What's new

'After 2001 Parliament attack, India deployed nuclear missiles on border'

StormShadow

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
-10
India had deployed nuclear-capable missiles on its western border and refused to budge under US pressure to hold any talks with Pakistan after the 2001 attack on its Parliament by terrorists from across the border, says former top American diplomat Condoleezza Rice.

And what added to the tension in the White House's Situation Room in December 2001 was the sharp differences between the Pentagon and CIA about the ground realities in South Asia, she writes in her memoir No Higher Honor that is set to hit the stands next week.

While CIA was informing the White House that India was on its way to war, the Pentagon was concluding that it was not the case, Rice, who then was National Security Adviser to President George W Bush, said.

In fact, Rice writes that CIA was speaking the language of Pakistan, which wanted the entire world to believe, in particular the US, that India was ready to attack them. :lol:

"The CIA believed that armed conflict was unavoidable because India had already decided to 'punish' Pakistan. That is likely the view that Islamabad held and wanted us to hold too.

"The fact is that after years of isolation from India, a country that had viewed the United States with suspicion for decades, the CIA was heavily reliant on Pakistani sources in 2001," Rice says in her book.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, Rice served as both the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. "Looking at the same events unfolding on the ground, the Pentagon and the CIA gave very different assessments of the likelihood of war," she said.

"The Defence Department, relying largely on reporting and analysis from the Defence Intelligence Agency, viewed preparations as steps similar to those that any military (including our own) would take given the circumstances. In the Pentagon's view, a build-up was not necessarily evidence of a formal decision to launch an attack," Rice writes.

Rice said the President and the National Security Council (NSC) Principals were frustrated with the ups and downs of the assessment over the next three days. "The Defence Department and the CIA remained very far apart," she said.

As there was no let-up in the tension between the two neighbours, Rice said the US and Britain joined hands and organised a series of high-profile visits to the two countries with the view that there would be no war as long as some important dignitary was in the region.

"Colin (Powell, the then Secretary of State) and Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, organised a brilliant diplomatic campaign that could be summed up as dispatching as many foreign visitors to Pakistan and India as possible.

"We reasoned that the two wouldn't go to war with high-ranking foreigners in the region. Every time they accepted a visit, we breathed a sigh of relief. We needed to buy time," Rice writes, recollecting the events of those days.

But the situation continued to deteriorate, she said, adding that by December 23 there were reports of troop movements as well as a disturbing one that India was preparing to move short-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to the Indian-Pakistani border.

"We reviewed the list of dignitaries who had been deployed to the region, searching for possible intermediaries through whom we could send messages to the adversaries, and agreed to reconvene the next day," Rice said.

'After 2001 Parliament attack, India deployed nuclear missiles on border' - World - DNA
 
I never believed in the No First Use policy by India anyways. :laugh:
 
"The fact is that after years of isolation from India, a country that had viewed the United States with suspicion for decades, the CIA was heavily reliant on Pakistani sources in 2001," Rice says in her book.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, Rice served as both the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. "Looking at the same events unfolding on the ground, the Pentagon and the CIA gave very different assessments of the likelihood of war," she said.

"The Defense Department, relying largely on reporting and analysis from the Defense Intelligence Agency, viewed preparations as steps similar to those that any military (including our own) would take given the circumstances. In the Pentagon's view, a build-up was not necessarily evidence of a formal decision to launch an attack," Rice writes.

Rice said the President and the National Security Council (NSC) Principals were frustrated with the ups and downs of the assessment over the next three days. "The Defence Department and the CIA remained very far apart," she said.

As there was no let-up in the tension between the two neighbours, Rice said the US and Britain joined hands and organised a series of high-profile visits to the two countries with the view that there would be no war as long as some important dignitary was in the region.

"Colin (Powell, the then Secretary of State) and Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, organised a brilliant diplomatic campaign that could be summed up as dispatching as many foreign visitors to Pakistan and India as possible.

"We reasoned that the two wouldn't go to war with high-ranking foreigners in the region. Every time they accepted a visit, we breathed a sigh of relief. We needed to buy time," Rice writes, recollecting the events of those days.
 
Its a no first use policy against non nuclear states.Not Nuclear states like pakistan

A non-nuclear state must be out of its mind to attack a nuclear state. This policy is practically useless then. I'm pretty sure the No First Use policy is aimed towards all countries, not just ones that are militarily weaker.
 
Didnt realise that Indians had an effective nukes and delivery systems in 2001.
 
We should have to appreciate all parties which participated not to let war between two nuclear states. Moreover nobody knows did Pakistan also mobilized its nuclear strategic forces & deployment so i don't think that counter measures from Pakistani side were not taken in response.
 
One of the reasons that kept India away from attacking must have been the capabilities of its missiles.. SRBM means only Prithvi-1 with range of 150 kms, not ample to carry out any nuclear strike.

Yes, conventional war was really on door steps..
 
I never believed in the No First Use policy by India anyways. :laugh:

There is a difference between moving missiles on the border and actually nuking someone. The former is used for threats, the latter for annihilation. It was merely a thread from Indian side to Pakistan government to reign in the terrorist groups that were operating from their soil.
 
Pakistani nukes have for sure prevented Pakistan during the last few years.

Although it remains to be seen for how long will India not call Pakistan's nuclear bluff.

Someday the bluff has to be and will be called.

The nuclear blackmail for sure cannot go on forever.

What is halting you from attacking Pakistan with nuclear warhead? Why are you waiting for tomorrow, why don't you do it now?

May be you don't but a lot of sane people in India know the consequences of war if happens between Pakistan and India, it would be a war which surely will transmute into a nuclear war.

Very important for you to note, you better heed it once and for all - India may be bounded to 'no first use' doctrine but for sure Pakistan is not bounded to such doctrine.

War is not an option, we better should sort out our problems related to each other..
 
Back
Top Bottom