Going nuclear came at a cost for Pakistan

[Always Neutral]

Have you seen this?

http://www.defence.pk/20080308397/military-defence/mq-1-predator-in-pakistan.html

Nice pictures Webby. The author seems to agree with me at the lack of will on US part to treat Pakistan as equal partners on the WOT.

Regards

 

[vish]

The point that the author has rightly made is that Pakistan's nuclear capability has not bought any reduction in the percentage share of defense in GDP... and like it or lump it, the current crisis was years in the making... the biggest mistake Musharraff did was the ousting of moderate mainstream parties from Pakistan... this laid open the room for extremists... and don't tell me any one of you support TTP... 9/11 was in a sense, a blessing for Pakistan... it opened doors to American aid and trade...

I don't think Pakistani nukes are in danger of falling in extremist hands... the people guarding the nukes are well-aware of the dangers of that happening... and if it ever happens, the nukes in all likelihood will be used in Pakistan itself (against government targets)...

 

[IceCold]

The point that the author has rightly made is that Pakistan's nuclear capability has not bought any reduction in the percentage share of defense in GDP... and like it or lump it, the current crisis was years in the making... the biggest mistake Musharraff did was the ousting of moderate mainstream parties from Pakistan... this laid open the room for extremists... and don't tell me any one of you support TTP... 9/11 was in a sense, a blessing for Pakistan... it opened doors to American aid and trade...

I don't think Pakistani nukes are in danger of falling in extremist hands... the people guarding the nukes are well-aware of the dangers of that happening... and if it ever happens, the nukes in all likelihood will be used in Pakistan itself (against government targets)...

Bringing down the defence GDP was never the intended purpose of going nuclear. Going nuclear was only for one reason that if india goes nuclear, pakistan will not sit and watch and rely on the promises of the west in paticular the US and pray that india might not attack pakistan, instead we will too go nuclear so that the balance of power remains in an equilibrium state in South asia.
But you need to realize that though nuclear gave pakistan the required shield against a much stronger conventional enemy, still you cant expect to repulse every conventional attack by nuclear and that is the very reason you did not see a decline in pakistan's defence budjet in terms of GDP. Pakistan under musharraf's rule have increased its conventional capabilities to an extent that in case of a limited war scenario between india and pakistan we would not need or require to use the nuclear weapons and can hold off the enemy with out conventional capabilities and not by going nuclear which inturn may cause the end of an entire civilization on both sides.

 

[Always Neutral]

Bringing down the defence GDP was never the intended purpose of going nuclear. Going nuclear was only for one reason that if india goes nuclear, pakistan will not sit and watch and rely on the promises of the west in paticular the US and pray that india might not attack pakistan, instead we will too go nuclear so that the balance of power remains in an equilibrium state in South asia.
But you need to realize that though nuclear gave pakistan the required shield against a much stronger conventional enemy, still you cant expect to repulse every conventional attack by nuclear and that is the very reason you did not see a decline in pakistan's defence budjet in terms of GDP. Pakistan under musharraf's rule have increased its conventional capabilities to an extent that in case of a limited war scenario between india and pakistan we would not need or require to use the nuclear weapons and can hold off the enemy with out conventional capabilities and not by going nuclear which inturn may cause the end of an entire civilization on both sides.

Very Well said IC.

 

[vish]

Bringing down the defence GDP was never the intended purpose of going nuclear. Going nuclear was only for one reason that if india goes nuclear, pakistan will not sit and watch and rely on the promises of the west in paticular the US and pray that india might not attack pakistan, instead we will too go nuclear so that the balance of power remains in an equilibrium state in South asia.
But you need to realize that though nuclear gave pakistan the required shield against a much stronger conventional enemy, still you cant expect to repulse every conventional attack by nuclear and that is the very reason you did not see a decline in pakistan's defence budjet in terms of GDP. Pakistan under musharraf's rule have increased its conventional capabilities to an extent that in case of a limited war scenario between india and pakistan we would not need or require to use the nuclear weapons and can hold off the enemy with out conventional capabilities and not by going nuclear which inturn may cause the end of an entire civilization on both sides.

Well the share of defense in Pakistan's GDP is alright if everything is hunky-dory... under the current circumstances, it is a bit too high... for a long while the share seemed appropriate, now it doesn't... the statement that the author has made is that the N-factor hasn't changed it much... Pakistan's nuclear program should have bought it down so that resources could be diverted to other areas...

