What's new

A Normal Nuclear Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
All lovey Dover Joe and doc

I am leaning over backwards to avoid a confrontation and a quarrel. I will continue as long as it is decently possible. It is clear that the only thing we have in common is a deep-seated patriotism, not the shallow, flash kind so readily on display in some, but born from an older tradition and legacy which is no longer entertained.
 
.
To be honest V, this is a very old fight.

Its not going to be solved by solving Kashmir.

Pakistan comes first in line.

That is what the fight is about.
Sir with all due respect, from the Indian standpoint there are no "differences."

You hold a part of Kashmir which is ours. We are willing to let it go.

You ceded a part of our Kashmir to the Chinese. We are willing to let it go.

Make the LOC the IB and move on.

But are you willing to let it go?

Let me go one step further sir.

The fingering will not stop as long as you can finger.

Because its not about Kashmir.

You were given the kiss of life by the British.

Now you feel you've shored up your defenses for the next final and divinely ordained push.

Many of us equally feel you are squatting on our land. And we want it back. We'll take you with it as well. Seeing as you were always there as us.

Do you see what we are dealing with here?
On the matter of Kashmir, I think Musharraf presented that very solution to the Indian Government and they got cold feet . A fully agree that we need to move on and so do you. There are multiple factors which results in the lingering on of various issues between us, mosy of which is bei g whipped up by peoe on both sides who have vested interests jn keeping the conflict going. Again, at the expense of repeating myself we do need to sit down with sincerity and resolve these issues.

That stage will come not simply from anybody's epiphany, but when the costs of such policies exceed the ability to afford them.
You do not see that the problem crossed that threshold 20yrs ago. When has PA or PAF been able to afford the arms we have been buying. People have now found a cheaper way to kill more people. So the fear of escalation rowards a nontenable situation is the way towards reconciliation. Remember V you can never negotiate and get a fair deal from a position of weakness.
A
 
.
You do not see that the problem crossed that threshold 20yrs ago. When has PA or PAF been able to afford the arms we have been buying. People have now found a cheaper way to kill more people. So the fear of escalation rowards a nontenable situation is the way towards reconciliation. Remember V you can never negotiate and get a fair deal from a position of weakness.
A

Sir, the costs are paid by the entire nation, not just in terms of dollars and cents and not just under the budgeted heads of the armed forces. And both nations have paid heavily, and continue to do so. I will predict that this rationale of creating a fear of escalation to force a reconciliation will fail abjectly. You are correct that the best negotiations happen from a position of strength, but this strength in a post nuclear world generally, and particularly between two nuclear rivals such as Pakistan and India will come from the economy, not anything else.
 
.
Sir, the costs are paid by the entire nation, not just in terms of dollars and cents and not just under the budgeted heads of the armed forces. And both nations have paid heavily, and continue to do so. I will predict that this rationale of creating a fear of escalation to force a reconciliation will fail abjectly. You are correct that the best negotiations happen from a position of strength, but this strength in a post nuclear world generally, and particularly between two nuclear rivals such as Pakistan and India will come from the economy, not anything else.
On the economic front fully agree with you and the u rest and the hands behind it are an attempt to hold foreign investment coming Pakistan's way. However, the fact remains thatcthe strength is both factors ie economy and defence. On a sid3 note you have to read the effects of the politics of Malcolm X on the success of Martin Luther King. You cannot exclude and disregard one while concentrating on the other.
 
.
Or how small you are for that matter! Good analysis Atnaz!

I am really at a loss as to why Indians on this forum and on many others don't or just don't want to grasp the concept of deterrence for a smaller neighbor against a bigger one!

Ok if one wants to really ease off things in our neck of the woods then why not give lectures on solving our one and only issue of biblical proportions with India! Solve that and we don't have a problem!!

Giving us lectures on what to do and what not to do --- is now counter productive because it is after all falling on deaf ears in Islamabad!

In essence Pakistan has moved --- it is no longer in a conventional race but has taken the "Equalizer" route and went "Full Spectrum."

