krash
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
[Bregs];4692120 said:Bro what i wish to say is more powerful conventional weapon act as strong deterrent for a war, that's why my emphasis always is on militarily strong and stable Pakistan although many of my Indian friends do not agree with this. Nuclear weapons are up to a point act as deterrent because they are to be used as last resort
Oh yeah absolutely, you are correct. Emphasizing more on the nuclear deterrent would be stupid. Due to these very same reasons, we've been seeing this tango between Pakistan and India, where India devises a method to fight a war while staying under the so called nuclear threshold and in turn Pakistan further lowers the threshold; Cold Start from India and then tactical nukes from Pakistan. This reduces the leeway for both the forces resulting in a very nervous situation in case of even minor hostilities. Of course a far better option would be mutually deterrent conventional forces. But I think the chances of war might increase a little, due to the higher nuke threshold, lesser pressure and more room to maneuver for both the forces, but the chances of mutually assured destruction would surely be lowered many folds. In my view, a balance needs to be found between the two.