I'm not against a nuclear Pakistan and neither would I advocate that your country be dependent on another for security... the idea of nuclear weapons is parity... their presence ensures parity... their presence ensures that India won't attempt a war... we in India are aware of the fact that the Pakistani nuclear threshold is lower than what we think...

With regard to your conventional capability, I disagree with you... conventionally the gap has never been higher and would only widen...

 

[Always Neutral]

In a way the Nukes in the short run may have neutralised the Indian Conventional Strength but it has brought Pakistan very bad publicity especially with countries like South KOREA and Japan who now have to live with the threat of a nuclear North Korea.

Regards

 

[IceCold]

Well the share of defense in Pakistan's GDP is alright if everything is hunky-dory... under the current circumstances, it is a bit too high... for a long while the share seemed appropriate, now it doesn't... the statement that the author has made is that the N-factor hasn't changed it much... Pakistan's nuclear program should have bought it down so that resources could be diverted to other areas...

I'm not against a nuclear Pakistan and neither would I advocate that your country be dependent on another for security... the idea of nuclear weapons is parity... their presence ensures parity... their presence ensures that India won't attempt a war... we in India are aware of the fact that the Pakistani nuclear threshold is lower than what we think...

Like i said before N-factor would have not changed anything, it was meant for an entire different scenario. If india goes nuclear, we would too, and so we did, then when india tested them, we did too as well. The author here is making a wrong judgement in asseing pakistan's nuclear weapons with conventional capabilities. There is absoultely no comparision at all between the two. Isnt it obivious that while pakistan was spending much lower when we did not have nuclear capability, has to spend twice now because we not only need to upgrade our conventional capability but also nuclear one.
As for india attempting war, you need to again realize that the purpose of pakistani nuclear weapons is not that india would not attempt war, rather it is that if india goes to war with pakistan, it would be on a limited scale as both sides will fear from escalating the war as both nations have nuclear weapons. But consider this fact if only india had nuclear weapons and we did not then what would have happened knowning the fact india is much stronger in conventional capability.

With regard to your conventional capability, I disagree with you... conventionally the gap has never been higher and would only widen

You are looking at it from an indian eye. The gap has always been there. But i would like you to review pakistan's capability back when we first tested the nuclear weapons i.e. in 1998 and now. From subs to things like AWACS, BVR capability, jets, cruise missiles( though cruise missle comes in strategic capability as well), frigates, things like UAV's. These are the things that pakistan did not even imagined back then but obiviously you cant compare them with india's because india is a much bigger country with much more to spend on defence and also the amount of technology available to india is much much higher then that of to pakistan so naturally the gap will always be there.

 

[Flintlock]

^^^Nothing would have happened if Pak didn't have nukes.

There are far too many conflicting viewpoints in the Indian government. Its impossible to take decisive action.

 

[vish]

Like i said before N-factor would have not changed anything, it was meant for an entire different scenario. If india goes nuclear, we would too, and so we did, then when india tested them, we did too as well. The author here is making a wrong judgement in asseing pakistan's nuclear weapons with conventional capabilities. There is absoultely no comparision at all between the two. Isnt it obivious that while pakistan was spending much lower when we did not have nuclear capability, has to spend twice now because we not only need to upgrade our conventional capability but also nuclear one.
As for india attempting war, you need to again realize that the purpose of pakistani nuclear weapons is not that india would not attempt war, rather it is that if india goes to war with pakistan, it would be on a limited scale as both sides will fear from escalating the war as both nations have nuclear weapons. But consider this fact if only india had nuclear weapons and we did not then what would have happened knowning the fact india is much stronger in conventional capability.



You are looking at it from an indian eye. The gap has always been there. But i would like you to review pakistan's capability back when we first tested the nuclear weapons i.e. in 1998 and now. From subs to things like AWACS, BVR capability, jets, cruise missiles( though cruise missle comes in strategic capability as well), frigates, things like UAV's. These are the things that pakistan did not even imagined back then but obiviously you cant compare them with india's because india is a much bigger country with much more to spend on defence and also the amount of technology available to india is much much higher then that of to pakistan so naturally the gap will always be there.