It is time for India to think out of the box and remove the so called irritant between the two nations ( and I don't mean giving away Kashmir -- but finding a face saving solution for both sides).

And btw harping on Mumbai is counter productive too. After all we fought three wars, lost hundreds and thousands of souls, we lost half of our country to no small measure by active interference of India, but we together still came and sat on the table, Tashkent, Shimla, etc. Compared to that Mumbai should have been an impetuous for a more determined effort to seek peace.

If India perceives China to be a bigger threat, and they do harp on this theory when explaining their Nuclear ambitions, then they need to see possibilities of how to ramp down tensions between India and Pakistan. And one sure way to do this is to drop Mumbai and move on to a solution of Kashmir!

My 2c


Sorry sir .Mumbai episode will remain in our hearts .Each and every Indian took that masscare so hard ,irrespective of their wealth ,religion,diversity etc.It will remain in ours and coming generations as a bright flame that cant snuff .That was a turning point in the relation between India and Pakistan.
Security ,diiplomatic architecture in South Asia can be divided as pre 26/11 and post 26/11.

On topic: Pakistan's nuclear buildup is quite abnormal .In future we wouldnt go for war with Pakistan .Our new weapon is economy ,that is far more powerful than any nuke.Building up of nukes is too expensive that will sucks out your vital resources .GoI wont do that .Infact even US wont do that .
 
Last edited:
.
@araz

Kargil and 26/11 both happened under a nuclear umbrella.

Both times India reacted.

Think on that.

And then tell me what's in it for us to sit down with you and "solve our differences"?

Don't you guys see it clearly?

You're not scaring us. We have you covered. Neutralized.

The game is with China.

And you keep inviting us to play.

Well, play we will. But our own game. Our terms. Our rules.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
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.

Sir ,1971 was a war .In a war one side will lose and other side will win .In some cases due to certain factors both external and internal ceasefire agreement may happen.In 1962 China defeated us ,snatched a good chunk of our territory .But we didnt hate them because their tactics worked very well in that war and ours was a failure .
But what happened in the November 11th ,2008 was a massacre not a war .A massacre that sponsored by the vested interests in your govt top echcleons .Those poor innocent people didnt challenged you for a war .Vested interests might calculated a nefarious design for nuclear war in subcontinent .
But thanks to GoI ,perhaps due to their inability , things were cool down .
We cant accept these nuclear blackmail .
 
. .
Sir ,1971 was a war .In a war one side will lose and other side will win .In some cases due to certain factors both external and internal ceasefire agreement may happen.In 1962 China defeated us ,snatched a good chunk of our territory .But we didnt hate them because their tactics worked very well in that war and ours was a failure .
But what happened in the November 11th ,2008 was a massacre not a war .A massacre that sponsored by the vested interests in your govt top echcleons .Those poor innocent people didnt challenged you for a war .Vested interests might calculated a nefarious design for nuclear war in subcontinent .
But thanks to GoI ,perhaps due to their inability , things were cool down .
We cant accept these nuclear blackmail .

It was not nuclear blackmail. It was an inhuman act.
 
.
It was not nuclear blackmail. It was an inhuman act.

Of Course sir .They did that genocide because those non-state and state actors was sure about that nuclear umberlla .
Even North Korea wouldnt do that kind of inhuman act in Seoul .
 
.
They did that genocide because those non-state and state actors was sure about that nuclear umberlla.

And they learned how effective that umbrella was in the years that followed.
 
.
With MAD applicable, there will be no direct hits, by either side. In a post-nuclear scenario, economic warfare is the best option.

It is the best, but not the only one.

What happens if systematic shelling of Pakistani roads and border areas commences and goes on for a long period of time? What happens if India puts her increasing economic strength into these debilitating moves?
Will Pakistan play along? CAN she play along? What earthly good are those nuclear stockpiles? Will Pakistan drop a bomb in her own territory? Or over the offending artillery formations located well behind the front-line?

The question of defending the country is a complex one. Pakistan has two weapons: state-sponsored terrorism and a nuclear stockpile. India has several.
 
