PDA

View Full Version : Likely Reaction to Rogue State Nuclear Strike



Red Seven
25 Jun 11,, 13:48
As kind of a sidebar to a previous thread, what if Pakistan, North Korea or Iran were to resort to a nuclear strike in the event of a conflict? How do you think the US and its allies would react to it? Sit on the sidelines and let events unfold? Try to open negotiations? Issue strong statements of condemnation and economic sanctions? Or does it require immediate retaliation? With conventional weapons targeting suspected launch sites? With ICBMs or SLBMs? It's a fire that you have to put out, isn't it?

USSWisconsin
25 Jun 11,, 14:15
IMO, there would probably be prompt conventional strikes to disarm the perpetrator. With current weapons, nukes in response wouldn't be necessary - and would needlessly add to the civilian death toll.

Cactus
25 Jun 11,, 14:56
As kind of a sidebar to a previous thread, what if Pakistan, North Korea or Iran were to resort to a nuclear strike in the event of a conflict? How do you think the US and its allies would react to it? Sit on the sidelines and let events unfold? Try to open negotiations? Issue strong statements of condemnation and economic sanctions? Or does it require immediate retaliation? With conventional weapons targeting suspected launch sites? With ICBMs or SLBMs? It's a fire that you have to put out, isn't it?

In the event of a conflict with whom? In case of a Pakistani first-strike on India, the US will probably be doing two things in parallel (a) letting India handle Pakistan as it wishes within the Indian sub-continent, and (b) mollifying and threatening, I mean "negotiating", India about further actions arching outside the sub-continent. Once the nukes have started flying, the world will have only one option -- to try and contain the damage to the the sub-continent (geography helps).

Cactus
25 Jun 11,, 15:07
IMO, there would probably be prompt conventional strikes to disarm the perpetrator. With current weapons, nukes in response wouldn't be necessary - and would needlessly add to the civilian death toll.

USSW, Iran and Pakistan cannot touch the US... their main targets are two other nuclear powers, and secondarily each other. The aggrieved parties can take care of themselves and then some. At that point of time they won't caring about civilian death toll, maybe they will even be trying to take down as many of their enemies. The US will be more worried about who else they count as their enemies; the civilian populace of the countries, which bred and sustained the perps, will be low priority on the To Save List. The people of these countries MUST understand that. Only from that understanding will the people consciously work towards taking back control over their governments and putting in place responsible and rational parties.

S2
25 Jun 11,, 15:34
"...The people of these countries MUST understand that..."

This is a powerful but intentionally-diminished notion in internat'l conflict jurisprudence and must be re-established. Whether nuclear or conventional, the civil populace takes responsibility for the government it maintains in power. No government on earth can sustain itself in the face of a civil population determined to oust it from power. As such, there are degrees of complicity with every government currently existing anywhere.

A civil population which stands mute, whether witnessing the planting of an IED or the crimes of a rogue government share in that blame. Yes, even the N. Koreans. If their own internal moral compass have been so altered to be terribly askew with the rest of mankind then you can trust that their worldview is utterly alien and disdainful to the rest of us. THEY become the enemy, en toto, until proven by their actions otherwise.

USSWisconsin
25 Jun 11,, 15:55
USSW, Iran and Pakistan cannot touch the US... their main targets are two other nuclear powers, and secondarily each other. The aggrieved parties can take care of themselves and then some. At that point of time they won't caring about civilian death toll, maybe they will even be trying to take down as many of their enemies. The US will be more worried about who else they count as their enemies; the civilian populace of the countries, which bred and sustained the perps, will be low priority on the To Save List. The people of these countries MUST understand that. Only from that understanding will the people consciously work towards taking back control over their governments and putting in place responsible and rational parties.

This might be true in conventional warfare, where armies fire rockets or launch bombers. But in today's world, snivelling sneak attacks using airliners, container ships or trucks- no one is beyond the reach of being attacked. As 911 demonstrated to Americans and the world, even a rag tag group of cowards can attack the most powerful countries - and take many lives.

USSWisconsin
25 Jun 11,, 16:02
IMO, the days of total war, with whole countries fighting honorably is disappearing (if it ever existed in the first place). Wars have, IMO, almost always been provoked and instigated at the behest of a few people, though they have had popular support and have united entire countries.

Surgical strikes - aimed at the actual perpetrators appears to be the direction of future warfare - while the civilians of countries need to get their governments to behave as part of the world community and see one another as neighbors - instead of enemies - the time it will take to do this will permit the corrupt and inhuman factions to do considerable damage in the near term.

Cactus
25 Jun 11,, 17:36
This might be true in conventional warfare, where armies fire rockets or launch bombers. But in today's world, snivelling sneak attacks using airliners, container ships or trucks- no one is beyond the reach of being attacked. As 911 demonstrated to Americans and the world, even a rag tag group of cowards can attack the most powerful countries - and take many lives.

USSW, I agree, but that would be more along the lines of a terrorist attack (covered here http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/57620-worst-case-terror-what-response-can-mounted.html) than nuclear warfare by a rogue state.

vsdoc
26 Jun 11,, 08:00
Surgical strikes - aimed at the actual perpetrators appears to be the direction of future warfare - while the civilians of countries need to get their governments to behave as part of the world community and see one another as neighbors - instead of enemies - the time it will take to do this will permit the corrupt and inhuman factions to do considerable damage in the near term.

Sir, I am absolutely with both Cactus and S2 on this. Surgical strikes in the event of a first nuclear strike are just too little too late. The doctrine should be clear. Kill a thousand of them for every one of yours killed. Anything short of that implicit exponential promised retribution will lack the necessary sting to jolt mass indifference/passive emotive collusion into galvanizing necessary action to save their own collective backside.

We need to make the environment non-conducive to a population allowing such rogue elements to not only exist and thrive unhindered, but actually call the shots. If the promise of killing them all is what it would take from our side, most of us would not spend more than a moment in giving such our collective national tacit approval. If it means incremental responses to each act of aggression from their side, spanning the entire spectrum of choice and nature and scale of response, so that the point is driven home, then so be it.

Wayfarer
26 Jun 11,, 08:45
Sir, I am absolutely with both Cactus and S2 on this. Surgical strikes in the event of a first nuclear strike are just too little too late. The doctrine should be clear. Kill a thousand of them for every one of yours killed. Anything short of that implicit exponential promised retribution will lack the necessary sting to jolt mass indifference/passive emotive collusion into galvanizing necessary action to save their own collective backside.

We need to make the environment non-conducive to a population allowing such rogue elements to not only exist and thrive unhindered, but actually call the shots. If the promise of killing them all is what it would take from our side, most of us would not spend more than a moment in giving such our collective national tacit approval. If it means incremental responses to each act of aggression from their side, spanning the entire spectrum of choice and nature and scale of response, so that the point is driven home, then so be it.

If you can achieve the same solution - end of the regime, with minimal civilian causalities, you are preventing a similar regime of the sorts currently in power from coming to power in the future in that very region.

vsdoc
26 Jun 11,, 09:09
If you can achieve the same solution - end of the regime, with minimal civilian causalities, you are preventing a similar regime of the sorts currently in power from coming to power in the future in that very region.

And what you say holds good if all we were dealing with was a rogue regime.

Such is not and has never been the case with Pakistan as is increasingly apparent to the Western world.

Wayfarer
26 Jun 11,, 10:19
And what you say holds good if all we were dealing with was a rogue regime.

Such is not and has never been the case with Pakistan as is increasingly apparent to the Western world.

For all intents and purposes, Pakistan is "rogue" when and if the U.S pull out their support for the current administration, and this would most presumably occur in the aftermath of a Nuclear Strike upon India/S.Arabia.

You instantly assume without the benefit of doubt that a significant proportion of the Pakistani people are behind the idea of total war, when I'd say the radical Islamists aren't in a majority, as evidenced by the 'existence' of Pakistan today.

Red Seven
26 Jun 11,, 14:06
In the event of a conflict with whom?


I'm assuming traditional enemies but it could be any state within the range of their missiles. In any and all cases your last sentence would apply.

astralis
26 Jun 11,, 15:28
my guess is that if it is a strike on CONUS or civilian populations of any of the major NATO countries, nuclear retaliation. otherwise, a massive conventional campaign.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jun 11,, 02:30
As kind of a sidebar to a previous thread, what if Pakistan, North Korea or Iran were to resort to a nuclear strike in the event of a conflict? How do you think the US and its allies would react to it? Sit on the sidelines and let events unfold? Try to open negotiations? Issue strong statements of condemnation and economic sanctions? Or does it require immediate retaliation? With conventional weapons targeting suspected launch sites? With ICBMs or SLBMs? It's a fire that you have to put out, isn't it?Stuart Slade, a nuclear targeteer, stated that such a strike would invite an immediate counter and devastating nuclear response. There's no choice in the matter. When one flies, they all fly.

We have to guarantee that any remaining nuclear assets must be destroyed and that means 3 nukes per target.

USSWisconsin
27 Jun 11,, 03:03
Sir, I am absolutely with both Cactus and S2 on this. Surgical strikes in the event of a first nuclear strike are just too little too late. The doctrine should be clear. Kill a thousand of them for every one of yours killed. Anything short of that implicit exponential promised retribution will lack the necessary sting to jolt mass indifference/passive emotive collusion into galvanizing necessary action to save their own collective backside.

We need to make the environment non-conducive to a population allowing such rogue elements to not only exist and thrive unhindered, but actually call the shots. If the promise of killing them all is what it would take from our side, most of us would not spend more than a moment in giving such our collective national tacit approval. If it means incremental responses to each act of aggression from their side, spanning the entire spectrum of choice and nature and scale of response, so that the point is driven home, then so be it.

I am sad to be wrong about this, based on responses from those who know this subject better than I do, I suspect you are correct.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jun 11,, 04:33
The point is immediate response. The US cannot allow the enemy time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke ... which will include the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be the same.

French and British response would be supporting American response. Chinese would be looking at counter-value response.

Deltacamelately
27 Jun 11,, 14:51
The point is immediate response. The US cannot allow the enemy time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke ... which will include the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be the same.

French and British response would be supporting American response. Chinese would be looking at counter-value response.
Sir,

Will the American or Russian response be the same, if neither the perpetrator nor the affected happen to be "not so dear" to American or Russsian sensivities? Say a Pak nuclear bomb on an Iranian target?

Officer of Engineers
27 Jun 11,, 15:05
Their problem but we will be demanding Pakistani disarmament after that. A nuclear weapons power who dares to nuke strike first without a mortal threat cannot be trusted with nukes after that.

gunnut
27 Jun 11,, 20:06
"...The people of these countries MUST understand that..."

This is a powerful but intentionally-diminished notion in internat'l conflict jurisprudence and must be re-established. Whether nuclear or conventional, the civil populace takes responsibility for the government it maintains in power. No government on earth can sustain itself in the face of a civil population determined to oust it from power. As such, there are degrees of complicity with every government currently existing anywhere.

A civil population which stands mute, whether witnessing the planting of an IED or the crimes of a rogue government share in that blame. Yes, even the N. Koreans. If their own internal moral compass have been so altered to be terribly askew with the rest of mankind then you can trust that their worldview is utterly alien and disdainful to the rest of us. THEY become the enemy, en toto, until proven by their actions otherwise.

But...but...but...they are "innocent" civilians...

Mihais
27 Jun 11,, 22:10
Where's the innocence?IIRC Germans or Japanese were treated in a markedly different manner than today's crop.

So either those were treated wrongly,or today we're not doing the job properly.But today we have hippies&the likes in charge.

S2
28 Jun 11,, 03:49
Look, the quid pro quo between warring armies and civilians was established because of nasty lil' Euro ventures like the thirty year war. So long as civilians don't mobilize war-making potential against occupying forces then they shouldn't be liable to the ravages of rape, pillage and plunder. Take pot shots (IEDs) at our guys and the gloves come off.

Civilians of a defeated or losing nation have no "rights". There is, instead, an exchange of services. You feed and house our guys, don't lurk in dark alleyways and we promise not to burn your city to the ground.

This "exchange" needs re-establishing. It's what led to Mogadishu and countless other scenarios where civilians believe they can take sides in a battlefield, aid their chosen champion and still claim the protection of international law. Whether its Palestinian kids tagging along with the HAMAS heroes, sunni fellow-travellers be-boping down a Baghdad street with their armed buddies while a rifle company approaches from another direction with Apache support, you've NO BUSINESS on a battlefield and no business aiding a combatant unless you wish to be viewed as a combatant yourself and plugged with lead between the eyes.

Soldiers are expected to abide by a code of conduct. Fair enough. A similar code of conduct should be unequivocably communicated to civilians in the midst of conflict. Stay the fcuk away at your own risk! Blur distinctions and discrimination will melt faster than butter in hades.

If my nation goes to war against your nation you may assume that it has something to do with America not liking your government. That means, because you've permitted their existence, that we don't much like you either. Do you best to convince our forces otherwise. It's in your best interest.

I know it's not that way. No lectures please. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be though. Civilian citizens of rogue governments are culpable enablers of those regimes.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jun 11,, 05:15
Steve.

I am not clear to your meaning. In fact, I will be perfectly blunt. If a Pakistani nuclear strike on an Iranian target have any chance of escalation, the US or Russia ... or even China will obliterate Pakistan.

S2
28 Jun 11,, 06:00
Colonel,

"I am not clear to your meaning..."

No cause for concern on your part, sir. I'm simply ranting along my thesis that civilian populations of rogue regimes garner no special protection. They are culpable by virtue of permitting that regime's existance.

"...If a Pakistani nuclear strike on an Iranian target have any chance of escalation, the US or Russia ... or even China will obliterate Pakistan."

I fully concur. My deeper concern is the liklihood that Pakistan would attempt holding India hostage for myriad reasons-real or imagined. They can't directly strike America...yet, but can and would make clear they'd be happy to destroy themselves if it included destroying India in the process.

There's power in that gambit.

vsdoc
28 Jun 11,, 07:07
For all intents and purposes, Pakistan is "rogue" when and if the U.S pull out their support for the current administration, and this would most presumably occur in the aftermath of a Nuclear Strike upon India/S.Arabia.

That is simply not correct. Pakistan meets all the commonly accepted international criteria of a rogue nation. And has done so for a long long time now ..... parallel to US and Chinese support. If the evidence staring the world and the US in the face is not enough yet, and it would take a nuclear strike by Pakistan to formally declare it a rogue nation with withdrawal of support, then there is something seriously and very dangerously wrong with the threat perception of the civilized world in the face of a ticking bomb. A bomb that tomorrow could well be on their own soil.


You instantly assume without the benefit of doubt that a significant proportion of the Pakistani people are behind the idea of total war, when I'd say the radical Islamists aren't in a majority, as evidenced by the 'existence' of Pakistan today.

With good reason. We share genes and history and blood. We live on their doorstep. And we have uninvited visitors from amongst them at regular intervals from time to time. We know why they exist and we know how they see and identify themselves. We have seen what they have done to themselves and to their minorities over the past 6 decades of their existence. We see what they do to themselves today - and why. We see their public rallies, their movements on the streets, and in their madrassas and mosques. We hear their religious leaders and intellectuals. We see the rape and murder of democracy, of free speech, of justice, of equality, of civil liberty, of the right to worship - of the right to simply live without fear and prejudice as a free people.

Yet we continue to hear their deluded (and brainwashed) view of their history and their origins and their place in the world as a people who see themselves as self-proclaimed keepers of the faith. Even when such a view is not shared by anyone else in the muslim world - which probably explains a lot of their national angst and search for an Islamic identity at the cost of a national one. Over-compensation to the Ummah for what they see as their legacy of failure to take over Hindustan. Their Islamised school history curricula not overly burdened by the reality that before and within and beyond the Ummah, they WERE always part of Hindustan.

We see the increasing radicalization of their general population, and of their armed forces. Total Islamisation. The natural order of an unnatural state carved out on the concept of superiority and exclusivism of one faith over all others. If you are not muslim, you do not stand a chance. Whether you are hindu or christian or jew or chinese. Or even a "different/lesser" muslim at that. Sure they will continue to take your money and arms. But have no illusions about what they really see you as internally amongst themselves. And what they dream of doing eventually as divinely ordained fact once they have enough money and arms to do so. Nothing else keeps such a people together. Because the very seed of their existence and identity is based on violent confrontation against the kafir/infidel outside, and not a common thread within, as they continue to fight and maim and kill each other in the name of the very faith they claim to champion and represent.

We see the continuing exodus from Pakistani shores of those who can afford and manage passage elsewhere - anywhere. Just as long as its away from the hell that is Pakistan. A hell they are equally culpable party to. A hell that has been 65 years in the making. Pakistan does not "exist" today because of its majority "liberal" populace and in spite of its minority "lunatic/radical" fringe. Pakistan exists today simply because the US did not allow India to do the world a favor a long time ago. And is bearing the consequences today. As is the world at large. As we start "thinking" and "debating" about shutting the barn door now - long after the crazy horse has already bolted.

snapper
28 Jun 11,, 11:52
The point is immediate response. The US cannot allow the enemy time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke ... which will include the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be the same.

French and British response would be supporting American response. Chinese would be looking at counter-value response.

Sir, a Pakistani strike on India does not give the USA, Britain or France, Russia or China an 'enemy' per se. As Pakistan would be obliterated by an Indian response I would question the need for others to get involved particularly as the public backlash in the west would be very unhappy. In other scenarios, Iran or N.Korea I can accept our justifiable response but on this particular scenario I am not so sure as a politician only sees as far as the next election.

Cactus
28 Jun 11,, 21:37
I fully concur. My deeper concern is the liklihood that Pakistan would attempt holding India hostage for myriad reasons-real or imagined. They can't directly strike America...yet, but can and would make clear they'd be happy to destroy themselves if it included destroying India in the process. There's power in that gambit.

I don't see any real power in that gambit. India is no helpless hostage. The same logic that makes the Pakistanis liable to the conduct of their government, also holds the Indians liable to the conduct of their government.

If the GoI's policies and powers fail to deter the Pakistanis, then it is a national failure and the price will have to be paid. No escaping/evading this fact. Once this is understood, the real challenge becomes clear: it is to draft policies and develop capabilities that either effectively prevent the Pakistanis from their hopes of destroying India, or failing that -- policies and powers that promise the residual Pakistanis such miseries that there is no national quick and happy way out.

Zinja
28 Jun 11,, 23:04
The point is immediate response. The US cannot allow the enemy time to launch another nuke and that means hitting everything that the enemy needs to launch a nuke ... which will include the enemy's C3 nodes in various cities. Russian response would be the same.

French and British response would be supporting American response. Chinese would be looking at counter-value response.
Sir, how effective would a retaliatory nuclear strike be to perpetrator's underground silos?

Doktor
29 Jun 11,, 12:03
If my nation goes to war against your nation you may assume that it has something to do with America not liking your government. That means, because you've permitted their existence, that we don't much like you either. Do you best to convince our forces otherwise. It's in your best interest.

I know it's not that way. No lectures please. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be though. Civilian citizens of rogue governments are culpable enablers of those regimes

I agree civilians taking sides are no longer civilians and should not be treated as such according to LOAC and GC.

With that being said, have you considered the following scenarios:

- My country is not a democracy and the 'leaders' are military officials, communist party, dictatorship and we had enough of them. Now we will have more from you?

- My country is a democracy, but 40% of the population voted against the current government

It's never pure black and white.

Deltacamelately
29 Jun 11,, 13:13
Their problem but we will be demanding Pakistani disarmament after that. A nuclear weapons power who dares to nuke strike first without a mortal threat cannot be trusted with nukes after that.
Sir,

Then where's the guarantee part? That was what I thought, the guarantee will only come into play, if and only if the US or one of its close ally is targeted or affected. That apart, demands, condemnation, denounciation etc etc will replace a guaranted and immediate counter and devastating nuclear response


Stuart Slade, a nuclear targeteer, stated that such a strike would invite an immediate counter and devastating nuclear response. There's no choice in the matter. When one flies, they all fly.

We have to guarantee that any remaining nuclear assets must be destroyed and that means 3 nukes per target.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jun 11,, 14:50
Sir, a Pakistani strike on India does not give the USA, Britain or France, Russia or China an 'enemy' per se. As Pakistan would be obliterated by an Indian response I would question the need for others to get involved particularly as the public backlash in the west would be very unhappy. In other scenarios, Iran or N.Korea I can accept our justifiable response but on this particular scenario I am not so sure as a politician only sees as far as the next election.The military angle is that Pakistan already nuke struck first. What would prevent her in future conflicts against any of the N5.


Sir, how effective would a retaliatory nuclear strike be to perpetrator's underground silos?Only the US, Russia, and China have silo based missiles. The US and Russia mastered silo attacking nukes decades ago.


Then where's the guarantee part? That was what I thought, the guarantee will only come into play, if and only if the US or one of its close ally is targeted or affected. That apart, demands, condemnation, denounciation etc etc will replace a guaranted and immediate counter and devastating nuclear response It would go further than that. We will be demanding Pakistani disarmament upto and including military action. We cannot allow Pakistan to acquire intercontinental capabilities after their demonstration as an irresponsible nuclear power.

vsdoc
30 Jun 11,, 05:39
We will be demanding Pakistani disarmament upto and including military action. We cannot allow Pakistan to acquire intercontinental capabilities after their demonstration as an irresponsible nuclear power.

Do you really have a choice on that? Even leaving the erstwhile USSR out, China achieved the ability to lob nukes across continents - specifically the ability to reach US mainland. What did/could the US or its allies do? You may argue that China is a "responsible" power - but that does not take from the fact that they are on a collision course and their ability does temper your response. So tomorrow, if Pakistan were to develop/acquire the means to reach a nuke on to US mainland, before you could act (lets face it - its been done before), what would your options be?

Deltacamelately
30 Jun 11,, 09:17
Do you really have a choice on that? Even leaving the erstwhile USSR out, China achieved the ability to lob nukes across continents - specifically the ability to reach US mainland. What did/could the US or its allies do? You may argue that China is a "responsible" power - but that does not take from the fact that they are on a collision course and their ability does temper your response. So tomorrow, if Pakistan were to develop/acquire the means to reach a nuke on to US mainland, before you could act (lets face it - its been done before), what would your options be?
vsdoc,

The US for all practical purposes, must be keeping updated about every technological advancement made by the Pak Military and R&D establishment. I doubt they will ever allow the Paks to aquire any capability of hitting CONUS.

Deltacamelately
30 Jun 11,, 09:27
The military angle is that Pakistan already nuke struck first. What would prevent her in future conflicts against any of the N5.

Only the US, Russia, and China have silo based missiles. The US and Russia mastered silo attacking nukes decades ago.

