PDA

View Full Version : BJP puts 'no first use' nuclear policy in doubt



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

commander
08 Apr 14,, 06:26
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), widely tipped to form the next government, pledged on Monday to revise the India's nuclear doctrine, whose central principle is that New Delhi (http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/new-delhi) would not be first to use atomic weapons in a conflict.


Unveiling its election manifesto, the party gave no details, but sources involved in drafting the document said the "no-first-use" policy introduced after India conducted a series of nuclear tests in 1998 would be reconsidered.
Arch-rival Pakistan, which responded within weeks that year by conducting tests of its own, does not profess "no first use".


The BJP, which was in power at the time of underground blasts, appears to be on the cusp of returning to government under the leadership of Narendra Modi, (http://www.hindustantimes.com/specials/AllaboutNarendraModi/spl3-lid.aspx) many expect would adopt a muscular foreign policy.
The BJP made no mention of reviewing nuclear policy in its manifesto for the previous elections in 2009.
Opinion polls have consistently shown that the BJP will emerge as the biggest party in the lok sabha elections that began today. They suggest that, while the party is likely to fall short of the majority needed to rule on its own, it would have the best chance to form a coalition government.
Two aides to Modi told Reuters in the run-up to the vote that if he becomes prime minister, India would get tougher in territorial disputes with China and more robust with Pakistan over attacks by Islamist militants based there.
In its manifesto, the party said it would seek friendly relations with neighbours, but - without naming any country - vowed to "deal with cross-border terrorism with a firm hand" and take a "strong stand and steps" when required.
India adopted a no-first-use policy at a time when it was under pressure from punitive embargoes by Western nations for its nuclear tests, but since then it has been unofficially accepted as a nuclear power.
The United States struck a deal with New Delhi in 2008 to give it access to civilian nuclear technology as well as finance even while it carried on with its weapon programme.
The no-first-use policy was based on a premise that India would retaliate so massively against a nuclear strike that an enemy would not contemplate such a move in the first place.
However, a source who advises the BJP said there has been significant debate in recent years about being bound to the policy given the advances of Pakistan's nuclear capability.
He said Pakistan's nuclear inventory may have already overtaken that of its neighbour, and it has claimed progress in miniaturisation of weapons for use on the battlefield.
"Do we need tactical weapons? This issue was never raised and discussed because at the time it was not a concern." said another source involved in drawing up the manifesto.
"MAD" doctrine
Murli Manohar Joshi, head of a committee that framed the BJP's nuclear policy, declined to spell out whether no-first-use could be discarded. "Read the manifesto," he told Reuters. "It has to be in sync with geostrategic conditions."
There was no immediate reaction from the Pakistan government or its military, which controls foreign and defence policy.
A former Pakistani national security adviser, retired Major-General Mahmud Ali Durrani, said he would not be concerned if India revised the central tenet of its nuclear doctrine.
"I don't think it will be of great consequence," he said. "The nuclear doctrine here is MAD (mutually assured destruction). If one side does it, the other side has enough to cause unacceptable damage in response."
Durrani said there was more concern in Pakistan about the "overall attitude" of Modi, who was chief minister of Gujarat (http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/gujarat) in 2002 when more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were slaughtered in mob violence.
Modi has always vehemently denied that he allowed, or even encouraged, the bloodshed, driven by a Hindu nationalist agenda, and a Supreme Court inquiry found no evidence to prosecute him.
The BJP manifesto set out its Hindu nationalist leanings, with a vow to explore building a Ram temple at the site of the Babri masjid in Ayodhya, potentially putting a deeply controversial issue back into play.
"There's a religious right in the BJP so they want to acknowledge that without making it the centrepiece of the manifesto," said Ashok Malik, a political columnist. "I don't think the BJP is going to take it forward as a political movement."
The party also made a commitment to withdrawing a special autonomous status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir, which many believe prolongs ambiguity over the status of a territory claimed by Pakistan.
It added that it would aim for the return of Hindus who left Kashmir when the region was roiled by an Islamist insurgency.

Source:
BJP puts 'no first use' nuclear policy in doubt - Hindustan Times (http://hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election-beat/bjp-puts-no-first-use-nuclear-policy-in-doubt/article1-1205364.aspx)


What do you guys think ? How will this all playout either for Good or Bad for India ?

Update: And we got a response - well technically nothing but yes a response,

No comments on BJP’s manifesto promising nuclear doctrine: US | The Indian Express (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-comments-on-bjps-manifesto-promising-nuclear-doctrine-us/)


“We… are not going to comment on a platform of a party running for office on ongoing elections. But nothing has changed about our view,” State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters yesterday.

Oracle
08 Apr 14,, 06:30
It's better to hit first than take one when confronting rogue nations. I'm all for controlled aggression. All in all, I have read the manifesto, and I like it. Will be voting for the BJP this time.

commander
08 Apr 14,, 06:33
It's better to hit first than take one when confronting rogue nations. I'm all for controlled aggression. All in all, I have read the manifesto, and I like it. Will be voting for the BJP this time.

Same goes for me. I have been neutral about Modi for quite sometime and never been a fan nor a critic. But I am all in for a tough leader who can lead changes and take tough stances. My entire family is going to vote for Modi.

sated buddha
08 Apr 14,, 06:36
I'm voting for Modi too. With our without a manifesto.

lemontree
08 Apr 14,, 09:52
All gas - the BJP will do nothing as they will be in a coalition.
They shall be just as incompetent if not worse than the Congress.

sated buddha
08 Apr 14,, 10:57
All gas LT.

No one can be as incompetent or corrupt as the Congress.

Please vote for Modi. Don't dilute the mandate he needs to do something for us.

Blademaster
08 Apr 14,, 12:57
All gas - the BJP will do nothing as they will be in a coalition.
They shall be just as incompetent if not worse than the Congress.

Oh ye of little faith....

Officer of Engineers
08 Apr 14,, 14:36
All gas - the BJP will do nothing as they will be in a coalition.In this instance, I agree. It's empty rhetoric. We've gone through all the military angles of these and NFU remains the primary doctrine of the smaller nuclear powers. Simply put, the arsenals are way too small for anything else.

Blademaster
08 Apr 14,, 15:37
In this instance, I agree. It's empty rhetoric. We've gone through all the military angles of these and NFU remains the primary doctrine of the smaller nuclear powers. Simply put, the arsenals are way too small for anything else.

BJP came up with NFU. Congress was content with the unverified status as a nuclear power.

LT,

BJP can do a lot better than Congress with its own, AK Antony as the DM and we saw how that turned out. One of India's best defense minister served under BJP so there's no reason why BJP can't do it again.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 14,, 02:28
BJP came up with NFU. Congress was content with the unverified status as a nuclear power.It's an appeal to the gung ho crowd. The simple fact is that without a counter-force arsenal, any nuclear strike will invite a 100% full counter-value reprisal. Getting rid of NFU is not going to reduce this threat one single bit. Ironically, keeping NFU actually reduces this threat.

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 03:45
I have voted twice for BJP, but they are as big cowards as anyone else. They are good for the small minded enthu crowd, with meaningless gestures such as publicizing the nuke tests, and are in effectual in cases of actual crises (Kandahar, Kargil, 2001 Parliament attacks).

Another meaningless gesture from an empty head.

Having said, I hope Modi comes to power, but with the help of an alliance. We really need some boost in the economy.

bolo121
09 Apr 14,, 04:38
I have voted twice for BJP, but they are as big cowards as anyone else. They are good for the small minded enthu crowd, with meaningless gestures such as publicizing the nuke tests, and are in effectual in cases of actual crises (Kandahar, Kargil, 2001 Parliament attacks).

Another meaningless gesture from an empty head.

Having said, I hope Modi comes to power, but with the help of an alliance. We really need some boost in the economy.

To be fair Congress are also equally if not more inept.
From my own reading and other previous nuke related threads here, it is just like OOE put it.
For a small nuke power NFU is the only game in town.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 05:02
Just to clarify my stand on post # 2 - hitting an enemy first (with cruise missiles) before they hit us with nukes is my idea of controlled aggression. Whether the objectives can be met is another topic. In no way did I mean the BJP is capable of doing that. My vote to BJP will go for the many other points in their election manifesto about infrastructure, FDI, job creation etc. There is a fringe crowd in every community that rides on rhetoric - NFU, Ram Janmabhoomi etc is for them.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 05:04
Over the past few years, either its because things have really cooled down with regard to Pakistan/in-house Jihadist activity and cross border Chinese tensions (baring the Ladakh standoff) or maybe its because its a case of the human mind being able to cope with and process only so much when dipped in shit creek, but currently I guess if you poll most Indians, across socioeconomic strata, the thing probably uppermost in most minds will be to vote for someone who can take decisions and can turn around the moribund economy. Money more than blood is currently uppermost in the Indian voters mind. Not that Modi does too badly compared to the opposition in the blood stakes as well .....

bolo121
09 Apr 14,, 06:40
Over the past few years, either its because things have really cooled down with regard to Pakistan/in-house Jihadist activity and cross border Chinese tensions (baring the Ladakh standoff) or maybe its because its a case of the human mind being able to cope with and process only so much when dipped in shit creek, but currently I guess if you poll most Indians, across socioeconomic strata, the thing probably uppermost in most minds will be to vote for someone who can take decisions and can turn around the moribund economy. Money more than blood is currently uppermost in the Indian voters mind. Not that Modi does too badly compared to the opposition in the blood stakes as well .....

A good observation. We have become used to the constant low level hum of attack after attack. For all the death and suffering, terror attacks touch only a small number of people directly.

Economic distress and high consumer price inflation on the other hand hurts each of us personally.
In IT for example average hikes are around 6 to 7% while cpc is always above 10%. Manufacturing is suffering even more.
I myself have had to tighten up everything I can to manage the terrible price hikes for the last few years. For the urban poor things are much much worse

lemontree
09 Apr 14,, 10:07
No one can be as incompetent or corrupt as the Congress.
You are being partial towards the BJP, Shiv Sena, BSP, SP,...(shall I go on) when you say that.

Please vote for Modi. Don't dilute the mandate he needs to do something for us.
I would have loved to do that - give one party the complete mandate.
I was very happy to see them come to power in 1996...but then their saffron gangs were let loose on both muslims and christians. In every state that they came to power they unleashed the Bajrang Dal.
This is what makes me dislike the BJP.

lemontree
09 Apr 14,, 10:08
Oh ye of little faith....

O ye of blind faith....:biggrin:

commander
09 Apr 14,, 10:33
You are being partial towards the BJP, Shiv Sena, BSP, SP,...(shall I go on) when you say that.

I would have loved to do that - give one party the complete mandate.
I was very happy to see them come to power in 1996...but then their saffron gangs were let loose on both muslims and christians. In every state that they came to power they unleashed the Bajrang Dal.
This is what makes me dislike the BJP.

Sir, that Might have been the case with the older BJP leadership, but I highly doubt Modi would allow any of that to repeat again. Also I am voting for Modi not for BJP.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 12:56
Also I am voting for Modi not for BJP.

Excellent point commander. Me too.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 12:59
I would have loved to do that - give one party the complete mandate.
I was very happy to see them come to power in 1996...but then their saffron gangs were let loose on both muslims and christians. In every state that they came to power they unleashed the Bajrang Dal.
This is what makes me dislike the BJP.

