India and Pakistan will destroy their own people if they use nuclear bombs and missiles

[pakdefender]

Don't be so sure. The 19th-century European balance-of-power crafted by Bismarck was based on the conviction that each power would act with reason and self-interest. Germany won the 1870 war against France and achieved unification through his efforts. But Bismarck's emperor wanted more: conquests from the French (Alsace) and independence from his minister. Which in turn generated French hatred and desire for revenge against the Germans...ultimately the moves and counter-moves brought WWI, which led to the downfall of Imperial Russia, Nazism, WWII, the Cold War...and all traceable to one man's desire for gain and glory over logic and reason.

Pakistanis, imo, value selfish gain much higher than altruistic acts benefiting the greater good. If there will be a India-Pakistan nuclear war I suspect that motive will be at the bottom of it.

On the other hand, what I consider the more likely scenario is Pakistan's employment of nuclear weapons against its own people, to prevent the country from breaking apart once more by annihilating a rebellious populace. What would have happened in 1971 if the Pakistani army, ordered to slay E. Pakistani civilians on the largest scale possible, had possessed nuclear weapons?

zionist troll , likelyhood of Pakistan nuking israel is much higher than Pakistan using nukes on its own territory

 

[FaujHistorian]

a full fledged conventional war without using the red button not the regular LOC skirmishes

My dear dear dear.


You are making an assertion. And assertion about war that must be based on some historical context.

So what is your context for making such statements?

Let me clarify! Have you seen in the past anywhere on the globe or in the galaxy that two nuclear armed countries went to conventional war on their own soil and didn't press the red button.

Thank you

zionist troll , likelyhood of Pakistan nuking israel is much higher than Pakistan using nukes on its own territory

Yaar, you are a Pak defender and not Pak-Offender.

Or are you.

Why to drag zionism and talk $hit like some mad Ayatullah?

Solomon gave his view.

Present your or tear apart his argument.

What the fork is this muth maari about nuking a country that is 1000s of miles away.

Thank you

 

[Alpha1]

a full fledged conventional war without using the red button not the regular LOC skirmishes

And what will be the objectives; of a conventional war ? Kashmir will be your possible reply;
well in that case red button will have to be included

 

[pakdefender]

My dear dear dear.


You are making an assertion. And assertion about war that must be based on some historical context.

So what is your context for making such statements?

Let me clarify! Have you seen in the past anywhere on the globe or in the galaxy that two nuclear armed countries went to conventional war on their own soil and didn't press the red button.

Thank you




Yaar, you are a Pak defender and not Pak-Offender.

Or are you.

Why to drag zionism and talk $hit like some mad Ayatullah?

Solomon gave his view.

Present your or tear apart his argument.

What the fork is this muth maari about nuking a country that is 1000s of miles away.

Thank you

can you not see though what this dirt bag and his kind are doing ?

The latest fetish that thse land thieves have is 'nuclear and Pakistan' , they are making television series in which Pakistan gets nuked , they are making movies in Pakistan's nukes 'fall into the wrong hands' , the political rhetoric coming from fiends backed by these people is along the same lines and here he is talking about Pakistan nuking itself!

 

[FaujHistorian]

can you not see though what this dirt bag and his kind are doing ?

The latest fetish that thse land thieves have is 'nuclear and Pakistan' , they are making television series in which Pakistan gets nuked , they are making movies in Pakistan's nukes 'fall into the wrong hands' , the political rhetoric coming from fiends backed by these people is along the same lines and here he is talking about Pakistan nuking itself!

Let me ask you this.

If you are studying for a very big exam. in your house, in your room.


Then you hear dogs barking. What do you do.

Drop your books and start a 4 day long chase of the dogs.

or just ignore the barking and continue studying?





Pakistan too is in the middle of HUGE exam.

Everyone is saying that we will fail.

But we ought to ignore the negative voices

Keep on studying

Keep proving the naysayers wrong like we have done for 65+ years.


Hope you understand.

And what will be the objectives; of a conventional war ? Kashmir will be your possible reply;
well in that case red button will have to be included

He is just a kid (based on his posting style)

You expect 5th graders to figure out the history and geography and current affairs?