Ok again, I'm not denying a nuclear Pakistan, what I'm saying is that the share of defence in the GDP is high, especially in light of the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. Post Pokhran II, your country did whatever it felt necessary for its security. But in times like these, the share of defence should go down. What Pakistan needs is more schools and more investment in electricity. Capital flight is a vicious cycle; your country is almost there in the middle of it. This is my opinion. The author of the article is saying that the nukes should have reduced Pakistan's conventional defence spending to some extent, especially given the current economic scenario. And that is what I think is appropriate. An example: India 3.01 troops / 1000 citizens; Pakistan 8.55 troops / 1000 citizens. Source: Wikipedia. Again I’m not saying you need to bring down this number, but certainly a recheck is needed.

With regard to war, neither India nor Pakistan can afford one, because of the nukes. And the purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent war. A war will happen if either of the two countries stages an attack. India won't attack, the reason being we don't want to risk our place in the sun. Pakistan won't attack, the reason being you have a lot in your hands right now. Further, post-Kargil and post-09/11, I'm pretty sure everybody knows that the neither insurgency nor "occupation" will change the status quo in Kashmir. So another Kargil or the kind of insurgency seen in the 1990s is out of the question. Proxy "wars" will continue though.

As far as the "gap" is concerned, you have to talk to the people serving in the defence forces. I had a friend who is an officer in the Indian Army (his rank I've forgotten). He told me that "Pakistan is no longer a threat to India; China is what we (IA) have set our sights on." Now this does not imply that India can drub Pakistan as and how it deems. But the gap is the widest today... the stuff that you have mentioned, India didn't have those either. The point is that technology is increasingly becoming available to India, for Pakistan this is not the case. No longer do you have to contend with quantity, but also with quality. Another factor, can your defence spending continue at this rate? I doubt so. So is the gap widest, yes. Will it widen further, yes.

And the gap is widest, not only in terms of weapons. There are a lot of other factors that have tilted the balance in India’s favour. And this is what surprises about this forum, is war only military? Is it only measured by weapons? Your country’s over-zealousness for military deterrence vis-à-vis India has partly created the mess that your country is in. Does Pakistan really need a 600,000 strong army?

The fact is that Pakistan’s capability to afford war is the lowest, ever. The economy is in a state of crisis. You have a fundamentalist insurgency on the rise. And I could go on and on.

I’m not suggesting that you lay your arms and surrender, just have a recheck of reality and realize the slide that your country is in. Then decide whether those F-16s and frigates are really that necessary.

 

[IceCold]

Ok again, I'm not denying a nuclear Pakistan, what I'm saying is that the share of defence in the GDP is high, especially in light of the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. Post Pokhran II, your country did whatever it felt necessary for its security. But in times like these, the share of defence should go down. What Pakistan needs is more schools and more investment in electricity. Capital flight is a vicious cycle; your country is almost there in the middle of it. This is my opinion. The author of the article is saying that the nukes should have reduced Pakistan's conventional defence spending to some extent, especially given the current economic scenario. And that is what I think is appropriate. An example: India 3.01 troops / 1000 citizens; Pakistan 8.55 troops / 1000 citizens. Source: Wikipedia. Again I’m not saying you need to bring down this number, but certainly a recheck is needed.

With regard to war, neither India nor Pakistan can afford one, because of the nukes. And the purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent war. A war will happen if either of the two countries stages an attack. India won't attack, the reason being we don't want to risk our place in the sun. Pakistan won't attack, the reason being you have a lot in your hands right now. Further, post-Kargil and post-09/11, I'm pretty sure everybody knows that the neither insurgency nor "occupation" will change the status quo in Kashmir. So another Kargil or the kind of insurgency seen in the 1990s is out of the question. Proxy "wars" will continue though.

As far as the "gap" is concerned, you have to talk to the people serving in the defence forces. I had a friend who is an officer in the Indian Army (his rank I've forgotten). He told me that "Pakistan is no longer a threat to India; China is what we (IA) have set our sights on." Now this does not imply that India can drub Pakistan as and how it deems. But the gap is the widest today... the stuff that you have mentioned, India didn't have those either. The point is that technology is increasingly becoming available to India, for Pakistan this is not the case. No longer do you have to contend with quantity, but also with quality. Another factor, can your defence spending continue at this rate? I doubt so. So is the gap widest, yes. Will it widen further, yes.

