the rhetoric, live in the present, safeguard its future, and come and sit on the table for a little chit chat. Pakistan and its establishment are serious to resolve our differences -- trust me on this one

And btw what steps has India taken recently (I mean last couple of years) to sit and talk seriously???