Hope you understand.

 

[Victory]

And what will be the objectives; of a conventional war ? Kashmir will be your possible reply;
well in that case red button will have to be included

reason being?

 

[Alpha1]

reason being?

The armed and military penetration of Indian Armed Forces into Pakistan on large scale wil result in nuclearize massive retaliation, if and only if the Pakistan Army is unable to stop such intervention. the redlines are thought to be kashmir and Indus valley

 

[Victory]

The armed and military penetration of Indian Armed Forces into Pakistan on large scale wil result in nuclearize massive retaliation, if and only if the Pakistan Army is unable to stop such intervention. the redlines are thought to be kashmir and Indus valley

So finally some Pakistani clearly agrees that Pakistan will nuke India if we ditch the Kashmir issue.

In the current times of proxy wars,, i dont think its gonna happen though

 

[FaujHistorian]

The armed and military penetration of Indian Armed Forces into Pakistan on large scale wil result in nuclearize massive retaliation, if and only if the Pakistan Army is unable to stop such intervention. the redlines are thought to be kashmir and Indus valley

Please let me add and perhaps correct this horrible scenario.

---- Large scale penetration beyond few miles into any country will only be possible if the attackers have already used nukes.


It is not "after the penetration"

It is "before the penetration".

Thus India and Pakistan cannot boast about "no first use".

Considering the logistics and military history, Any major invasion will only happen AFTER the use of big bad weapons.


Thank you

 

[Solomon2]

Your understanding of 1971 events (I have seen two of your posts. This and one in another thread) is severely lacking.

Oh, I should have posted this link.

my dear Solomon, hope you try to find the truth instead of peddling ignorance.

I confess my perception of truth was pretty much fixed by the memory of Pakistani diplomats crying in my parents' living room in 1971. If they weren't a reliable source of their own government's orders to its army, I can't figure out who was - nor why a government would attempt to deceive its own diplomats in this regard.

Nor do you need to rely on anonymous second- or third-hand accounts. You might find this dissent from the official Foreign Relations of the United States of interest, for it strongly suggests that if Pakistan moves once again towards self-destruction the U.S. will not intervene to save it:

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976
VOLUME XI, SOUTH ASIA CRISIS, 1971, DOCUMENT 19
19. Telegram From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State1
Dacca, April 6, 1971, 0730Z.

1138. Subj: Dissent From U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan.

1. Aware of the task force proposals on “openness” in the Foreign Service, and with the conviction that U.S. policy related to recent developments in East Pakistan serves neither our moral interests broadly defined nor our national interests narrowly defined, numerous officers of AmConGen Dacca, USAID Dacca and USISDacca consider it their duty to register strong dissent with fundamental aspects of this policy. Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government and to lessen likely and deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy, ironically at a time when the USSR sent President Yahya a message2 defending democracy, comdemning arrest of leader of democratically elected majority party (incidentally pro-West) and calling for end to repressive measures and bloodshed. In our most recent policy paper for Pakistan,3 our interests in Pakistan were defined as primarily humanitarian, rather than strategic. But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies 4

3. Signed:

Brian Bell
Robert L. Bourquein
W. Scott Butcher
Eric Griffel
Zachary M. Hahn
Jake Harshbarger
Robert A. Jackson
Lawrence Koegel
Joseph A. Malpeli
Willard D. McCleary
Desaix Myers
John L. Nesvig
William Grant Parr
Robert Carce
Richard L. Simpson
Robert C. Simpson
Richard E. Suttor
Wayne A. Swedengurg
Richard L. Wilson
Shannon W. Wilson5

4. I support the right of the above named officers to voice their dissent. Because they attach urgency to their expression of dissent and because we are without any means of communication other than telegraphic, I authorize the use of a telegram for this purpose.

5. I believe the views of these officers, who are among the finest U.S. officials in East Pakistan, are echoed by the vast majority of the American community, both official and unofficial.6 I also subscribe to 7

[signed, Dacca Consul-General Archer]Blood

1 Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 1 PAK–US. Confidential; Priority; Limdis. Sent as a joint State/AID/USIS message. Also sent to Islamabad and repeated to Karachi and Lahore. Received at 1008Z. In his memoirsKissinger suggests that the Consulate General deliberately gave a low classification to this telegram in order to encourage broad circulation in Washington. (White House Years, p. 853) The distribution limitation was added to the telegram in the Department.

2 The text of President Podgorny's message to Yahya Khan, as released to the press byTASS on April 3, was transmitted to Islamabad on April 3 in telegram 56617. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 23–9 PAK)

3 Apparent reference to the contingency study on Pakistan prepared by the Interdepartmental Group for Near East and South Asia on March 2; see footnote 5, Document 5.

4 The dissenting members of the Consulate General sent a follow-on telegram to the Department on April 10 in which they characterized the martial law regime in East Pakistan as being of “dubious legitimacy” and took further issue with the view that the “current situation should be viewed simply as ‘constituted’ government using force against citizens flouting its authority.” They concluded that it was “inconceivable that world can mount magnificent effort to save victims of last November's cyclone disaster on one hand, and on other condone indiscriminate killing of same people by essentially alien army defending interests different from those of general populace.” Telegram 1249 from Dacca is published in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972, Document 130.

5 On April 6 seven specialists on South Asian affairs from the NEA bureau, one from INR, and another from AID/NESA sent a letter to Secretary Rogers associating themselves with the views expressed in telegram 1138 from Dacca. (National Archives, RG 59, NEA Files: Lot 73 D 69, Box 6396, Pakistan)

6 Ambassador Farland supported the principle that members of his mission had the right to express their views on the problems facing the United States in the crisis developing in Pakistan. He noted that the Embassy had also submitted a proposal to register serious concern about developments in East Pakistan, and he suggested that it was time to review the policy toward Pakistan which excluded interference in its domestic affairs. (Telegram 3196 from Islamabad, April 6; ibid., Central Files 1970–73, POLPAK–US)

7 The Department responded on April 7 in telegram 58039 to Dacca, drafted by Siscoand approved by Rogers. In addressing the complaint that the United States had failed to denounce the actions taken by Pakistan's army in East Pakistan, Sisco noted that there were conflicting reports about atrocities. He stated that the Department had not been silent about the conflict in East Pakistan and he reviewed a number of statements made by the Department spokesman between March 26 and April 5. One of the statements expressed concern about the “loss of life, damage and hardship suffered by the people of Pakistan,” but none of them addressed the atrocities reported from Dacca. (Ibid., POL 27 INDIA–PAK) Telegram 58039 is published in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972, Document 129.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Oh, I should have posted this link.

I confess my perception of truth was pretty much fixed by the memory of Pakistani diplomats crying in my parents' living room in 1971. If they weren't a reliable source of their own government's orders to its army, I can't figure out who was - nor why a government would attempt to deceive its own diplomats in this regard.

Nor do you need to rely on anonymous second- or third-hand accounts. You might find this dissent from the official Foreign Relations of the United States of interest, for it strongly suggests that if Pakistan moves once again towards self-destruction the U.S. will not intervene to save it:

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976
VOLUME XI, SOUTH ASIA CRISIS, 1971, DOCUMENT 19
19. Telegram From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State1
Dacca, April 6, 1971, 0730Z.

1138. Subj: Dissent From U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan.

1. Aware of the task force proposals on “openness” in the Foreign Service, and with the conviction that U.S. policy related to recent developments in East Pakistan serves neither our moral interests broadly defined nor our national interests narrowly defined, numerous officers of AmConGen Dacca, USAID Dacca and USISDacca consider it their duty to register strong dissent with fundamental aspects of this policy. Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government and to lessen likely and deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy, ironically at a time when the USSR sent President Yahya a message2 defending democracy, comdemning arrest of leader of democratically elected majority party (incidentally pro-West) and calling for end to repressive measures and bloodshed. In our most recent policy paper for Pakistan,3 our interests in Pakistan were defined as primarily humanitarian, rather than strategic. But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies 4