It would go further than that. We will be demanding Pakistani disarmament upto and including military action. We cannot allow Pakistan to acquire intercontinental capabilities after their demonstration as an irresponsible nuclear power.
Sir,

I'm afraid demanding disarmament doesn't equals to a devastating counter attack. What India will do in such an eventuality is anybody's guess, but will the US/Russia, forget the Brits/French or Chinese, go for a counter nuclear/conventional attack, aimed at annihilating the Pak nuclear forces and arsenal? I would think that the world at large would be more interested in seeing the conflict and associated fallouts remain restricted to the sub-continent, rather than countering the Pak nuclear forces upfront.

vsdoc
30 Jun 11,, 09:41
vsdoc,

The US for all practical purposes, must be keeping updated about every technological advancement made by the Pak Military and R&D establishment. I doubt they will ever allow the Paks to aquire any capability of hitting CONUS.

But the US failed to detect either India or Pakistan going nuclear. Until after the act. The US could not stop what was then a much weaker China from acquiring the ability to hit CONUS. Even so, the US could arguably stop Pakistan from developing the ability. But can the US stop Pakistan from acquiring it? And once they do, what then? Except South Africa, has there been any other example of a nuclear weapons state backtracking? Ever? If Pakistan was really serious about a nuclear deterrent (versus nuclear blackmail), then why have some of their current long range missile technology at all - with India and Iran parked on its two borders? Israel?!

Deltacamelately
30 Jun 11,, 09:55
The US failed to detect either India or Pakistan going nuclear. Until after the act. The US could not stop what was then a much weaker China from acquiring the ability to hit CONUS. Even so, the US could arguably stop Pakistan from developing the ability. But can the US stop Pakistan from acquiring it? And once they do, what then? Except South Africa, has there been any other example of a nuclear weapons state backtracking? Ever? If Pakistan was really serious about a nuclear deterrent (versus nuclear blackmail), then why have some of their current long range missile technology at all? Israel?!
I doubt the US considered Indo/Pak nuclear testings as an existential threat, with no potent delivery systems to speak of. A nuclear Pak with its current geo-political image along with an intercontinental delivery system, automatically becomes an existential threat, which can not be allowed.

Also, the US intel capabilities of the 60s, hell even of the 90s can not be compared to what it has today.

vsdoc
30 Jun 11,, 09:59
I doubt the US considered Indo/Pak nuclear testings as an existential threat, with no potent delivery systems to speak of. A nuclear Pak with its current geo-political image along with an intercontinental delivery system, automatically becomes an existential threat, which can not be allowed.

Also, the US intel capabilities of the 60s, hell even of the 90s can not be compared to what it has today.

What stops China from doing to the US what it does to India via Pakistan - in concept and plausibility, regardless of the obvious difference between the two? Once the missiles/capability is in Pakistani hands, what is the US going to do against either China or Pakistan? What can the US do then? Sanctions? Preemptive strikes? War? I am sure there must be ways for China to ensure that a rogue Pakistan never uses those missiles on China were they to stay true to form and continue biting the hand that feeds them. Or is that the answer to my question in the first place? No guarantees, ergo .....

Officer of Engineers
30 Jun 11,, 10:32
The argument is post Pakistani-Indian nuclear exchange and the sad fact is there is a lot more leverage than military action. Both countries would be demanding help (far more than the world can deliver). 200 cities disappearing across the subcontinent is a humanitarian disaster that neither India nor Pakistan can cope with. The price of that help is disarmament.

But the simple fact is also that both India and Pakistan would be so weakened that a conventional military campaign is more than enough to destroy any remaining nuclear capabilities.

Vsdoc, your history is also skewed. The Chinese didn't develop ICBMs to hit Washington. They developed them to hit Moscow. And Moscow was fully readied and willing to goto war against China before they got that ability. They were deterred by the US.

1979
30 Jun 11,, 10:40
Sir , was there a official American response ?
My impression is that they just took notice of the sino-soviet split and sought to capitalize on the opportunity.

Officer of Engineers
30 Jun 11,, 10:45
Nothing written but the most direct response was from Richard Nixon to Leonid Brezhnev during their summit in a private conversation. Brezhnev asked Nixon for help ... or at least get out of the way. Nixon said that the US would view that as a very grave matter and would condemn such actions.

vsdoc
30 Jun 11,, 11:06
Vsdoc, your history is also skewed. The Chinese didn't develop ICBMs to hit Washington. They developed them to hit Moscow. And Moscow was fully readied and willing to goto war against China before they got that ability. They were deterred by the US.

Sir the issue as I understand it here is not the smaller more targeted who a capability is developed for (red herring?), but more the larger who the same capability can potentially now target. A missile developed to go x number of kilometers to obliterate y can equally well be re-targeted to hit z within the range envelope of x. You could be within the circle and still be a "friend" - for now. What would you do then? What would you do later were that friendship not to last?

When China developed the ability to hit Russia, it also achieved the capability of reaching the Western shore of the US at the very least - sooner rather than later. Its a technology spiral that feeds itself. Were the US unaware of the possibilities at the time? Did the US underestimate the future potential risk of such based on existing relations and dynamics? Did the US make the right choices then? Did the US have the choice at all, seeing as who they would then be going to bed with?

You speak of the Russian willingness to go to war with a nuclear power capable of inflicting damage on its soil. Russia has always had more than one enemy nuclear state within range. The US has had but two. Yet the US, with the advantage of the isolative range of geography, is unable to do anything about either North Korea or Pakistan? And they still make noises about Iran, which has not yet tipped over? What does that tell you about US willingness vis a vis Russia's when it comes to taking on nuclear (or near nuclear) states, little as they may be? Little wonder to me at least that the Iranians do not take the US threat very seriously.

vsdoc
30 Jun 11,, 11:31
The way I see it, in this game of nuclear blackmail by proxy, China and Pakistan are playing the classic good cop bad cop to the hilt. Pakistan, either by clever design or inevitable self-inflicted circumstance, has this mad dog global image which it is at pains to project defiantly and nurture even as the rest of their ramshackle state implodes around them. China on the other hand since peeping out of its bamboo curtain has been projecting the rejuvenated forward looking responsible senior statesman role to the world, regardless of the real story amongst its masses within. But a leopard does not change its spots. And dragon breath always has a way of overpowering the strongest mint. China has an able and ready shoulder to fire it gun from. And Pakistan the perfect alibi of insanity. After all, in Hindi we have this saying - nange se khuda bhi darta hai (the totally naked is feared even by God).

Officer of Engineers
30 Jun 11,, 11:57
Sir the issue as I understand it here is not the smaller more targeted who a capability is developed for (red herring?), but more the larger who the same capability can potentially now target. A missile developed to go x number of kilometers to obliterate y can equally well be re-targeted to hit z within the range envelope of x. You could be within the circle and still be a "friend" - for now. What would you do then? What would you do later were that friendship not to last?30,000+ Soviet nuclear warheads as compared at the time, less than 12 Chinese warheads. I think you can do the math. Hell, combined the British, French, Chinese, and American warheads (and add in today's Pakistani, Indian, and Israeli warheads) and you still come out less than the Soviet arsenal ... though not by much.


When China developed the ability to hit Russia, it also achieved the capability of reaching the Western shore of the US at the very least - sooner rather than later. Its a technology spiral that feeds itself. Were the US unaware of the possibilities at the time? Did the US underestimate the future potential risk of such based on existing relations and dynamics? Did the US make the right choices then? Did the US have the choice at all, seeing as who they would then be going to bed with?173 Warsaw Pact Divisions versus 87 NATO divisions and 67 Chinese Divisions.


You speak of the Russian willingness to go to war with a nuclear power capable of inflicting damage on its soil. Russia has always had more than one enemy nuclear state within range. The US has had but two. Yet the US, with the advantage of the isolative range of geography, is unable to do anything about either North Korea or Pakistan? And they still make noises about Iran, which has not yet tipped over? What does that tell you about US willingness vis a vis Russia's when it comes to taking on nuclear (or near nuclear) states, little as they may be? Little wonder to me at least that the Iranians do not take the US threat very seriously.China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel all got their nukes outside of the NPT. With India getting the NSG exemption, having nuclear weapons outside the NPT is not illegal anymore. Iran, however, is still part of the NPT.

And stop making this Pakistani centric. When it comes to nuclear military history, there's only two powers. The US and the USSR/Russia. The rest are wannabes.

Zinja
30 Jun 11,, 18:39
Only the US, Russia, and China have silo based missiles.
Grapevine says Iran has joined the club.

Skywatcher
30 Jun 11,, 19:57
Grapevine says Iran has joined the club.

Probably not ICBMs though. And I doubt that Israel's later Jericho series are intercontinental, either (I think they're silo based IRBMs).

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 04:43
Iranian silos will not withstand an American nuke strike.

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 06:23
And stop making this Pakistani centric. When it comes to nuclear military history, there's only two powers. The US and the USSR/Russia. The rest are wannabes.

Sir, the topic of the thread is rogue state nuclear strike. I fail to see how this topic can not be Pakistan centric. Unless you would rather the discussion be about the the only country to have made two nuclear strikes and the only country that has its measure in those stakes. 30,000 nukes or 100, as long as the US shies away from directly taking on a rogue nuclear power and bringing it to book, be it Pakistan or North Korea, claims of being "THE only superpower" IMHO ring pretty hollow when militarily recently the only defining victories have been over a small third-world dictatorship and the other over a nation of warring tribes armed with AK47s and rocket launchers.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 06:36
Rogue nuclear states.

India qualifies. China qualifies. Pakistan qualifies. South Africa qualifies. Israel qualifies. North Korea qualifies. And Iran qualifies.

You want to refine your definition?

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 06:42
Rogue nuclear states.

India qualifies. China qualifies. Pakistan qualifies. South Africa qualifies. Israel qualifies. North Korea qualifies. And Iran qualifies.

You want to refine your definition?

This is what the definition of a Rogue state is (as commonly used by the USA, though it is used by many other nations as well):

Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

May I know the basis of the broad blanket you have thrown over the states you have mentioned, equating them to universally declared and accepted rogue states?

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 06:50
The only accepted legal definition of a nuclear weapons state is defined by the NPT. Yes, India got an exemption ... this decade ... but just as like China who did not signed the NPT, both were not legal nuclear weapons states until the paperwork passed.

Like it or not, India and Pakistan were rogue nuclear states ... until India got the exemption ... but then again, so did Pakistan. It was no longer illegal for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ... just that the NSG has not decided to trade with them.

You really have absolutely no clue what India's NSG exemption opened, do you?

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 06:53
The only accepted legal definition of a nuclear weapons state is defined by the NPT. Yes, India got an exemption ... this decade ... but just as like China who did not signed the NPT, both were not legal nuclear weapons states until the paperwork passed.

Like it or not, India and Pakistan were rogue nuclear states ... until India got the exemption ... but then again, so did Pakistan. It was no longer illegal for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ... just that the NSG has not decided to trade with them.

You really have absolutely no clue what India's NSG exemption opened, do you?

Sir, respectfully, the NPT, much like the current Climate Talks, is a load of hypocritical crock. The message from non-signatories is simple. Practice what you preach. And while you preach in the present, do not forget your past. Cause your past has brought about our present. Your "legalities" only extend to how far you are willing to enforce them by military force. Force you would deny to others. Its not a level playing field and its never going to work with countries such as India or China. You say there was an "exemption" made. We say that it was simply the inevitability of good commerce. Bluntly put - no favors were done for free.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 07:02
Sir the NPT, much like the current Climate Talks, is a load of crock. The message from non-signatories is simple. Practice what you preach. And while you preach in the present, do not forget your past. Cause your past has brought about our present.Horse puckey! You know a lot less than you pretend to know.

Canada was a nuclear weapons state. Germany was a nuclear weapons state. Italy was a nuclear weapons state. Turkey was a nuclear weapons state. Far, far, far more advance than India could even hope to be. My brigade, the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Germany have tactical nuclear weapons assigned to our taskings.

I can name the equivalent non-Soviet units in the Warsaw Pact who had exact identical taskings. The Czech Front, ie under Czech Generals have over 160 nuclear weapons assigned to their operational order.

None of these countries were declared nuclear weapons states under the NPT BUT ALL WERE LEGAL. The nuclear warheads belong to the superpowers but the delivery vehicles belong to the allied nations.

What you are failing to see at this point ... and blinded by your own patriotism is that your own ally, Moscow, seeked to impose their definition of the NPT through war, ie against China and Israel.

It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 07:11
Horse puckey! You know a lot less than you pretend to know.

Canada was a nuclear weapons state. Germany was a nuclear weapons state. Italy was a nuclear weapons state. Turkey was a nuclear weapons state. Far, far, far more advance than India could even hope to be. My brigade, the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Germany have tactical nuclear weapons assigned to our taskings.

I can name the equivalent non-Soviet units in the Warsaw Pact who had exact identical taskings. The Czech Front, ie under Czech Generals have over 160 nuclear weapons assigned to their operational order.

None of these countries were declared nuclear weapons states under the NPT BUT ALL WERE LEGAL. The nuclear warheads belong to the superpowers but the delivery vehicles belong to the allied nations.

What you are failing to see at this point ... and blinded by your own patriotism is that your own ally, Moscow, seeked to impose their definition of the NPT through war, ie against China and Israel.

It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.

Sir, I repeat. The term "legal" in the present discussion context is greatly dependent on who is using it and his affiliations thereof. It is NOT binding on us should we decide not to be bound by it, regardless of whether Washington OR Moscow believe we should. The legality and punishment for operating out of its bounds is only of importance to those that subscribe to its tenets. At most, beyond diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, the only way proponents of nuclear apartheid have of enforcing such per their own definitions and standards is by concerted military force. Which then would further push states in the opposition into continuing to develop their capabilities. You name states who are happy to have a big brother nuclear hand over them. Or have ceased to realistically need one. Not all nation states are governed on those principles. Or have such luxuries. Not mine for sure. But does that make us a rogue state or a threat to world peace anymore than the "superpowers" of this world? To borrow your favorite term here - horse puckey!

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 07:19
Sir, I repeat. The term "legal" in the present discussion context is greatly dependent on who is using it and his affiliations thereof. It is NOT binding on us should we decide not to be bound by it, regardless of whether Washington OR Moscow believe we should. The legality and punishment for operating out of its bounds is only of importance to those that subscribe to its tenets. At most, beyond diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, the only way proponents of nuclear apartheid have of enforcing such per their own definitions and standards is by concerted military force. Which then would further push states in the opposition into continuing to develop their capabilities. You name states who are happy to have a big brother nuclear hand over them. Not all nation states are governed on those principles. Not mine for sure. But does that make us a rogue state or a threat to world peace anymore than the "superpowers" of this world? To borrow your favorite term here - horse puckey!And here we have now a criminal's answer to the law. I chosed not to obey the law because I did not write it.

GET THIS LIMA CHARLEY.

Moscow, not Washington, chosed to view the NPT as the sole legal argument as to who is and who is not allowed nuclear weapons. They've gone as far as to preparations for war for the most obvious of the two NPT violators at the time, China and Israel.

Come 1972, India joined that exclusive club of China and Israel ... you have the audacity to argue that Pakistan should be punish by the Americans for following the same rules as China, Israel, and India?

Horse puckey alright.

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 07:39
And here we have now a criminal's answer to the law. I chosed not to obey the law because I did not write it.

GET THIS LIMA CHARLEY.

Moscow, not Washington, chosed to view the NPT as the sole legal argument as to who is and who is not allowed nuclear weapons. They've gone as far as to preparations for war for the most obvious of the two NPT violators at the time, China and Israel.

Come 1972, India joined that exclusive club of China and Israel ... you have the audacity to argue that Pakistan should be punish by the Americans for following the same rules as China, Israel, and India?

Horse puckey alright.

Sir, I have said my piece on how a large section of the world views the "legality" of the NPT, and the moral and ethical rights to preach and practice thereof of those who now seek to enforce it on others who seek to acquire the same. Since we are into local colloquialisms, here is one from my country as well (in Hindi) - sau chuhe kha ke billi chali Haj ko! (after killing and eating 100 mice, the cat decides to now go on a holy pilgrimage).

But this discussion was never about the "legality" of having nuclear weapons. Not was it about punishment for having them, or trying to acquire them. That is a typically Western way of always looking at the issue. We obviously do not see it your way. That does NOT make us the criminals - anymore than it makes you the papa of criminals for starting this whole thing in the first place. Nobody appointed you (the US/Western world/USSR) as sole Judge and Jury and Law Writer to this effect sir. Not by consensus or democratic vote for sure. So lets go easy on the "criminal" accusations here please. Because you know well my views on the first and only use of nuclear weapons to date in the first place.

This discussion was rightly about ROGUE nations with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is THE rogue nation of the world today. Way way way more than either North Korea or Iran. It may not suit US interests to acknowledge as such. Yet. But it does NOT change the blatant facts on the ground for decades now. India is NOT a rogue nation. China is NOT a rogue nation. You cannot compare, much as you would like to by pulling in the legalese - which is highly suspect and discriminatory in the first place. The discussion is about handling rogue nuclear powers. NOT about nuclear powers who cocked a snook at you and went nuclear anyway.

vsdoc
01 Jul 11,, 09:50
It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.

The USSR could no more wage nuclear war against China or Israel at the time (or Pakistan later), as the US could against India, or North Korea for that matter ..... or against Iran today or tomorrow. Its called superpower checks and balances in the big game. The law of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Purely from my own viewpoint, I believe that neither the USSR or the USA are anybody to question which country goes nuclear or how many nukes they develop or how much testing they do. They are simply two sides of the same coin. It is also why it is essential to the world at large that nuke for nuke, and man for man, and tank for tank, and plane for plane, and sub for sub, one cancels out the other. The world is a better and safer place because of that - and not in spite of that.

Its in effect the ultimate two-party world democracy that's going on in another thread - and a workable one at that. One without the other, and I have equally no doubt that unilateral nuclear preemption would have been front and square on the table. Its after all what started the whole mess in the first place. I want to be the only big boy on the block with the biggest club. And I will do all in my power, including using (or threatening to use) the same big club to prevent the multitude other small runts from getting a club of their own. Should such a club ever be used against me. No arguments from the self preservation/interest standpoint. But to throw pseudo-legal and ethical/moral jargon into the mix - that is where the hypocrisy of the whole deal becomes unpalatable.

Is it coincidence or providence that the only time nukes were used was when no one else had them?

Deltacamelately
01 Jul 11,, 15:35
What stops China from doing to the US what it does to India via Pakistan - in concept and plausibility, regardless of the obvious difference between the two? Once the missiles/capability is in Pakistani hands, what is the US going to do against either China or Pakistan? What can the US do then? Sanctions? Preemptive strikes? War? I am sure there must be wayls for China to ensure that a rogue Pakistan never uses those missiles on China were they to stay true to form and continue biting the hand that feeds them. Or is that the answer to my question in the first place? No guarantees, ergo .....
What stops China? The US.
Can PRC do the same to the US?
Remember there is no power other than the US itself which can restrain US. However, there is the US which can & has restrained India from skinning the bogey.

Officer of Engineers
01 Jul 11,, 15:39
Sir, I have said my piece on how a large section of the world views the "legality" of the NPT, and the moral and ethical rights to preach and practice thereof of those who now seek to enforce it on others who seek to acquire the same.A very small portion of the world. Most have signed the NPT.


But this discussion was never about the "legality" of having nuclear weapons. Not was it about punishment for having them, or trying to acquire them. That is a typically Western way of always looking at the issue. We obviously do not see it your way. That does NOT make us the criminals - anymore than it makes you the papa of criminals for starting this whole thing in the first place. Nobody appointed you (the US/Western world/USSR) as sole Judge and Jury and Law Writer to this effect sir. Not by consensus or democratic vote for sure. So lets go easy on the "criminal" accusations here please. Because you know well my views on the first and only use of nuclear weapons to date in the first place.And therefore, just because the history does not suit your view, you chose to deny it. This HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR VIEWS. WE ARE DISCUSSING HISTORY AND THE HISTORY WAS THAT MOSCOW CHOSE THE NPT AS THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR NUCLEAR WAR AGAINST BOTH CHINA AND ISRAEL. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the history.


This discussion was rightly about ROGUE nations with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is THE rogue nation of the world today.Worst than Cultural Revolution China with nukes? Worst than nuclear Israel conquering Arab territory? Worst than North Korea kidnapping foreign women to be brainwashed into suicide bombers? Like I said, you know a lot less than you pretend to know.


India is NOT a rogue nation.Yes, she was. She used CANDU for her 1st nuke.


China is NOT a rogue nation. You cannot compare, much as you would like to by pulling in the legalese - which is highly suspect and discriminatory in the first place. The discussion is about handling rogue nuclear powers. NOT about nuclear powers who cocked a snook at you and went nuclear anyway.China exported her Revolutions to the point of open war against the US in Vietnam. Israel went to Holy War against the Arabs. Does your narrow mindiness not grasp that?


Is it coincidence or providence that the only time nukes were used was when no one else had them?How about sheer dumb luck? Do you know how many times we came close to nuclear war? Have you ever studied those crisis's before imposing your isolated world view? A U2 plane was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would have happened had the carrier group admiral decided to act on self defence instead of sending word to Kennedy? Two armies were nose to nose during the Berlin Crisis with weapons locked and loaded. A firecracker hit the streets. The tank commander decided to investigate instead of letting lose.

Your view of the nuclear world is warped and out of reality.

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 07:14
Yes, she was. She used CANDU for her 1st nuke.

Nuclear Nonproliferation

In terms of safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation, CANDUs meet a similar level of international certification as other reactors. There is a common misconception that plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, Operation Smiling Buddha in 1974, was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, it was produced in the unsafeguarded Canada-supplied CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research reactor. In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some unsafeguarded pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these reactors; however India mainly relies on an Indian designed and built military reactor called Dhruva. The design is believed to be derived from the CIRUS reactor, with the Dhruva being scaled-up for more efficient plutonium production. It is this reactor which is thought to have produced the plutonium for India's more recent (1998) Operation Shakti nuclear tests.

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 07:22
How about sheer dumb luck? Do you know how many times we came close to nuclear war? Have you ever studied those crisis's before imposing your isolated world view? A U2 plane was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would have happened had the carrier group admiral decided to act on self defence instead of sending word to Kennedy? Two armies were nose to nose during the Berlin Crisis with weapons locked and loaded. A firecracker hit the streets. The tank commander decided to investigate instead of letting lose.

Dumb luck helped on its way by very real mortal fear of self annihilation. You are actually confirming what I am insinuating sir. What are the chances of the carrier group admiral taking a breath and sending word to Kennedy first OR the tank commander deciding to investigate before letting loose IF they did not have nukes pointing right back at them in the first place? How would you rate the chances of the opposing armies in both cases were that not the case? Better off or worse off?

