PDA

View Full Version : Some Brainstorming Help Needed



bigross86
13 Jan 12,, 11:58
I was speaking with one of my best friends yesterday, she needs to write a paper for one of her PoliSci classes, the objective is for the US to somehow get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nuclear weapons, all means are Kosher.

We fiddled around a bit with enlisting Russia and China into a complete and total isolation of the two countries and with nuking the shit out of Kashmir and then destroying India's carriers and all offensive weaponry that can reach the CONUS, but neither of those really have much merit to them.

Another idea she came up with is for the US to somehow manipulate the Indian, Pakistani and Chinese economies so that they are entwined in each other without the countries realizing that and then threatening to topple the house of cards. She's hoping that a bad case of rational thinking will break out and they'll realize that as long as they're intertwined economically, nukes are bad for business.

=======================================

What I'm wondering is, can you guys come up with a couple more hypothetical ideas in how to get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nukes? All means acceptable, but just remember that every single act has consequences.

Mihais
13 Jan 12,, 12:53
For once,both could fire theirs at each other.They won't have them anymore,so is disarmament,done by their own free will(the best way).:rolleyes:

You can have all the interdependency you like.Nukes alone only guarantee the survival of the current regimes in the 3 nations faced with an direct external threat.They don't safeguard the regime in front of internal distress and they don't prevent a gradual decline in international political and economic status.So,what's the real fuss about their nukes?

Btw,what your collegue has to say about the presumed Israeli nukes?Since none of us laymans knows for sure the truth about their existence it's all hypothetical.

bigross86
13 Jan 12,, 12:58
What nukes? Israel has never admitted that they have nukes, and I've never seen any of them, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

From what I understand the main goal is to disarm Pakistan above all, because they have the weakest army and the most motivation to go rogue. India and China might be belligerent and pains in the asses, but the belief (at least as far as her paper was given) is that they're not quite dumb or desperate enough to launch. With Pakistan under influence from radical Muslim groups in country (and perhaps in gov't as well), they are not seen as a stable force in the region

Mihais
13 Jan 12,, 13:36
Hey,wrt Israeli nukes it's hypothetical.I said so.

Now,you don't send the Peace Corp to Islamic fundamentalists and ask them nicely.You can't even entice the bastards with long term benefits of economic cooperation and such.If they were interested in this and able to mentally calculate the cost/benefits of such an approach,they wouldn't be radicals in the first place.

Either their nukes can be taken out by some sort of preemptive action or we'd have to live with detterence and hope it's enough.

bigross86
13 Jan 12,, 13:39
Like I said, according to the guidelines for the paper, deterrence has been deemed to no longer be reliable. Militarily is an option, but the question is, can you come up with some other method?

USSWisconsin
13 Jan 12,, 14:53
Two things

On Israeli Nukes: What were those concentric metal spheres that appeared in the press a few decades ago? They seemed rather suspicious to me.

On the main question: An ugly approach - using covert means to initiate a nuclear war - perhaps by smuggling a nuclear device into a disputed region like Kashmir and setting it off in a way that made both sides believe the other had attacked them, thereby igniting a nuclear exchange that decimates both countries and depletes these arsenals. This of course is a diabolical and terrible solution to this "problem". Whoever did this would make all the monsterous acts of the 20th century look feeble by comparison. Instead of Godwin's law being envoked, some new version of that with this perpetrator of the greatest man made holocaust ever as the unmentionable party would probably emerge - if our world remained intact enough for this to happen.

With modern weapons now capable of achieving most of the same objectives that nukes have historically provided, it is a reasonable hope that the nukes might become obsolete due to their immense cost and general unusability. Large thermobaric weapons might offer a greater deterant - since their use would be more feasible, leading to greater deterence. City busting weapons of this type are now possible, and if used would not necessarily lead to a radioactive fallout poisoning of the world as nukes have threatened to do. However, the cost in human suffering and lost lives might be quite similar in a global exchange.

ace16807
15 Jan 12,, 06:02
I know you say "all means are kosher", but what's the course title? What's the actual prompt, word for word? I suspect a paper revolving around a military operation will be perceived as having "missed the point" of the course and the subject material. It's all well and good to have this discussion among ourselves here but I would highly advise against applying thoughts that come up here to a paper, especially if parameters that exist for the paper (be they formal or informal) aren't considered.

zraver
15 Jan 12,, 12:30
What I'm wondering is, can you guys come up with a couple more hypothetical ideas in how to get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nukes? All means acceptable, but just remember that every single act has consequences.