And the gap is widest, not only in terms of weapons. There are a lot of other factors that have tilted the balance in India’s favour. And this is what surprises about this forum, is war only military? Is it only measured by weapons? Your country’s over-zealousness for military deterrence vis-à-vis India has partly created the mess that your country is in. Does Pakistan really need a 600,000 strong army?

The fact is that Pakistan’s capability to afford war is the lowest, ever. The economy is in a state of crisis. You have a fundamentalist insurgency on the rise. And I could go on and on.

I’m not suggesting that you lay your arms and surrender, just have a recheck of reality and realize the slide that your country is in. Then decide whether those F-16s and frigates are really that necessary.

I was reading your post with utmost attention until i came to the bottom paragraph where you stated that pakistan's economy is in a crisis which made me believe that you watch too many bollywood movies related to pakistan. Before i carry on with my argument on it, i would strongly advice you to go and have check about pakistan's economic position. Heck any indian member here would tell you what was pakistan's economy back then when we tested the nuclear weapons and what it is now.
True we are facing some tough challenges, but that is due to the disturbance in afghainstan, we have suffered from them in the past and we are suffering now. Electricity yes it has become one of the major issue but not because we cant produce it or because the higher percentage of the GDP is going for defence but because of the mis-management of the government who just couldnt figure it out the exact energy requirement of the country. And also w.r.t that i would also recommend you to read another thread about pakistan going for an indeginous nuclear capability, you will realize that we are not left behind the way you think or have a misconception.

As far as gap is concerned i dont know what are you referring too. If you mean the economy, well pakistan economy like i said before isnt doing bad either infact it has achieved a higher growth rate then india, not to mention india is a much bigger country and has much more resources at her disposal then we do. Education sector yes india is ahead then us no doubt in that and we do need to focus on it.
As for your friend saying that pakistan isnt a threat anymore, maybe so and pakistan does not desire to be a threat however again i would suggest you to read the official statements by the top brass of the IA. Even your cold start doctrine is based on pakistan, i dont need to say anything more.

Bottom line is that pakistan can afford to spend on her defence requirement because our economy can sustain it, however we do not need to match india bullet by bullet and that is where the principle of maintaining a minimum detterence level comes in and that is exactly what we are doing at the moment and will continue to do so in the future.

 

[IceCold]

^^^Nothing would have happened if Pak didn't have nukes.

There are far too many conflicting viewpoints in the Indian government. Its impossible to take decisive action.

Well you werent the PM of india then and you surely are not now. If you would have been maybe then we may have accepted this theory of yours about nothing happening to pakistan if we didnt have nukes.

 

[Flintlock]

Well you werent the PM of india then and you surely are not now. If you would have been maybe then we may have accepted this theory of yours about nothing happening to pakistan if we didnt have nukes.

Comeon...we can't even get damned nuke deal through....forget about a pre-emptive attack on Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^Nothing would have happened if Pak didn't have nukes.

There are far too many conflicting viewpoints in the Indian government. Its impossible to take decisive action.

Indecision may be the case with respect to domestic affairs, but Indian aggression in 1971 cannot be overlooked, and gives lie to the claim that Indian leaders are incapable of taking decisive action.

No country can merely assume that the enemy is "indecisive", thats just a ridiculous notion to base policy upon.

The "incapable babu's" narrative is really just an excuse to explain the inability of the Indian military to accomplish much more than a stalemate in conflicts with Pakistan, bar 1971. Whenever India comes a cropping, blame the babu's.

 

[IceCold]

Indecision may be the case with respect to domestic affairs, but Indian aggression in 1971 cannot be overlooked, and gives lie to the claim that Indian leaders are incapable of taking decisive action.

No country can merely assume that the enemy is "indecisive", thats just a ridiculous notion to base policy upon.

The "incapable babu's" narrative is really just an excuse to explain the inability of the Indian military to accomplish much more than a stalemate in conflicts with Pakistan, bar 1971. Whenever India comes a cropping, blame the babu's.

I second that! couldnt be said better then this.

 

[Janbaz]

^^^Nothing would have happened if Pak didn't have nukes.

There are far too many conflicting viewpoints in the Indian government. Its impossible to take decisive action.

You do believe that Bangladesh was born through Indian intervention. We would have seen what happened in 1971 if we had a nuclear detterent!