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 07:34
Worst than Cultural Revolution China with nukes? Worst than nuclear Israel conquering Arab territory? Worst than North Korea kidnapping foreign women to be brainwashed into suicide bombers?


China exported her Revolutions to the point of open war against the US in Vietnam. Israel went to Holy War against the Arabs. Does your narrow mindiness not grasp that?

All my narrow untrained far less well-read mind CAN grasp is that you have still not proven China to be a "rogue" nation. Merely that they are at war with other nations - and in some cases defiant of another nation's interests (namely but not limited to the US), and increasingly a regional hegemon. If that is your definition of "rogue" sir, then that makes the US the biggest baddest rogue nuclear power on planet Earth today. Care to redefine?

I also notice that you have some explanation for calling China, North Korea, and Israel as rogue. But have nothing yet on India, save her not signing the NPT (a right she reserves for herself) and developing and acquiring her own nuclear deterrent (again, a right she reserves for herself in response to a less than friendly nuclear neighbor).

Since I am Indian, I am only really interested in defending my own nation and people, and will leave the defense of China, North Korea, and Israel to Chinese, North Koreans, and Israelis. I am sure they are more than capable.

So do you still insist on clubbing India along with Pakistan as a rogue nation sir?

Or like for China, you would reserve such judgment till the Surya I and II platforms become a demonstrated reality?

subba
02 Jul 11,, 07:51
Yes, she was. She used CANDU for her 1st nuke.

CANDU was not used for the first Smiling Buddha 'PNE' in 1974.

For those interested in the beginnings of the first atomic weapons project here's an interesting read specially talking about "rogues" (only excerpt here though). Leo Szilard, an Austro-Hungarian Jew was directly responsible for the creation of the Manhattan Project..


Szilard’s idea became an obsession with him. He tried but failed to raise money to test all the elements to see which ones fissioned. Physicists to whom he explained the idea showed no interest, and he spent the next five years trying to talk various physicists into performing experiments that would help determine if fission was possible. Szilard relied mainly on part-time jobs and made little money. Most of his life was a financial struggle, as Szilard spent most of his time exploring and developing his diverse ideas. He got over a dozen patents. Academics safely ensconced in regularly paying establishment jobs were irate that Szilard patented his inventions-inventions on which he risked his own time and money. The keepers of the conventional wisdom generally have professorships which support their research and so are shielded from the harsh economic realities that mavericks like Szilard face.

Szilard tried to attract businessmen to fund his ideas, but he insisted on keeping his ideas secret, which made him look like an impractical visionary-a treat common to many inventors.

Szilard was now forty years old, and little known even to fellow physicists. To physicists at Columbia University in New York which he frequently visited, he was just an “unemployed visitor.” On December 21, 1938 after five years of failure in trying to find an atom that would support a chain reaction, Szilard, feeling he had failed, wrote a letter to the British Admiralty and asked them to withdraw his patent. On that very day the German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann split uranium. Szilard had been testing the lighter elements, but only heavy elements fissioned. As Szilard had kept the chain reaction concept secret in large part to prevent the Nazis from finding out about it, few people-certainly not Hahn and Strassmann- immediately understood the implication of splitting uranium. Szilard realized it would not be long before the world would understand the implications. According to his biographer, Szilard would “almost single-handedly lead the physics community and the U.S. government to join forces in atomic energy research.” This job was made more difficult as Nazi Germany was preparing for war and if they found out about the possibility of an atomic bomb they would likely build one. Szilard convinced his fellow physicists to keep the idea out of the technical literature secret lest the Nazis try to build a bomb. Indeed his biographer credits him with inventing secrecy in atomic physics.

Fearing the Nazis would build the bomb, Szilard approached Einstein with whom he had worked in Berlin and told him about the chain reaction possibility and asked him to write a letter to Roosevelt. Why did Szilard picked Einstein to write the letter? The reason goes to the essence of the difference between establishment science and technology and highly creative inventors. Szilard explained, “The only thing most scientists are really afraid of is to make fools of themselves, Einstein was free from such fear and this was what made his position unique for this occasion.” Mavericks like Einstein and Szilard have the courage to act on their convictions and this distinguishes them from the establishment scientists who are reluctant to stray far from the conventional wisdom.

By the end of 1939 Szilard’s financial situation was bleak. That year he had borrowed $2,000 to further his research from Benjamin Liebowitz, himself an independent inventor, and so an independent inventor was the first to provide funds to develop atomic energy. Szilard wrote Liebowitz telling him that he should declare the $2,000 loan a bad debt: “Unfortunately, I have not earned anything during this year, as I was tied up with work on uranium. It looks as though I shall not be able to earn anything this year either…” In his financial problems Szilard was typical of independent inventors.

Szilard greatly respected Einstein who was 20 years his senior. Once Einstein wrote some equations on the board to have Szilard say, “Herr Professor Einstein, that is rubbish.” One can imagine how Szilard interacted with General Groves, whose habit was to be obeyed, and whose expertise was in building and manipulating organizations and who Szilard did not respect. The contrarian nature that caused Szilard to invent the chain reaction and his persistence in badgering others to bring nuclear fission to fruition caused him problems, and also caused his battles with Groves. Independent inventors are by nature boat rockers. Inventors are often criticized for not doing things the “right way.” But that is their strength and their nature. Maverick inventors make their own mistakes. They don’t make other people’s mistakes. When they fit easily into the establishment, they cease to be creative inventors.

According the Szilard’s biographer, once the project was launched, and headed by General Leslie Groves:

Szilard’s feisty rationality clashed repeatedly with the headstrong efficiency of this West Point Graduate who had just directed construction of the Pentagon. … Before the war was over, Groves would try to have Szilard jailed as an “enemy alien,” order agents to follow him and to open his mail, and force him off the Manhattan Project payroll during a year-long dispute over the chain reaction patent.

The battle between Szilard and Groves is typical of the uneven battle between an inventor and a well funded establishment organization. The shields of truth and rational argument are a inadequate defense to the weapons of power and politics.

From Groves’ point of view, almost everyone else on the Manhattan Project, and especially Oppenheimer, owed their position to him; but, Groves owed the existence of the Manhattan Project to Szilard, and so Szilard was a threat to his power, not in that Szilard threatened his position, but Szilard was the one person with the knowledge, moral authority and respect of his peers to crystallize opposition among the scientists to any plans of Groves. Fights between the creative but idealistic innovators and the money and reality oriented businessman are common. The situation was not helped because Szilard, like many independent inventors, could be rude, impatient and aggressive.

And there was the matter of the patents Szilard held on the bomb. As often happens in patent infringement cases a large entity begins a project premised on infringing a patent without having licensed that patent; in this case it was the 2 billion dollar Manhattan Project. And 2 billion dollars was a lot of money in 1942.

Groves’ initial action was more likely motivated by what he saw as Szilard’s threat to military order in running the Manhattan project rather than an opening gambit in a patent negotiation, but it does give insight into the thought process of those who would negotiate for the patent rights of others: Groves tried to fire Szilard. Arthur Compton prevented the firing. Several establishment scientists like Robert Oppenheimer, Vannevar Bush and Arthur Compton with political and organizational skills as well as the scientific credentials played a critical role in getting the military and scientific establishments to work together on the Manhattan Project. Establishment science, conventional wisdom, and existing organizations played important roles in the Manhattan project, but the crucial role was played by a typical maverick inventor; and we must foster both. Establishment science is crucial to the ecology of innovation. But, more often that not, maverick scientists like Szilard play a crucial and role in the advancement of technology for which they receive little in the way of monetary remuneration or adequate recognition.

Having failed to fire Szilard, Groves drafted a letter for the Secretary of War to send to the Attorney General which said in relevant part: “It is considered essential to the prosecution of the war that Mr. Szilard, who is an enemy alien, be interned for the duration of the war.” Secretary of War Stimson refused to sign.

This only infuriated Groves who had Szilard followed and his mail read. In negotiating for patents, Groves offered Szilard $25,000. which was 1/800 of 1 percent of the 2 billion dollars spent on the Manhattan project. To help hasten the negotiations he fired Szilard and told him he could not participate even as an unpaid consultant “until such time as the patent negotiations between you and the government have been completed.” Negotiations proceeded for a while but Szilard and his lawyers considered the offer insufficient. Then, when Szilard’s patent lawyer was out of town Groves showed up to effect an agreement and got Szilard to sign away his rights. Years later Szilard’s patent lawyer said,

I was shocked when I learned what was going on. Groves’ actions towards Leo were abominable. At the time we thought all the stiff-arm tactics were coming from the Nazis, but I soon discovered Groves’ tactics fit right into that pattern. That’s what we were supposed to be fighting, I thought.

Strong arm tactics are common where the patentholder is small and weak. Dr. Friedlander, former president of the 3000 member Licensing Executives Association has said, “The playing field is not level. Big companies tilt it their way. They know they can out spend you and they try to outweigh you. It’s the name of the game. If you want to get in the ring with a heavyweight, you have to be prepared.” Most inventors are naive to the realities of power and don’t realize the rules of the game until it is too late. And Szilard was not naive-he saw the evil in Nazism and acted on it in the early Ô30’s when he first helped find jobs in other countries for Jewish academics and later when he left Germany on the last train out before Jews needed special permission to leave.

Szilard faced the problem most maverick inventors face in that he could not value his technology and so didn’t know what would be a fair price. He eventually accepted one dollar plus “expenses” for his patent rights with the expectation he would be able to collect royalties for nuclear reactors after the war. He never got another penny. Even Admiral Strauss who headed the AEC, and who he had known in 1938, refused to intercede for him. Until his dying day Szilard felt cheated.

Having given birth to the monster of the atomic bomb Szilard felt a responsibility to prevent its being used. Towards the end of the war, he organized his fellow scientists and made several attempts to get to Roosevelt and then Truman to prevent the Atomic bomb being dropped on Japan. Later the army wanted to put all atomic research under its control. Again, Szilard fought the establishment and organized scientists to lobby Congress to prevent that from happening. The result was the founding of the Atomic Energy Commission which put most of the control of nuclear power in civilian hands. Szilard’s biographer told me that “If Szilard had failed to get the A-bomb under civilian control, it is likely we would have used it against Russia before 1950.”

Who Invented the Atomic Bomb? (http://www.pandab.org/who-invented-the-atomic-bomb.html)

More on Leo Szilard:

Leó Szilárd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd)

subba
02 Jul 11,, 08:02
So do you still insist on clubbing India along with Pakistan as a rogue nation sir?

VSdoc Sir, i doubt OoE sir implies that, however there have been people in the recent past specially in the US State Dept that have not dug themselves out of the cold war entrenched mindsets that would consider India as rogue and Pakistan as a great friend and ally. You just have to read the de-classified 1971 docs where Nixon/ Kissinger to know how they valued the Handsome Yahya Khan versus the old Witch Indira Gandhi. All that's changing fast these recent years though and the old vanguard of such thinking (vis a vis India) slowly becoming irrelevant/ obsolete even in the US context of things. Those mindsets take time to eliminate from any establishment.

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 08:42
VSdoc Sir, i doubt OoE sir implies that

I cannot read the good Colonel's mind. But this is what he said, as a starting point to the whole debate thereafter:

Rogue nuclear states.

India qualifies. China qualifies. Pakistan qualifies. South Africa qualifies. Israel qualifies. North Korea qualifies. And Iran qualifies.

As for Indira Gandhi, give us a leader with half the balls she had, and I would vote Congress.

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 09:21
What stops China? The US.
Can PRC do the same to the US?
Remember there is no power other than the US itself which can restrain US. However, there is the US which can & has restrained India from skinning the bogey.

Agree completely on the US-India bit. My point was more about the nexus between China and Pakistan in the game of nuclear blackmail by proxy as it currently applies to India. And whether it is in the realm of possibility for that to extend to the US too somewhere down the line - were Pakistan not checked today. Long range ballistic missile delivery capability mated to Pakistani nukes and many other countries besides the US would see things very differently to what they argue is not so today.

subba
02 Jul 11,, 10:57
VSdoc Sir, Indian nuclear program was viewed as a 'rogue' program indeed. We never agreed to the framework that made the rules and still don't. We didn't sign up then and haven't now. We didn't proliferate then, we don't do so now. As far as we are concerned we didn't do anything 'illegal'. The plutonium from Cirrus was made WG in Purnima which went critical in 1972.

Today also without signing the NPT or the CTBT formally our program now is viewed 'legitmate' as opposed to rogue. So obviously there is a recognition that India's tryst with Nuclear is not just weapons and that India has not been a proliferator like China or Pakistan. Unlike NK and Iran which signed treaties like NPT and violated them, India didn't. That recognition is slowly dawning and is being reflected.

But there's also a bit of difference in a Rogue state with nuclear weapons or a Nuclear weapons 'Rogue' state. While the former is applicable to our neighbor, the latter during the cold war was applicable to many States. :)

To call India a 'rogue' state in any other sense or to equate it to Pakistan in that sense, then or now would destroy any analysts credibility anywhere today.

PS: If you have not please do read the link on Leo Szilard and the Manhattan Project.

subba
02 Jul 11,, 11:23
Specially wrt Nuclear Weapons any country operating outside the 'broad' or commonly accepted institutional framework could be considered 'rogue'. India had one thing in it's favor always. It accepted the NPT's core points on proliferation.

What it didn't accept was the P5 arrogating to themselves as the sole custodians of Nuclear tech and weapons. Fact is JLN was the first statesman in 1954 to issue a call for de-legitimizing nuclear weapons. Obviously it wasn't heard. India still is in favor of universal and verifiable complete disarmament. But as long as that is not feasible in practice..we go Nuclear too. That was what happened.

vsdoc
02 Jul 11,, 12:00
Specially wrt Nuclear Weapons any country operating outside the 'broad' or commonly accepted institutional framework could be considered 'rogue'. India had one thing in it's favor always. It accepted the NPT's core points on proliferation.

What it didn't accept was the P5 arrogating to themselves as the sole custodians of Nuclear tech and weapons. Fact is JLN was the first statesman in 1954 to issue a call for de-legitimizing nuclear weapons. Obviously it wasn't heard. India still is in favor of universal and verifiable complete disarmament. But as long as that is not feasible in practice..we go Nuclear too. That was what happened.

Perfect. Exactly what I have been saying. I think reasonable and logical defiance of big brother status quo as we chart our own course regardless is a universal Independent Indian trait that alternately irritates and frustrates some of our more powerful Western friends. Thank you.

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 11,, 15:27
Dumb luck helped on its way by very real mortal fear of self annihilation. You are actually confirming what I am insinuating sir. What are the chances of the carrier group admiral taking a breath and sending word to Kennedy first OR the tank commander deciding to investigate before letting loose IF they did not have nukes pointing right back at them in the first place? How would you rate the chances of the opposing armies in both cases were that not the case? Better off or worse off?Chinese and Russian soldiers blasted each other across their common border. Israeli and Russian planes saw fireballs in the sky. Russia shot down a Korean airliner thinking it was an American spy plane. And the Indian Army did not back off because of Pakistani nuclear threats at Kargil.

Your point is not only wrong. It is plain arrogance to assume that escalation was easily controlled.


All my narrow untrained far less well-read mind CAN grasp is that you have still not proven China to be a "rogue" nation. Merely that they are at war with other nations - and in some cases defiant of another nation's interests (namely but not limited to the US), and increasingly a regional hegemon. If that is your definition of "rogue" sir, then that makes the US the biggest baddest rogue nuclear power on planet Earth today. Care to redefine?Oh give me a freaking break. Your own examples points her out to be rogue or is China giving Pakistan a bomb normal behaviour. If you want further examples.

1) China fought the US in Vietnam secretly, without declaring war on the US.
2) China funded terror camps in Africa.
3) China openly funded, armed, and trained insurgents in SE Asia, the Philippines, and Malaysia

What the hell did you think I meant when I said exported her revolutions, gave everybody a copy of Mao's Little Red Book?


I also notice that you have some explanation for calling China, North Korea, and Israel as rogue. But have nothing yet on India, save her not signing the NPT (a right she reserves for herself) and developing and acquiring her own nuclear deterrent (again, a right she reserves for herself in response to a less than friendly nuclear neighbor).And again, I will point out that your nuclear neighbour at the time had all her nukes tied up against the Bear further north. There was ABSOLUTELY NO STRATEGIC REASON FOR INDIA TO EXPLODE A NUKE IN THE 1970s. Not for anyone who can see what was going on across the Sino-Soviet border. You wanted the bomb for ego, not for strategic necessity.

Correction: There was a cause. The USS ENTERPRISE.


Since I am Indian, I am only really interested in defending my own nation and people, and will leave the defense of China, North Korea, and Israel to Chinese, North Koreans, and Israelis. I am sure they are more than capable.Which leaves you ignorant and therefore skewed, out of whack with reality, and bluntly idiotic on how the world has dealt with nuclear weapons for the past 60 years. You specifically deny the history, the legal precedents (whether you accepted or not is another question -e, the criminal did not write the law, therefore the criminal should not obey it), the doctrines, revolutions in military nuclear thought, and just dumb ill founded. How much did you know of Pakistani nuclear weapons thought before you read my research? How much of your own Gen Sundarji's nuclear thoughts did you know before reading my research?

A Canadian has to tell you about your own General, one of the most brilliant strategic minds I have ever read that hit me like a ton of bricks. Deterrence is not warfighting.


So do you still insist on clubbing India along with Pakistan as a rogue nation sir?I do. For the very reason we nearly saw nuclear war 3 times because the NPT was used as the legal language to do so. That scared the hell out of me as it should you but then, your arrogance in rejecting the NPT blinded you to the history and the usage of that treaty. It was not until India's exemption that now legally denied that option to anyone anymore.

Let me be blunt. Had the Soviets went to war against China, the chances of China nuking anyone was slim to none. Her delivery systems were not up to par. THAT would have set the legal precedent to nuke anyone outside the NPT having nukes and that means India.

Just because the Soviets chose not to goto war does not mean that option of that legal language was not there. The 1st nail in killing that legal language was when China signed the NPT. The final nail was India's NSG exemption.


Or like for China, you would reserve such judgment till the Surya I and II platforms become a demonstrated reality?You've lost that race before it began and your military already knows it. Their aim is deterrence, not warfighting. As long as both China and India accept that principal, you won't see nukes flying across the Himalayas but China can outproduce India in warheads and delivery vehicles faster than India can set up the factories.


CANDU was not used for the first Smiling Buddha 'PNE' in 1974. I stand corrected but the point stands, you've used Canadian technology outside its original intent.


What it didn't accept was the P5 arrogating to themselves as the sole custodians of Nuclear tech and weapons. Fact is JLN was the first statesman in 1954 to issue a call for de-legitimizing nuclear weapons. Obviously it wasn't heard. India still is in favor of universal and verifiable complete disarmament. But as long as that is not feasible in practice..we go Nuclear too. That was what happened.Nitpick. China did not become the N5 until the 90s. And there was nuclear trade between India and China before China signed the NPT and joined the NSG.

Doktor
02 Jul 11,, 16:00
Oh give me a freaking break. Your own examples points her out to be rogue or is China giving Pakistan a bomb normal behaviour. If you want further examples.

1) China fought the US in Vietnam secretly, without declaring war on the US.
2) China funded terror camps in Africa.
3) China openly funded, armed, and trained insurgents in SE Asia, the Philippines, and Malaysia

What the hell did you think I meant when I said exported her revolutions, gave everybody a copy of Mao's Little Red Book?

These reminded me of

Cambodia
Chile
...

Those cover operations make US a rogue state?

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 11,, 16:23
These reminded me of

Cambodia
Chile
...

Those cover operations make US a rogue state?In the eyes of those the US operated against and within the timeframe, from Moscow and Peking's eyes? Yes. There's a reason why the CIA is vilified across the world.

S2
02 Jul 11,, 18:09
"...Yes. There's a reason why the CIA is vilified across the world."

First line of defense against the proletarian worker communes.

"..Those cover operations make US a rogue state?"

Nah, they make us running-dog imperialist counter-revolutionaries.

Doktor
02 Jul 11,, 18:27
"...Yes. There's a reason why the CIA is vilified across the world."

First line of defense against the proletarian worker communes.

Like in Cuba? (see we are still under letter C ;))


"..Those cover operations make US a rogue state?"

Nah, they make us running-dog imperialist counter-revolutionaries.

Guess that's good from today's perspective :cool:

Chile episode is really confusing me, as at the time USA provided support to the junta, at the same time criticizing it in public.

My point was if we go back in the past we will see double standards by any country (including my tiny little one), does those actions make them rogue?

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 11,, 18:34
My point was if we go back in the past we will see double standards by any country (including my tiny little one), does those actions make them rogue?If you lose, yes.

Zinja
02 Jul 11,, 22:05
Iranian silos will not withstand an American nuke strike.
Do US nuclear missiles have penetrative capability? I thoght they were all atmospheric devices.

Doktor
02 Jul 11,, 22:07
Do US nuclear missiles have penetrative capability? I thoght they were all atmospheric devices.

Even so, is it a problem to penetrate the silos with more conventional tools?

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 11,, 22:34
Surface impact but hard target nukes have been an American mainstay since the 80s.

Zinja
02 Jul 11,, 22:46
Even so, is it a problem to penetrate the silos with more conventional tools?
US currently has penetrative conventional weapons with a good chance of taking out Iranian silos. But here im talking about retailiatory strikes in the event of a nuclear strike by a rogue state.

Doktor
02 Jul 11,, 23:01
US currently has penetrative conventional weapons with a good chance of taking out Iranian silos. But here im talking about retailiatory strikes in the event of a nuclear strike by a rogue state.

I was thinking of 2-3 conventional penetrative missiles, then 5 mins later nuke the place. Makes any difference then nukes only?

Zinja
02 Jul 11,, 23:22
I was thinking of 2-3 conventional penetrative missiles, then 5 mins later nuke the place. Makes any difference then nukes only?
Yah, i see what you mean. But the problem is the conventional penetrative weapons have slow delivery systems in the event of nuke exchanges. The game wil be over before the first B2 arrives on the scene.

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 11,, 23:40
Yah, i see what you mean. But the problem is the conventional penetrative weapons have slow delivery systems in the event of nuke exchanges. The game wil be over before the first B2 arrives on the scene.Not necessarily, most silo-based Iranian rockets and even some Chinese rockets are still liquid fueled. It would take time to get them ready.

Still, Iranian silos are not what I considered nuclear assets. Given the standard 3 nukes per target, the US can easily be assured of a 1st strike.

Zinja
02 Jul 11,, 23:47
Not necessarily, most silo-based Iranian rockets and even some Chinese rockets are still liquid fueled. It would take time to get them ready.