Sino-US no first use treaty, no IRBM+ treaty. China gets to divert the money spent on the bigger missiles and her nuclear program into other areas, the threat of an American nuclear strike goes away. Anyway however its done, on what ever terms. China can't disarm unless India does, and India won't unless Pakistan does, so the US puts Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella and enters a NW sharing agreement for 10 years (US weapons Pakistani delivery platforms), Russia does the same for India and also inspects Chinese nuclear sites. All parties create a joint monitoring team to inspect or monitor each other. US provides India with real time spy sat footage of Pakistan and vice verse for example. Pakistani nuclear materials sold to the US, Indian nuclear materials sold to Russia, Chinese nuclear materials reprocessed as reactor fuel.

nvishal
15 Jan 12,, 15:25
What I'm wondering is, can you guys come up with a couple more hypothetical ideas in how to get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nukes?
This is a very simple minded thought.

The threat of accountability is why you won't find civilian yahoos assembling and detonating a nuclear bomb just like any other crude bomb. Yes, it can become a possibility if you push it that far. If america and israel are still game enough, go strike the pakistani nuclear facilities and bring on the new times.

jtbv
15 Jan 12,, 19:26
I am interested in the name of the study that your friend needs to write this paper for, could you tell me?

Tronic
15 Jan 12,, 22:02
Zrav,


China can't disarm unless India does, and India won't unless Pakistan does, so the US puts Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella and enters a NW sharing agreement for 10 years (US weapons Pakistani delivery platforms),Russia does the same for India and also inspects Chinese nuclear sites. All parties create a joint monitoring team to inspect or monitor each other. US provides India with real time spy sat footage of Pakistan and vice verse for example. Pakistani nuclear materials sold to the US, Indian nuclear materials sold to Russia, Chinese nuclear materials reprocessed as reactor fuel.


India's leaders had planned to go nuclear even before the country gained independence. Its nuclear program dates back to the 1950s, while its nuclear weapons program started in the 60s. It had little to do with Pakistan. India has repeatedly stated that it has no intentions on disarming for as long as other nations continue to hold on to their nukes (and by that they mean the P5, not Pakistan). India wants the nuclear NPT nations to follow through with article 6 of the NPT, for it to disarm. Not wanting to live in a world of haves and have nots, it is the main reason India did not sign the NPT and went on to develop nukes. Pakistan or no Pakistan, India would have gone nuclear either way and she won't disarm until the rest of the world does.

tgbyhn
15 Jan 12,, 22:40
How does Indian-Pakistani disarmament in any way address the strategic situation of India vis-a-vis China?

zraver
16 Jan 12,, 23:48
Zrav,
India's leaders had planned to go nuclear even before the country gained independence. Its nuclear program dates back to the 1950s, while its nuclear weapons program started in the 60s. It had little to do with Pakistan. India has repeatedly stated that it has no intentions on disarming for as long as other nations continue to hold on to their nukes (and by that they mean the P5, not Pakistan). India wants the nuclear NPT nations to follow through with article 6 of the NPT, for it to disarm. Not wanting to live in a world of haves and have nots, it is the main reason India did not sign the NPT and went on to develop nukes. Pakistan or no Pakistan, India would have gone nuclear either way and she won't disarm until the rest of the world does.

She will disarm the day it pays more to be a former NWS than a NWS state, same goes for all the NWS. Either a technology renders them as effective as pike vs tanks or some other shift makes nukes a bad thing to have.

DOR
17 Jan 12,, 02:25
Take a page from the Burma sanctions: Ban trade and investment, no travel to US-friendly countries for government and military leaders, kids aren't allowed to go to school overseas and so forth.

Since there is a current example of this approach yielding some small gains, and the untimate outcome is still to come, the teacher can't complain that it is unrealistic or doesn't work.

lemontree
18 Jan 12,, 05:24
Bigross,
Your friend needs to understand that Indian nukes are not Pakistan centric. We went nuclear due to Chinese threats and nuclear blackmail. So your friend would have to re-orient her perception of the issues at hand.

bigross86
18 Jan 12,, 09:28
She knows that, which is part of the challenge of the paper...

DOR
19 Jan 12,, 02:07
It seems the moderators are still reviewing my suggestion for this project.
Can't understand why.

Double Edge
21 Jan 12,, 21:29
Like I said, according to the guidelines for the paper, deterrence has been deemed to no longer be reliable.
Explain why ?

If deterrence, that is to say nuclear deterrence in particular is no longer reliable against Pakistan then the consequences are omnious for its neighbours and in turn for Pakistan as likewise their own nukes won't protect them either. This is tantamount to overturning the thinking of Generals Nie Rhongzhen & Sundarji who shaped the deterrence doctrines of their respective countries and in turn every other deterence power out there including Israel except for the US & Russia.

For the last five years i've been hearing in India how Pakistan has either failed, is failing or will fail and from the west how Pakistan is going to take the rest of the world with them when that eventually happens.

This is old news, and appears to be the sole premise on which this paper rests :)

Deltacamelately
27 Jan 12,, 08:38
Why does the paper assumes intent on part of the Indians or Chinese in the first place, to hit CONUS? A military solution to a threat can be difficult to achieve, if devoid of the actual threat perception and must factor the threat elements at play. Dillydallying around notions of nuking the entire place, destroying carriers etc are fine as long as the real outcomes are factored well, with rationality though.

Aah...but then the fine line between reality and fantasy.....

Double Edge
29 Jan 12,, 01:58
We went nuclear due to Chinese threats and nuclear blackmail.
But China won't use their nukes on us as we never plan to go to Beijing.

We're not going to use our nukes on China either because they're not going to march to Delhi anytime soon. They can dump a load of missiles on us but thats not the same as boots on the ground. Maybe if there were no Himalayas and instead some plains seperating our two countries, otherwise its hard to see.

We went nuclear as a result of the US after '71. Nixon threatened to nuke us. Now between '62 & '71 there was ample opportunity to do a test but it was continually put off. If it was due to the Chinese we should have tested much earlier ie the 60's.

If we've got nukes they're to protect us from any nation attmepting a regime change on us, presently there are only two capable, the US or Russia. There is no Chinese or Pakistani nuclear blackmail.

Pakistan's nukes are directed at us because we have the ability to march to Islamabad. If we don't do that they'll never use them either.

Double Edge
29 Jan 12,, 02:21
Let me take another swipe at this


Like I said, according to the guidelines for the paper, deterrence has been deemed to no longer be reliable. Militarily is an option, but the question is, can you come up with some other method?
So the given is that we are dealing with an irrational regime in Pakistan. This is the only possibility where deterrence fails.

India would have the biggest problem to deal with in that case because we will be first on the firing line.

What do we do ?

We could wait for them to become belligerent and start a war and then carry it through to its conclusion. That is the most costly option.

Before that happens there will be lots of appeasement but nothing will happen unless the other side fires the first shot.

Trying to get India to disarm will not happen without a fight. It would make an already difficult problem a great deal worse. Better would be to cooperate wth India and together deal with the belligerent. The costs here will be on solely on India because we will be absorbing anything that comes across.

Double Edge
29 Jan 12,, 02:29
Another idea she came up with is for the US to somehow manipulate the Indian, Pakistani and Chinese economies so that they are entwined in each other without the countries realizing that and then threatening to topple the house of cards.
What house of cards are you going to topple here ?

India has been trying to do more trade with Pakistan but everytime we get something going some terrorist incident or other puts a freeze on it. A lot of stop start.

Trade with China is easy but the problem is we want to sell more finished products than raw materials. We're not confident enough to do more trade because we cannot balance it out. It would be a Chinese rout. So trade tariffs will be high.

In the end being each others biggest trading partner isn't enough to prevent a war should the conditions arise. It did not stop France & Germany in WW1.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 12,, 04:03
Bigross,
Your friend needs to understand that Indian nukes are not Pakistan centric. We went nuclear due to Chinese threats and nuclear blackmail. So your friend would have to re-orient her perception of the issues at hand.Captain, I am aware of the Indian stance but was there ever an incident that could be perceived as a Chinese threat or blackmail. I know of two incidences with Chinese officers mouthing off (and getting punished for it) but that's vis-a-vi the US (ie trading Taipei for LA, and nuclear attack on the US should be considered an option).

Was there some veiled threats (such as the US implicit threat against Saddam's use of chems during both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars) by some know nothing bureaucrat?

Because I cannot find one situation where the Chinese actually moved targeted India with nukes or even gave the order for consideration.

Deltacamelately
29 Jan 12,, 08:54
Captain, I am aware of the Indian stance but was there ever an incident that could be perceived as a Chinese threat or blackmail. I know of two incidences with Chinese officers mouthing off (and getting punished for it) but that's vis-a-vi the US (ie trading Taipei for LA, and nuclear attack on the US should be considered an option).