LT doesn't your skin crawl the way the Congress is brazenly wooing the Imam and the Bishop in Muslim and Christian heavy states. Is this the "secularism" you want for our land and our kids for tomorrow?

Sorry for the strong words, but I find the Congress disgusting.

Doktor
09 Apr 14,, 13:03
Just to derail this thread a bit...

BJP sounds a hell of a bad name for a political party in my opinion. Could be my dirty mind or something, but having a (what i read) BJ Party raises a question, are they givers, takers or both?

Back to your regular programming, while i try to find a place to hide.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 13:05
Just to derail this thread a bit...

BJP sounds a hell of a bad name for a political party in my opinion. Could be my dirty mind or something, but having a (what i read) BJ Party raises a question, are they givers, takers or both?

Back to your regular programming, while i try to find a place to hide.

After 10 years of a Prime Minister whose been blowing (something) non stop, most of us are too jaded to reply.

Not me though. My mind is always in the gutter.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 13:24
P.S. Mods could merge this thread and the one for Indian Parliamentary Elections.

This time around the Indian Parliamentary Elections and the BJP are one and the same thing.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 14,, 14:10
Just to clarify my stand on post # 2 - hitting an enemy first (with cruise missiles) before they hit us with nukes is my idea of controlled aggression.You don't have the missile numbers. The Chinese might, 2000 conventionally armed missiles at last count, but they're aiming at Taiwan and possibly North Korea.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 15:02
You don't have the missile numbers. The Chinese might, 2000 conventionally armed missiles at last count, but they're aiming at Taiwan and possibly North Korea.

Sir, are you saying it can be done if the numbers support? What about intel, satellite imagery, HUMINT etc?

Prithvi I was inducted in 1994, Brahmos was inducted in 2006 (Land attack variant) - if they still are short of numbers, what in heaven's sake are the establishment doing?

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 14,, 15:37
Do the math. The Chinese had used 5 missiles to replace 1 single nuke. They may have reduced that down to 3. At a minimum, if you need 3 nukes to take out a target, now, you need 9 missiles.

sated buddha
09 Apr 14,, 15:42
Do the math. The Chinese had used 5 missiles to replace 1 single nuke. They may have reduced that down to 3. At a minimum, if you need 3 nukes to take out a target, now, you need 9 missiles.

So its a money thing or a lead time thing (with us as usual being late to the party)?

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 14,, 15:45
It is always a money thing. Again, do the math, 2000 missiles. How much is that going to cost? Not just the missiles but also raising the regiments and training them to standard. The Chinese took 30 years to build up this number with one single purpose in mind, Taiwan.

commander
09 Apr 14,, 15:48
LT doesn't your skin crawl the way the Congress is brazenly wooing the Imam and the Bishop in Muslim and Christian heavy states. Is this the "secularism" you want for our land and our kids for tomorrow?

Sorry for the strong words, but I find the Congress disgusting.

I have been having same thought as well. Too many things are done in the name of secularism. If BJP tries to woo all Hindu voters with similar strategy then every media in India would be crying foul. However when it comes to CONgress or anything Muslim related the media keeps mum. Cheap politics :slap:

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 18:08
To be fair Congress are also equally if not more inept.
From my own reading and other previous nuke related threads here, it is just like OOE put it.
For a small nuke power NFU is the only game in town.

They do not claim to be the macho men in the room, BJP does, with all their jingoistic pseudo patriotic fervour. And if anyone is counting, the last engagement (1971) where we gave the other side a real whopping was under Congress. Hell, the last time we made them look like fools (1984) was also under Congress.

Kargil does not count as a whopping, it counts as a shameful back to wall face saving event. The Army fought bravely and our courageous men lost blood, but our macho emn politicos did not have the balls to take the fight to the enemy.

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 18:11
You are being partial towards the BJP, Shiv Sena, BSP, SP,...(shall I go on) when you say that.

I would have loved to do that - give one party the complete mandate.
I was very happy to see them come to power in 1996...but then their saffron gangs were let loose on both muslims and christians. In every state that they came to power they unleashed the Bajrang Dal.
This is what makes me dislike the BJP.

No we do not need a complete mandate.

Modi is fine, as long his jingoistic tendencies are tempered. An alliance should take care of that.

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 18:13
I have been having same thought as well. Too many things are done in the name of secularism. If BJP tries to woo all Hindu voters with similar strategy then every media in India would be crying foul. However when it comes to CONgress or anything Muslim related the media keeps mum. Cheap politics :slap:

And what about the stuff that the Ram Sena or other Hindu monkeys do? Hindu, Muslim Christian - all entities that try to make religion anything but the most private of practices deserve to be crucified. We are supposed to have secularism in India. Instead what we have is an observer-all-faiths, offend-none type PC mess.

commander
09 Apr 14,, 18:28
And what about the stuff that the Ram Sena or other Hindu monkeys do? Hindu, Muslim Christian - all entities that try to make religion anything but the most private of practices deserve to be crucified. We are supposed to have secularism in India. Instead what we have is an observer-all-faiths, offend-none type PC mess.

I guess you didn't understand what I meant. I said it is fake secularism when you favour one religion . I don't accept in favouring either Hindu's or Muslim's or Christian's or any one particular religion. As per Wiki


Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions

Clearly I don't see that being the case in India. It is by far clear that Muslim's are used a vote bank and Congress clearly has the Imam's working for them even announcing all Muslim should vote to Congress. What if tomorrow a Hindu Sadhu announces that all Hindu's should vote for BJP ? Will Media accept that ? Which is why I am disgusted about Indian media's actions.

I have friends from all religions and in no way am I against any one of them. Also as I mentioned earlier I am not voting for BJP but rather for Modi. We have given enough chances and time for Congress to create 10cr job's or all other shit. So I am not a fool to vote for the same thieves again.

commander
09 Apr 14,, 18:32
One more doubt of mine for a long time is if BJP backed by RSS is considered a communal party by the rest. How come no one talks about Congress aligning with Muslim parties which are clearly communal as well ? So if RSS backed BJP is bad for Muslim's can we say Muslim party backed Congress as bad for Hindu's ?

I know I will be flamed for this.. but this has been itching me for a very long time and just wanted to clear it out :whome:

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 18:35
One more doubt of mine for a long time is if BJP backed by RSS is considered a communal party by the rest. How come no one talks about Congress aligning with Muslim parties which are clearly communal as well ? So if RSS backed BJP is bad for Muslim's can we say Muslim party backed Congress as bad for Hindu's ?

I know I will be flamed for this.. but this has been itching me for a very long time and just wanted to clear it out :whome:

Every fcuking political party in India is communal to the core. Why is it too hard to infer?

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 18:35
And what about the stuff that the Ram Sena or other Hindu monkeys do? Hindu, Muslim Christian - all entities that try to make religion anything but the most private of practices deserve to be crucified. We are supposed to have secularism in India. Instead what we have is an observer-all-faiths, offend-none type PC mess.

And they have been called out for it and the pseudo-secularists and leftists try to drag in BJP into the mess. As another poster accused me of doing this in another thread, might this be an example of false equivalence?

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 18:37
Every fcuking political party in India is communal to the core. Why is it too hard to infer?

Then why do you bother taking part in the elections? Going by your logic and reasoning, by voting for a party, you are engaging in communal politics. :rolleyes:

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 18:38
They do not claim to be the macho men in the room, BJP does, with all their jingoistic pseudo patriotic fervour. And if anyone is counting, the last engagement (1971) where we gave the other side a real whopping was under Congress. Hell, the last time we made them look like fools (1984) was also under Congress.

Kargil does not count as a whopping, it counts as a shameful back to wall face saving event. The Army fought bravely and our courageous men lost blood, but our macho emn politicos did not have the balls to take the fight to the enemy.

And Congress was even worse in the last decade when they sat and did nothing against the perpetrators in Pakistan.

Kargil did not count as a whopping? The NLI was wiped out. If that is not a whopping, then I do not what a whopping is to you.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 18:44
Then why do you bother taking part in the elections? Going by your logic and reasoning, by voting for a party, you are engaging in communal politics. :rolleyes:

You are in no position to question me Mister. This is my Country, you are an outsider, always have been. Stick to juvenile trolling, that's what you're good at. You're such an imbecile that to prove your baseless points you'd mis-spell posters, and try and attack women posters.

Hey! This is not a rural village in India where-in you can throw acid on a women or rape them to submit to your will.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 18:48
And Congress was even worse in the last decade when they sat and did nothing against the perpetrators in Pakistan.

Kargil did not count as a whopping? The NLI was wiped out. If that is not a whopping, then I do not what a whopping is to you.

You're American. What did the US do about Pakistan? Your country did not even acknowledge the ISI nexus when Bin Laden was found miles away from Pak's military campus. Apart from the few American MPs in here, nobody gave a damn about it.

Oh and btw, the NLI is not wiped out. Stop the stupid rhetoric.

commander
09 Apr 14,, 18:54
Every fcuking political party in India is communal to the core. Why is it too hard to infer?

My issues are with why only BJP given the communal stamp and used against them in any elections ? Is there anything else that the opposition uses apart from the communal badge ?

Also I have never heard or seen Congress being called a Communal party....

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 18:54
You are in no position to question me Mister. This is my Country, you are an outsider, always have been. Stick to juvenile trolling, that's what you're good at.

Oh shut up you troll. I have been on this forum a lot longer than you have and you have no business calling me an outsider or calling me a non indian. You are the one engaging in juvenile trolling by engaging this kind of juvenile trolling. Before you came along, nobody questioned me on whether I was an Indian or not. You were the only one and you are a newcomer. You have not established the authority or credibility to question me and where I come from.

You cannot stand me questioning your arguments so you engage in these ad hominem attacks. That shows the lack of depth to your arguments. I do not need to demonstrate that I am an Indian to the likes of you. Your definition of who is an Indian and who is not an Indian does not carry the weight of the day.

I can question you all I want because I think you are very naive juvenile immature and possible somewhat stupid. I think a village is calling for you because apparently it is missing its village idiot.

commander
09 Apr 14,, 18:56
You're American. What did the US do about Pakistan? Your country did not even acknowledge the ISI nexus when Bin Laden was found miles away from Pak's military campus. Apart from the few American MPs in here, nobody gave a damn about it.

Oh and btw, the NLI is not wiped out. Stop the stupid rhetoric.

Do you honestly believe USA would help India besides it's national interests ? I won't hold my breath on it. If we don't like the way USA treats Pakistan then we should have the balls to say that on their face or shut up.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 18:58
My issues are with why only BJP given the communal stamp and used against them in any elections ? Is there anything else that the opposition uses apart from the communal badge ?

Also I have never heard or seen Congress being called a Communal party....

I just called the Congress a communal party. I called every single one of them communal.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:01
I just called the Congress a communal party. I called every single one of them communal.

And that makes you right? Going by your logic, we should save us the trouble and not form any party and just elect individuals with no mandates. Yep that is a good way to get things done in India. :rolleyes:

commander
09 Apr 14,, 19:05
I just called the Congress a communal party. I called every single one of them communal.