Still, Iranian silos are not what I considered nuclear assets. Given the standard 3 nukes per target, the US can easily be assured of a 1st strike.
Col, if you remember where this descussion came from, we were talking about an instance when the rogue state hits a sovreign state first and then the US retaliates against the rogue state. Iran is agressively fielding in solid state rockets, is very probable that their new silos will house solid state rockets. The reports i saw didn't state which types of rockets were in those silos though.

vsdoc
04 Jul 11,, 09:15
Let me be blunt. Had the Soviets went to war against China, the chances of China nuking anyone was slim to none. Her delivery systems were not up to par. THAT would have set the legal precedent to nuke anyone outside the NPT having nukes and that means India.

Just because the Soviets chose not to goto war does not mean that option of that legal language was not there. The 1st nail in killing that legal language was when China signed the NPT. The final nail was India's NSG exemption.

I understood your point sir, but let me be equally blunt in repeating my point/s from earlier.

(1) The "legality" of the NPT extended only as far as the military ability and will of one of the two superpower blocks to enforce it and punish those that do not comply. Short of that, its a one-sided unequal hypocritical bunch of words with no relevance to those that exercise their right not to accept it - either in part or in toto.

(2) The one and ONLY nail required to make sure that the NPT remained a toothless treaty with zero global relevance was the fact that America and Russia would never agree on who to nuke as preemption (NOT reprisal) - with the world polarizing for existential survival into one of the two camps. Everything else is secondary to that main fact.

And the world is a better place for it.

I have a very basic question for you sir - what stops America and Russia from disarming each and every nuke of theirs completely? I am sure India would not only join, but take the lead in a global nuclear disarmament treaty. But non-proliferation just smacks of entry barriers put in place by those early at the party - who after stockpiling enough to destroy the world, now decide to dissuade others from gatecrashing.

Forget Russia canceling America. Would the other nuclear weapons powers on your side - UK, France, be willing to disarm completely? What are they holding on to nukes for still, long after the Cold War is over, and no active hostile power in sight in the region? Why did they need nukes in the first place when they had the big brother US nuclear umbrella above their heads and Russian forces concentrated on canceling them out? Ego?!!! Or power projection of a block across oceans ...... ?

You should be ready to answer such questions yourself when you ask an Indian why his nation went nuclear and question its motives and obligations in the face of a nuclear enemy it recently lost a war to - regardless of where its nukes were pointing for the moment or how few it had at the time. I grew up in the India of the 70s and 80s sir. Believe me when I tell you that our nation could ill afford the luxury of EGO at that point in our history.

You say I am arrogant. I say the NPT is the epitome of arrogance. Which implies that only a few select old powers have the responsibility and right to have nuclear weapons, and huge numbers of them. And all others are automatically irresponsible rogue states. The decision of what steps a nation needs to take to ensure its survival will always be taken by its own people alone. No treaty or self-appointed club of outsiders will or can have a say on the issue.

vsdoc
04 Jul 11,, 11:11
Chinese and Russian soldiers blasted each other across their common border. Israeli and Russian planes saw fireballs in the sky. Russia shot down a Korean airliner thinking it was an American spy plane. And the Indian Army did not back off because of Pakistani nuclear threats at Kargil.

Your point is not only wrong. It is plain arrogance to assume that escalation was easily controlled.

No one said anything about escalation being easily controlled. Just the simple fact of history that each such escalation WAS finally controlled. Without going nuclear. Something I proposed would not necessarily have been the case if nuclear capability was one sided. As it was at the end of the second world war. Hence my original question - coincidence or providence? Dumb luck or the recognition of mutual annihilation? Or in the case of the asymmetrics of a small nuclear power against a much bigger one - the fear of the pain of at least a seriously bloody nose.


Oh give me a freaking break. Your own examples points her out to be rogue or is China giving Pakistan a bomb normal behaviour. If you want further examples.

1) China fought the US in Vietnam secretly, without declaring war on the US.
2) China funded terror camps in Africa.
3) China openly funded, armed, and trained insurgents in SE Asia, the Philippines, and Malaysia

What the hell did you think I meant when I said exported her revolutions, gave everybody a copy of Mao's Little Red Book?

I already told you sir that I was not in this to defend China or argue against it being rogue. I was merely pointing out the potential duplicity (and potential for embarrassment were it to be used across the board) of your definition of "rogue". Something you have agreed to yourself in later posts of yours about the US as well as the subjectiveness of such labels depending on the perspective of which side you were arguing from. You will remember that I started my debate on the ethics and morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying that history is written by the victor and for the vanquished there is the cross of shame to bear for posterity. Does not necessarily lend itself to black or white in terms of who did what. Simply black and white in terms of how the world continued to see it long afterwards.

vsdoc
04 Jul 11,, 13:41
I believe that in the twin strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sown the seeds of eventual failure of a realistic non-proliferation treaty of the future. As nations the world over saw, and digested, and finally came to grips with what a nuclear power could do to one that was not - should they wish to do so, however else they later chose to guise the act as. It set in motion the inexorable wheel of world nuclearization as each nation sought to arm itself to resist those that had already done so. Every nation that is nuclear today, except the US which is the mother spawn (the epidemiological "zero" case), is nuclear in response to another hostile nuclear power. Every act of proliferation has its genesis in conflict with a power that also once proliferated. So where then do you draw a line and say here lie the only "legitimate" nuclear powers, and from this day hence you are and shall continue to be children of a lesser God?

1967?!!!!!!!!!!! HA!

Why not 2050?

Officer of Engineers
04 Jul 11,, 14:35
I understood your point sir, but let me be equally blunt in repeating my point/s from earlier.

(1) The "legality" of the NPT extended only as far as the military ability and will of one of the two superpower blocks to enforce it and punish those that do not comply.THAT SHOULD HAVE SCARED YOU.


Short of that, its a one-sided unequal hypocritical bunch of words with no relevance to those that exercise their right not to accept it - either in part or in toto.I will break the policeman's law that I did not write as long as the policeman either cannot or will not catch me.


(2) The one and ONLY nail required to make sure that the NPT remained a toothless treaty with zero global relevance was the fact that America and Russia would never agree on who to nuke as preemption (NOT reprisal) - with the world polarizing for existential survival into one of the two camps. Everything else is secondary to that main fact.And since when did either ask permission of the other? Moscow threatened Israel and China with nuclear disarmament strikes. Washington threatened North Korea and Iran with conventional disarmament strikes.


And the world is a better place for it.The world is a better place when Moscow could not afford the arms race anymore.


I have a very basic question for you sir - what stops America and Russia from disarming each and every nuke of theirs completely? I am sure India would not only join, but take the lead in a global nuclear disarmament treaty. But non-proliferation just smacks of entry barriers put in place by those early at the party - who after stockpiling enough to destroy the world, now decide to dissuade others from gatecrashing.And again, your arrogance shows itself. The powers have disarmed and continues to disarm. We have gone from a 60,000+ world down to less than 20,000 and would go down to less than 10,000 in 10 years. Maybe not to your liking nor your timetable but the progress is sure and steady.

Open source suggests that of all the world's nuclear weapons states, only China, India, and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear arsenals. Israelis frozen theirs. North Korea is still trying to get theirs to work. The rest have at least halved their arsenals.

And your arrogance also blinded you to the fact that the Chinese now have a conventional 1st strike counter-force option against Indian nuclear assets. Both Russia and the US reached that stage decades ago against lesser powers. The US does not need nukes to take out Indian nor Pakistani nuclear assets, especially when neither can reach CONUS.


Forget Russia canceling America. Would the other nuclear weapons powers on your side - UK, France, be willing to disarm completely? What are they holding on to nukes for still, long after the Cold War is over, and no active hostile power in sight in the region? Why did they need nukes in the first place when they had the big brother US nuclear umbrella above their heads and Russian forces concentrated on canceling them out? Ego?!!! Or power projection of a block across oceans ...... ?What do you mean no active hostile power? Last I check, both London and Paris are still on Moscow's target list. And China ain't exactly extending their nuclear umbrella to anyone.


You should be ready to answer such questions yourself when you ask an Indian why his nation went nuclear and question its motives and obligations in the face of a nuclear enemy it recently lost a war to - regardless of where its nukes were pointing for the moment or how few it had at the time. I grew up in the India of the 70s and 80s sir. Believe me when I tell you that our nation could ill afford the luxury of EGO at that point in our history.It was ego. China was about to be destroyed by Moscow. They were shivering in their boots for that prospect and any good strategic thinker (of which I assume your generals are) sould have seen it.

And I gave you the reason. India went nuke because Nixon p!ssed off Ghandi.


You say I am arrogant. I say the NPT is the epitome of arrogance. Which implies that only a few select old powers have the responsibility and right to have nuclear weapons, and huge numbers of them. And all others are automatically irresponsible rogue states. The decision of what steps a nation needs to take to ensure its survival will always be taken by its own people alone. No treaty or self-appointed club of outsiders will or can have a say on the issue.I really don't care what India's reason was for going nuke. I am STATING CATEGORICALLY AND OUTRIGHT that we came DANGEROUSLY close to nuclear war THREE times because the powers CHOSE to use the NPT as the legal justification. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WEATHER THE NPT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. IT WAS USED AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR NUCLEAR WAR. If you cannot accept that, then you are blind to the history.


No one said anything about escalation being easily controlled. Just the simple fact of history that each such escalation WAS finally controlled.Again, sheer dumb luck.


Without going nuclear. Something I proposed would not necessarily have been the case if nuclear capability was one sided. As it was at the end of the second world war. Hence my original question - coincidence or providence? Dumb luck or the recognition of mutual annihilation? Or in the case of the asymmetrics of a small nuclear power against a much bigger one - the fear of the pain of at least a seriously bloody nose.Hogwash. The US against Vietnam. Soviets in Afghanistan. China against Vietnam. The UK against Argentina. France against Libya. Russia against Georgia. Nuclear powers did not once even consider nukes.


I already told you sir that I was not in this to defend China or argue against it being rogue. I was merely pointing out the potential duplicity (and potential for embarrassment were it to be used across the board) of your definition of "rogue".India was rogue whether you liked it or not. First off, you've used Canadian expertise when you signed agreements to otherwise. Then, this duplicity of a "peaceful nuclear explosion" in trying to deny this was a weapons test. All smacks of lies and deceit. The very essence of a rouge nuclear weapons state.

Deal with it. Your country lied to get the expertise. Your country lied to get the materials. Your country lied about seeking nuclear weapons. Your country lied about the test. Your country lied why they tested. Your country CONTINUED TO LIE ABOUT FURTHUR WEAPONS RESEARCH!

SCREW OFF! YOU WERE A ROUGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POWER!

THAT IS THE TRUTH. DEAL WITH IT!

In case you have not noticed, your hypocrisy is showing big time. You are demanding NPT countries to allow India to have nukes while at the same time demanding us to deny nukes to Pakistan while both of you achieved nukes by the same methodology. Neither one of you were members of the NPT. Somehow, not being NPT is good enough for India but not good enough for Pakistan. You demand the US to disarm Pakistan but letting India stand free just because now an NPT member is your neighbour.

DO NOT ARGUE STRATEGIC NECESSITY WITH ME. THAT IS A HORSE PUCKEY LINE.

I will paraphrase Gen Sundarji's observation about South Asia. It is way too late to make South Asia nuclear free but we should make it nuclear safe. An Indian only nuclear arsenal in all of Asia is not safe, let alone realistic.


Something you have agreed to yourself in later posts of yours about the US as well as the subjectiveness of such labels depending on the perspective of which side you were arguing from. You will remember that I started my debate on the ethics and morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying that history is written by the victor and for the vanquished there is the cross of shame to bear for posterity. Does not necessarily lend itself to black or white in terms of who did what. Simply black and white in terms of how the world continued to see it long afterwards.No, you were arguing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and I counter that according to the rules at the time, they were legal.


I believe that in the twin strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sown the seeds of eventual failure of a realistic non-proliferation treaty of the future. As nations the world over saw, and digested, and finally came to grips with what a nuclear power could do to one that was not - should they wish to do so, however else they later chose to guise the act as. It set in motion the inexorable wheel of world nuclearization as each nation sought to arm itself to resist those that had already done so. Every nation that is nuclear today, except the US which is the mother spawn (the epidemiological "zero" case), is nuclear in response to another hostile nuclear power. Every act of proliferation has its genesis in conflict with a power that also once proliferated. So where then do you draw a line and say here lie the only "legitimate" nuclear powers, and from this day hence you are and shall continue to be children of a lesser God?Give it a break. The NPT worked. There are far more capable countries on this earth who can surpass Indian nukes in both quality and quantity within a few short years. Just because we have 4 rogue nuclear weapons states (and I am only including North Korea because they built 2 nukes to be exploded even though they were duds) ignores that within the NPT, there are over 40 countries, including all of NATO minus our N3, who chose not to produce nukes.


1967?!!!!!!!!!!! HA!

Why not 2050?Disarmament has to start somewhere. And the first place to start is no new nuclear weapons powers.

Chogy
04 Jul 11,, 15:18
Colonel, do you think there is even a vague hope of complete nuclear disarmament? I get the feeling that at some point, the nuclear big three will say "We're keeping what's left, just in case." For the U.S., I'd guess that would consist of the equivalent of three boomer subs - at least one, preferably two always on patrol. Russia would probably choose hardened land-based systems. China? No idea.

Each with enough nuclear weapons to ensure a devastating counterstrike.

As warfighting tools, their usefulness is not good. As political tools, they have their uses, but not as much as most believe, IMO.

Doktor
04 Jul 11,, 16:19
Open source suggests that of all the world's nuclear weapons states, only China, India, and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear arsenals. Israelis frozen theirs. North Korea is still trying to get theirs to work. The rest have at least halved their arsenals.

Can I get a link showing Israeli's nuclear armament?

Am sure Ben would appreciate it, too.

Pedicabby
04 Jul 11,, 16:35
Doktor wrote:
Can I get a link showing Israeli's nuclear armament?

There nukes are a secret.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jul 11,, 16:57
The Big 3? You mean the US, Russia, and France? China claimed to be the smallest of the N5 though the number of delivery vehicles suggests that she is #4 but that may very well mean that China wants more delivery vehicles than warheads. Reason being that per standing basis, China's delivery vehicles are armed with HE and not mated with nukes. After receiving a nuke strike would then they start mating warheads to missiles.

As per your question, I expect technology and doctrinal development to eventually eliminate the need for nukes. We've gotten rid of tac nukes because they have been surpassed by conventional systems.

The final drive in their coffin would be budgetary needs. The RN has at least started the debate about keeping TRIDENTs or buying the HMS QE.

Caveat: I've just realized that component form nukes are not counted in the new START and the new START counts delivery vehicles only. This is a loop hole which can be further exploited.

Nuclear weapons states can maintain component form nukes forever and still not violate the tenets of the NPT.

And before you give me grief, vsdoc, for over 15 years, India claimed not to have any nuclear weapons by the very same reasoning, her nukes were component form, not deployed warheads.

Doktor
04 Jul 11,, 17:24
There nukes are a secret.
I know tey are, that's why i got confused reading Israel's nuclear capabilities and open source in one sentence.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jul 11,, 17:33
I usually refer to the BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTIST NUCLEAR NOTEBOOK and SPIRI. All nuclear weapons programs are class protected except where they are explicitly referred to by treaty.

What open source based themselves on are former nuclear weapons practitioners and scientists who based their judgement on the time and pace specific factories operated on and the number of delivery platforms available.

snowhole
04 Jul 11,, 18:05
Good colonel sir, sorry if my question is stupid but here goes: what's your opinion of the French nuclear deterence? I know they have been very proud of their 'independent nuclear capability', that they build their own warheads and delivery vehicles (unlike the UK). So it struck me as quite odd when you said France would also look to the US if she were struck by a rogue state. I understand if France were hit by the Soviets then it would be reasonable to look to the US, because of the size of her arsenal. But would she also be seeking US shelter if she were hit by a rogue state?

Officer of Engineers
04 Jul 11,, 18:16
France has a counter-value arsenal, not a counter-force arsenal. Only the Americans and the Russians have the numbers needed to ensure no secondary strike can come from the aggressor.

snowhole
04 Jul 11,, 18:46
But wouldn't it be difficult to justify the budget to develop and upkeep this expensive counter-value arsenal, in the event of being nuclear attacked, yet not using it that much (and relying on the Americans)?

Officer of Engineers
04 Jul 11,, 18:52
The Americans and the Russians are capable of stopping any further nuclear attacks from a rogue country. France, UK, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan maintain their arsenals to punish the aggressor.

In the case of France, the French would allow the Americans to go after all the delivery vehicles while they themselves go after the counter-value targets, ie airplane factories.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 08:37
THAT SHOULD HAVE SCARED YOU.

It did. Lucky for us we had someone on our side to scare you back sufficiently in return.


I will break the policeman's law that I did not write as long as the policeman either cannot or will not catch me.

A policeman is someone appointed by the state I recognize to maintain the law written by those I elect and presided over by the judiciary I respect and look to for justice in the land and society I am part of and live in.


And since when did either ask permission of the other? Moscow threatened Israel and China with nuclear disarmament strikes. Washington threatened North Korea and Iran with conventional disarmament strikes.

Threats are cheap. Even North Korea and Iran regularly threaten the US. Show me the action. Would you like to lay a side bet with me about Iran and how that is going to go down sir?


The world is a better place when Moscow could not afford the arms race anymore.

That is your view as a Canadian. There are many millions of humans on the same planet you and me reside on who do not agree - and who would do their bit to cross subsidize Russian military co-development in one continuing form or the other even as we debate. Besides the plainly patent fact that Moscow does not need to be in the arms race with the US anymore to maintain an effective global counter-balance. They are already there. Many times over.


And again, your arrogance shows itself. The powers have disarmed and continues to disarm. We have gone from a 60,000+ world down to less than 20,000 and would go down to less than 10,000 in 10 years. Maybe not to your liking nor your timetable but the progress is sure and steady.

Open source suggests that of all the world's nuclear weapons states, only China, India, and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear arsenals. Israelis frozen theirs. North Korea is still trying to get theirs to work. The rest have at least halved their arsenals.

So lets come back to the table when we are all on even keel then. Till then we keep our options open.


And your arrogance also blinded you to the fact that the Chinese now have a conventional 1st strike counter-force option against Indian nuclear assets. Both Russia and the US reached that stage decades ago against lesser powers. The US does not need nukes to take out Indian nor Pakistani nuclear assets, especially when neither can reach CONUS.

So what stops the US and Russia, with huge conventional superiority over any other nation in the world, and one that equals each other out in most areas, from de-nuclearizing completely and expeditiously? Why continue to provide a reason for other states to go nuclear? The world looks to these superpowers to show us the way. Make sure it is the right one for the human race.


What do you mean no active hostile power? Last I check, both London and Paris are still on Moscow's target list. And China ain't exactly extending their nuclear umbrella to anyone.

The US cancels out Russia. Why have NATO nukes on European mainland at all? Make a start - reduce the N5 to N3. Maybe then we would start listening. Then get China and Pakistan to go along. Then so would we. Then the two of you could maintain your nukes and keep scaring each other. While the rest of the world moves along.


It was ego. China was about to be destroyed by Moscow. They were shivering in their boots for that prospect and any good strategic thinker (of which I assume your generals are) sould have seen it.

No it was not! We had already been stabbed in the back by China once. What our leaders and generals did see is that the standoff would come to nothing, and once the crisis was averted, we would be left to deal with a nuclear China sitting on our heads. As history shows, we were right.


And I gave you the reason. India went nuke because Nixon p!ssed off Ghandi.

Why do so many of you insist on misspelling the names of our leaders? Do you see an Indian ever do the same with regard to yours? It is "Gandhi" sir. And she had more balls than Nixon could lay claim to - on that you are right. We are a pretty peace loving and spiritual people in general. But we don’t take threats or arm twisting very well.


I really don't care what India's reason was for going nuke. I am STATING CATEGORICALLY AND OUTRIGHT that we came DANGEROUSLY close to nuclear war THREE times because the powers CHOSE to use the NPT as the legal justification. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WEATHER THE NPT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. IT WAS USED AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR NUCLEAR WAR. If you cannot accept that, then you are blind to the history.

And there lies the crux of the issue does it not? Nuclear war versus an unilateral nuclear strike against someone who cannot strike back. The ONLY reason that you came dangerously close to nuclear war three times was that on each of those occasions, the Western block and the Soviet block had different definitions of the enemy. I can accept that. Its time the superpowers do too. Cause this is one snowball that’s only going to get bigger sir. Today its Iran. Tomorrow there WILL be someone else. Unless we can all come to our senses and step back and agree to disarm completely. NO contingencies. COMPLETE universal simultaneous transparent verifiable disarmament.


Again, sheer dumb luck.

Again, dumb luck with dollops of mutual soil-your-underpants fear.


Hogwash. The US against Vietnam. Soviets in Afghanistan. China against Vietnam. The UK against Argentina. France against Libya. Russia against Georgia. Nuclear powers did not once even consider nukes.

Sir the examples you have quoted are out of context to my statement which you have responded to. I am talking about standoffs between two nuclear powers, asymmetric as they might be. Not a nuclear power against a non-nuclear nation. It is now an accepted fact that conventional conflict under a mutual nuclear umbrella is not only a possibility under certain circumstances and limitations, but some actually believe that the very nature of conflict and doctrine has changed because of that, with rogue states like Pakistan continuing to push the envelope just enough each time, so as not to breach the line in the sand. But it’s a dangerous game they are playing – and that is we have been pointing out to the world as we continue to exhibit mature and responsible restraint.


India was rogue whether you liked it or not. First off, you've used Canadian expertise when you signed agreements to otherwise. Then, this duplicity of a "peaceful nuclear explosion" in trying to deny this was a weapons test. All smacks of lies and deceit. The very essence of a rouge nuclear weapons state.

Deal with it. Your country lied to get the expertise. Your country lied to get the materials. Your country lied about seeking nuclear weapons. Your country lied about the test. Your country lied why they tested. Your country CONTINUED TO LIE ABOUT FURTHUR WEAPONS RESEARCH!

SCREW OFF! YOU WERE A ROUGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POWER!

THAT IS THE TRUTH. DEAL WITH IT!

We were a nuclear pariah state and suffered the resultant sanctions. Unfairly may I add. But we were never a rogue state. There IS a world of difference, whether you can see it or not. But what the world learned was that a nation that is bent upon going nuclear cannot be stopped. You can starve them and shun them and marginalize them and slow their growth and development. But you cannot deny them. Because they choose not to be denied by those they do not accord the right of doing so. THAT is the truth sir. Whether you can deal with it or not.


In case you have not noticed, your hypocrisy is showing big time. You are demanding NPT countries to allow India to have nukes while at the same time demanding us to deny nukes to Pakistan while both of you achieved nukes by the same methodology. Neither one of you were members of the NPT. Somehow, not being NPT is good enough for India but not good enough for Pakistan. You demand the US to disarm Pakistan but letting India stand free just because now an NPT member is your neighbour.

Please do not continue to equate India with Pakistan. It lessens the credibility of the debate and the debater as well. Please understand what the debate is about. On the issue of NPT and Pakistan going nuclear in response to India, we have NO issues. It was and is their threat perception and like us they have all the right of doing so. Please also do not equate the methodology unless you insist of the swathes of broad strokes of keeping it from the world versus the reality of developing versus acquiring.

The issue today, and about the topic of the thread and the discussion, is about a nuclear nation going rogue proving itself incapable of the trust and faith of the world to continue to be a responsible nuclear power – IF it ever really was in the first place to begin with. By its conduct and track record, Pakistan has lost that credibility. And its hurtling spiral into the abyss of implosion further increases exponentially the risk it poses to the rest of the world.

I put it to you sir. Bluntly. It is a matter of time before BOTH India and Pakistan can land nukes on CONUS. It is a question of WHEN and not IF. If you had it in your power to do so, which of the two would you stop? Which of the two COULD you stop? The answer is staring you in the face every day that you delay. And for a change, your counterweight will not demur.


I will paraphrase Gen Sundarji's observation about South Asia. It is way too late to make South Asia nuclear free but we should make it nuclear safe. An Indian only nuclear arsenal in all of Asia is not safe, let alone realistic.

India and China. The two largest economies of the world 20 years from today. With close to half the world’s population. One must have counterweights. Asia and the world is a safer place for that. It’s the rogue weight swinging wildly that needs to be taken out of the equation for fear of disturbing the delicate equilibrium.


Give it a break. The NPT worked. There are far more capable countries on this earth who can surpass Indian nukes in both quality and quantity within a few short years. Just because we have 4 rogue nuclear weapons states (and I am only including North Korea because they built 2 nukes to be exploded even though they were duds) ignores that within the NPT, there are over 40 countries, including all of NATO minus our N3, who chose not to produce nukes.

I am not debating capability with you here. But need and choice. The NPT will “work” where one and/or both are missing. Beyond that, you need to be ready to wage war to make it work, because short of that, you will not convince those that choose to go nuclear. Whatever their reasons may be and however you choose to view those same motivations.


Disarmament has to start somewhere. And the first place to start is no new nuclear weapons powers.

No. The first place you start with is where you have most control over – yourselves. The rest will follow if you do not give them reason not to. Think about it. The world is today involved in a new kind of war. The days of the great wars are over. The cold war is also history. You can destroy a nation and kill its people. But you can never occupy a nation indefinitely. You can only kill some or all of its people. Then what? Where do you stop? How many people are you willing to kill? How many nations are you willing to destroy? Does that make the world a safer place? Or a more dangerous one? Will it stop other nations from going nuclear as the most cost effective option – to compensate for the lack of conventional muscle where they can never compete? Will it stop a nation from developing a way to hit back – and finally to hit back at your own population? These are the questions the two superpowers need to ask themselves. Today. Before it is too late.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 09:01
vsdoc,

I sense your logic is if USA and Russia totally abandon nukes, there will be Nukes-free world?

Are you sure this is possible today?

Can you see China, Pakistan, India dismantling their nukes? If they fail to do it, what's the point of USA and Russia not having nukes? You think they are so nuts to give up their nukes with nothing in return?

USA has conventional weapons to do a lot of damage across the world, but the Russian Army is very pale copy from the Soviet days. What's in for Russians to abolish their nukes?

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 09:33
vsdoc,

I sense your logic is if USA and Russia totally abandon nukes, there will be Nukes-free world?

Are you sure this is possible today?

Can you see China, Pakistan, India dismantling their nukes? If they fail to do it, what's the point of USA and Russia not having nukes? You think they are so nuts to give up their nukes with nothing in return?

USA has conventional weapons to do a lot of damage across the world, but the Russian Army is very pale copy from the Soviet days. What's in for Russians to abolish their nukes?

Lets first get these 2 superpowers to step back from war fighting to deterrence levels first. That would be the biggest and most critical bit. It is absurd to have 20-30,000 nukes and crib about others having a hundred. Reduce your stockpiles to the levels of UK and France. Then all 4 reduce them all together to China's level. Then all 5 in a graded manner leverage your conventional superiority (if needed) to coax/enforce simultaneous disarmament by the rest - including and equally by yourselves.

To bring down a tree quickly and surely, you start chopping at the bottom where the trunk is thickest. You don't start with trimming off the top. Unless you want a show Christmas tree to be decorated and used once a year.

The moment you start working on power equations and algorithms and chess board moves, you have already failed. That is what the US has been trying to do ever since the demise of the USSR. Checking off one box against another so that they remain unchallenged, unchecked, the maverick top dog who does not have to get his hands dirty by directly jumping into the fray. Till China's ascendency and truculence spoiled the equation, and Iran added to their headaches. And India was grudgingly brought in from the cold.

It is truly a dangerous doctrine precedent to set in place to use nukes as power equalizers. It then allows countries with little to no conventional military and economic power to even the playing field and punch way above their weight class by simply acquiring nukes. That is where the main danger lies. Nuclear blackmail. Direct as well as by proxy.

In the absence of total disarmament, these nuclear power politics between the two blocks will continue in a game where each puts forward and supports new checks and balances and outliers/disrupters to match and better the other. Either that or recognize the futility of the whole thing, an opportunity missed, a ship that sailed a long time ago, and concertedly or disparately continue the game of noughts and crosses - and hope that the boxes never run out!

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 10:17
I am not getting you.

Let's get things straight:

The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers.

The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.

The figures are current as of February 5, 2011.

The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers.

Add China, France, UK, India, Pakistan with total of ~1.500 pcs (is it safe assumption?)

Hardly 20,000 nukes there.

With Russia and USA constantly dropping their nuclear arsenal I don't understand your points.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 10:23
I am not getting you.

Let's get things straight:

The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers.

The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.

The figures are current as of February 5, 2011.

The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers.

Add China, France, UK, India, Pakistan with total of ~1.500 pcs (is it safe assumption?)

Hardly 20,000 nukes there.

With Russia and USA constantly dropping their nuclear arsenal I don't understand your points.

Ok the 20,000-30,000 number I read elsewhere. Granted a start has been made. Its still a whole lot of nukes floating around man. The basic idea is graded step-wise disarmament till the next lower level - and then together down to the next - and so on. But the process once started cannot be allowed to stop or modified with riders and exceptions. That will be failure. The world needs to figure out how to deal with the nuclear power that refuses to move lower beyond a point to the logical end. That I see as the main and only challenge.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 10:30
At least the Big 2 showed intentions to go down with their arsenal. What about the other half of the world -> your own country and your 2 nuclear neighbors?

If I was USA or Russia, I'd want all the others nukes-free before scrapping my nukes.

While you write this nice tale with world out of nukes, your own government is making more of them.

You are Indian, why don't you ask your government why they need more nukes? 60+ is not enough for deterrence or for 2nd strike?

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 10:34
At least the Big 2 showed intentions to go down with their arsenal. What about the other half of the world -> your own country and your 2 nuclear neighbors?

If I was USA or Russia, I'd want all the others nukes-free before scrapping my nukes.

While you write this nice tale with world out of nukes, your own government is making more of them.

You are Indian, why don't you ask your government why they need more nukes? 60+ is not enough for deterrence or for 2nd strike?

Were I one of the big 2, even I could enjoy the luxury of benevolence of retiring nukes I do not really need - and am increasingly finding it financially untenable to afford. The real crux will come as they get closer to the "others." And then the Tier 2 powers start coming close to the Tier 3. Till then India will continue doing what it believes is in the interest of the security of its people, because it is in the promise of delivery of the second strike that our doctrine lies.

There is a really fat boy at one end of the see-saw and a thin runt at the other end. The fat boy has been shedding a few kilos, but the see-saw is still planted firmly on the ground at his end. Now the fat boy decides that he's done his bit and shown good faith, and its now time for the runt to jump off from the other end. Where is the fun in that? I would rather the runt gain some weight and the fat boy lose a lot more, before they can really start playing together.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 10:36
But you can hardly reach China's arsenal, and you have 2x the Pakistan's why you need more?

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 10:42
But you can hardly reach China's arsenal, and you have 2x the Pakistan's why you need more?

We do not need to reach China's arsenal levels. Just increase the weight of the promised counter-punch as deterrence. Beyond a point, effective deterrence crosses over to just simply the ability to kill more and more. We may (and probably will) stop when we feel we have reached such a point. And we await the others climbing back down to that point as Step #1. I seriously doubt that our arsenal is 2X Pakistan's. In fact many reports state the opposite off late. Either way Pakistan is not a game changer for us as we have long since had enough for them.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 10:44
Seriously, If you are able to accurately reach those densely populated centers and their sewer/water systems, you don't need more then 50 nukes.

China invested kazilions there to lose them over 2 nukes ;)

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 10:50
Seriously, If you are able to accurately reach those densely populated centers and their sewer/water systems, you don't need more then 50 nukes.

China invested kazilions there to lose them over 2 nukes ;)

I agree. And while we develop the needed accuracy (and range), we build more of what we can for now, to make sure some reach the targets. Not exactly saturation bombing, but the concepts and needs thereof remain the same. You have actually answered your earlier question.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 10:53
But at the same time ask the others to get rid of their capability.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 10:55
But at the same time ask the others to get rid of their capability.

Absolutely. To the level where we can equally enthusiastically start getting rid of ours. Post Independence we have this overpowering need for equality. Some may call it a chip on our collective national shoulder.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 10:57
I am not getting you.

Let's get things straight:

The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers.

The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.

The figures are current as of February 5, 2011.

The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers.

Add China, France, UK, India, Pakistan with total of ~1.500 pcs (is it safe assumption?)

Hardly 20,000 nukes there.

With Russia and USA constantly dropping their nuclear arsenal I don't understand your points.
Yah, i don't get Vsdoc arguement here. Clearly the superpowers have shown what their wishes are, and they are leading by example. But vsdoc conveniently ignores this while his own country is moving in the other direction, as if they an imminent thread looming over their heads.

Nukes are like an epidemic. Those who haven't caught the epidemic should be shielded from catching it. Those who have caught it must be isolated and treated for the epidemic until they are cured, which is exactly what is happening with the START treatments. The advent of nukes into the world scene at the time was hailed as another invention, just like the inventions of asbestos roofing, ozone unfriendly propellents, etc. Their effects were not fully understood, but the cat was out. Once their effects were understood the world reacted accordingly and realised maybe this was not such a good idea after all. Now to defend those that are actively in the making of new nukes when the world is actively working towards disarmament just because they have not reached your figure xxx is just lame excuse.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 11:12
Yah, i don't get Vsdoc arguement here. Clearly the superpowers have shown what their wishes are, and they are leading by example. But vsdoc conveniently ignores this while his own country is moving in the other direction, as if they an imminent thread looming over their heads.

Nukes are like an epidemic. Those who haven't caught the epidemic should be shielded from catching it. Those who have caught it must be isolated and treated for the epidemic until they are cured, which is exactly what is happening with the START treatments. The advent of nukes into the world scene at the time was hailed as another invention, just like the inventions of asbestos roofing, ozone unfriendly propellents, etc. Their effects were not fully understood, but the cat was out. Once their effects were understood the world reacted accordingly and realised maybe this was not such a good idea after all. Now to defend those that are actively in the making of new nukes when the world is actively working towards disarmament just because they have not reached your figure xxx is just lame excuse.

I have made a few posts on this issue additionally which you would do well to read as well. If nuclearization is an epidemic, and the US is the "zero" case, then all the rules of medical triage point towards treating those most affected first. Unless in the opinion of the medical community, the patient is beyond salvage. Once those are well on their way to recovery, attention can then be turned equally to the rest. That of course pre-supposes that the treatment to the worst affected does not stop mid-way before they are at least as ill / as well as the rest in quarantine. Or dead.

Now that the Robin Cook analogy is out of the way, let me just repeat. We do not disarm and continue to arm for the very real fear that the rest will not disarm all the way. For us to first halt and then to start disarming, we would need to see the others continue to disarm up unto the point that they are no more or less a threat than we are. Not before.

Not one single existing nuclear power would do otherwise.

You guys are talking as if the world owes the US and Russia a huge favor for taking the lead in disarming first. Get real! This is their mess, and only they can clean it up. The rest of us lesser mortals can only provide the impetus from the sidelines by showing that 8 or 20 or 50 can play the same game. Eventually.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 11:29
So let me see if I get you right.

You say USA, Russia, UK, France and China should go down to your let's say 60 nukes and then you might consider abolishing your nukes 1 by 1?

Tell me which sane politician will accept that?

Let's turn the tables the other way for a bit.

You are USA and you dropped your arsenal from 20k to 2k. Countries that have different geo-political views then yours increased their arsenal.

Why stopping with nukes?
Why don't you shred your entire fleet of airplanes? Heck, that way you won't even need carriers. If you think better you don't even need an army. Canadian border is not defended at the moment and you have feds on the Mexican one. Coast guard can look for Cuba.

The others will abolish their militaries. I swear they will. All they need is an example from you. Try it.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 11:38
So let me see if I get you right.

You say USA, Russia, UK, France and China should go down to your let's say 60 nukes and then you might consider abolishing your nukes 1 by 1?

Tell me which sane politician will accept that?

Let's turn the tables the other way for a bit.

You are USA and you dropped your arsenal from 20k to 2k. Countries that have different geo-political views then yours increased their arsenal.

Why stopping with nukes?
Why don't you shred your entire fleet of airplanes? Heck, that way you won't even need carriers. If you think better you don't even need an army. Canadian border is not defended at the moment and you have feds on the Mexican one. Coast guard can look for Cuba.

The others will abolish their militaries. I swear they will. All they need is an example from you. Try it.

Nowhere in my posts have I hinted at any ambiguity from our side in the form of a "might." The highest comes down to the level of the next guy in line, then they both come down to the level of the third, then all three go down to the level of the fourth, and so on, till there are no nukes anymore. The challenge would be in preventing one from reneging midway.

And remember, if you have a problem with us continuing to arm while others "disarm" - it is way easier and faster and cheaper to disarm than arm. So we will not be meeting them midway, nor will they be meeting us midway - we are just keeping our options open and on the table till and more importantly IF they finally do come over down to meet us at all.

Once we have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction, we are left with conventional weapons powers. With essentially the same checks and balances and power-block dynamic equations - just a whole lot less lethal. The idea is not to get war off the table. The idea is to get global annihilation of all species in an instant off the table. I am not an idealist to believe that war will ever be a thing of the past or that peace can be all pervasive. But if we can take a step back as a race to a level where we can defend what we have, and mind our own business for the most part without trying to police the rest of the world, then I believe that the world would be a safer place to live in.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 11:49
I have made a few posts on this issue additionally which you would do well to read as well. If nuclearization is an epidemic, and the US is the "zero" case, then all the rules of medical triage point towards treating those most affected first. Unless in the opinion of the medical community, the patient is beyond salvage. Once those are well on their way to recovery, attention can then be turned equally to the rest. That of course pre-supposes that the treatment to the worst affected does not stop mid-way before they are at least as ill / as well as the rest in quarantine. Or dead.

I have read every post you and OoE have posted here, and im very much aware of your insufficient arguements.

Oh please the highes priority in an epidemic is to PREVENT IT from spreading. Those who have caught it can die if they can't be helped but the sickness should be contained from reaching others. And you are busy going in the opposite direction.



Now that the Robin Cook analogy is out of the way, let me just repeat. We do not disarm and continue to arm for the very real fear that the rest will not disarm all the way. For us to first halt and then to start disarming, we would need to see the others continue to disarm up unto the point that they are no more or less a threat than we are. Not before.

Not one single existing nuclear power would do otherwise.

You guys are talking as if the world owes the US and Russia a huge favor for taking the lead in disarming first. Get real! This is their mess, and only they can clean it up. The rest of us lesser mortals can only provide the impetus from the sidelines by showing that 8 or 20 or 50 can play the same game. Eventually.
Oh please you have no existential threat over your head right now, you are just being a loud gong here to justify the indefencible. US and Soviet were by far an existential threat to each other than India can even begin to fabricate real or imagined enemies. The huge stock piles held by the US and today's Russia are a legacy of that past and they are busy working their way down to reflect morden consensus to disarm. You on the other hand with a miniscule threat of what the US and Soviet faced are going against the tide doing exactly the same thing that everyone else is speaking against. There is a name you know for such elements.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 12:09
I have read every post you and OoE have posted here, and im very much aware of your insufficient arguements.

Oh please the highes priority in an epidemic is to PREVENT IT from spreading. Those who have caught it can die if they can't be helped but the sickness should be contained from reaching others. And you are busy going in the opposite direction.

Please desist from your half baked medico-epidemiological analogies unless you happen to be a research vaccinologist with a minimum of 15 years in the field with some of the leading biotech/vaccine manufacturers in the world, responsible for some of the cutting edge vaccines saving millions of infant lives today around the world. Your analogies and arguments would be at least as insufficient were that not the case as what you accuse mine of being in response to the Colonel's on all issues nuclear. Did not want to pull professional weight on you, but I do not like your tone for our first interaction.


Oh please you have no existential threat over your head right now, you are just being a loud gong here to justify the indefencible. US and Soviet were by far an existential threat to each other than India can even begin to fabricate real or imagined enemies. The huge stock piles held by the US and today's Russia are a legacy of that past and they are busy working their way down to reflect morden consensus to disarm. You on the other hand with a miniscule threat of what the US and Soviet faced are going against the tide doing exactly the same thing that everyone else is speaking against. There is a name you know for such elements.

The threat we face and our response thereof is up to us to gauge and respond to. What do you equate an "existential threat" to sir - when dead = dead? Or were the Americans and Russians going to be deader than the Indians caught in the blast of a Pakistani or Chinese (or American) nuke? The threat may be "miniscule" to others, but it is not to us who sit smack dab in the center of the cross-hairs of not one but two hostile nuclear powers sitting on our borders. Nothing imagined in those we have fought wars with in the past 50 years. How many wars did the US and USSR fight? Remember - dead is dead, and there is no deader than dead. So we continue to arm, till everyone else disarms.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 12:22
vsdoc,

Why don't you downsize your army to the size of Pakistan's and then go down together until both disarmed? Just to show the rest of the world you are still on the Gandhi's path.

Pakistanis are not a so desperate, they are suicidal?

OK, why don't you make the same agreement with the Chinese? PLA = IA, then go down till both = PA and then down until not one bullet is left? How about that? After all that will be 1/2 of the world unarmed, what better to show the rest of us how things should be done?

With so much wisdom accumulated in that area during the centuries, I don't see it too hard to get done.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 12:28
With so much wisdom accumulated in that area during the centuries, I don't see it too hard to get done.

The real irony here is that someone from the land of Alexander is advising someone from the land of Buddha and Gandhi on how to bring about world peace through disarmament.

Next you'll be teaching us about the cures for syphilis.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 12:41
Please desist from your half baked medico-epidemiological analogies unless you happen to be a research vaccinologist with a minimum of 15 years in the field with some of the leading biotech/vaccine manufacturers in the world, responsible for some of the cutting edge vaccines saving millions of infant lives today around the world. Your analogies and arguments would be at least as insufficient were that not the case as what you accuse mine of being in response to the Colonel's on all issues nuclear. Did not want to pull professional weight on you, but I do not like your tone for our first interaction.

Im not intimidated by your conceited verbose. Im a professinal in my own right, registered with a world renowned body. If you think im inferior to you im sorry for having misled you. You do not strike me as a discovery, so get off your high horse. I may not be a military professional but im not an ignoramus. I will take the word of the Col over yours anytime. There is a reason why people are escorted to quarintines upon lending at airports from suspected epidemic zones, you do not need 15 year to understand that.

Now that we have an understanding, we can continue our discussion .........



The threat we face and our response thereof is up to us to gauge and respond to. What do you equate an "existential threat" to sir - when dead = dead? Or were the Americans and Russians going to be deader than the Indians caught in the blast of a Pakistani or Chinese (or American) nuke? The threat may be "miniscule" to others, but it is not to us who sit smack dab in the center of the cross-hairs of not one but two hostile nuclear powers sitting on our borders. Nothing imagined in those we have fought wars with in the past 50 years. How many wars did the US and USSR fight? Remember - dead is dead, and there is no deader than dead. So we continue to arm, till everyone else disarms.
You still don't get it. Everyone is talking disarming (except for rogue states), you are on the wrong side of the discussion. The threat you are facing in not nuclear. You are headd and shoulders above Parkistan, you have enough to keep them on check. China is resorting to conventional weaponry to address its security concerns. The US has even gone to the extent of putting its own security at risk exempting any non-nuclear state from US's nuclear attack EVEN IF THEY ATTACKED THE US NONCONVENTIONALLY! When you pull in the other direction when everyone else is pulling one direction, you know who the problem is.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 12:44
The real irony here is that someone from the land of Alexander is advising someone from the land of Buddha and Gandhi on how to bring about world peace through disarmament.

Next you'll be teaching us about the cures for syphilis.
Now you are really losing the arguement vsdoc. Doktor asked you a very specific question, why don't you downsize to Pak's army size? Stop playing Squealer.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 12:53
Im not intimidated by your conceited verbose. Im a professinal in my own right, registered with a world renowned body.

I'm happy for you. Now if you'll only let me know what you are a professional of, I'll make sure I don't jump in with stupid analogies pertaining to your field of expertise to muddy the discussion.


You still don't get it. Everyone is talking disarming (except for rogue states), you are on the wrong side of the discussion. The threat you are facing in not nuclear. Over are head and shoulders above Parkistan, you have enough to keep them on check. China is resorting to conventional weaponry to address its security concerns. The US has even gone to the extent of putting its own security at risk exempting any non-nuclear state from US's nuclear attack EVEN IF THEY ATTACKED THE US NONCONVENTIONALLY! When you pull in the other direction when everyone else is pulling one direction, you know who the problem is.

Two things. They are not pulling near enough. And they are puling too late. Very similar to the climate talks and the carbon credit fiasco. We enjoy a century of raping the earth, and then say we did not know better. We reach where we are today industrially and economically on the back of that rape and pillage. Now when the effects become too stark too ignore any longer, we cry sanctimoniously at developing countries not doing their bit to clean the earth and conserve resources (greedy China and India). Forgetting that we still today consume less than what the West does. With many many times the mouths to feed and bodies to clothe and shelter. As the good Colonel would say - Horse Puckey!

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 12:56
Now you are really losing the arguement vsdoc. Doktor asked you a very specific question, why don't you downsize to Pak's army size? Stop playing Squealer.

I'm losing nothing by your say-so. We will downsize to Pakistan's level when China downsizes to ours. They will downsize to ours when the UK and France downsize to theirs. The UK and France will downsize to China's level when the US and Russia downsize to theirs. The US and Russia should not die waiting for someone else to downsize to their level.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 12:59
The real irony here is that someone from the land of Alexander is advising someone from the land of Buddha and Gandhi on how to bring about world peace through disarmament.

Next you'll be teaching us about the cures for syphilis.

Bah, you got offended? Sorry, I meant it wholeheartly.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 13:00
Bah, you got offended? Sorry, I meant it wholeheartly.

So did I actually. Seeing as it was my ancestors invaded by yours.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 13:08
My ancestors were invaded so many times in the past I'll probably forget someone.

Here goes the list: Romans, Byzantine, Turks, Austrians, Germans, Serbs, English, French, even Italians had their foot set here. And that's after Alexander.

My point was China and India represent cradle of wisdom to me. With so many great thinkers in the past on the both sides and so much wisdom accumulated in your neck of the woods it's strange to me you are enemies to each other.

And I also meant it 1/2 of world population lays in 2 of your countries, sure if you manage to work together you can move a lot of things in the world. Especially with the rising economic power you both have.

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 13:14
My ancestors were invaded so many times in the past I'll probably forget someone.

Here goes the list: Romans, Byzantine, Turks, Austrians, Germans, Serbs, English, French, even Italians had their foot set here. And that's after Alexander.

My point was China and India represent cradle of wisdom to me. With so many great thinkers in the past on the both sides and so much wisdom accumulated in your neck of the woods it's strange to me you are enemies to each other.

And I also meant it 1/2 of world population lays in 2 of your countries, sure if you manage to work together you can move a lot of things in the world. Especially with the rising economic power you both have.

I appreciate your words and I have replied to your original question in my reply above to Zinja. Please also realize that both of you are stretching the argument to include conventional forces. I specifically have kept my arguments centered around nuclear weapons. And have said as much in an earlier post of mine. Nuclear weapons provide shortcuts. The balance which they bring about is highly volatile and conducive to a vicious cycle of proliferation. Nuclear weapons and MAD stand-offs have allowed a new form of evil and danger to prosper and endanger world peace. A kind of war even the superpowers are not ready for - nor able to conclusively win. We made a mistake in 1945. It is time we reverse it completely as the master species and keepers of this planet. We owe the rest of the species at least that much.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 13:30
You are focused on nuclear weapons.

I put conventional weapons on the table on purpose.
What's the point of not having nukes once you had them? And why get rid from nukes only, the other weapons don't kill?

vsdoc
05 Jul 11,, 13:42
You are focused on nuclear weapons.

I put conventional weapons on the table on purpose.
What's the point of not having nukes once you had them? And why get rid from nukes only, the other weapons don't kill?

I've answered you in posts earlier:

"Once we have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction, we are left with conventional weapons powers. With essentially the same checks and balances and power-block dynamic equations - just a whole lot less lethal. The idea is not to get war off the table. The idea is to get global annihilation of all species in an instant off the table. I am not an idealist to believe that war will ever be a thing of the past or that peace can be all pervasive. But if we can take a step back as a race to a level where we can defend what we have, and mind our own business for the most part without trying to police the rest of the world, then I believe that the world would be a safer place to live in."

and

"Nuclear weapons provide shortcuts. The balance which they bring about is highly volatile and conducive to a vicious cycle of proliferation. Nuclear weapons and MAD stand-offs have allowed a new form of evil and danger to prosper and endanger world peace. A kind of war even the superpowers are not ready for - nor able to conclusively win."

I am not saying that conventional weapons or wars do not kill. But I would argue your thought process of implying the impossibility of why not go the whole hog as a reason for not getting rid of the nukes first.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 14:36
I figured what was confusing me so far.

Here it is. You propose non-nuclear world, which is great. Let's suppose we as a humankind fixed it, there are no more nukes.

If we don't have the nuclear annihilation as perspective what are your thoughts? Will we settle and become less violent? Or we will have another Great war? It's been a while since the last one ;)

I think the 'abandonment' of the bio-chem weapons should be kept in mind when such enthusiastic ideas come to our minds.

Finally, if you let me illustrate your idea:
It's like giving up the Rifle while keeping 5 guns.

Mihais
05 Jul 11,, 15:12
You forgot one thing.How do we stop the aliens without nukes?:biggrin:

Gents,I'm not an expert on nukes and I'm not planning on taking out a nuclear power.But in the end they don't guarantee peace,not even for nuclear powers.The only thing they guarantee is no annihilation by conventional military means.As such they're the last ditch defense(if the opponent doesn't find a way to take them out in a conventional or nuclear preventive strike) .In itself this a big deal.But annihilation can come in many shapes and sizes and defeat even more so.
Talks of prevention of war are a waste of perfectly good air.

Talks of nuclear disarmament are also a waste of time.As long as they won't be used who cares how many they are?And if they are used on a significant scale we're screwed anyway.Calculations like ''we can't destroy the Earth 5 times,but only once '' are mere academical exercises.

Doktor
05 Jul 11,, 15:32
You forgot one thing. How do we stop the aliens without nukes?:biggrin:
We will form a commission for mutual understanding with aliens, will give them 1/2 the seats and eventually they will die from boredom and frustration. Like the rest of us humans ;)

Deltacamelately
05 Jul 11,, 17:34
But have nothing yet on India, save her not signing the NPT (a right she reserves for herself) and developing and acquiring her own nuclear deterrent (again, a right she reserves for herself in response to a less than friendly nuclear neighbor).
Doc,

Request you to go through this thread - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/central-south-asia/52422-indian-nuclear-testing-1.html. Notice the time frames and the fact that India was well in a position to explode the 1st device even before 1974. Why the delay? Infact Dr. Bhabha's entire team was literally forcing Nehru to blast-off.

Chances were India might have been at the receiving nd of a pre-emptive 1st strike. 1974 was different and provided enough catalyst, just for understanding -

* Indira and NOT Nehru.
* The InA expected the Chinese as well in 1971.
* The USS Enterprise.
* The InA contemplated a One-way mission by SFs aimed at Diego-Garcia.

The time was ripe and Indira knew that she could pull it off without any major reprisal/reprisal.

Deltacamelately
05 Jul 11,, 18:32
=vsdoc;817740]Lets first get these 2 superpowers to step back from war fighting to deterrence levels first. That would be the biggest and most critical bit. It is absurd to have 20-30,000 nukes and crib about others having a hundred. Reduce your stockpiles to the levels of UK and France. Then all 4 reduce them all together to China's level. Then all 5 in a graded manner leverage your conventional superiority (if needed) to coax/enforce simultaneous disarmament by the rest - including and equally by yourselves.
Doc,

You don't get the point. Okay, try it this way -
The Russian military is no more the Soviet military. They don't have any hope in hell to deter/resist an American conventional assault without the current number of nukes they have. They care a damn whether India or France has 200 or 2000. Unless they somehow acquire some kind of parity with the Yanks, they won't step down from a nuclear war-fighting posture to that of a nuclear deterrence. If they don't, then the US is surely not a dumb jackass to go strip themselves with a mighty Russian arsenal glaring at CONUS and Europe.

If these two are NOT to undress, no other nuclear power, India including, is going to let go their pants. The point remains the same - It is already too late to make this world nuclear free, the maximum one may do is make it nuclear safe.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 19:48
Two things. They are not pulling near enough. And they are puling too late.
Near enough? Too late? In 1990 US and Russia's deployed warheads were a combined total of 20,834. In 2010 the New Start treaty reduces that number a mere 3,100, a 85% reduction and thats not near enough? Thats too late? You are clutching on straws friend.

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 20:00
We will downsize to Pakistan's level when China downsizes to ours. They will downsize to ours when the UK and France downsize to theirs. The UK and France will downsize to China's level when the US and Russia downsize to theirs. The US and Russia should not die waiting for someone else to downsize to their level.
Let me understand you correctly here: everyone must come to your level before they can be considered rational/acceptable. It is anathema for you to go down to Pakistan's levels but it is righteous for China, US, etc to come down to your level, is that what you are saying?

1979
05 Jul 11,, 21:37
US and Russia's deployed warheads were a combined total of 20,834. In 2010 the New Start treaty reduces that number a mere 3,100, a 85% reduction
the 20.000 figure includes warheads for free fall bombs and SRBM
or just ICBM and SLBM ?

Zinja
05 Jul 11,, 21:56
the 20.000 figure includes warheads for free fall bombs and SRBM
or just ICBM and SLBM ? I think the figure is attributed to ICMBs, SLBMs and heavy bombers (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/news/strtdata.htm).

subba
06 Jul 11,, 00:41
Frankly i feel offended ( on the Rogue) tremendously by this equivocation by OoE Sir. Anyone who does that IMHO does not know the true history of the development of Nuke tech specially wrt India.

I never imagined OoE would equate India as ROGUE as equivalent to Pakistan or China for that matter., . specifically on Nuclear issues.

I never could imagine that from you Sir. You have over done it here. You are not even representing the current US administration POV now.

No India is not Pakistan. India is not deceitful. India is not a liar. India is not ROGUE.. and has never violated an international treaty, even if not a signatory.

i am very offended that this line is being paraded on this forum. This forum will lose credibility if this line of thought is propagated here on India and Pakistan 'Rogue' equivalence. Sir please do correct this line. It's foremost not doing TRUTH a favor.

PS1: I actually thought that OoE Sir was referring to 'rogue' in relative terms. But he's not. He is equating Pakistani and Chinese proliferation to India's non existent proliferation. And he's dead wrong on that equation.

PS2: For those who think India does not face an 'existential' threat..i would advice more focus on this sphere.

To OoE Sir: Sir please don't go ballistic on me, i'm young and learning, I acknowledge. However i will never EVER accept India and Pakistan's / China's equivalence on the nuke proliferation front because i know it's untrue and so does every one. India has never ever proliferated. Even the Americans acknowledge that today. So India is NOT rogue in that sense.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 01:20
To OoE Sir: Sir please don't go ballistic on me, i'm young and learning, I acknowledge. However i will never EVER accept India and Pakistan's / China's equivalence on the nuke proliferation front because i know it's untrue and so does every one. India has never ever proliferated. Even the Americans acknowledge that today. So India is NOT rogue in that sense.Who said anything about proliferation? Rogue does not mean proliferation. I am equating Pakistan, Israel, India, and China on the same page as nuclear weapons powers outside of the NPT. As such, all 4 were subject to the whims who would decide not decide how to enforce the NPT. When Moscow decided to try to enforce the NPT against both China and Israel, then it comes to term that both Pakistan and India are also subject to that same enforcement. Look at the time period when Moscow decided on war against both China and Israel. Neither was proliferating anything.

That being all said, India's actions concerning her own nuclear weapons program have been less than stellar internationally. Lies upon lies upon lies and some of them blatant that no one actually could believe Dehli sent out Ambassadors to spread those bold face lies (Smiling Buddha was not a weapons test). India seeks disarmament while trying to perfect the thermonuclear device.

What galls me is that there is some special privilege that India should enjoy just because she's India. Nothing else matters. Not the NPT. Not the superpowers. What India wants, India should get. When I point out that the world does not work that way and points to examples and the history behind those actions. The response was that's not India. India is different. Well, yeah, India is different all right. She's a way smaller target than those who stood in the superpowers' way. They had bigger targets before they get to India.

Up until India's NSG exemption, what both Moscow and Washington have been saying that non-NPT authorized nukes can and will be taken out by military action if need be. That made China (until she signed the NPT) rouge. That made India (until India got the NSG exemption) rouge. That made Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan rouge (until India got the NSG exemption).

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 06:52
India seeks disarmament while trying to perfect the thermonuclear device.

To plan for the near certain eventuality that total disarmament will not work and we would need a credible deterrent in hand. Buying peace and maintaining it under fear of mutually destructive war is not a concept invented by us Indians first - if that needs pointing out at all.


What galls me is that there is some special privilege that India should enjoy just because she's India.

I do not believe most Indians have a problem with others developing their own nukes in response to a credible threat from those that already do. I most definitely do not. Definitely as long as they earn and continue to keep the trust of the world to keep them as a responsible nuclear power. And not misusing them as bargaining chips for cheap underhand blackmail. If we must have them, then who are we to judge others? Does the fact that we have them, make us somehow better and more responsible/mature as nation states than others?

I mean come on! Here you have Global Terror Central having a minimum of a hundred nukes. And counting. Can we go any further downhill from there?


What India wants, India should get.

What India wants, India will make and develop for herself. Tomorrow, if not today. But we will decide what we want and whether we really need it and how to get it. Whether the world gives or not is secondary. We managed well enough for decades without your help. And grew in spite of your sanctions. And threats. And arm twisting. And arming of our enemies. So today if you have come around, you are not doing us a favor. Its simply delayed realization and the inevitability of good business. And we are glad to be your friends. But not because we were scared of being your enemies.


Well, yeah, India is different all right. She's a way smaller target than those who stood in the superpowers' way. They had bigger targets before they get to India.

India, or the other superpower designated targets you speak of, bigger or smaller, were never standing still in isolation. Each superpower who found one in their way, also found someone his own size not mutually agreeable to a unilateral nuclear strike. The temptation to therefore beat down on the runt was always tempered by promise of his big brother coming at you and yours with all he's got. So smaller or bigger remains and remained academic when you have another equal in the neighborhood who will not allow dilution of his power projection by allowing you to whip someone under his protection. Its simply not good for business. And equally for the other side the stakes did not justify the risk involved.

1979
06 Jul 11,, 06:55
I think the figure is attributed to ICMBs, SLBMs and heavy bombers (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/news/strtdata.htm).

that explains the low figure.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 07:21
I figured what was confusing me so far.

Here it is. You propose non-nuclear world, which is great. Let's suppose we as a humankind fixed it, there are no more nukes.

If we don't have the nuclear annihilation as perspective what are your thoughts? Will we settle and become less violent? Or we will have another Great war? It's been a while since the last one ;)

I think the 'abandonment' of the bio-chem weapons should be kept in mind when such enthusiastic ideas come to our minds.

Finally, if you let me illustrate your idea:
It's like giving up the Rifle while keeping 5 guns.

Removal of nukes returns wars to being hugely costly, mutually bloody, more directly engaging, and more staggered in lethality. All factors that lend themselves to more conventional power structures based on economics and commerce and backed by industry and infrastructure. All factors that lend themselves to being stronger disincentives needing a graded series of events and triggers to compensate for the potential for a single mistake leading to instant Armageddon. And less easier for a maverick failed state to achieve as a magic get out of jail free card, to hold the rest of the world by their short and curlies. In a way you are coming back to the Dresden/Tokyo versus Hiroshima/Nagasaki line of argument used earlier.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 07:28
Doc,

You don't get the point. Okay, try it this way -
The Russian military is no more the Soviet military. They don't have any hope in hell to deter/resist an American conventional assault without the current number of nukes they have. They care a damn whether India or France has 200 or 2000. Unless they somehow acquire some kind of parity with the Yanks, they won't step down from a nuclear war-fighting posture to that of a nuclear deterrence. If they don't, then the US is surely not a dumb jackass to go strip themselves with a mighty Russian arsenal glaring at CONUS and Europe.

If these two are NOT to undress, no other nuclear power, India including, is going to let go their pants. The point remains the same - It is already too late to make this world nuclear free, the maximum one may do is make it nuclear safe.

I agree with your assessment and the inevitability of it is what actually provides the impetus to my defense of why we do not disarm or pull back. But like it or not, feasible or not, the scenario I have spelled out (top down approach) is the only possible mutually agreeable pull-back by already armed powers. So we continue to arm to the point where deterrence crosses over to overkill. Those above us have the choice of coming down faster than we can move up.

The issue as I see it is that even if the superpowers ramp back to deterrence, what is deterrence for each other would be annihilation for a lesser nuclear power. Especially in a situation that the other superpower did not counter-weigh. A fear that would always be there. More in the case of potential new "rogues" who may be equal-opportunity pariahs.

The other issue from what you have correctly described would be that the onus is not equally on the US and Russia, but more on the US initially, till they are mutually deterrent to each other. But that mutual deterrence due to the now unequal conventional balance of power, would have to be a combination of conventional and nuclear - with the ratios not the same for both. That is a hugely slippery slope of arbitrage in order to decide where to draw the lines for each. Something that would then have to be mutually acceptable and irrevocable (and enforceable) at the same time. How do you enforce something on an apex predator? When the world find it difficult to disarm a minnow?

And that still leaves the lesser nuclear powers below seeing too large a gulf to the superpowers on top - were things to ever get nasty.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 07:35
Near enough? Too late? In 1990 US and Russia's deployed warheads were a combined total of 20,834. In 2010 the New Start treaty reduces that number a mere 3,100, a 85% reduction and thats not near enough? Thats too late? You are clutching on straws friend.

Yes, not near enough. For much the same reasons pointed out by DCL. Doing things by half measures guarantees failure. Guarantees failure to completely disarm. Guarantees failure to prevent others from continuing to arm. Guarantees failure of stopping proliferation to those not yet armed. There is no such thing as "nuclear safe." Its either nuclear free or the countdown clock.

Yes, too late. For the Americans not stopping after Japan. For America not forcing others (friends and ex-allies both) to stop after Japan. That was the tipping point. After that the genie was let loose, and its not going to be easy (possible?) to get him back into the lamp.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 07:41
Let me understand you correctly here: everyone must come to your level before they can be considered rational/acceptable. It is anathema for you to go down to Pakistan's levels but it is righteous for China, US, etc to come down to your level, is that what you are saying?

Absolutely. Everyone above must come down to the level of each nuclear power below before they too join in to start to draw back equally as well. I cannot go down to Pakistan's level (regardless of my threat perception from that nation) if it widens the gulf to the level of the hostile power above me - China, which in turn, regardless of its threat perception from my nation, cannot and will not let the gulf widen to the nuclear power above it. If anything, as long as the inequalities in the capabilities last, Pakistan will try to come closer to India and India to China. The onus is therefore on China to come down to India first, before each go down further to Pakistan.

Have you seen those Hollywood movies where there is a standoff and everyone has guns pointed at everyone else, hammers cocked? The only way its going to work out well for everybody is for everyone to put their guns down at once. Incrementally or pro-rata just will not work when I have 2 guns pointed outwards with 10 guns pointed inwards. The 8 extra guns have a choice. Either put them down first, or all 10 play Russian roulette with which 2 amongst them will go down before they take me down.

And the above scenario presupposes that all players are within range of each others guns. If there is a player out of range of my gun, yet carries a gun big enough to reach me, then I simply have to find a bigger gun, till the player either puts down his guns completely or at least carries only those guns that equally cannot reach me.

subba
06 Jul 11,, 12:21
OoE Sir, with due respect not signing a treaty does not constitute 'Rogue'. That way the US has not signed so many protocols and treaties including ratifying the CTBT. It does not make the US a rogue state. Vatican or Taiwan is not part of the UN, it can by no measure be called rogue. Rogue is a very strong word to use. India has never been against the spirit of the Non Proliferation treaty. It surely has a right to question on what ethical basis did the NPT decide 1967 as the cut off date for membership of the club. This is a statement made by Pranab Mukherjee in Tokyo in 2007:

"If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."

Till 1971 India did not desire Nuclear weapons. Indira earlier and Nehru was dead against nuclear weapons. This is what she said in 68:


By 1966, international negotiations on a prospective nuclear nonproliferation treaty were in full swing, and India was playing a major role. India demanded that a fair treaty must obligate existing nuclear weapons states (the haves) to freeze and then eliminate their existing arsenals, and must provide security guarantees to states that do not acquire nuclear weapons. (Nothing has changed even now! Plus ca change plu ca meme chose). While abjuring building of nuclear weapons, India refused to surrender the right to develop and detonate nuclear explosives as long as the "haves" retained such rights. India's position reflected the now traditional duality: it took a strong position against the discrimination by the "haves" against the "have nots" and it reserved the right to acquire nuclear explosives as long as other states enjoyed such rights. At the core of India's position was a demand for equity and a perception that the emerging nonproliferation regime amounted to a "nuclear apartheid". This basic perception was to continue for decades.
By the end of 1967, it was becoming clear that neither United States nor Soviet Union would agree to the kind of NPT India was proposing. In April 1968 Mrs. Gandhi explained in the parliament that India would vote against the treaty; but that India would not find security in acquiring nuclear weapons and an attempt to build them would weaken the country by diverting precious resources which were needed elsewhere.

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~pakvasa/pub/India%20Nuclear%20Bomb.pdf

This is from Perkovich:

Nehru's nuclear decisions were not the outcome of any national debate but deeply rooted in his scientific temper, abhorrence of nuclear weapons and nuclear allergy after the supreme tragedy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Most of Nehru's speeches reflect this genuinely peaceful intention. For example, he told the lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, in 1957, "[W]e have declared quite clearly that we are not interested in and we will not make these bombs, even if we have the capacity to do so."

Clearly Nehru was wrong as History shows, but it's also important to reflect then why India would build one, when this was the mindset at the highest levels of governance in the 60's. And the reasons are not 'rogue'. The spirit of the treaty is captured in the basics of preventing spread of nuclear weapons technology. India has never done it despite not being a member. China has been rogue to the treaty spirit. So has Pakistan. Both have proliferated. China gave the bomb designs and more. Complete violation of the treaty spirit. Vatican and Taiwan despite being outside of the UN are more responsible members of the international community than many members states to the UN. By no measure we could call them 'rogue'.

I think we are using different 'yardsticks' in applying the 'rogue' term Sir. But i completely agree with you that as far as Canada was concerned there was a breach of trust concerned in using the fuel from the CIRUS reactor. But apart from the fuel, there was no tech transfer. The bomb design was Indian, the physics behind was tested in Purnima I a reactor test bed. The tech part was not a very big deal for India. India also is probable the only country where satellites were launched first and missiles came later. Countries like Pakistan, NK, Iran, Iraq make missiles first without learning how to launch a basic satellite.

India was driven to Nuclear weapons not just because of a tough neighborhood, but the arrogance of nuclear apartheid. The latter part does not get much weightage and is usually dismissed as 'status' desire, which is not entirely correct.

Just my quarter cent worth..before proceeding to lurk mode.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 12:42
OoE Sir, with due respect not signing a treaty does not constitute 'Rogue'.This is not about not signing the NPT. This is about getting illegal nukes. India became rouge the second Moscow decided that China was rogue. Once Moscow decided force was necessary to enforce the NPT, whatever argument India has about owning nukes go out the window.