Was there some veiled threats (such as the US implicit threat against Saddam's use of chems during both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars) by some know nothing bureaucrat?

Because I cannot find one situation where the Chinese actually moved targeted India with nukes or even gave the order for consideration.
Sir,

The conventional imbalance comes to play.

The InA doesn't respects the PA's capability to impose conventional superiority.
The InA more than respects the PLA'e capability to try impose conventional superiority, hence the Chinese oriented deterence mindset.

antimony
04 Feb 12,, 05:56
Sino-US no first use treaty, no IRBM+ treaty. China gets to divert the money spent on the bigger missiles and her nuclear program into other areas, the threat of an American nuclear strike goes away. Anyway however its done, on what ever terms. China can't disarm unless India does, and India won't unless Pakistan does, so the US puts Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella and enters a NW sharing agreement for 10 years (US weapons Pakistani delivery platforms), Russia does the same for India and also inspects Chinese nuclear sites. All parties create a joint monitoring team to inspect or monitor each other. US provides India with real time spy sat footage of Pakistan and vice verse for example. Pakistani nuclear materials sold to the US, Indian nuclear materials sold to Russia, Chinese nuclear materials reprocessed as reactor fuel.

This is not the seventies. India's integration with the West, specifically with the Us has grown by leaps and bounds through gov yo gov, people to people and B2B exchanges while our relationship with post communist Russia has stagnated.

I am not sure it would be easy for India to go back to Russia's embrace, instead of lobbying the US through various means.

qnextt
15 Mar 12,, 00:43
I don't see that any of the above discussion has looked at the possibility of China starting a border war with India, and the chance of the escalation of that conflict then affecting the entire region. That is a very good possibility.

China likes to claim that various regions have been "Chinese" since antiquity, and its national leaders feel that that is justification enough for military action.

xinhui
15 Mar 12,, 00:49
are you saying that the Chinese leaders would risk all their trade in that region for some barren hills? Which is more risky for the Chinese leader, millions of unemployed or not reclaim some land that in status quo since 1962?

lemontree
16 Mar 12,, 06:03
are you saying that the Chinese leaders would risk all their trade in that region for some barren hills? Which is more risky for the Chinese leader, millions of unemployed or not reclaim some land that in status quo since 1962?
Andy,
The Chinese are not interested in Arunachal Pradesh. It is of no strategic value to them. For India it is a buffer zone.
The Chinese needed Aksai Chin for the road to Xinjiang.

They are more than willing to risk trade for that road.

Stitch
16 Mar 12,, 06:10
What I'm wondering is, can you guys come up with a couple more hypothetical ideas in how to get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nukes? All means acceptable, but just remember that every single act has consequences.

Simple. Get India & Pakistan to use all of their nukes ON EACH OTHER; no more nukes, no problem. The only problem is getting the war started without leaving your fingerprints; THAT'S the creative part.

Other than that, I can't think of a way to get EITHER country to voluntarily disarm.

Doktor
16 Mar 12,, 09:15
Simple. Get India & Pakistan to use all of their nukes ON EACH OTHER; no more nukes, no problem. The only problem is getting the war started without leaving your fingerprints; THAT'S the creative part.
Gotta wonder which way the wind will blow when that happens.


Other than that, I can't think of a way to get EITHER country to voluntarily disarm.

Park 6-7 CVGs in the neighborhood, and press them hard to demobilize. Stop aid, trade, sanction those who still trade... similar to Iran.

Oh and secure funds to do it for few decades:cool:

n21
13 Apr 12,, 15:57
Simple. Get India & Pakistan to use all of their nukes ON EACH OTHER; no more nukes, no problem. The only problem is getting the war started without leaving your fingerprints; THAT'S the creative part.

Other than that, I can't think of a way to get EITHER country to voluntarily disarm.

My oponion, with the use of nukes, both the countries will consider these weapons as legit warfighting tools. Using nukes does not destroy the capabilities, nor the technical know how.

They will just rebuilt it. Ofcourse, there is a huge question if India and Pakistan will be allowed to rebuilt it.

TopHatter
13 Apr 12,, 18:50
It seems the moderators are still reviewing my suggestion for this project.
Can't understand why.

What? :confused:


Park 6-7 CVGs in the neighborhood

Those numbers are going to be very hard to come by.

Doktor
13 Apr 12,, 18:52
What? :confused:
+1.


Those numbers are going to be very hard to come by.
I know.