.
On the economic front fully agree with you and the u rest and the hands behind it are an attempt to hold foreign investment coming Pakistan's way. However, the fact remains thatcthe strength is both factors ie economy and defence. On a sid3 note you have to read the effects of the politics of Malcolm X on the success of Martin Luther King. You cannot exclude and disregard one while concentrating on the other.

Sir, once Pakistan achieved a minimum credible nuclear deterrence, the game changed in a fundamental way. Now, trying for full spectrum deterrence and ever increasing numbers of weapons, both strategic and tactical, is the same losing game that the USSR played, and we all know how that turned out. To paraphrase a famous movie dialogue, the Pakistani defense policy is writing checks its economy cannot cash. While I can see how you could apply the analogy you used in the present context, the link is tenuous at best, and likely quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is the best, but not the only one.

What happens if systematic shelling of Pakistani roads and border areas commences and goes on for a long period of time? What happens if India puts her increasing economic strength into these debilitating moves?
Will Pakistan play along? CAN she play along? What earthly good are those nuclear stockpiles? Will Pakistan drop a bomb in her own territory? Or over the offending artillery formations located well behind the front-line?

The question of defending the country is a complex one. Pakistan has two weapons: state-sponsored terrorism and a nuclear stockpile. India has several.

India would again nothing by pursuing such belligerence, Sir. If I were to put on my thinking hat for the Indian side, concentrating on the economy while maintaining the status quo would be all that I would suggest, the immense disparity opening up in another few years will tilt matters in its favor without the need for any hostilities. Playing smart will beat playing hard in this game.
 
.
India would again nothing by pursuing such belligerence, Sir. If I were to put on my thinking hat for the Indian side, concentrating on the economy while maintaining the status quo would be all that I would suggest, the immense disparity opening up in another few years will tilt matters in its favor without the need for any hostilities. Playing smart will beat playing hard in this game.

Short of another war with Pakistan, even a skirmish, India does not need to do anything other than secure its borders.

Let's face it, Pakistan is not going to be invading India anytime soon.

A Kargil type overreach would be replied to and repulsed, as it was.

So your nuclear arsenal is what it was always meant to be. Deterrence of an Indian invasion.

You already had the option of nuking an Indian city were India to invade in force and were your side be in danger of being overwhelmed.

Your response to cold start of ratcheting down the kill field by deploying tac nukes was meant to be the nuclear equivalent of a limited war.

Well, as Pakistan reserved the right to declare that a war between us would never remain limited, India reserved and exercised the right to quite clearly declare that a tactical nuke on an advancing Indian army would be the harbinger of a nuclear war.

All out. No limit.

Cheers, cheery Doc
 
.
Sir, once Pakistan achieved a minimum credible nuclear deterrence, the game changed in a fundamental way. Now, trying for full spectrum deterrence and ever increasing numbers of weapons, both strategic and tactical, is the same losing game that the USSR played, and we all know how that turned out. To paraphrase a famous movie dialogue, the Pakistani defense policy is writing checks its economy cannot cash. While I can see how you could apply the analogy you used in the present context, the link is tenuous at best, and likely quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What amuses me is that people do not seem to think that nuclear devices have lives, and they demand careful upkeep and maintenance.

India would again nothing by pursuing such belligerence, Sir. If I were to put on my thinking hat for the Indian side, concentrating on the economy while maintaining the status quo would be all that I would suggest, the immense disparity opening up in another few years will tilt matters in its favor without the need for any hostilities. Playing smart will beat playing hard in this game.

You might have noticed that my general tone in this conversation wavers between angry retorts and an enfuriated silence. Unfortunately, the post which you replied was born in a peevish moment, and has no pretensions to being a real policy. Had it been so, the vulnerability of Karachi on all sides would have been an issue, as would the general vulnerability of Pakistan everywhere other than the borders in Kashmir, the Punjab and Rajasthan/Multan.

Please ignore it as an angry response which on being made served its purpose and will have no after life.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom