Pakistan can defend its nuclear arsenal: US Secretary of State

[Solomon2]

China asks for nothing in return. America demands demands and demands.

Actually the Chinese do, but very quietly. They don't speak loudly because Pakistanis know they might not get the next favor from China unless the previous one was reciprocated. It's a slow and primitive form of trade, but it is effective, yes?

Until you people look within there can be no shift in American policy.

Our Congress controls spending while the President controls the Administration and proposes policy; it's pretty public. More broadly, America is a rule-of-law society whereas Pakistan is very far from that being the norm. Naturally their peoples' mores are aligned to suit.

People resent superpowers who bully and arm wrangle their way to the top.

The Chinese are and the British were like that, but America became a superpower less because it sought such distinction than by default since the devastation of WWII left it the mightiest industrial power remaining on the planet.

 

[Desertfalcon]

. In case of USA every 40,000 Americans "own" a nuke and every 18,000 Russians proudly boast a nuke.

That's because they were built based on the threat from each other's arsenal, on being able to have enough to retaliate after a first strike, therefore ensuring deterrence, not on "nukes needed to kill X-number of people". IOW, Pakistan has approximately 120-130 nukes because...surprise!...India has approximately 110-120 nukes. It works the same way with you guys.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Actually the Chinese do, but very quietly.

Very true. As of 2016 USA has given far more to Pakistan then China has. However that will even out in the coming decades.

America is a rule-of-law society whereas Pakistan

Please.Please.Two peoples are at differant points on the evolution continuum. This is dynamic. There was a time in history when Indus Valley set the tempo of civilization.

And as you should know "rule of law society" is just happy soundbite. It means nought. 1960s America was very much "rule of the law" although those very rules helped to make the Negro rass-class.

The Chinese are and the British were like that

All great powers are. When a elephant walks he tramples smaller life without even realizing.

That's because they were built based on the threat from each other's arsenal, on being able to have enough to retaliate after a first strike, therefore ensuring deterrence, not on "nukes needed to kill X-number of people". IOW, Pakistan has approximately 120-130 nukes because...surprise!...India has approximately 110-120 nukes. It works the same way with you guys.

MAD-ness?

 

[Desertfalcon]

MAD-ness

Quite......except it worked.

 

[Solomon2]

Please.Please.Two peoples are at differant points on the evolution continuum. This is dynamic. There was a time in history when Indus Valley set the tempo of civilization.

Why should Pakistanis get a pass on bad behavior now, then?

It means nought. 1960s America was very much "rule of the law" although those very rules helped to make the Negro rass-class.

Yep. It was by appealing to the ideals in the Constitution that the "Jim Crow" laws were scrapped.

MAD

-ness

Does Pakistan's nuclear strategy have anything to do with MAD (mutually assured destruction)? Or do you really think it has more to do with a blind quest for per-capita parity? I never heard of such a measure before. China was satisfied with possessing less than two dozen nukes for decades, if I recall correctly.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Quite......except it worked.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Does Pakistan's nuclear strategy have anything to do with MAD

Homo Sapiens. Hint: The same principles apply as alluded to by @Desertfalcon

Or do you really think it has more to do with a blind quest for per-capita parity?

My referance to per capita was just light hearted take at the huge numbers of nukes. Nothing substantive should be read from that.

I never heard of such a measure before.

Refer to my previous (above) comment. As regards numbers in Pak inventory they will be increased to point that is sufficient to inflict terrible damage on India even after recieving first strike from India. That is absolute number to be so large that even after first strike sufficient numbers are still left to deliver a secondary strike. Refer to Post #32 by Desertfalcon.

China was satisfied with possessing less than two dozen nukes for decades

What is good for the Goose is not always good for the Gander. Is so why did Russia or USA not follow Chinese example as cited by you?

Or could it be that China, a country with billion plus people is Atom Bomb in it's shear numbers. Nobody can really play along with China given it's humongous size. I don't think that applies to Pakistan and India. It is Pakistan that faces nearly 1:7 disadvantage toward India (population). Tom (India) and Jerry (Pakistan)? Thus need to having sufficient nukes to ward of Tom given it's huge size.

Why should Pakistanis get a pass on bad behavior now

What "bad" behaviour? Below?

 

[Solomon2]

What is good for the Goose is not always good for the Gander. Is so why did Russia or USA not follow Chinese example as cited by you? Or could it be that China, a country with billion plus people is Atom Bomb in it's shear numbers. Nobody can really play along with China given it's humongous size.

Yep, that's what the Russians realized in 1969. They could nuke China and kill off 90% of the Chinese population BUT that would still leave three million Russians in Siberia facing one hundred million very angry Chinese.

As far as I know, Pakistan has never stated officially that it sought a MAD strategy with India - do you have a link?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yep, that's what the Russians realized in 1969. They could nuke China and kill off 90% of the Chinese population BUT that would still leave three million Russians in Siberia facing one hundred million very angry Chinese.

As the Indian's keep reminding everybody "Quantity has a quality all its own".

As far as I know, Pakistan has never stated officially that it sought a MAD strategy with India - do you have a link?

The right to first strike is reserved.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine
India and Pakistan's Nuclear Doctrines: A comparative analysis | Ali Murat Gürtuna - Academia.edu

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine
India and Pakistan's Nuclear Doctrines: A comparative analysis | Ali Murat Gürtuna - Academia.edu

A retired general's seventeen year-old article is not an official statement and this one describes a First Strike policy justifying no more than fifty nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a conventional invasion of Pakistan by India. The Gürtuna tract also describes Pakistan as having a First Strike policy, albeit one augmented by tactical nukes like the U.S-British deterrent in Europe in the 1950s. Indeed, the first article specifically cites British Gen'l Montgomery (not a very good commander, imo.)