3. Signed:

Brian Bell
Robert L. Bourquein
W. Scott Butcher
Eric Griffel
Zachary M. Hahn
Jake Harshbarger
Robert A. Jackson
Lawrence Koegel
Joseph A. Malpeli
Willard D. McCleary
Desaix Myers
John L. Nesvig
William Grant Parr
Robert Carce
Richard L. Simpson
Robert C. Simpson
Richard E. Suttor
Wayne A. Swedengurg
Richard L. Wilson
Shannon W. Wilson5

4. I support the right of the above named officers to voice their dissent. Because they attach urgency to their expression of dissent and because we are without any means of communication other than telegraphic, I authorize the use of a telegram for this purpose.

5. I believe the views of these officers, who are among the finest U.S. officials in East Pakistan, are echoed by the vast majority of the American community, both official and unofficial.6 I also subscribe to 7

[signed, Dacca Consul-General Archer]Blood

1 Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 1 PAK–US. Confidential; Priority; Limdis. Sent as a joint State/AID/USIS message. Also sent to Islamabad and repeated to Karachi and Lahore. Received at 1008Z. In his memoirsKissinger suggests that the Consulate General deliberately gave a low classification to this telegram in order to encourage broad circulation in Washington. (White House Years, p. 853) The distribution limitation was added to the telegram in the Department.

2 The text of President Podgorny's message to Yahya Khan, as released to the press byTASS on April 3, was transmitted to Islamabad on April 3 in telegram 56617. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 23–9 PAK)

3 Apparent reference to the contingency study on Pakistan prepared by the Interdepartmental Group for Near East and South Asia on March 2; see footnote 5, Document 5.

4 The dissenting members of the Consulate General sent a follow-on telegram to the Department on April 10 in which they characterized the martial law regime in East Pakistan as being of “dubious legitimacy” and took further issue with the view that the “current situation should be viewed simply as ‘constituted’ government using force against citizens flouting its authority.” They concluded that it was “inconceivable that world can mount magnificent effort to save victims of last November's cyclone disaster on one hand, and on other condone indiscriminate killing of same people by essentially alien army defending interests different from those of general populace.” Telegram 1249 from Dacca is published in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972, Document 130.

5 On April 6 seven specialists on South Asian affairs from the NEA bureau, one from INR, and another from AID/NESA sent a letter to Secretary Rogers associating themselves with the views expressed in telegram 1138 from Dacca. (National Archives, RG 59, NEA Files: Lot 73 D 69, Box 6396, Pakistan)

6 Ambassador Farland supported the principle that members of his mission had the right to express their views on the problems facing the United States in the crisis developing in Pakistan. He noted that the Embassy had also submitted a proposal to register serious concern about developments in East Pakistan, and he suggested that it was time to review the policy toward Pakistan which excluded interference in its domestic affairs. (Telegram 3196 from Islamabad, April 6; ibid., Central Files 1970–73, POLPAK–US)

7 The Department responded on April 7 in telegram 58039 to Dacca, drafted by Siscoand approved by Rogers. In addressing the complaint that the United States had failed to denounce the actions taken by Pakistan's army in East Pakistan, Sisco noted that there were conflicting reports about atrocities. He stated that the Department had not been silent about the conflict in East Pakistan and he reviewed a number of statements made by the Department spokesman between March 26 and April 5. One of the statements expressed concern about the “loss of life, damage and hardship suffered by the people of Pakistan,” but none of them addressed the atrocities reported from Dacca. (Ibid., POL 27 INDIA–PAK) Telegram 58039 is published in Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972, Document 129.

Thanks for sharing the letter.

However it is just one view one window to a very complex issue.

you will perhaps understand it better if you ever get a hold of a documentary on PBS channel that had live interview of Gen. Mankeshaw (Commander of Indian Army) in the 70s.

and his March-April 1971 meetings with INdian Prime minister Indira Gandhi, where they planned to inject 60,000 insurgents into E. Pakistan.

Like Iran is supporting insurgents in Iraq now
or Qaida insurgents in Libya and Syria.

If any of these insurgencies are being termed as pro-democracy, then ideally both of us should laugh at such statements.


As I said, you my dear as an American are trying to get into a pathetic old dog fight between two Indian Rajas.

And when you pick a side, and do not study the POV of the other raja, you simply become unwittingly a partisan commentator.

Peace

 

[Counter-Errorist]

Does anyone else find it strange that people are willing to lay down their lives and kill for flags that didn't exist half a century ago? - which really is just a blink of an eye in human history. The place you were born in has changed so many names, rulers and cultures over the course of its history. I personally find nationalism silly and naive.

Think about this way... if you were born a few hundred kilometers to the east or west, you would be arguing just as passionately from the other side.

 

[bronxbull]

can you not see though what this dirt bag and his kind are doing ?

The latest fetish that thse land thieves have is 'nuclear and Pakistan' , they are making television series in which Pakistan gets nuked , they are making movies in Pakistan's nukes 'fall into the wrong hands' , the political rhetoric coming from fiends backed by these people is along the same lines and here he is talking about Pakistan nuking itself!

arey hero,

bizzare opinion waalon sabka saat dene ka mudda hain kya?

Thanks for sharing the letter.

However it is just one view one window to a very complex issue.

you will perhaps understand it better if you ever get a hold of a documentary on PBS channel that had live interview of Gen. Mankeshaw (Commander of Indian Army) in the 70s.

and his April 1971 meeting with INdian Prime minister Indira Gandhi, where they planned to inject 60,000 insurgents into E. Pakistan.

Like Iran is supporting insurgents in Iraq now
or Qaida insurgents in Libya and Syria.

If any of these insurgencies are being termed as pro-democracy, then ideally both of us should laugh at such statements.


As I said, you my dear as an American are trying to get into a pathetic old dog fight between two Indian Rajas.

And when you pick a side, and do not study the POV of the other raja, you simply become unwittingly a partisan commentator.

Peace

yeah this is a very old silly ego wrestle,not that serious a subject also.

 

[Slav Defence]

It is easy for warmongers to type on keyboard to 'nuke' each other with atom bomb,or for defense analyst to talk about 'operation Pakistan' or 'Ghazwa e hind',but it is time for both nations to wake up and get out of their influence.
I guarentee you that these 'mantree jees' or whatever will be first to run aboard,leaving their 'military' and 'subject' behind in a misary.
When we talk about nuclear war,we generally imagine of a Mushroom cloud,some heat and then total blackout,but the truth is that reality is thousand times horrible as compare to our imagination.
When a nuclear bomb falls,the targeted area is not only destroyed completely,but it's effects spread rapidly due to release of poisionous radioactive matter,along with powerful soundwaves of explosion.
The effects are divided into caregories,on the basis of distance and exposure.
The closer distance,the worse effect,such as those who were present at that area are burned immediately,while those who are quite far away experience:
-Blindness or loss of other sensory organ.
-Those who survived some how at the time of blast,but are exposed,will die within one week,as blood will flow from their bodyparts,they will experience extreme irritation.
Thus there are two types of effetcs:
-Direct
-Indirect

1)Direct effects:
direct effects are caused due to two factors:

a)Blast damage
b)Thermal radiation

While more effects such as nuclear winter and earthquake are another brutal faces of death.Besides all such effects there are more factors which have reduced human chances of survival after nuclear blast.

2)Indirect Effects:
a)Electromagnetic pulse
b)Ionozing radiation
c)Residual radiation.

There is a common perception among warmongers that they will survive,but I assure you that you will find nothing but death every where.If you survived in category one,then you will die in second ,or third and so on...
And even if you survived some how,then you will either die of hunger or if you have decided to eat remianing posionous grown food,then death will take you in his wings again.
Thus there will be death everywhere,you will be left with no choice except to either die quickly,or slowly,but every category will give you nothing but painful death and torment.
@AhaseebA @FaujHistorian @Secur @jaibi @WebMaster @RescueRanger @Jungibaaz @Aeronaut @Oscar @Manticore and others....
Inshallah I will bring you a detailed write-up,on this subject,let me handle TF-2 work.

 

[RescueRanger]