Look it is this simple. You are in a country where firearm ownership is severely restricted. You bought yourself or build yourself a gun. The cops don't really care if you got yourself a gun for self defence, prestige, or to rob anyone else. You have an illegal gun no matter what reason you give, even if it is for self defence against the gangs with far more guns up the street.


Clearly Nehru was wrong as History shows, but it's also important to reflect then why India would build one, when this was the mindset at the highest levels of governance in the 60's. And the reasons are not 'rogue'. The spirit of the treaty is captured in the basics of preventing spread of nuclear weapons technology. India has never done it despite not being a member. China has been rogue to the treaty spirit. So has Pakistan. Both have proliferated. China gave the bomb designs and more. Complete violation of the treaty spirit. How simple facts elude you. India violated the spirit of the NPT the second she exploded her nuke. She added one more nuclear weapons power to the world.

And if you've read Gen Sundarji, he predicted that Pakistan would also become nuke, adding another very foreseeable nuclear weapons power. Tell me how Smiling Buddha was not a violation of the spirit of the NPT.

Doktor
06 Jul 11,, 12:46
Removal of nukes returns wars to being hugely costly, mutually bloody, more directly engaging, and more staggered in lethality. All factors that lend themselves to more conventional power structures based on economics and commerce and backed by industry and infrastructure. All factors that lend themselves to being stronger disincentives needing a graded series of events and triggers to compensate for the potential for a single mistake leading to instant Armageddon. And less easier for a maverick failed state to achieve as a magic get out of jail free card, to hold the rest of the world by their short and curlies. In a way you are coming back to the Dresden/Tokyo versus Hiroshima/Nagasaki line of argument used earlier.
If I was PM of Pakistan I would never agree to your proposal for the above mentioned reasons. Tell me what stops India from attacking Pakistan? Don't come with China as you fought Pakistan 4 times and China never openly interfered.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 12:51
Subba bhai, please do not lurk. WAB and India needs posters like you.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 12:55
I agree with your assessment and the inevitability of it is what actually provides the impetus to my defense of why we do not disarm or pull back. But like it or not, feasible or not, the scenario I have spelled out (top down approach) is the only possible mutually agreeable pull-back by already armed powers. So we continue to arm to the point where deterrence crosses over to overkill. Those above us have the choice of coming down faster than we can move up. India neither has the uranium reserves nor the money to move up to American/Russian levels.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 12:57
I cannot go down to Pakistan's level (regardless of my threat perception from that nation) if it widens the gulf to the level of the hostile power above me - China, which in turn, regardless of its threat perception from my nation, cannot and will not let the gulf widen to the nuclear power above it.You do know that Pakistan has more nukes than India.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 12:58
If I was PM of Pakistan I would never agree to your proposal for the above mentioned reasons. Tell me what stops India from attacking Pakistan? Don't come with China as you fought Pakistan 4 times and China never openly interfered.

Only Pakistan can stop India from attacking Pakistan. Once you are done being the PM for a day of Pakistan, try your hand at being our PM as well. And ask yourself why would India attack Pakistan? Especially when Pakistan is doing such a good job of it her ownself. So what you are saying is that be it a weakened Russia against the US or a Pakistan against India, nukes serve the purpose of conventional force amplification and equalization/compensation towards overall combined parity and stand-off for weak nuclear states against stronger nuclear states? Then why grudge India the same against China? Be fair!

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 13:05
Vietnam, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algiers, Korean War China ... all won wars against superior conventional and nuclear armed opponents.

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 13:07
Vietnam, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algiers, Korean War China ... all won wars against superior conventional and nuclear armed opponents.

Sir we and the world at large saw what happened to the people of those "victorious" nations. I think India will take a pass at such victories. Especially when "victory" by itself means there was a war with foreign boots on your soil.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 13:15
You've asked the question why begrudged India the same against China. I pointed out to you that not only is nukes not needed but in the case of Vietnam, you can even get stronger. Vietnam defeated the US, fought China to a standstill, and still manage to create an empire (Cambodia) at the same time. Vietnam did all this without the need for nukes.

And seriously, when was the last time the InA exercised with nukes against China? Even a map exercise. The scenario exists on the Pakistani border because Pakistan threatened so but when was a Chinese nuclear confrontation ever on the table?

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 13:29
Mihas,

Nuclear weapons can be replaced and I expect them to be replaced once conventional systems reach equivalent effectiveness. One such research program out there is the Advance Hypersonic Weapon. There are some diplomatic and technical hurdles but the theory is correct.

Doktor
06 Jul 11,, 13:50
Only Pakistan can stop India from attacking Pakistan. Once you are done being the PM for a day of Pakistan, try your hand at being our PM as well. And ask yourself why would India attack Pakistan? Especially when Pakistan is doing such a good job of it her ownself. So what you are saying is that be it a weakened Russia against the US or a Pakistan against India, nukes serve the purpose of conventional force amplification and equalization/compensation towards overall combined parity and stand-off for weak nuclear states against stronger nuclear states? Then why grudge India the same against China? Be fair!
Ok, you turn the tables, If you are Pakistani would you give up the nukes? Why? What other means of defense against India they have? They are smaller, with interior problems, they skrewed things so bad for the moment, but I hope they can cope and get better.
If I were PM of India for a day? I'd go to Bollywood ;) Afterwards I'd stop producing nukes and would spread the money into the bordering regions. Would initiate Pak-Indo-Sino summit to ensure better economic cooperation in the neighboring regions. Heck that's me, I live in Utopia ;)

vsdoc
06 Jul 11,, 15:55
If I were PM of India for a day? I'd go to Bollywood ;)

Have you seen our PM? :)

Doktor
06 Jul 11,, 16:08
Have you seen our PM? :)
:eek: Hey looking like your PM wasn't part of the deal.

Just what I'd do if I were PM of India

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 19:05
Ok, you turn the tables, If you are Pakistani would you give up the nukes?All me to rephrase your question, if I was a Pakistani General, would I give up the nukes. Yeah, I would. Give me the money you used for that nuke and the battalion surrounding it and get me a re-enforced brigade that I can used on the front line at my discretion instead of hoping that some REMF in Islamabad knows what to do with that nuke ... and that is NOT to use it.

Give me the chance to cripple the Indian advance. Even if they win, they'll do nothing more than to limp home.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 19:08
Especially when "victory" by itself means there was a war with foreign boots on your soil.Tell me, who emerged stronger after the 1970 Sino-Vietnam War? China or Vietnam?

Doktor
06 Jul 11,, 20:34
All me to rephrase your question, if I was a Pakistani General, would I give up the nukes. Yeah, I would. Give me the money you used for that nuke and the battalion surrounding it and get me a re-enforced brigade that I can used on the front line at my discretion instead of hoping that some REMF in Islamabad knows what to do with that nuke ... and that is NOT to use it.

Give me the chance to cripple the Indian advance. Even if they win, they'll do nothing more than to limp home.

Col, There are few flaws in that statement:

The money to build the nukes are spent

PA Generals had that chance 4 times and they were the ones limping home

As a retired Lt.Col of the RCA you probably will forget more then 2/3 of the Pak Generals know

Officer of Engineers
06 Jul 11,, 22:23
The money to build the nukes are spentThey're at least expanding their nuclear facilities to build new one and plus, those nukes are still tying up a few brigades for protection.


PA Generals had that chance 4 times and they were the ones limping homeThe last war is a very poor indicator of the next one. The Generals of the last war are gone and their replacements have at least studied their failures and will try to avoid them.


As a retired Lt.Col of the RCA you probably will forget more then 2/3 of the Pak Generals knowMoving 10,000 to 30,000 men is way above my pay grade.

Zinja
06 Jul 11,, 22:44
Yes, not near enough. For much the same reasons pointed out by DCL. Doing things by half measures guarantees failure. Guarantees failure to completely disarm. Guarantees failure to prevent others from continuing to arm. Guarantees failure of stopping proliferation to those not yet armed. There is no such thing as "nuclear safe." Its either nuclear free or the countdown clock.

Yes, too late. For the Americans not stopping after Japan. For America not forcing others (friends and ex-allies both) to stop after Japan. That was the tipping point. After that the genie was let loose, and its not going to be easy (possible?) to get him back into the lamp.

People cutting 85% of their warheads and with negotiations to go even further is a 'guarantee for failure'? You have a weird way of looking at things


Yes, too late. For the Americans not stopping after Japan. For America not forcing others (friends and ex-allies both) to stop after Japan. That was the tipping point. After that the genie was let loose, and its not going to be easy (possible?) to get him back into the lamp.
You are caught up in a time warp pal, wakey wakey. Japan and the US are popping champagne to each other and you are still eating your heart out on behalf of the Japanese. You are desperately clutching to a history that the world has turn a new leaf over. You belong in the 50s man.

Zinja
06 Jul 11,, 22:51
Absolutely. Everyone above must come down to the level of each nuclear power below before they too join in to start to draw back equally as well. I cannot go down to Pakistan's level (regardless of my threat perception from that nation) if it widens the gulf to the level of the hostile power above me - China, which in turn, regardless of its threat perception from my nation, cannot and will not let the gulf widen to the nuclear power above it. If anything, as long as the inequalities in the capabilities last, Pakistan will try to come closer to India and India to China. The onus is therefore on China to come down to India first, before each go down further to Pakistan.

Don't worry, you are not the only one clummering to outproduce the world with nukes so that you will be the big dog in town, when everyone else is applauding disarmament taking place around the world. There are a couple of buddies clummering with you. Just Iran and north Korea.......and we have a very fitting name for such, so don't be cry babying.



Have you seen those Hollywood movies where there is a standoff and everyone has guns pointed at everyone else, hammers cocked? The only way its going to work out well for everybody is for everyone to put their guns down at once. Incrementally or pro-rata just will not work when I have 2 guns pointed outwards with 10 guns pointed inwards. The 8 extra guns have a choice. Either put them down first, or all 10 play Russian roulette with which 2 amongst them will go down before they take me down.
The last one i checked only Will Smith came out in one piece, if that is the world that you are advocating then you are a very dangerous man. I hope the Indian government is not made up of people like you.

Zinja
06 Jul 11,, 23:07
And seriously, when was the last time the InA exercised with nukes against China? Even a map exercise. The scenario exists on the Pakistani border because Pakistan threatened so but when was a Chinese nuclear confrontation ever on the table?
This is exactly the point. There is no justification whatsoever for India to continue stockpiling nukes.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 01:13
This is exactly the point. There is no justification whatsoever for India to continue stockpiling nukes.To be fair, their strategic thinkers have decided on a 200 warhead arsenal as the optimum for their needs. As such they have about another 100 warheads to go. While I think it may be a bit overboard for deterrence purposes, it is also not the 2000 warhead arsenal that fanboys are screaming for as the minimum needed.

ambidex
07 Jul 11,, 01:43
This is exactly the point. There is no justification whatsoever for India to continue stockpiling nukes.

No your point was India has no threat whatsoever. But there is one at present at least and that is Pakistan; someway assisted by China.

For any military brain such assistance can be defined as act of aggression. Pakistani nuclear weapons are an extension of Chinese nuclear weapons. This is how India should read this calculus. I mean one can make a case out of it, not a big deal.

As far as India exercising nuclear options/war games vis a vis China is concerned then in an Ideal India vs China situation both China and India has NFU policy i.e Guns around the belts not pointed at each others, like doc said.

I think NFU policy by all is better option if it is too late to fully disarm.

P.S: Please provide a credible link that India is increasing its stockpile.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 02:23
No your point was India has no threat whatsoever. But there is one at present at least and that is Pakistan; someway assisted by China.

For any military brain such assistance can be defined as act of aggression. Pakistani nuclear weapons are an extension of Chinese nuclear weapons. This is how India should read this calculus. I mean one can make a case out of it, not a big deal.The rules of war are also very clear cut. Unless you can prove Chinese decision, ie Beijing ordering Pakistan to strike, then the usage of Chinese designs or even Chinese weapons by the Pakistanis does not constitute an Act of War by China.


As far as India exercising nuclear options/war games vis a vis China is concerned then in an Ideal India vs China situation both China and India has NFU policy i.e Guns around the belts not pointed at each others, like doc said.

I think NFU policy by all is better option if it is too late to fully disarm.Would India risk losing her entire nuclear arsenal to a conventional Chinese 1st strike? I know what the answer is.


P.S: Please provide a credible link that India is increasing its stockpile.

Indian nuclear forces, 2010 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/5/76.full)

ambidex
07 Jul 11,, 05:13
Officer of Engineers: The rules of war are also very clear cut. Unless you can prove Chinese decision, ie Beijing ordering Pakistan to strike, then the usage of Chinese designs or even Chinese weapons by the Pakistanis does not constitute an Act of War by China.


Sir,

China assisted Pakistan is writting on the wall. But why China assiated Pakistan?
And why assisting nuclear weapon programme has same gravity of conventional weapon assistance in the rule book?
Why a nuclear forensic will not advice India to punish China if Chinese devices/designs are exploding on Indian cities; tossed or implanted by Pakistan.


Would India risk losing her entire nuclear arsenal to a conventional Chinese 1st strike? I know what the answer is.


Isn't the purpose of erecting nuclear posture (without any significant threat or just for fun as many think) we have gets defeated if we fight nuclear war?
India should lose the battle/war than going nuclear or engage with them diplomatically to deescalate every time until unless she gains same conventional 1st strike parity.
I think i have just started reading K.Sunder Ji after mucking around 3 years :) ! Why once Ray said he was cry in wilderness (with due respect)?


Indian nuclear forces, 2010 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/5/76.full)

Thanks for the link.

I cannot pin point to a line which suggests that India is increasing its stockpile, but I can read that she has capability to do so. India is diversifying the delivery systems and range. May be for conventional 1st strike?

Sir,

If I have learnt from you right, and this thread then the numbers doesn't matter. ''Neither increasing, nor decreasing''.

The whole discussion has already ended on one point that it is already too late to completely disarm because of the trust deficit.

What i am trying to say is that the discussion should not be on numbers and declaring others rough only because they are increasing the stockpile.
The numbers doesn't matter, I repeat.

The discussion should be more precise on discussing the intentions, track record and nuclear doctrines of different nations and unique cases like Pakistan where we have possibility of her acting like a nuclear proxy of someone else.

Rant mode on: NPT is incomplete and a non-starter for any country even in future who may feel threatened by some another nuclear power and may opt to go nuclear irrespective of it may have singed NPT, without caring much of sanctions. Iran is an example, and we do not know if they already have the weapon without testing. One case i can innocently predict would be Taiwan who has an expertise and requisite skilled population to start nuclear weapon programme. I read somewhere that they are not under USA's nuclear umbrella anymore, but are under conventional umbrella for sure. Whether Ukraine will be able to join NATO or survive under Russian shadow or try to go nuclear is my very very wild imagination.

Therefore it should be more about dealing with the intention and making a mix of both NTP and NFU regime. I assume India, Pakistan and Israel will sign it without a thought thus more confidence will prevail; to start with.

Regards

ambidex
07 Jul 11,, 05:41
I am not able to find an appropriate thread and i hate opening new. Please spare me if the following link is not relevant here. Please make it relevant if you guys can :).

Letter from North Korean official to A.Q. Khan - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/north-korea-letter.html)

More proliferation means more risk of nuclear strike by a rough nation? So NTP should stay? Good that i made last time changes in my above post and suggested to keep both NTP and NFU than only endorsing NFU:tongue:.

vsdoc
07 Jul 11,, 05:49
Indian nuclear forces, 2010 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/5/76.full)

Thanks for the link sir.

I've been meaning to ask - does having the capability of launching nuclear missiles from a nuclear submarine effectively increase the range of your nuclear deterrence? Say from an Agni III to Agni V+ (5000+ km) level? Or does it go further - say from an Agni V to potentially a Surya I (8000+ km) level? What is the limiting factor here? Coming up for air? Coming back to change the crew? I am assuming detection is off the table - am I correct?

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 06:49
Sir,

China assisted Pakistan is writting on the wall. But why China assiated Pakistan?
And why assisting nuclear weapon programme has same gravity of conventional weapon assistance in the rule book? Mainly because we don't have a new rule book. Look, the rule book (ie NPT) says India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea (and China until she signed the NPT) were rouge nuclear weapons powers. A new rule was added (ie India's NSG Exemption) that says they are no longer rouge. Until those new rules get written, we can only apply the old ones whether they work or not.

That being said, these rules are just pieces of paper. There is nothing to stop India from going crazy by attacking China for giving Pakistan the bomb and the US for giving Pakistan the F-16s to deliver the bomb. India just have to be prepare to accept the consequences.


Why a nuclear forensic will not advice India to punish China if Chinese devices/designs are exploding on Indian cities; tossed or implanted by Pakistan.Pakistani devices have long since evolved from their Chinese ancestry. The Chinese have also long since abandon those devices in favour of more compact and powerful ones. The blueprints found in Switzerland were for devices half the size of their Chinese ancestors and the Chinese have long since moved off to Pu devices with much more control and fusing that is beyond anything Pakistan has.


Isn't the purpose of erecting nuclear posture (without any significant threat or just for fun as many think) we have gets defeated if we fight nuclear war?
India should lose the battle/war than going nuclear or engage with them diplomatically to deescalate every time until unless she gains same conventional 1st strike parity.As long as the Chinese don't resort to nukes, neither will India. In fact, India is quite prepared to lose her entire nuclear arsenal as long as the Chinese stay conventional.

And there is brilliance in this, absolute brilliance. Right, now the Chinese have about 2000 conventional missiles, most aimed at Taiwan. To achieve a 1st strike capability against India, China would have to target the delivery vehicles (about 2 regiments). At 3 to 5 missiles per target, that's 180 to 300 missiles the Chinese have lost before anything else.

And since India was not going to use nukes anyways, she lost no combat effectiveness while the Chinese just lost several hundred missiles.


I think i have just started reading K.Sunder Ji after mucking around 3 years :) ! Why once Ray said he was cry in wilderness (with due respect)?The man's brilliance was hard for his peers to see. I mean, Deterrence is not war fighting. Can you actually imagine this concept? I don't think I could have understood it even 15 years ago.


I cannot pin point to a line which suggests that India is increasing its stockpile, but I can read that she has capability to do so. India is diversifying the delivery systems and range. May be for conventional 1st strike?It is suggested. With the expansion of the nuclear delivery systems is the assumption of an expansion of nuclear inventory.

There are a few things down the pipeline that would demand new and better warheads than the current stock. The SLBM would demand a bigger yield (being less accurate) than anything India has produced or tested. There is a suggestion that India has learned enough from its mistakes but confidence is not high.


The whole discussion has already ended on one point that it is already too late to completely disarm because of the trust deficit.That's because you're looking at this from the trust deficit PoV. Do you know why we've abandoned tac nukes? It is not out of some holy revelation. It is because conventional systems have caught up and is capable of delivering equivalent results. It used to be that we needed a nuke to kill 1000 men in less than a second. Now, we can spread 1000 pieces of shrapnel in the same amount of time. One MRLS truck has the equivalent killing power as an HONEST JOHN delivering a tac nuke.

By the same token, 750 cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad the 1st day of the war. The combat effectiveness was better than a nuke and a lot less collateral damage ... and no political stigma.


What i am trying to say is that the discussion should not be on numbers and declaring others rough only because they are increasing the stockpile.
The numbers doesn't matter, I repeat.

The discussion should be more precise on discussing the intentions, track record and nuclear doctrines of different nations and unique cases like Pakistan where we have possibility of her acting like a nuclear proxy of someone else.But numbers is part of the game.

China and India manages their strategy only because they have two big guys still facing each other. There's no way in hell either can even hope to do any meaningful exchange with the other two. The disparity in numbers is just too great. In the 1970s, it was estimated that China can at best land two nukes in the Soviet Far East. Moscow would not be touched. In the meantime, the Soviets would have blanketed Lop Nor with nukes and Beijing would be up in a Mushroom cloud.

However, if Moscow took on China, she cannot take on the US and thus, why they asked the US for their reaction. Whatever the outcome, Moscow needed time to rebuild her forces, time the US may not give her.

Thus, China deterred Moscow not because she can take down Moscow, not even taking her down while fighting but because it left Moscow open for the US.

India enters this arena with the exact same tools. For China to take out India with nukes mean she just lost her deterrence against Russia and the US.


Rant mode on: NPT is incomplete and a non-starter for any country even in future who may feel threatened by some another nuclear power and may opt to go nuclear irrespective of it may have singed NPT, without caring much of sanctions. Iran is an example, and we do not know if they already have the weapon without testing.You don't need to test a gun type nuke but getting it small enough to put on a rocket is a whole another question ... and no guarrantees that it will work ... not even if it was built by the Americans. Gun type nukes are notoriously unpredictable.


Therefore it should be more about dealing with the intention and making a mix of both NTP and NFU regime. I assume India, Pakistan and Israel will sign it without a thought thus more confidence will prevail; to start with.

RegardsThe NPT is still the current rule book for better or for worst but there are better arms control initiatives out there that do not rely on the NPT. The Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty is one such initiative that does not count on the NPT.


I've been meaning to ask - does having the capability of launching nuclear missiles from a nuclear submarine effectively increase the range of your nuclear deterrence? Say from an Agni III to Agni V+ (5000+ km) level? Or does it go further - say from an Agni V to potentially a Surya I (8000+ km) level?Depends on how far is your target. At 5000 kms and launched from Indian brown waters (I will describe why later), the only non-Pakistani/non-Chinese targets are a bunch of penguins or some mud huts the other side of Africa. At 8000 kms, you could reach anywhere across the globe but hitting your target is another question. Range and accuracy often work against each other. City busting perhaps but forget taking out an airbase.


What is the limiting factor here? Coming up for air? Coming back to change the crew? I am assuming detection is off the table - am I correct?Indian SSBNs would have to operate (initially at least) like their Soviet and Chinese counterparts. Behind a protection flotilla that an enemy navy would have to blast through in order to get to the SSBN. Hopefully, you could launch before then. With such, you don't worry about detection. The enemy knows where you are. You just have to make sure you launch before your protection is sunk.

It's a wise strategy. The Americans would have collected every Indian submarine acoustic signature before the InN signed their acceptance of the boat.

vsdoc
07 Jul 11,, 07:35
Depends on how far is your target. At 5000 kms and launched from Indian brown waters (I will describe why later), the only non-Pakistani/non-Chinese targets are a bunch of penguins or some mud huts the other side of Africa. At 8000 kms, you could reach anywhere across the globe but hitting your target is another question. Range and accuracy often work against each other. City busting perhaps but forget taking out an airbase.

Indian SSBNs would have to operate (initially at least) like their Soviet and Chinese counterparts. Behind a protection flotilla that an enemy navy would have to blast through in order to get to the SSBN. Hopefully, you could launch before then. With such, you don't worry about detection. The enemy knows where you are. You just have to make sure you launch before your protection is sunk.

It's a wise strategy. The Americans would have collected every Indian submarine acoustic signature before the InN signed their acceptance of the boat.

Ok, so what you are saying nixes my impression that a nuclear submarine at depth is virtually impossible to detect. And that the chances of detection increase only when she comes up sub-surface to fire - which would then be presumably too late. If you need a flotilla heralding your presence by its protective blanket, then I do not understand what advantage a nuclear submarine gives the nation having one as part of its triad. Especially when you say that their acoustic signatures are available and capture-able?

My question with regard to range was slightly different - and linked to the above. It pre-supposed difficulty/delay in detection - and extended range of the sub - as a pre-delivery vehicle. I mean what one reads about "lone wolf" boomers skulking around in international waters thousands of kilometers from home for extended periods of time, waiting, patrolling. So the sub covers 3000 kms underwater from base and then launches a 5000 km missile - making it effectively and virtually an 8000 km "ICBM". Without the accuracy issues of the longer range "true" ICBMs you refereed to. That was actually the original question sir.

And it was prodded by the difficulty to comprehend the basis of a triad (in terms of nuclear subs) simply being a sort of hidden "security vault" for preservation of second strike capability closer to home. Why not put some of your nukes on satellites in orbit if such were the case? The enemy would still know where you were - but they would be tougher to reach - with presumably fewer likely to be able to identify, track and reach them in time.

Doktor
07 Jul 11,, 07:49
They're at least expanding their nuclear facilities to build new one and plus, those nukes are still tying up a few brigades for protection.
Point taken.
I originally replied to vsdoc's idea to completely go nukes-free and my thoughts were if I was Pakistani PM what other resources I have for deterrence vis-a-vis India?


The last war is a very poor indicator of the next one. The Generals of the last war are gone and their replacements have at least studied their failures and will try to avoid them.
The last generation of Pakistani generals had 3 wars to learn from, they just fail to learn the lesson ;)


Moving 10,000 to 30,000 men is way above my pay grade.
My point was, serving RCA I assume you were part of many joint exercises and you had contact with officers from around the world to collect knowledge (and wisdom) first-hand. Also, you probably had access to a lot of documents that are not available to the Pakistani generals.
To put it in another perspective. When I was in Florence for the first time I was thinking 'heck these kids here know more about the Renaissance then most professors who teach history of art'.

Deltacamelately
07 Jul 11,, 09:35
It's a wise strategy. The Americans would have collected every Indian submarine acoustic signature before the InN signed their acceptance of the boat.
Sir,

I am perplexed as you are so sure.
The Chinese did surprise the Yanks when they deliberatey surfaced. And this was when the said boat was prawling post commissioning for quite sometimes. I don't understand, why the newly commissioned boats and their commanders would NOT consider such, before cedeing their acoustics to the Yanks, Russians and sundry?

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 10:15
Sir,

I am perplexed as you are so sure.
The Chinese did surprise the Yanks when they deliberatey surfaced. And this was when the said boat was prawling post commissioning for quite sometimes.The Chinese boat was lying in ambush, ie resting on bottom and it was an old nosy SSK that the USN did not bother to put a tail on. The Americans knew it left port but it was not important enough to put a tail on. The same cannot be said about Chinese boomers.


I don't understand, why the newly commissioned boats and their commanders would NOT consider such, before cedeing their acoustics to the Yanks, Russians and sundry?Mainly because American subs are that good. The acoustics are collected outside port by American subs lying in ambush. The Russians and Chinese tried to hide their subs by following a very noisy freighter out and at times, pinging the hell out of the approaches to harbour but not once did they ever found an American sub.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 10:25
Ok, so what you are saying nixes my impression that a nuclear submarine at depth is virtually impossible to detect. And that the chances of detection increase only when she comes up sub-surface to fire - which would then be presumably too late. If you need a flotilla heralding your presence by its protective blanket, then I do not understand what advantage a nuclear submarine gives the nation having one as part of its triad. Especially when you say that their acoustic signatures are available and capture-able?Chinese and Indian home made submarines are notoriously noisy and those from Russia, the Americans have already captured their signatures.


My question with regard to range was slightly different - and linked to the above. It pre-supposed difficulty/delay in detection - and extended range of the sub - as a pre-delivery vehicle. I mean what one reads about "lone wolf" boomers skulking around in international waters thousands of kilometers from home for extended periods of time, waiting, patrolling. So the sub covers 3000 kms underwater from base and then launches a 5000 km missile - making it effectively and virtually an 8000 km "ICBM". Without the accuracy issues of the longer range "true" ICBMs you refereed to. That was actually the original question sir.Soviet lone wolf boomers in the early days have to travel to Cuba in order to have effective range on the US. There, they enjoy the protection of a Soviet squadron that is present almost all year. When Soviet SLBMs became accurate enough, they abandoned that vulnerable long transit and stay closer to home.

True lone wolf boomers belong to the Americans. Soviet ASW was not up to par in finding them.

And no, the Russians will not share their acoustics signature database and neither will the Americans, not even to their allies.


And it was prodded by the difficulty to comprehend the basis of a triad (in terms of nuclear subs) simply being a sort of hidden "security vault" for preservation of second strike capability closer to home. Why not put some of your nukes on satellites in orbit if such were the case? The enemy would still know where you were - but they would be tougher to reach - with presumably fewer likely to be able to identify, track and reach them in time.Costs and technical hurdles which prompted first the ABM and now the WISB Treaties.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 10:36
The last generation of Pakistani generals had 3 wars to learn from, they just fail to learn the lesson ;)There is no better teacher than getting your ass kicked.

vsdoc
07 Jul 11,, 10:42
There is no better teacher than getting your ass kicked.

Some states should be quadruple PhDs by now in that case. Begs the question whether its worth one big whoop ass kicking versus 3-4 tamer ones.

vsdoc
07 Jul 11,, 10:50
To be fair, their strategic thinkers have decided on a 200 warhead arsenal as the optimum for their needs. As such they have about another 100 warheads to go.

I just read a Chinese review paper on the same that puts the final number at 490-530 potential nukes on our side ultimately as the point at which we would likely stop. This is a post 2008 paper.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 11:41
I use Tellis, the most referenced authority on South Asian nuclear postures.

India's Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal | RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1127.html)

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 12:39
[QUOTE=Officer of Engineers;817624]
Hogwash. The US against Vietnam. Soviets in Afghanistan. China against Vietnam. The UK against Argentina. France against Libya. Russia against Georgia. Nuclear powers did not once even consider nukes.
QUOTE]

Sorry to poke inbetween, but please let me know sir, in case of any of the above examples, had the weaker nation not been so weak in terms of conventional weopens and given the aggressor a bloody nose or worse, handed out conventional defeat, wouldn't the aggresor be tempted to use nuke (one case I know of: UK against Argentina).
Something like if I can kill my enemy with a knife, why use a tank?? But while using a knife I realize the enemy also has knife or worse, a gun, I will be tempted to use the tank.

Doktor
07 Jul 11,, 13:01
Sorry to poke inbetween, but please let me know sir, in case of any of the above examples, had the weaker nation not been so weak in terms of conventional weopens and given the aggressor a bloody nose or worse, handed out conventional defeat, wouldn't the aggresor be tempted to use nuke (one case I know of: UK against Argentina).
Something like if I can kill my enemy with a knife, why use a tank?? But while using a knife I realize the enemy also has knife or worse, a gun, I will be tempted to use the tank.
What would you do if there was no tank? Do the same.

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 14:57
What would you do if there was no tank? Do the same.
You are talking of scenario where in spite having the tank, I don't use it and hence get killed and look stupid. Tell me weather in whole history of human race, has it ever happened that an army having superior weapons, has lost while not using his superior weapon because his enemy doesn't have them. This is morally too good to be true.

Tell me will US disarm their nukes completely if they come to know that China or Russia can defeat them in conventional warfare.

It is like why to fight with a gun when you can do so with a knife....going further, why to fight with even a knife if you can fight with your limbs.....

Doktor
07 Jul 11,, 15:01
You are talking of scenario where in spite having the tank, I don't use it and hence get killed and look stupid. Tell me weather in whole history of human race, has it ever happened that an army having superior weapons, has lost while not using his superior weapon because his enemy doesn't have them. This is morally too good to be true.

Tell me will US disarm their nukes completely if they come to know that China or Russia can defeat them in conventional warfare.

It is like why to fight with a gun when you can do so with a knife....going further, why to fight with even a knife if you can fight with your limbs.....

As OoE pointed out (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/60655-likely-reaction-rogue-state-nuclear-strike-4.html#post817935) only few posts ago.

What's with people and the wish to fight?

YellowFever
07 Jul 11,, 15:35
As OoE pointed out (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-defense-terrorism-topics/60655-likely-reaction-rogue-state-nuclear-strike-4.html#post817935) only few posts ago.

What's with people and the wish to fight?

In fairness to appu, I think the reason(s) why the superior forces lost those wars has nothing to do with the quality of their weapons, or am I missing something the Colonel tried to tell us?

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 15:45
Im not intimidated by your conceited verbose. Im a professinal in my own right, registered with a world renowned body. If you think im inferior to you im sorry for having misled you. You do not strike me as a discovery, so get off your high horse. I may not be a military professional but im not an ignoramus. I will take the word of the Col over yours anytime. There is a reason why people are escorted to quarintines upon lending at airports from suspected epidemic zones, you do not need 15 year to understand that.

Now that we have an understanding, we can continue our discussion .........


You still don't get it. Everyone is talking disarming (except for rogue states), you are on the wrong side of the discussion. The threat you are facing in not nuclear. You are headd and shoulders above Parkistan, you have enough to keep them on check. China is resorting to conventional weaponry to address its security concerns. The US has even gone to the extent of putting its own security at risk exempting any non-nuclear state from US's nuclear attack EVEN IF THEY ATTACKED THE US NONCONVENTIONALLY! When you pull in the other direction when everyone else is pulling one direction, you know who the problem is.

Again sorry to interrupt in between, I was late to the thread.
Can anyone guarantee me that China will not use nukes if in a conventional war, IA starts going down towards Tibet after repulsing PLA??
If US/Russia does guarantee that, I'm not going to take chances if I have the capability to deter Chinese nuke myself even if I know the nukes are never going to be used.

Doktor
07 Jul 11,, 15:52
Appu asked for an example with nuclear power losing to non-nuclear and not using the nukes. I think Colonel pointed that in his post. Or I am wrong?

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 17:11
Appu asked for an example with nuclear power losing to non-nuclear and not using the nukes. I think Colonel pointed that in his post. Or I am wrong?

In all the examples, the superior forces tried to defeat the weaker ones conventionally but couldn’t do so. Had it been the case that the weaker forces then somehow managed to further escalate the conflicts and tried to march down the superior forces borders, are you sure the superior forces wouldn’t have used nukes?? As I know (please correct me if I’m wrong) UK had threatened to use nukes against Argentina if the French didn’t share the codes of the Exocet missiles.

Doktor
07 Jul 11,, 17:52
Well that's how the French president explains why they gave the codes. As far as I can tell, Thatcher could've said to him Brits will boycot French beef if they don't give the codes.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 18:23
In all the examples, the superior forces tried to defeat the weaker ones conventionally but couldn’t do so. Had it been the case that the weaker forces then somehow managed to further escalate the conflicts and tried to march down the superior forces borders, are you sure the superior forces wouldn’t have used nukes?? As I know (please correct me if I’m wrong) UK had threatened to use nukes against Argentina if the French didn’t share the codes of the Exocet missiles.And if my uncle had a phaser, he would rule the world. Let's get some sense of reality here. Those forces I've listed, they won because they outbled the superior power but come on, in the case of Afghanistan, you actually think the Afghan Mujahadeen had a chance against 187 Warsaw Pact Divisions? The Warsaw Pact had more men in uniform than there were in all of Afghanistan.

The explicit threat of nuclear weapons was used against non-nuclear powers was used only twice. Eisenhower made the threat to the Chinese to get them back to the talks during the Korean War. And the US made it known that had Saddam used chems during the Kuwait War, nuclear retaliation was a certainty.

Whatever was said between Thatcher and Mitterrand was never passed to Argentina.

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 18:24
Well that's how the French president explains why they gave the codes. As far as I can tell, Thatcher could've said to him Brits will boycot French beef if they don't give the codes.

Still the question remains, if somehow Argentina managed to defeat UKN and then started sailing up the Atlantic, what do you think UK would have done??

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 18:26
Can anyone guarantee me that China will not use nukes if in a conventional war, IA starts going down towards Tibet after repulsing PLA??Can anyone guarrantee me that the InA can repulse the PLA and after that, still got the legs, arms, and stomach to march into Tibet and against fresh Chinese armies?

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 18:28
Still the question remains, if somehow Argentina managed to defeat UKN and then started sailing up the Atlantic, what do you think UK would have done??That's a comic book question.

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 18:38
That's a comic book question.

Sir, you are not getting the point. I'm not emphasizing on the real incident itself. I know Argentina would have the same chances of sailing north as India (or any other country for that matter) would have sailing west (towards US).
My point is that any force having nuke will use it if a non-nuke force has defeated it to a point that it becomes a threat on its existence.

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 18:43
Can anyone guarrantee me that the InA can repulse the PLA and after that, still got the legs, arms, and stomach to march into Tibet and against fresh Chinese armies?

The same thing I posted in post # 195. The emphasis is not on the incident itself but pointing to a hypothetical scenario to make a point.

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 18:54
And if my uncle had a phaser, he would rule the world. Let's get some sense of reality here. Those forces I've listed, they won because they outbled the superior power but come on, in the case of Afghanistan, you actually think the Afghan Mujahadeen had a chance against 187 Warsaw Pact Divisions? The Warsaw Pact had more men in uniform than there were in all of Afghanistan.

The explicit threat of nuclear weapons was used against non-nuclear powers was used only twice. Eisenhower made the threat to the Chinese to get them back to the talks during the Korean War. And the US made it known that had Saddam used chems during the Kuwait War, nuclear retaliation was a certainty.

Whatever was said between Thatcher and Mitterrand was never passed to Argentina.

There were only 2 scenarios where the threats were used because only those warranted the threat. Was there more cases, we would have seen more threats.
Generally (and thanks God for that) its the trend that the nuke haves are also conventionally and economically stronger than have-not's (doesn't include countries under nuke umbrellas). So no need of nukes.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 19:06
My point is that any force having nuke will use it if a non-nuke force has defeated it to a point that it becomes a threat on its existence.How?

appu_sen
07 Jul 11,, 19:17
How?
The question is not how but will it use or not?

Tomorrow say Srilanka (I'm taking names just for sake of better understanding) make a break through in its military research and develops a conventional weapon which India doesn't have an answer for. Srilanka desides that Tamil Nadu should be destroyed to remove the LTTE threat completely and uses its new weapon. Will India use nukes or not? Please answer me in yes or no. Not "How" this time.

Tronic
07 Jul 11,, 19:43
The question is not how but will it use or not?

Tomorrow say Srilanka (I'm taking names just for sake of better understanding) make a break through in its military research and develops a conventional weapon which India doesn't have an answer for. Srilanka desides that Tamil Nadu should be destroyed to remove the LTTE threat completely and uses its new weapon. Will India use nukes or not? Please answer me in yes or no. Not "How" this time.

No.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 19:43
The question is not how but will it use or not?I suppose if the West was to meet 14 trillion Mongol Horsemen armed with bows and swords that after we exhausted all our ammunition and seeing city after city being put to the knife that we would start using nukes on them. But you have to convince me that they can get past the lines of M113 Gavins.

Tronic
07 Jul 11,, 19:50
Sri Lanka will than make a breakthrough and produce the Gavin Mark 2. No chance. lollll. I would run for those nukes! :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 11,, 20:07
Tough call. You pretty well have to hit the GAVIN head on with a nuke to stop it and even then, the crew would survive.

Tronic
07 Jul 11,, 20:38
Tough call. You pretty well have to hit the GAVIN head on with a nuke to stop it and even then, the crew would survive.

Well than obviously it means we need to get those damn Sri Lankans before they can put the Gavin on the production lines!! This world is run by such stupid leaders. :rolleyes: Start filling up the tanks on those rockets!! :biggrin:

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 05:16
No.

How about If she desides to fly the lion flag at Red Fort. And please again answer with Yes or No not How.

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 05:24
I know the questions I have put up are not practical and will not happen in a 1000 years. But the point I was trying to make was that nukes are deterrent against other nuke powers. It may becomes warfighting against non-nuke powers when in dire circumstances (may be when the nuke have starts getting defeated on their own soil).
One more question, not stupid this time, do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have happened if the Japs too had their own nuke and capability to land them on CONUS?

Tronic
08 Jul 11,, 07:04
How about If she desides to fly the lion flag at Red Fort. And please again answer with Yes or No not How.

No.

Doktor
08 Jul 11,, 07:09
I know the questions I have put up are not practical and will not happen in a 1000 years. But the point I was trying to make was that nukes are deterrent against other nuke powers. It may becomes warfighting against non-nuke powers when in dire circumstances (may be when the nuke have starts getting defeated on their own soil).
One more question, not stupid this time, do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have happened if the Japs too had their own nuke and capability to land them on CONUS?

Let me ask you a better one. Do you think Pearl Harbor would have happened if both USA and Japan had the capability to nuke each other? Even so, do you think Japs would nuke CONUS instead of bombing Pearl?

Tronic
08 Jul 11,, 07:18
It may becomes warfighting against non-nuke powers when in dire circumstances (may be when the nuke have starts getting defeated on their own soil).

If an army manages to march upto Delhi or Beijing, than they loose. period. Letting nukes fly will not save them.

Maeda Toshiie
08 Jul 11,, 07:33
Not trying to derail, but I am curious about the case of Israel. I know that current geopolitics indicate that none of Israel's neighbours are able to defeat the IDF by any conventional means, nor is there any political will to. Turning back the clock to 1973, Israel was apparently quite willing to deploy nukes then if their backs were really against the wall. I think Israel's nuclear weapons did go to alert during the '90 Gulf War?

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 08:49
Let me ask you a better one. Do you think Pearl Harbor would have happened if both USA and Japan had the capability to nuke each other? Even so, do you think Japs would nuke CONUS instead of bombing Pearl?

According to me if both had nukes, neither Pearl Harbour nor Hiroshima/Nagasaki would have happened. The deterrance would have worked. But since Japs didn't have nuke and were almost at par with US conventionally, US nukes were not deterrant (US could have very well exploded it on sea to show the world its power) but war fighting.

One more question, if US were to have nukes by say 1941-42, would they have used it on Germany (either directly or by giving it to Britain)?

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 09:00
If an army manages to march upto Delhi or Beijing, than they loose. period. Letting nukes fly will not save them.

Letting nukes fly only in one direction (the other party doesn't have them) will definitely save them. India/CHina (nuke haves) won't even wait till the enemy has reached Delhi/Beijing (nuke haves capitals).

We don't see many examples of this secnario which I'm talking about because as I've said earlier, normally nuke haves have superior conventional forces than nuke have-nots (exclude nations under nuke umbrella).

Some cases where only one side had nuke but conventionally almost at par: UK vs Argentina (only for Exocet missiles), Israel vs Arabs (~1970s) and US vs Japan (WW2) and in all these cases we saw a threat or real use of nuke.

Officer of Engineers
08 Jul 11,, 10:33
Idiotic scenarios. Idiotic questions. Idiotic conclusions. Completely non-real and comic book deduction with no place in true research and the conclusion not worth toilet paper.

1979
08 Jul 11,, 11:12
Letting nukes fly only in one direction (the other party doesn't have them) will definitely save them.

no, it will only make the other guys blood thirsty.

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 12:42
Idiotic scenarios. Idiotic questions. Idiotic conclusions. Completely non-real and comic book deduction with no place in true research and the conclusion not worth toilet paper.

So what is your conclusion vis-a-vis a force with nuke vs force without nuke??
(some body said - there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers;) Please don't ever say a question is stupid or idotic....many great discoveries and inventions are due to stupid/idotic questions:cool: Answer them with sound logic. In this case you may say that logic says that this kind of scnario may never happen and I know that and will accept that, but plainly says that a scenario is idotic and not giving a straight answer is not helping anybody.)

Tronic: atleast you have said NO both the times.

appu_sen
08 Jul 11,, 12:51
no, it will only make the other guys blood thirsty.

The enemy is already thretening to kill me (defeating me on my own land), what more can he do than that. By nuking him, I will make him stop and turn back. He doesn't have a nuke to throw back so he has to return otherwise his cost of victory will be too high to bear. Just my "idiotic" thought.........

Maeda Toshiie
08 Jul 11,, 13:05
The enemy is already thretening to kill me (defeating me on my own land), what more can he do than that. By nuking him, I will make him stop and turn back. He doesn't have a nuke to throw back so he has to return otherwise his cost of victory will be too high to bear. Just my "idiotic" thought.........

Rubbish. Compare the ferocity exhibited by both sides on the Eastern Front and then compare to what happened in other theatres b/w Nazi Germany and the Western members of the Allies. The Germans outright prefer to surrender to the Americans/ Britsh over surrendering to the Soviets...

Unless you have sufficient nukes to cripple him/ allow someone else to finish him off, it will only wound him and anger him to lash out even more. And if you have enough nukes to do that, it is deterrence and he would not have invaded in the first place...

A defeated nation is not the end of the story. Terms of surrender can be negotiated and many conquered nations within history are known to regain independence later. Exploding a few nukes over his head will only invite retribution that will take generations to recover from.

1979
08 Jul 11,, 13:31
what more can he do than that

:frown:

Officer of Engineers
08 Jul 11,, 14:32
So what is your conclusion vis-a-vis a force with nuke vs force without nuke??That you did not read a single post on this thread.


some body said - there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers;)No, there are childish questions with childish answers and childish attitudes that refuses to listen to adult answers.


Please don't ever say a question is stupid or idotic....many great discoveries and inventions are due to stupid/idotic questions:cool: Answer them with sound logic. In this case you may say that logic says that this kind of scnario may never happen and I know that and will accept that, but plainly says that a scenario is idotic and not giving a straight answer is not helping anybody.)It is damned idiotic and damned stupid when you refuse to accept the answer and still insists on this idiotic and stupid scenario.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jul 11,, 13:32
Some cases where only one side had nuke but conventionally almost at par: UK vs Argentina (only for Exocet missiles), Israel vs Arabs (~1970s) and US vs Japan (WW2) and in all these cases we saw a threat or real use of nuke.Japan was not on par with the US. Not even close. There is no such thing as at par. Otherwise, there would have been a tie and no victor.