Note that MAD requires an assured second-strike capability: not just a larger number of weapons, but assurance that at least some of Pakistan's nukes would survive an initial attack.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yep. It was by appealing to the ideals in the Constitution that the "Jim Crow" laws were scrapped.

Which is a salutary lesson for us all? Was the constitution in abeyance when Jim Crow laws were enacted? Where were those ideals in the first place which allowed the Nego being treated second class.

Lesson learnt: The devil is in the interpretation. That shows how easily set of written ideals can be bent in any direction. Interpretation is half way meeting house of the objective and the subjective. This applies to US constitution, to regular statute law or religious texts like Quran.

Of course the muppets which mostly is the majority thinks written text exists as objective reality.

A retired general's seventeen year-old article is not an official statement and this one describes a First Strike policy justifying no more than fifty nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a conventional invasion of Pakistan by India. The Gürtuna tract also describes Pakistan as having a First Strike policy, albeit one augmented by tactical nukes like the U.S-British deterrent in Europe in the 1950s. Indeed, the first article specifically cites British Gen'l Montgomery (not a very good commander, imo.)

Note that MAD requires an assured second-strike capability: not just a larger number of weapons, but assurance that at least some of Pakistan's nukes would survive an initial attack.

The precise contours have been left ambiguous. Only right to first strike has been publicy acknowledged. Whilst many complex systems have to be built to survive first strike but numbers are part of that complex. More is assurance that more will survive than otherwise. Also consider that MAD in South Asia is at it's early evolving stage. Maybe at early late 1950s or early 1960s Cold War.

India is now moving to the third tier of the triad nuclear deterance - strategic ballistic nuclear submarine fleet. Pakistan will follow within decade plus as it as with most things in India's wake.

 

[Solomon2]

Which is a salutary lesson for us all? Was the constitution in abeyance when Jim Crow laws were enacted? Where were those ideals in the first place which allowed the Nego being treated second class.

These are excellent questions, generally covered in U.S. high school history classes. It was not a matter of "interpretation". The late 19th-century Supreme Court justified segregation that was "separate but equal". However, three generations of experience showed that was a fiction, justifying the Court's reversal. (There are of course more details to this story, but that's the gist.)

That shows how easily set of written ideals can be bent in any direction. Interpretation is half way meeting house of the objective and the subjective. This applies to US constitution, to regular statute law or religious texts like Quran.

One of the things critics of Zionism are compelled to give up is the idea of objective truth. Words mean whatever they choose them to mean. Circumstances are whatever they claim them to be. Thus Israelis who use deadly force to defend themselves after being stabbed are said to be guilty of extrajudicial executions so Israel can be demonized as a state and Jews as a people!

Back to nukes: really, I shouldn't have to do your reading for you, should I? Next time you provide a link I'm going to demand you quote to prove the contents say what you think they do, rather than the opposite.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

It was not a matter of "interpretation".

Sorry it was. Supreme Court is there not to make law but to "interpret" unless the US systyem is at variance with UK which I doubt.

"separate but equal".

That is exactly "interpretation" in it's wisdom of the constitution. I am not expert on US law but having dallied into law in UK with particular referance to administrative law I am aware that most courts "interpret and apply" the law as the court sees fit which mostly is product of politics and the times those are made. Making of laws is preserve of the legislature. Of course court judgements aggregate over time to make case law (common law) which can be seen as by product of courts interpretations of statute.

 

[ConcealCarry]

Enjoy

If you don't count the incidents during production and the A.Q. Khan sales network, maybe. Who would know, given Pakistani secrecy on the subject?

 

[Solomon2]

Sorry it was. Supreme Court is there not to make law but to "interpret" unless the US systyem is at variance with UK which I doubt.

It is indeed an important variance with the U.K. legal system: in the U.S. parties involved in contracts, etc. are required and expected to make good-faith efforts to follow their purposes. In the U.K. that is not the case.

For example, a Brit can plead incompetence as a reason not to make the effort to fulfill his contract. Another example is close to Zionists: by the plain reading of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate the Trustee, Britain, had the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. However, the British interpretation was more like, "Sure, it's my duty but I decide the extent of it and if it conflicts with my purposes I'll not do it." The determination of the British to scuttle the plain purposes of the Palestine Mandate and emphasize peripheral or invent new ones out of self-interest was a cause of friction not just with the Zionists but with the U.S. as well. (Yeah, I spent part of today reading over British Cabinet records on the subject from the 1940s.)

Thus, "separate but equal" wasn't considered an "interpretation" of the 14th (or was it 15th?) Amendment but a good-faith doctrine to follow it. (see Plessy vs. Ferguson.) The demonstration that "separate but equal" turned out to be a complete failure was the justification for the SC to change its mind in a series of court decisions starting in the 1950s.

Much of the developed world follows the American interpretation of contract law. Canada decided to switch to it a few years ago. Hopefully more enlightened thinking will invade the shores of Britain itself as well.

 

[Dr Gupta]

MAD is all well and good in theory but in reality such things are not as clear cut, if God forbid there is a terrorist attack in India on the same scale as Mumbai 26/11 and this time India decides to launch strikes on the militant groups. Is Pakistan going to launch tactical nukes?

If I were a betting man I would say no, the reason is clear why would they want to erase their entire country killing them, their children and everything that lives inside Pakistan? defies logic.