Unfortunately you or I can't make a big difference by calling Congress a communal party. It is supposed to be Indian media who should expose this kind of hypocrisy. I know I am being naive in believing that would ever happen. But hey one can wish :)

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:11
Oh shut up you troll. I have been on this forum a lot longer than you have and you have no business calling me an outsider or calling me a non indian. You are the one engaging in juvenile trolling by engaging this kind of juvenile trolling. Before you came along, nobody questioned me on whether I was an Indian or not. You were the only one and you are a newcomer. You have not established the authority or credibility to question me and where I come from.

LOL.

I have read Zraver's survival post.

So, since you have been longer on this forum gives you the right to abuse, troll and whine about anything you like and not?

Does it matter how old I really am on this forum while I ask legitimate questions?

Before I came along, you probably had a consortium of NRI's to showcase the bright side of a country, you do not even belong.

And what credibility or authority I need, to question you? I thought WAB is a place to question, and learn.

You are not fckuing GOD. So get over your complex.

Being in US, you could not assimilate to that culture. You draw your paycheck and your clients in US and you have utter dis-contempt for USA.


You cannot stand me questioning your arguments so you engage in these ad hominem attacks. That shows the lack of depth to your arguments. I do not need to demonstrate that I am an Indian to the likes of you. Your definition of who is an Indian and who is not an Indian does not carry the weight of the day.

I can question you all I want because I think you are very naive juvenile immature and possible somewhat stupid. I think a village is calling for you because apparently it is missing its village idiot.

Says it all. Someone who could not integrate with the US culture lecturing me about my culture. Hey, troll do me a favor - shut the fcuk up.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:12
And that makes you right? Going by your logic, we should save us the trouble and not form any party and just elect individuals with no mandates. Yep that is a good way to get things done in India. :rolleyes:

Stop trolling in this thread because you have been kicked out from the Ukraine thread.

I find it despicable to debate with posters who's still in kindergarten mode and cannot even spell.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:22
Stop trolling in this thread because you have been kicked out from the Ukraine thread.

I find it despicable to debate with posters who's still in kindergarten mode and cannot even spell.

Are you intentionally being stupid? I was never kicked out of the Ukraine thread. I am still posting there. As for spelling, if you are referring to the misspelling of Minskaya, it was an omission on my part since I was not familiar with the name spelling and the spell checker did not automatically check for proper name spelling. But who are you to criticize spelling? I have seen some posts of yours and many others with misspelling and no one called on you on account of spelling.

If this is the best you can come up, then I was certainly right in my assessment about you and that you are a joker who can't even come up with coherent arguments and have to resort to ad hominem attacks and claim not to debate any further because it is kindergarten or juvenile stuff or I am an outside so I am not fit to make any comments on any thing Indian related. It shows you are out of your depth.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:30
Are you intentionally being stupid? I was never kicked out of the Ukraine thread. I am still posting there. As for spelling, if you are referring to the misspelling of Minskaya, it was an omission on my part since I was not familiar with the name spelling and the spell checker did not automatically check for proper name spelling. But who are you to criticize spelling? I have seen some posts of yours and many others with misspelling and no one called on you on account of spelling.

Please point out those posts. If I'm wrong, I'd say I'm wrong and move on.


If this is the best you can come up, then I was certainly right in my assessment about you and that you are a joker who can't even come up with coherent arguments and have to resort to ad hominem attacks and claim not to debate any further because it is kindergarten or juvenile stuff or I am an outside so I am not fit to make any comments on any thing Indian related. It shows you are out of your depth.

:biggrin: Aren't you American? Thought not. There exists Indians who eye with contempt even the countries that has given them a home, job and what not. Moles!

Hey, do us a favor. This is a thread about Indian elections. Either you post intelligent stuff, or GTFO!

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:32
Blade, since you favor Putin so much, could you get him to make my breakfast tomorrow morning?

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:33
LOL.

I have read Zraver's survival post.

So, since you have been longer on this forum gives you the right to abuse, troll and whine about anything you like and not?


Ha ha ha and looks who parroting.



Does it matter how old I really am on this forum while I ask legitimate questions?

Before I came along, you probably had a consortium of NRI's to showcase the bright side of a country, you do not even belong.

And what credibility or authority I need, to question you?


You were the one that started questioning my background and my ethnicity and my loyalty and who I am. You presumed that you had the right, the authority, and credibility to start questioning me.



I thought WAB is a place to question, and learn.

Nice try. If you thought WAB was a place to question and learn, then you would have not resorted to these juvenile ad hominem attacks on my character and my background and start arguing on meritious basis. But instead you started questioning on where I am from and where I live and you used that as your main reason to denigrate me and my posts and my arguments. Not a good start to make good impressions.



You are not fckuing GOD. So get over your complex.

Ha ha ha ha!!! You re so desperate. I never claim to be god or your master. I do not even have a complex. In fact, this statement reveals far more about yourself than you ever thought. I am beginning to see some traces of an inferiority complex within you. Have you considered consulting a psychiatrist to start addressing your inferiority complex issue?



Being in US, you could not assimilate to that culture. You draw your paycheck and your clients in US and you have utter dis-contempt for USA.

Wow. Thank you for that esteemed enlightening post. Golly gee, I never knew that I have utter dis-contempt for the USA nor that I could assimilate to the culture of USA. Wow such a revelation. Have you considered going into a psychoanalysis field? It would have double benefits for you. You could start addressing your inferiority complex issues while at the same time, you could finally set up a nice career where you can make money by psychoanalyzing others. I think the best place for you to start is in a circus. I hear they pay well for that kind of thing. Just offering friendly advice.



Says it all. Someone who could not integrate with the US culture lecturing me about my culture. Hey, troll do me a favor - shut the fcuk up.

Hmmm so you I could not integrate with the US culture...hmmm seems you know a lot about American culture. Do me a favor. Why don't you stop putting your foot in your mouth, then again, maybe it is a fetish thing you have, and start looking around and see what the world is.

As for shutting the fuck up, I am afraid that I have to decline your gracious request and keep on yapping.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:36
Please point out those posts. If I'm wrong, I'd say I'm wrong and move on.



:biggrin: Aren't you American? Thought not. There exists Indians who eye with contempt even the countries that has given them a home, job and what not. Moles!


Are you an expert on deciding who is an American or not? Hmmm... do you wanna apply for a job at the US Citizen and Immigration Services? I am curious as to how you define to be an American or not.



Hey, do us a favor. This is a thread about Indian elections. Either you post intelligent stuff, or GTFO!

Pray tell me what constitutes intelligent stuff, oh esteemed master of enlightened being.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:36
Ha ha ha and looks who parroting.



You were the one that started questioning my background and my ethnicity and my loyalty and who I am. You presumed that you had the right, the authority, and credibility to start questioning me.



Nice try. If you thought WAB was a place to question and learn, then you would have not resorted to these juvenile ad hominem attacks on my character and my background and start arguing on meritious basis. But instead you started questioning on where I am from and where I live and you used that as your main reason to denigrate me and my posts and my arguments. Not a good start to make good impressions.



Ha ha ha ha!!! You re so desperate. I never claim to be god or your master. I do not even have a complex. In fact, this statement reveals far more about yourself than you ever thought. I am beginning to see some traces of an inferiority complex within you. Have you considered consulting a psychiatrist to start addressing your inferiority complex issue?


Wow. Thank you for that esteemed enlightening post. Golly gee, I never knew that I have utter dis-contempt for the USA nor that I could assimilate to the culture of USA. Wow such a revelation. Have you considered going into a psychoanalysis field? It would have double benefits for you. You could start addressing your inferiority complex issues while at the same time, you could finally set up a nice career where you can make money by psychoanalyzing others. I think the best place for you to start is in a circus. I hear they pay well for that kind of thing. Just offering friendly advice.



Hmmm so you I could not integrate with the US culture...hmmm seems you know a lot about American culture. Do me a favor. Why don't you stop putting your foot in your mouth, then again, maybe it is a fetish thing you have, and start looking around and see what the world is.

As for shutting the fuck up, I am afraid that I have to decline your gracious request and keep on yapping.

LMAO!!!

Is it the color of your skin that has made you defensive? Fat too.

Be proud you're an American. For anything else, welcome to India.

Oracle
09 Apr 14,, 19:41
Are you a fcuking idiot?


Are you an expert on deciding who is an American or not? Hmmm... do you wanna apply for a job at the US Citizen and Immigration Services? I am curious as to how you define to be an American or not.

Pray tell me what constitutes intelligent stuff, oh esteemed master of enlightened being.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:43
Blade, since you favor Putin so much, could you get him to make my breakfast tomorrow morning?

Putin's message for ya:

36232

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:46
LMAO!!!

Is it the color of your skin that has made you defensive? Fat too.

Be proud you're an American. For anything else, welcome to India.

Oh I am proud to be an American and I am always welcome to India. I am fine with my color. Thanks for telling me something that I already know. :rolleyes:

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 19:47
Are you a fcuking idiot?

Heeeey WAB is a place to question and learn. Didn't you just say that so?

cirrrocco
09 Apr 14,, 21:26
LOL.

I have read Zraver's survival post.

So, since you have been longer on this forum gives you the right to abuse, troll and whine about anything you like and not?

Does it matter how old I really am on this forum while I ask legitimate questions?

Before I came along, you probably had a consortium of NRI's to showcase the bright side of a country, you do not even belong.

And what credibility or authority I need, to question you? I thought WAB is a place to question, and learn.

You are not fckuing GOD. So get over your complex.

Being in US, you could not assimilate to that culture. You draw your paycheck and your clients in US and you have utter dis-contempt for USA.



Says it all. Someone who could not integrate with the US culture lecturing me about my culture. Hey, troll do me a favor - shut the fcuk up.

wow really oracle. BM has prolly done more yeoman service to India than you probably have done.
so if he is not Indian why can he not talk about indian issues. This board is called worldaffairsboard for a reason.

what you said was totally uncalled for.

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 22:05
And Congress was even worse in the last decade when they sat and did nothing against the perpetrators in Pakistan.

Kargil did not count as a whopping? The NLI was wiped out. If that is not a whopping, then I do not what a whopping is to you.

1971 was a whopping. We divided their country. Even 1965 was a whopping, we got a bunch of their territory. Unfortunately we decided to give it back.

NLI was wiped out? So we managed to overcome a paramilitary force which had no logistical support and was cut off from their supply lines? Yay, good job. Lets all pat oursleves on our backs. Sure, the terrain was againt us, but the enemy got there because our our own damned intelligence failures, and because our then defence minister wanted to give them a safe passage back.

You know what would have been a whopping? If we had opened the borders in Punjab and Rajasthan.

You want to bitch about the Congress? Get in line.

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 22:07
Are you a fcuking idiot?

Oracle,

I disagree with BM's points, but he has every right to debate on this topic, Indian or not. That was uncalled for

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 22:09
And they have been called out for it and the pseudo-secularists and leftists try to drag in BJP into the mess. As another poster accused me of doing this in another thread, might this be an example of false equivalence?

Since he has actually joined BJP, I guess your point really does not hold

Pramod Muthalik, controversial chief of Sri Ram Sena, joins BJP - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-23/news/48491466_1_bjp-leaders-sri-ram-sena-hindutva)

antimony
09 Apr 14,, 22:15
I guess you didn't understand what I meant. I said it is fake secularism when you favour one religion . I don't accept in favouring either Hindu's or Muslim's or Christian's or any one particular religion.

Clearly I don't see that being the case in India. It is by far clear that Muslim's are used a vote bank and Congress clearly has the Imam's working for them even announcing all Muslim should vote to Congress. What if tomorrow a Hindu Sadhu announces that all Hindu's should vote for BJP ? Will Media accept that ? Which is why I am disgusted about Indian media's actions.


This is already happening. Freedom of speech is severely curtailed for fear of offending religious sentiments across the board. Anything remotely liberal is called into question as "Western influence" to satisfy cleric of all colours.

I agree with you entirely that the Congress uses Imams to control the Muslims. Hell, they don;t even realize how much they are oppressed by their own clergy, just so that they can be delviered as vote banks. But don't think the BJP does not do the same when it can, especially with upper caste and merchant class hindus

Religion in India (and everywhere else) is poison. By the way, don't think India is alone here. In the US, the right wing Christians are pretty similar, and they are getting worse.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 22:16
Since he has actually joined BJP, I guess your point really does not hold

Pramod Muthalik, controversial chief of Sri Ram Sena, joins BJP - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-23/news/48491466_1_bjp-leaders-sri-ram-sena-hindutva)

Then I stand corrected. However, I like Modi for what he can bring and deliver so I would go with BJP. To be honest with you, if Congress hadn't made Sonia Gandhi as their leader and appointed that useless economist, MMS, but a more capable person I would have stuck with Congress. PVN Rao was one of my favorite PMs. He was actually better than Vajpayee.

Blademaster
09 Apr 14,, 22:44
1971 was a whopping. We divided their country. Even 1965 was a whopping, we got a bunch of their territory. Unfortunately we decided to give it back.

NLI was wiped out? So we managed to overcome a paramilitary force which had no logistical support and was cut off from their supply lines? Yay, good job. Lets all pat oursleves on our backs. Sure, the terrain was againt us, but the enemy got there because our our own damned intelligence failures, and because our then defence minister wanted to give them a safe passage back.

You very know that the world was against India launching an invasion into Pakistan and were bringing great pressure against India not to invade. Who dropped the ball when India had a chance to take out Pakistan's nuclear facilities in the 80s when India got unsolicited offer from Israel. Who allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear blackmail that constrained India's response?

The defense minister offered a safe passage as a way to resolve the issue peacefully and to show the world that India was a not a trigger happy nation as Pakistan often tried to portrayed India as. India was still on top of the shit list with many nations after the nuclear tests. With India's restraint, world opinion turned against Pakistan and India had more freedom to engage in military action and the offer of safe passage was withdrawn.

I am not so sure how MMS would react under the given circumstances. He and Sonia Gandhi would have done far worse. Rajiv would not do any better than Vajpayee and Indira Gandhi maybe would have done more. But I do know that if given an opportunity to take out the nuclear facilities Osrak style, BJP would have taken it.



You know what would have been a whopping? If we had opened the borders in Punjab and Rajasthan.
It would have been a military disaster for India. There is a reason why mob driven invasions don't work.



You want to bitch about the Congress? Get in line.

I am already in line. Been bitching about Congress for the last 10 years.

antimony
10 Apr 14,, 04:25
You very know that the world was against India launching an invasion into Pakistan and were bringing great pressure against India not to invade.


Of course they would have made those noises. But they would also have understood. Going after a country that has invaded you does not make you a trigger happy nation.



Who dropped the ball when India had a chance to take out Pakistan's nuclear facilities in the 80s when India got unsolicited offer from Israel. Who allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear blackmail that constrained India's response?


I am not sure what you are getting at



The defense minister offered a safe passage as a way to resolve the issue peacefully and to show the world that India was a not a trigger happy nation as Pakistan often tried to portrayed India as. India was still on top of the shit list with many nations after the nuclear tests.


An invading force (not militants) had infiltrated (of which we had zero intel, by the way) and we are supposed to resolve peacefully? Also, are you are saying that had the world opinion not changed, we should still be offering safe passage?



With India's restraint, world opinion turned against Pakistan and India had more freedom to engage in military action and the offer of safe passage was withdrawn.


What freedom? We could not cross the border and our soldiers had to resort to ridiculous measures to achieve their objectives.



I am not so sure how MMS would react under the given circumstances. He and Sonia Gandhi would have done far worse. Rajiv would not do any better than Vajpayee and Indira Gandhi maybe would have done more.


I am not saying that MMS is the great saviour. I am saying that the BJP is as useless, in spite of the jingoism they resort to. I gave three examples - Kandahar, Kargil and Operation Parakram, where they messed up.



But I do know that if given an opportunity to take out the nuclear facilities Osrak style, BJP would have taken it.


How exactly do you know this?



It would have been a military disaster for India. There is a reason why mob driven invasions don't work.


General Zia disagrees with you as he expected exactly that. He was no fainting flower, and he disapproved of this plan when it was brought to him. This should tell you something.

antimony
10 Apr 14,, 04:27
Then I stand corrected. However, I like Modi for what he can bring and deliver so I would go with BJP. To be honest with you, if Congress hadn't made Sonia Gandhi as their leader and appointed that useless economist, MMS, but a more capable person I would have stuck with Congress. PVN Rao was one of my favorite PMs. He was actually better than Vajpayee.

Look, I agree that Modi is probably better than the others from an economic, policy making POV. But their jingoistic chest thumping is tiresome.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 06:21
I find this questioning of the Indianness of another Indian extremely distasteful.

I have said this before, I will say this again, without taking sides, as each party is more than capable of taking care of himself.

Any Indian, regardless of where he resides, whose heart still beats for India, is more Indian in my eyes than any Indian who still lives on the motherland but spares no opportunity of taking down his country and people and expresses love for foes across the border.

No need to jump and get hot under the collar with outrage if the shoe doesn't fit.

Indianness is from the heart. Not a Passport and a voter ID/Aadhar card.

bolo121
10 Apr 14,, 06:42
I find this questioning of the Indianness of another Indian extremely distasteful.

I have said this before, I will say this again, without taking sides, as each party is more than capable of taking care of himself.

Any Indian, regardless of where he resides, whose heart still beats for India, is more Indian in my eyes than any Indian who still lives on the motherland but spares no opportunity of taking down his country and people and expresses love for foes across the border.

No need to jump and get hot under the collar with outrage if the shoe doesn't fit.

Indianness is from the heart. Not a Passport and a voter ID/Aadhar card.

Aye there's the rub. That phrase can be spun in so many different ways to deflect and discredit.

Besides we have to remember its the nasty people in power across the border that do all the bad stuff.
A muslim villager in Pak is probably the same as his counterpart in northern india

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 07:28
Aye there's the rub. That phrase can be spun in so many different ways to deflect and discredit.

Besides we have to remember its the nasty people in power across the border that do all the bad stuff.
A muslim villager in Pak is probably the same as his counterpart in northern india

Pakistan is not the only foe we have across the border.

And most of us are intelligent enough to know genuine constructive criticism borne out of love for the land and people and differentiate it from the sentiments of those that poke holes in the very plate they (and theirs) eat from .....

bolo121
10 Apr 14,, 07:35
Pakistan is not the only foe we have across the border.

And most of us are intelligent enough to know genuine constructive criticism borne out of love for the land and people and differentiate it from the sentiments of those that poke holes in the very plate they (and theirs) eat from .....

I doubt most of us have the same visceral hatred for China. To quote OOE, China will fight India to the last Pakistani.
As to your second sentence, I doubt it, witness the ugliness we had in the Delhi rape thread. Its very easy for all sentiment and good will to be thrown out the window

Bigfella
10 Apr 14,, 07:40
You are in no position to question me Mister. This is my Country, you are an outsider, always have been. Stick to juvenile trolling, that's what you're good at. You're such an imbecile that to prove your baseless points you'd mis-spell posters, and try and attack women posters.

Hey! This is not a rural village in India where-in you can throw acid on a women or rape them to submit to your will.

I'm no fan of BM, but you might want to dial it back a bit Oracle. Especially that last line. Uncalled for. Stuff like that will kill any value this thread can have. Use what he says to hang him (plenty of opportunity) rather than just cheap insults. You are better than that.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 07:52
I doubt most of us have the same visceral hatred for China. To quote OOE, China will fight India to the last Pakistani.
As to your second sentence, I doubt it, witness the ugliness we had in the Delhi rape thread. Its very easy for all sentiment and good will to be thrown out the window

Its not about hatred towards others.

Its about loyalty to your own first.

Also, a foe does not need to be hated. But either way, he still remains a foe. I don't hate the Chinese, far from it. I actually respect them and what they have made of their country. But I have no illusions about them being my friend, where my interest clashes with theirs.

My second sentence is pretty clear about which type of Indians I am referring to. We see them in more than one setting in life.

Doktor
10 Apr 14,, 08:14
I'm no fan of BM, but you might want to dial it back a bit Oracle. Especially that last line. Uncalled for. Stuff like that will kill any value this thread can have. Use what he says to hang him (plenty of opportunity) rather than just cheap insults. You are better than that.

He's a lawyer, so not very likable by default ;)

What I find amusing is his ability to drive people nuts to call him names instead to call him on his claims.

commander
10 Apr 14,, 08:19
He's a lawyer, so not very likable by default ;)

What I find amusing is his ability to drive people nuts to call him names instead to call him on his claims.

Now that you mention it Dok I kinda agree with you.:)

Also Oracle lets keep the personal insults away. As Sated Buddha stated earlier, any Indian whether living in India or Mars for all it matters as long as they have their loyalties and heart for India and does something for it's empowerment even if it's very minuscule, is more Indian than some of those living among us in India.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 08:21
What I find amusing is his ability to drive people nuts to call him names instead to call him on his claims.

That too is a useful skill for a lawyer to have.

Would do wonders for the credibility of the defendant he's shredding to pieces in the eyes of the jury.

Bigfella
10 Apr 14,, 08:54
He's a lawyer, so not very likable by default ;)

What I find amusing is his ability to drive people nuts to call him names instead to call him on his claims.

I could write you an essay on why people find him irritating, starting with his own bouts of name calling & the way he treats people who actually live in India when they disagree with him. Its a long list. However, none of that justifies the 'acid in the face' remarks. Not cricket I'm afraid.

lemontree
10 Apr 14,, 09:26
Sir, that Might have been the case with the older BJP leadership, but I highly doubt Modi would allow any of that to repeat again....
Modi does not control the RSS or Bajrang Dal....the RSS controls Modi.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 09:26
I think since its ok to directly (and left handed indirectly) attack a member here and get personal, it should be equally ok for people who like him to speak up in his favor (I won't say defense ..... because frankly this is no court, and those attacking have no locus standii).

I think Blade is a proud Indian, and the only time I have seen him speaking up against another Indian is when those Indians have been less Indian than they should be. Automatically. Without thought or demand. From the heart.

Actually residing in India is no barometer of how Indian one is. Need to repeat this ad naseum if need be.

lemontree
10 Apr 14,, 09:28
LT doesn't your skin crawl the way the Congress is brazenly wooing the Imam and the Bishop in Muslim and Christian heavy states. Is this the "secularism" you want for our land and our kids for tomorrow?


The Congress does not send militias to attack the minorities...The RSS has these militias.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 09:30
The Congress does not send militias to attack the minorities...The RSS has these militias.

For an ex serviceman, you're surprisingly naive and out of touch with the world.

Take a look at the history of communal violence in India. And see under whose watch a majority of the blood has flown.

P.S. Sikhs are a minority of India, last I checked.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 14,, 09:39
You very know that the world was against India launching an invasion into Pakistan and were bringing great pressure against India not to invade.What pressure? Even the Chinese were on your side.

lemontree
10 Apr 14,, 09:51
For an ex serviceman, you're surprisingly naive and out of touch with the world.
Nevermind me...


Take a look at the history of communal violence in India. And see under whose watch a majority of the blood has flown.

P.S. Sikhs are a minority of India, last I checked.
Different issues and not the same thing - the Khalistan issue was a different case. There after they have never been targeted, even though they venerate terrorists in their temple.

But to get back to the Sangh goons - There are over 4,000 registered cases of anti-Christian violence in 2013, carried out by Bajrang dal members. The incidents include the murder of 7 faithful, including a minor; 1,000 women, 500 children and about 400 priests of different confessions suffered abuses and beatings; attacks against more than 100 churches and places of Christian worship.

This happens when they are not in power...

lemontree
10 Apr 14,, 09:54
I think since its ok to directly (and left handed indirectly) attack a member here and get personal, it should be equally ok for people who like him to speak up in his favor (I won't say defense ..... because frankly this is no court, and those attacking have no locus standii).

I think Blade is a proud Indian, and the only time I have seen him speaking up against another Indian is when those Indians have been less Indian than they should be. Automatically. Without thought or demand. From the heart.

Actually residing in India is no barometer of how Indian one is. Need to repeat this ad naseum if need be.

I agree with SB,..Blade is a proud Indian and he is free to have is own views.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 10:02
Different issues and not the same thing - the Khalistan issue was a different case. There after they have never been targeted, even though they venerate terrorists in their temple.

Why is it a different issue?

Which militia was patroling the streets of New Delhi burning and killing?

Which party did that militia belong to? How many Sikhs were butchered?

This is what is glaringly visible to the world eye. But what is not visible is that the Congress has had a hand, directly or indirectly, behind every communal conflagration of note in India, both undivided and divided India, since before 1947.

Again I must repeat. Please check the history of communal violence in India. Each riot has been documented, down to how many Hindus were killed and how many Muslims (or Sikhs), how the riot started, and which was the party in power at the time.

And here we are talking of the direct "hand" of the Congress, pardon the intentioned pun.

What you are talking about are splinter right wing Hindu groups whose only connection to the BJP is that both in some way manner or form have linkages to the RSS.

commander
10 Apr 14,, 10:02
Modi does not control the RSS or Bajrang Dal....the RSS controls Modi.

But Sir, if you look at the current scenario Modi seems to be out of the Iron grip that RSS has on other BJP senior leaders. From my understanding Modi is their only chance in ever forming a government , coalition or not. So they will not try to go against him is my understanding.

lemontree
10 Apr 14,, 10:35
Why is it a different issue?

Which militia was patroling the streets of New Delhi burning and killing?

Which party did that militia belong to? How many Sikhs were butchered?
It is not a regular feature is it!...the 1984 riots were the result of the Khalistan problem.


This is what is glaringly visible to the world eye. But what is not visible is that the Congress has had a hand, directly or indirectly, behind every communal conflagration of note in India, both undivided and divided India, since before 1947.

Again I must repeat. Please check the history of communal violence in India. Each riot has been documented, down to how many Hindus were killed and how many Muslims (or Sikhs), how the riot started, and which was the party in power at the time.

And here we are talking of the direct "hand" of the Congress, pardon the intentioned pun.
I will not deny that for petty political gains, the Congress has played the communcal card in the old days. Because it was convenient.
But you really dont understand the magnanimity of damage caused by the RSS and Shiv Sena to the fabric of Indian and growth of domestic terrorism.


What you are talking about are splinter right wing Hindu groups whose only connection to the BJP is that both in some way manner or form have linkages to the RSS.
Splinter groups, my a$$. They are main stream militia.

sated buddha
10 Apr 14,, 11:07
LT your frame of reference, by your admission, is that of an Indian Christian. While I agree that to you it would be the most important thing, in the bigger picture, in India, it is really only about Hindu and Muslim when we talk about serious communal issues and bloodshed (yes the Sikh thing was a one off - but try explaining that to Sikhs of our generation who were just entering their teens then).

Bottom line is that in India, Hindu vigilantism has always been reactionary in nature.

If it were not, I don't think it would be difficult to imagine how 1 billion on one side and 200 million on the other, and yet there has never been anything close to genocide. In most cases the kill rates are near equal. Why?

Because it is reactionary. Not organised.

If it were as organised as you make it out to be, today India would have been a Hindu Pakistan.

bolo121
10 Apr 14,, 14:00
LT your frame of reference, by your admission, is that of an Indian Christian. While I agree that to you it would be the most important thing....

That's a pretty insensitive way to look at it SB.
One reason we Christians are so sensitive is that We are such a tiny community that even what would be small casualties for hindus or muslims hurt us more.
As you said it would take huge effort to wipe out 200m muslims. Christians scattered as we are, are easy prey.

Blademaster
10 Apr 14,, 14:15
What pressure? Even the Chinese were on your side.

They moved forces to the Tibetan area.

Blademaster
10 Apr 14,, 14:16
Modi does not control the RSS or Bajrang Dal....the RSS controls Modi.

The latest comments by Modi runs contrary to what you said. Modi said BJP should be more like Vajpayee, not RSS.

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 14,, 15:09
They moved forces to the Tibetan area.PAP, not PLA.

Firestorm
10 Apr 14,, 17:39
Since he has actually joined BJP, I guess your point really does not hold

Pramod Muthalik, controversial chief of Sri Ram Sena, joins BJP - Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-23/news/48491466_1_bjp-leaders-sri-ram-sena-hindutva)

Just to correct some "half-facts" ..

After being thrown out, Muthalik to fight against Karnataka BJP chief (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/after-being-thrown-out-muthalik-to-fight-against-karnataka-bjp-chief/460197-62-129.html)

He was thrown out when the BJP leadership came to know that the local branch had let him in. A few hours after he joined.

Anyway, don't mind me. Carry on.

Firestorm
10 Apr 14,, 17:45
You very know that the world was against India launching an invasion into Pakistan and were bringing great pressure against India not to invade. Who dropped the ball when India had a chance to take out Pakistan's nuclear facilities in the 80s when India got unsolicited offer from Israel. Who allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear blackmail that constrained India's response?

That is an urban legend, isn't it? It was never more than a rumor.

NFU or no NFU makes no difference. The govt. will only resort to nukes when they are desperate and have nothing to lose, and in such a case, it doesn't matter if you have a self-declared NFU doctrine and you break it. You won't be alive to face the consequences if there are any.

In the Indo-Pak context, despite all the fear-mongering neither country is going to resort to nukes because of Kashmir. And with the state of India's armed forces such as it is after ten years of Saint Antony's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Antony) rule, we are unlikely to see India resorting to a pursuing response to a terrorist attack even if the new govt. wants to.

antimony
10 Apr 14,, 18:02
Just to correct some "half-facts" ..

After being thrown out, Muthalik to fight against Karnataka BJP chief (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/after-being-thrown-out-muthalik-to-fight-against-karnataka-bjp-chief/460197-62-129.html)

He was thrown out when the BJP leadership came to know that the local branch had let him in. A few hours after he joined.

Anyway, don't mind me. Carry on.

Fair point, I accept

Oracle
10 Apr 14,, 18:13
I apologize wholeheartedly for my earlier comments to all the members in here - Indian and International. Very unbecoming. It was wrong, I was wrong.

antimony
10 Apr 14,, 18:28
That is an urban legend, isn't it? It was never more than a rumor.

NFU or no NFU makes no difference. The govt. will only resort to nukes when they are desperate and have nothing to lose, and in such a case, it doesn't matter if you have a self-declared NFU doctrine and you break it. You won't be alive to face the consequences if there are any.

In the Indo-Pak context, despite all the fear-mongering neither country is going to resort to nukes because of Kashmir. And with the state of India's armed forces such as it is after ten years of Saint Antony's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Antony) rule, we are unlikely to see India resorting to a pursuing response to a terrorist attack even if the new govt. wants to.

Which makes this brouhaha about redefining NFU status all the more disgusting. Two possibilities

1. They know what the real strategy should be and this is plain grandstanding. Disgusting.
2. They do not know what the real strategy should be and actually believe what they are saying. Scary.

Take your pick

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 14,, 18:47
I trust the militaries on both sides of the Kashmir dispute. Simple fact is that the nuclear arms are not the career paths to being Chief on either side. Despite what Notorious Eagle stated about Pakistani nuclear arms training (I still can't believe that his expert used the term "familiarize" rather than "qualify" for nuclear weapons handling), in the 15+ years since the test, neither side had promoted a nuclear general to National Command Authority.

Doktor
10 Apr 14,, 20:00
I apologize wholeheartedly for my earlier comments to all the members in here - Indian and International. Very unbecoming. It was wrong, I was wrong.

What's cookin' now?

commander
10 Apr 14,, 20:22
Which makes this brouhaha about redefining NFU status all the more disgusting. Two possibilities

1. They know what the real strategy should be and this is plain grandstanding. Disgusting.
2. They do not know what the real strategy should be and actually believe what they are saying. Scary.

Take your pick

My understanding is , by saying no NFU , they are trying to say they will not hesitate to take strong actions if provoked. Sometimes you need this kind of statements to reinstate the lost credibility (however small it might be). Maybe their plan is to take on Pakistan and China in some way (i don't know how).

Officer of Engineers
10 Apr 14,, 21:23
My understanding is , by saying no NFU , they are trying to say they will not hesitate to take strong actions if provoked. Sometimes you need this kind of statements to reinstate the lost credibility (however small it might be). Maybe their plan is to take on Pakistan and China in some way (i don't know how).The Chinese ain't going to be phased. They stared down the Soviets who were ready to nuke them.

The Pakistanis already told you that they see through the bluff.

commander
10 Apr 14,, 22:41
The Chinese ain't going to be phased. They stared down the Soviets who were ready to nuke them.

The Pakistanis already told you that they see through the bluff.

I agree Sir, but I am just wishing this being a start to show Chinese and Pakistani's we are not going to bluff and just sit tight whenever provoked (however small that might be). Also I am pretty sure there are other ways to tackle the Chinese , the current government hasn't done anything to reduce the deficit in trade between the two countries and lately there have been talks about how local markets are flooded with cheap chinese goods while the homegrown small businessmen suffer because of it , unable to sell things at dead cheap prices. So if the new government does something to even out the deficit or threaten to take their trade elsewhere if they continue to cause trouble along the border.. I am just assuming that these are possible even if it's in very small way.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 00:07
I agree Sir, but I am just wishing this being a start to show Chinese and Pakistani's we are not going to bluff and just sit tight whenever provoked (however small that might be).Unless an automated response, ie a nuke strike, every event is extremely situational. Are you going to start a nuke war just because Chinese guards forced beer on your guys? Or do you wait as you watch your nuclear assets being destroyed by a Chinese conventional missile barrage that is more effective than you realize?

antimony
11 Apr 14,, 00:38
My understanding is , by saying no NFU , they are trying to say they will not hesitate to take strong actions if provoked.

Rhetoricar and rhetoricar. What "Strong Actions"? What "provocation" ? Repeat of Mumbai 2008, Kargil, Parliamentary attacks? What does NFU have to do with any non nuclear provocation. If they said they would cross borders next time a Kargil happens (the whole points of cold start) I could understand. Why does NFU come up?



Sometimes you need this kind of statements to reinstate the lost credibility (however small it might be).


I don't need anything like this. I need to know that my country will have a strong and capable leadership in crisis, not a loony bin one with a thin skin. Also, what credibility are we talking about here? India's? BJP's? Modi's?



Maybe their plan is to take on Pakistan and China in some way (i don't know how).

And that gets done with revocation of NFU?

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 03:06
He's a lawyer, so not very likable by default ;)

What I find amusing is his ability to drive people nuts to call him names instead to call him on his claims.


Shhhhhhhh..... do not reveal my secret strategy to winning in the court!!!!

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 03:11
Can backfire, Hitesh, in a military court, all I have to say is "You, ***Rank***, are insulting me!"

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 03:24
Can backfire, Hitesh, in a military court, all I have to say is "You, ***Rank***, are insulting me!"

Can I just say, "I am merely questioning as to what he thought so and his motives?"

Good thing that civilian courts are not military courts, eh?

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 03:27
Can I just say, "I am merely questioning as to what he thought so and his motives?"

Good thing that civilian courts are not military courts, eh?Respect my rank, Sir. Unless you are qualified to judge my decisions, including security clearances, you are ill positioned to question my decisions.

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 03:31
Respect my rank, Sir. Unless you are qualified to judge my decisions, including security clearances, you are ill positioned to question my decisions.

"Then why are you in court instead of being out in the field?"

If he says because of me

I will ask, "Did you know that the court was the one that approved of my request to have you on the witness stand?" "Are you calling the court a liar? the Judge a fool?" "Do you question the court's authority to call you on the witness stand?"

"Do you know that I am not judging your decisions, but exploring the context of your decisions so the court and the jury may judge your decisions? Unless you question their qualifications to judge your decisions?"

If he says no, "Then why can't you answer my question as opposed to making statements on my qualifications to judge your decisions in which I am not?"

OOE, it doesn't take much to land the witness in hot water if he starts claiming that I have to respect his decisions or I am insulting him.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 03:40
Hehehehahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah ahah!!!!!!!

Gentlemen, that's why I love Hitesh. He's one of my best internet friends whom I've never met ... and he always, ALWAYS, learn his lesson ... in which I am about to give it to him.

Hitesh, you've fallen into my trap. Do recall Brigadier Ray and I had this EXACT CONVERSATION! His favourite film, A FEW GOOD MEN, showed Jack Nicholson, portraying a Marine Colonel giving the riot act to Tom Cruise's Naval LT. "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

And the reality was that Tom Cruise's character could not handle the truth, neither did Kevin Bacon's Captain character.

But the one line, the one line everyone forgets, Marine Colonel Judge Julius Alexander Randolph, "I am more than qualified." It was him who instructed Kevin Bacon's character to take Jack Nicholson's character into custody.

I don't have to respect you but I have to respect the judge.

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 03:44
Right,

Then he would have no choice but to obey the court's order to answer my questions especially if I explain how they can be relevant to the issue at hand. I would force him to acknowledge that by not answering my questions, he would be disobeying the court's authority.

By the way, Tom Cruise just made Jack Nicholson's character admit his crime. He goaded him.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 03:50
Right,

Then he would have no choice but to obey the court's order to answer my questions especially if I explain how they can be relevant to the issue at hand. I would force him to acknowledge that by not answering my questions, he would be disobeying the court's authority.Well, no, the crime in question is not national security. Otherwise, I can refuse, in fact, I am obligated to refuse to answer unless all within the court can prove to my satisfaction that they are cleared for the details, Key note. MY SATISFACTION.


By the way, Tom Cruise just made Jack Nicholson's character admit his crime. He goaded him.You're missing my point. My point is that the judge and not you is the authority.

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 04:15
Well, no, the crime in question is not national security. Otherwise, I can refuse, in fact, I am obligated to refuse to answer unless all within the court can prove to my satisfaction that they are cleared for the details, Key note. MY SATISFACTION.


I can get around that by calling another guy with the same clearance as yours and ensure that you are not pulling some trick on me and if he says otherwise, your credibility just took a hit.



You're missing my point. My point is that the judge and not you is the authority.

I got your point. What I am saying is that I will paint you as a guy not respecting the judge's authority, not my authority. See the difference?

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 05:51
I can get around that by calling another guy with the same clearance as yours and ensure that you are not pulling some trick on me and if he says otherwise, your credibility just took a hit.Oh come on, Hitesh, I just kicked you out of the courtroom without without the necessary clearance!


I got your point. What I am saying is that I will paint you as a guy not respecting the judge's authority, not my authority. See the difference?NO! YOU DO NOT GET MY POINT. I AM A COMBAT OFFICER. THE JUDGE IS A COMBAT OFFICER.

You ARE NOT!

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 08:04
Colonel, that was one of my favorite Hollywood scenes too. The disdain of a fighting man for a Ivy league suited "civvie" was dripping from Jack Nicholson's eyes.

You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall, was my favorite line btw.

lemontree
11 Apr 14,, 08:22
LT your frame of reference, by your admission, is that of an Indian Christian.
My views are of an Indian,...they were formed years ago in 1990, when as a college student I was travelling in a Bombay-Goa train. The train was full of Bajrang Dal hordes, tormenting muslim passengers (pre-Babri Masjid incident era). I was seeing the Sangh carving India in to little pieces.

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 08:36
My views are of an Indian,...they were formed years ago in 1990, when as a college student I was travelling in a Bombay-Goa train. The train was full of Bajrang Dal hordes, tormenting muslim passengers (pre-Babri Masjid incident era). I was seeing the Sangh carving India in to little pieces.

And you think the BJP is the political master of the Bajrang Dal?

LT, you may speak as an Indian, in fact as a soldier you WILL and DO speak as an Indian, but every time you speak, you bring up so called atrocities against Christians. Not Sikhs. Not Muslims. Always Christians.

How many Christians have been killed LT by Hindus in India? Do you have incidents and numbers please?

Whille I will not condone any violence against any Indian, I will however try to understand the background to that violence, that backlash.

Is it reactionary or is it vindictive and premeditated. Is it social or is it political. Is it all pervasive or is it local.

These are all important factors.

And again my original question. What is the link to BJP or even the RSS? Do you have a link beyond your usual "they are all one and the same" line?

lemontree
11 Apr 14,, 09:58
And you think the BJP is the political master of the Bajrang Dal?
The RSS is the master/ guide of both the BJP and the Bajrang Dal.


LT, you may speak as an Indian, in fact as a soldier you WILL and DO speak as an Indian, but every time you speak, you bring up so called atrocities against Christians. Not Sikhs. Not Muslims. Always Christians.
Dude what is wrong with you...:slap:

Originally Posted by lemontree
My views are of an Indian,...they were formed years ago in 1990, when as a college student I was travelling in a Bombay-Goa train. The train was full of Bajrang Dal hordes, tormenting muslim passengers (pre-Babri Masjid incident era). I was seeing the Sangh carving India in to little pieces.


How many Christians have been killed LT by Hindus in India? Do you have incidents and numbers please?
I gave data of cases in 2013 in my previous post.


Whille I will not condone any violence against any Indian, I will however try to understand the background to that violence, that backlash.

Is it reactionary or is it vindictive and premeditated. Is it social or is it political. Is it all pervasive or is it local.
If you were in Bombay in Dec 1999, please explain this incident....(Shiv Sena-BJP were in power in the state and BJP in the center).
Indian Express: IC colony wants its peace (http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990104/0045048p.html)


And again my original question. What is the link to BJP or even the RSS? Do you have a link beyond your usual "they are all one and the same" line?
What is the Sangh Parivar?...apologists refuse to acknowledge the plausable deniabilty used by the Sangh for all their acts of violence.
But since you asked....The Sangh Parivar is a family of organisations of Hindu nationalists which have been started by members of the RSS:-
The Sangh parivar includes the following:-
- BJP
- Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, (ABVP), (all India Students' Forum)
- Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
- Bajrang Dal (parent org is VHP)

Besides, even if you refute all this, the fact that all these organisations work together shows that they are birds of a feather.
Example: In Hubli in 2012, the BJP, RSS and Ram Sena, were hand in hand.:biggrin:
BJP, Sangh Parivar behind Pakistan flag-hoisting: Yatnal - The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/bjp-sangh-parivar-behind-pakistan-flaghoisting-yatnal/article2779592.ece)
6 Sri Ram Sene men held for bid to hoist Pakistani flag : Mail Today, News - India Today (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sri-ram-sene-activists-pakistani-flag/1/167409.html)
Pakistani flag hoisting was a Hindutva plot to foment strife, police say - The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistani-flag-hoisting-was-a-hindutva-plot-to-foment-strife-police-say/article2790960.ece)

Pakistani flag hoisting was a Hindutva plot to foment strife, police say
With the arrest of another Hindutva activist on Tuesday in connection with the hoisting of a Pakistani flag in front of the Tahsildar office at Sindagi in Karnataka on January 1, the number of persons held by the police for what they believe was a plot to foment communal strife has increased to seven.

The arrested are members of Sri Ram Sene, a pro-Hindutva outfit. According to the police, they allegedly hoisted the Pakistani flag and then blamed it on the town's Muslim community. The accused were shifted to the Bellary district prison on Sunday morning as other inmates of the Bijapur district jail allegedly attacked them for being involved in “anti-national activities.”

Rakesh Math, the prime accused, was seriously injured in the fracas, and the remaining sustained minor injuries.

Meanwhile, members of the district unit of Sri Ram Sene have said the accused do not belong to their outfit but are members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)......T(his is even more beautiful..:Dancing-Banana:)

At a press conference here, they released several pictures to prove their point, alleging that the police had been pressured not to drag the name of the RSS into the issue.

Well-placed police sources, however, told The Hindu that the entire incident was carried out at the behest of an elected representative of the BJP, whose political agenda was to foment communal disturbances in the district. The sources added that the elected representative had instructed his supporters to destroy all evidence of his involvement, including photographs of the protesters and the banners of the organisation.

The Pakistani flag was hoisted in the early hours of January 1. Later in the morning, the accused, led by Rakesh Math, organised a protest in front of the Tahsildar's office, alleging that the Muslim community was behind the incident. The protesters blocked the road and hurled stones at buses before the police enforced order.

The police then formed a special team to investigate the matter.

It concluded that the Sri Ram Sene activists who organised the protests were behind the incident. They arrested the six ringleaders on January 3 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for sedition and inciting communal disturbance.

As a precautionary measure, the district administration has banned rallies, protests and dharnas in connection with the issue.

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 10:05
LT moral policing while being an irritant and deplorable can hardly be compared to violent genocide of a minority community by the majority as you are trying to paint a picture of where the country is headed were the so called Sangh Parivar (a loose term at best, more ideological and birthing than organisational) let loose.

The Sangh is a body looked up to for guidance by many bodies. That does not mean that the Sangh is a multi headed Hydra calling the shots in a right wing conspiracy to Hindu-fy the country.

You are being a trifle paranoid. At best.

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 10:20
Btw, for the Colonel, and coming back to the topic of the thread, last night in an interview with Barkha Dutt on NDTV, Murli Manohar Joshi, senior patriarch and leader of the BJP and architect of most of their elction manifestos to date, calrified on the NFU issue.

He said that dynamics change, technoogy changes, times change, politics change, capabilities and resources and needs change, and at the end of the day, NFU in the first place was the BJP's invention, so it was only fitting that the BJP would take stock of it once again 10 years on, and see how and where it needs to be amended or expandd upon.

There were some technical jargons being thrown around like thorium etc etc. which I did not catch.

Oracle
11 Apr 14,, 10:30
There were some technical jargons being thrown around like thorium etc etc. which I did not catch.

Thorium(Th) is a radioactive element (At no. 90). India possesses a significant quantity of the reserves.

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 10:33
Thorium(Th) is a radioactive element (At no. 90). India possesses a significant quantity of the reserves.

I know what Thorium is (briefly, from school chemistry). Just not how it was linked to the NFU topic in last night's interview. Do you have a transcript from somewhere?

P.S. Barkha Dutt needs to go easy on the parathas man .... she's become a friggin blimp. I used to find her nerdily hot at one time.

Oracle
11 Apr 14,, 11:00
I know what Thorium is (briefly, from school chemistry). Just not how it was linked to the NFU topic in last night's interview. Do you have a transcript from somewhere?

P.S. Barkha Dutt needs to go easy on the parathas man .... she's become a friggin blimp. I used to find her nerdily hot at one time.

India is betting big on Thorium-based nuclear power.

Check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power). You can find relevant articles by googling.

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 12:04
Oh come on, Hitesh, I just kicked you out of the courtroom without without the necessary clearance!

NO! YOU DO NOT GET MY POINT. I AM A COMBAT OFFICER. THE JUDGE IS A COMBAT OFFICER.

You ARE NOT!

Ok then that means it would be very hard for civilian lawyers to defend defendants in military courts and the defendants would be deprived of their right to effective counsel. I am sure that the judge do not want to be on the record depriving the defendants of their right to effective counsel. After all, the judge do answer to a higher authority and one that is not even a combat officer, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court has ruled consistently that no defendant shall be deprived of their right to effective counsel even in matters of national security interest.

If you claim it is a matter of national security interest, I will then argue to the judge that it is a mistrial because you are interfering with my defendant's right to effective counsel, that you are dictating the judicial proceeds, and that it is grounds for appeal.

Military judges may not like civvies/non combat officer lawyer questioning a combat officer but they even like less the idea of being overruled by a higher authority or mistrial.

sated buddha
11 Apr 14,, 13:14
India is betting big on Thorium-based nuclear power.

Check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power). You can find relevant articles by googling.

I'm not sure I get the relevance between nuclear power and NFU.

Oracle
11 Apr 14,, 13:54
I'm not sure I get the relevance between nuclear power and NFU.

Post the interview so that technical jargon are understood in context. Could be using Th instead of U in warheads.

commander
11 Apr 14,, 14:08
Rhetoricar and rhetoricar. What "Strong Actions"? What "provocation" ? Repeat of Mumbai 2008, Kargil, Parliamentary attacks? What does NFU have to do with any non nuclear provocation. If they said they would cross borders next time a Kargil happens (the whole points of cold start) I could understand. Why does NFU come up?

Strong actions may or may not include Military actions. This is just a statement.



I don't need anything like this. I need to know that my country will have a strong and capable leadership in crisis, not a loony bin one with a thin skin. Also, what credibility are we talking about here? India's? BJP's? Modi's?


You may not need this but consider this , by going no NFU even though it doesn't make a big difference strategically that is a statement. I am pretty sure if we drop from the no NFU backlash will be there but the will of a leader or a party to take that to prove something. A strong decision making leader/party who will not hesitate to put it's people first ? That for me is definitely something and I am sure there will be millions like me in a population of a billion.


And that gets done with revocation of NFU?

This might just be the beginning for all we know.

commander
11 Apr 14,, 16:11
Post the interview so that technical jargon are understood in context. Could be using Th instead of U in warheads.

It's BJP's manifesto, not a Modi-festo: MM Joshi to NDTV Video: NDTV.com (http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/it-s-bjp-s-manifesto-not-a-modi-festo-mm-joshi-to-ndtv/316673)

PS: Sorry for posting this on your behalf SB :redface:

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 16:53
Military judges may not like civvies/non combat officer lawyer questioning a combat officer but they even like less the idea of being overruled by a higher authority or mistrial.Which goes back to my point that the Judge is a combat officer. He is in a position to judge the questions to be appropriate.

And there are lawyers with EYES ONLY Clearance.

Blademaster
11 Apr 14,, 17:26
Which goes back to my point that the Judge is a combat officer. He is in a position to judge the questions to be appropriate.

Again, I would argue directly to the judge just like a sidebar. It is the same thing in a civilian court. The prosecutor/other party can raise objection on grounds of relevance, badgering, or harassing witness just as the military officer can raise objections on grounds of national security or disrespecting rank. Based on that objection, I can appeal to the judge to make a ruling in favor of my side.



And there are lawyers with EYES ONLY Clearance.

Right and those lawyers can continue to question the witness despite his claims of national security interests.

antimony
11 Apr 14,, 18:29
Strong actions may or may not include Military actions. This is just a statement.

You may not need this but consider this , by going no NFU even though it doesn't make a big difference strategically that is a statement.


Newsflash: declaration of our country's nuclear strategy is not just for local consumption. For better or for worse, it is considered by the international community at large. Your friends, allies and enemies take these statements into perspective when they formulate policies about you. Unlike the election slogans of "roti, kapda, makaan", this has real world consequences. It can drive friends and allies away, and forge our enemies close than they are.

This is not just a statement, it is an indication that a group of idiots, who may or may not come to power, want to play with fire



I am pretty sure if we drop from the no NFU backlash will be there but the will of a leader or a party to take that to prove something.


Prove what? The virility of mother India? That Modi has 100% more balls and they are 123% larger in size? Vowing to improve defense preparedness, vowing to go after terrorists at home and beyond are strong statements. Vague statements about rocking the nuclear boat is fallacy unless you have a very considered approach behind it



A strong decision making leader/party who will not hesitate to put it's people first ? That for me is definitely something and I am sure there will be millions like me in a population of a billion.


Put people fist where? In front of a nuclear firing line? I sure hope less people are impressed by this empty and possibly dangerous gesture.



This might just be the beginning for all we know.

Again, beginning of what? Look man, I realize you are batting for them, but as a regular here who has an inkling about nuclear strategy, shouldn't you questions their motives? If revoking NFU has a benefit for us, I am all ears. So far all I have heard is that it is a "strong statement" that "puts people first". If you are so much in support, then you must realize the benefits of this. So spit it out, share the love.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 19:41
Again, I would argue directly to the judge just like a sidebar. It is the same thing in a civilian court. The prosecutor/other party can raise objection on grounds of relevance, badgering, or harassing witness just as the military officer can raise objections on grounds of national security or disrespecting rank. Based on that objection, I can appeal to the judge to make a ruling in favor of my side.Doesn't change the fact if you're not cleared for the info, you will not be getting an answer.


Right and those lawyers can continue to question the witness despite his claims of national security interests.The point is those lawyers are the ones who should be acting in the first place and not one without the proper clearance.

Again, going back to the movie, the judge response to Jack Nicholson was to put him in his place.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 20:31
Post the interview so that technical jargon are understood in context. Could be using Th instead of U in warheads.You cannot weaponize thorium.

Doktor
11 Apr 14,, 21:05
You cannot weaponize thorium.

But, can we use it as gamma ray shield? :Dancing-Banana:

commander
11 Apr 14,, 21:16
Newsflash: declaration of our country's nuclear strategy is not just for local consumption. For better or for worse, it is considered by the international community at large. Your friends, allies and enemies take these statements into perspective when they formulate policies about you. Unlike the election slogans of "roti, kapda, makaan", this has real world consequences. It can drive friends and allies away, and forge our enemies close than they are.

This is not just a statement, it is an indication that a group of idiots, who may or may not come to power, want to play with fire


Allies - we don't have any as far as I know. Friends - most of our friends are not in a place to worry about Indian nukes nor are they near to us anyway. Enemies - well if you are my enemy even if I go non nuclear doesn't make any difference you are still my enemy, so why not ?



Prove what? The virility of mother India? That Modi has 100% more balls and they are 123% larger in size? Vowing to improve defense preparedness, vowing to go after terrorists at home and beyond are strong statements. Vague statements about rocking the nuclear boat is fallacy unless you have a very considered approach behind it


Whoa slow down there :biggrin:. Defence preparedness and going after terrorists at home and beyond are something that should be done without making a statement, they don't need to be done after declaring them in a manifesto (IMO atleast).

For an argument lets say the manifesto promises 100% or even 50% more spending for defence (whether it is possible is a different argument) what do you think our Allies , enemies and friends will think and do? Whether you do something or nothing an enemy will always try to take you down.



Put people fist where? In front of a nuclear firing line? I sure hope less people are impressed by this empty and possibly dangerous gesture.


I am saying it is not the decision of going NFU by itself is something that's reassuring but the WILL to take such a decision. I just wishfully think that Modi can show that same WILL in bringing greater good for our people.


Again, beginning of what? Look man, I realize you are batting for them, but as a regular here who has an inkling about nuclear strategy, shouldn't you questions their motives? If revoking NFU has a benefit for us, I am all ears. So far all I have heard is that it is a "strong statement" that "puts people first". If you are so much in support, then you must realize the benefits of this. So spit it out, share the love.

I wouldn't say batting for them is the right word, I only place my trust in Modi, just like millions of other Indians. Seeing Congress in power for 10 years and how things went, I just have a wishful thinking , Modi might just be the guy that can help us out of the pit. Dont get me wrong, I understand (even if it's very minuscule) to my knowledge what this could bring later.

Just for the sake of the argument , if we had backed out of the Nuclear programme fearing what our allies, friends and enemies will do or think would that have done any good for us ? End of the day every man for himself. Since I am not an expert in international politics my understanding goes like this , if you need me to buy your stuff and give you billions of dollars in return you will come and do business with me. You will not mind me having an armed bodyguard protecting my home/shop.

commander
11 Apr 14,, 21:26
You cannot weaponize thorium.

Sir, found this blog post about weaponizing Thorium, the guy who wrote it seems to be popular in this subject, did a google search on him.

Thorium Nuclear Bombs | KMB48 (http://kevinmeyerson.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/thorium-nuclear-bombs/)

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 21:36
If you read through it, it said that thorium bred U-233 can be made into bombs. In other words, still uranium, not thorium.

commander
11 Apr 14,, 21:41
If you read through it, it said that thorium bred U-233 can be made into bombs. In other words, still uranium, not thorium.

But Sir, from the blog,


The point being made here is that thorium can be used to make Uranium-233, which in turn can be used to make bombs.

So end of the day it can be weaponized . Correct ?

Doktor
11 Apr 14,, 21:45
But Sir, from the blog,

So end of the day it can be weaponized . Correct ?

This is like saying you can use water to illuminate something. (hint: tritium)

commander
11 Apr 14,, 21:47
This is like saying you can use water to illuminate something. (hint: tritium)

I take it as a Yes then ;)

Doktor
11 Apr 14,, 21:51
I take it as a Yes then ;)

Why noone did it?

Either it is

a. too complicated (read not worth it), or b. Not possible.

commander
11 Apr 14,, 22:04
Why noone did it?

Either it is

a. too complicated (read not worth it), or b. Not possible.

But Dok, in that blog he mentions how it was successfully separated without much complications like it's portrayed to be.


Interestingly, filtering these highly radioactive contaminants out of thorium bred U-233 is no mysterious process. The US’ own Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) created a process way back in the ’50s to do this. They kindly wrote about it in a history included in the ORNL Review publication:

By 1954, the Laboratory’s chemical technologists had completed a pilot plant demonstrating the ability of the THOREX process to separate thorium, protactinium, and uranium-233 from fission products and from each other. This process could isolate uranium-233 for weapons development and also for use as fuel in the proposed thorium breeder reactors.

So, there are no technical issues for separating out Uranium-233 for weapons development.

Also if this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Reserve_estimates)article is to be believed,


USGS Estimates in tonnes (2011)
Country Reserves
India 963,000
United States 440,000
Australia 300,000
Canada 100,000
South Africa 35,000
Brazil 16,000
Malaysia 4,500
Other Countries 90,000
World Total 1,913,000

If we are able to weaponize even a portion of it then it is time to start digging :biggrin:. Although why no one did it still stands , maybe it is downplayed ?

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 14,, 22:27
Why noone did it?It's damned easier to make weapons grade material from raw uranium. It's like getting 100% pure water from urine. Yeah, you can do it but it's damned easier just to filter the river water.

Doktor
11 Apr 14,, 22:30
My thoughts exactly, Col.

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 00:09
If we are able to weaponize even a portion of it then it is time to start digging :biggrin:. Although why no one did it still stands , maybe it is downplayed ?

If your aim is to make a weapon then thorium is a waste of resources. If your aim is to generate power then it may have advantages over uranium. You may still be able to weaponize the thorium if you wish, but apparently it has issues. Keep in mind that the nuclear power industry was ultimately a byproduct of the bomb building industry, not the other way around. If your object from the start was producing power uranium reactors might not have been the best path.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 08:48
Point is India does not have uranium and is mainly dependent on other countries (Australia?) for it. While we have huge resources of thorium. So push come to shove while it may not be the ideal situation, nor the easiest or cheapest, it might be an alternative situation for boosting our nuclear stockpile. Cheaply. Unobtrusively. Dare I say clandestinely if need be.

Could that be what Mr. Joshi was alluding to?

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 09:47
Use it to produce power. Increasing electricity generation will do you more good than building more bombs. The extra economic activity generated from the power produced will more than pay for any extra uranium you decide you need.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 09:56
Use it to produce power. Increasing electricity generation will do you more good than building more bombs. The extra economic activity generated from the power produced will more than pay for any extra uranium you decide you need.

Seems that we have more than double the reserves of the country with the next largest reserves. So a case could be made for diverting some of that to the security of the nation as well.

I don't think its so much an issue of cost (for the uranium), but the fact that we are dependent on other countries deciding to sell or not and at what terms and what strings attached. And the fact that any external yellowcake(?) would be closely accounted for and monitored by friend and foe alike, so that they would have a pretty good idea of what we were doing with it and what the impact on our stockpile in terms of inventory and timelines would be.

I think that may not be as easy with native thorium reserves. Don't know if civil facilities could be modified or diverted towards getting weapon's grade uranium from the thorium though. I guess that's the issue really.

Assuming we have 200 (and not the publicly touted 110-120) nukes currently, it would be good to build to a stockpile of at least 500 as a buffer against any Chinese designs. This is the number I have read a couple of places elsewhere as well so maybe its not without basis.

The Buddha has been smiling for well close to half a century now. Its time he was properly sated.

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 10:46
Seems that we have more than double the reserves of the country with the next largest reserves. So a case could be made for diverting some of that to the security of the nation as well.

I don't think its so much an issue of cost (for the uranium), but the fact that we are dependent on other countries deciding to sell or not and at what terms and what strings attached. And the fact that any external yellowcake(?) would be closely accounted for and monitored by friend and foe alike, so that they would have a pretty good idea of what we were doing with it and what the impact on our stockpile in terms of inventory and timelines would be

I'm betting that other countries will have a pretty good idea whether you are buying uranium or not.


I think that may not be as easy with native thorium reserves. Don't know if civil facilities could be modified or diverted towards getting weapon's grade uranium from the thorium though. I guess that's the issue really.


Apparently Thorium bombs have a nasty habit of not detonating quite when you want them to. How much money do you want to spend & how many tests do you want to carry out to find out if you can improve that? The latter is a real issue. Nuclear testing is a guaranteed way to increase tensions. Making functional Thorium bombs may actually cause more problems than just buying uranium.


Assuming we have 200 (and not the publicly touted 110-120) nukes currently, it would be good to build to a stockpile of at least 500 as a buffer against any Chinese designs. This is the number I have read a couple of places elsewhere as well so maybe its not without basis.


If China isn't put off by 200 then 500 won't do it.


The Buddha has been smiling for well close to half a century now. Its time he was properly sated.

The Buddha has bigger fish to fry. The threat China poses is that its economy & infrastructure has blown past you. It is building cities on virgin land and churning out modern weapons systems in vast quantities, while India are still struggling with the sort of fundamental problems associated with struggling 3rd world societies. The gap India needs to focus on isn't warheads. If you doubt that, look at how the last Cold War turned out. The real value of Thorium to India isn't in bomb making.

Thorium reactors: Asgard (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute)

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 10:56
Bigfella, the issue is about national security. Not parity with another country.

China is at status quo with 200. With 500, if nothing, that status quo just gets strengthened. That's a powerful incentive any which way you look at it.

If it can be done, and it needs to be done, India can and will do it. We have proven it in the past. On our own.

The Buddha will fry its own fish, in its own time, and of it own choosing. Small satellite western block umbrella countries with their unsolicited condescencion nothwithstanding.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 10:57
The real value of Thorium to India isn't in bomb making.

Thankfully, Indian decision makers realize this piece and there will be no issues.

BTW... 500 nukes to deter China? You kidding? They wont even blink.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 10:59
BTW... 500 nukes to deter China? You kidding? They wont even blink.

Some more bravado from an even smaller and possibly even more insignificant western block country.

Sigh.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 11:02
Some more bravado from an even smaller and possibly even more insignificant western block country.

Sigh.

They stood in front of a thread from Soviet arsenal, why do you think they will blink on front of your 500 Th nukes. If they even work.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 11:04
They stood in front of a thread from Soviet arsenal, why do you think they will blink on front of your 500 Th nukes. If they even work.

The cases are different. I am sure as a senior member you can see that.

In one place they are on the back foot. Willing to die.

In the other case are they willing to die with the tables reversed?

I'm sure you would also appreciate that the gap between the then Soviet and Chinese arsenals was a lot bigger than the gap between the now Chinese and Indian arsenals.

So why do you think if China can do it to the USSR, India cannot do it to China?

commander
12 Apr 14,, 11:14
Thankfully, Indian decision makers realize this piece and there will be no issues.

BTW... 500 nukes to deter China? You kidding? They wont even blink.

But Dok that's so far..I sure hope that the new government takes a different approach.

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 11:51
Bigfella, the issue is about national security. Not parity with another country.


The biggest threat to your national security viz China is to do with your economy, not warheads.


China is at status quo with 200. With 500, if nothing, that status quo just gets strengthened. That's a powerful incentive any which way you look at it.

If it can be done, and it needs to be done, India can and will do it. We have proven it in the past. On our own.

it doesn't need to be done. You have enough to deter.


The Buddha will fry its own fish, in its own time, and of it own choosing. Small satellite western block umbrella countries with their unsolicited condescencion nothwithstanding.

One of the things I like most about you SB is the way you construct huge neon signs saying 'I just ran out of arguments' and then hide behind them like a shield. Both funny and predictable.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 11:52
The cases are different. I am sure as a senior member you can see that.

In one place they are on the back foot. Willing to die.

In the other case are they willing to die with the tables reversed?

I'm sure you would also appreciate that the gap between the then Soviet and Chinese arsenals was a lot bigger than the gap between the now Chinese and Indian arsenals.

So why do you think if China can do it to the USSR, India cannot do it to China?

Reading the good Col for years, I am quite convinced that China wont hit first.

Keeping that in mind, wasting resources to produce water out of pee, because someone else has a bigger spring and you pee a lot is silly. You can invest that resources in infrastructure and helping tech-oriented businesses.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 12:08
The biggest threat to your national security viz China is to do with your economy, not warheads.

How is that a threat? We may not be doing as good as China (are you? or most others save a handful?) but we're not doing too bad either. Our growth rate is still one of the highest amongst developing countries and Standard and Poor has once again given us a stable rating.


it doesn't need to be done. You have enough to deter.

Can't hurt to have more. Just in case the message did not get across.


One of the things I like most about you SB is the way you construct huge neon signs saying 'I just ran out of arguments' and then hide behind them like a shield. Both funny and predictable.

Give me some time please. I need to figure out what I like about you.

sated buddha
12 Apr 14,, 12:10
Reading the good Col for years, I am quite convinced that China wont hit first.

Keeping that in mind, wasting resources to produce water out of pee, because someone else has a bigger spring and you pee a lot is silly. You can invest that resources in infrastructure and helping tech-oriented businesses.

Its obvious the nuclear paradigm is going to change under the BJP. Maybe they know something which you do not. Maybe they just like to pee. As long as we pee in our own backyard, if nothing, it'll just help the crops.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 12:11
SB,

Take a breath, you are arguing for the sake of the argument at the moment. Nothing good will come out of it.

ambidex
12 Apr 14,, 12:48
It means BJP will release more funds to increase nuclear arsenal. Such things were not expected by current government lead by that Italian lady who herself clears PMO's files, has screwed even conventional capabilities big time.

Those who have read General Krishnaswamy Sundarji should know the dictation was always there for next generation to come to increase nuclear arsenal.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 14,, 12:58
Can't hurt to have more. Just in case the message did not get across.Oh for Pete sakes. Yes, it hurts and it hurts big time to have more. Why the hell do you think the Chinese went conventional instead of nuclear for their strategic strike arm?

Because you can't use nukes!

You have a big bomb that you don't dare to use sitting around eating money. For every nuclear regiment you raise, you've just lost an entire army brigade. Frankly I can use that brigade more than your nukes. Both the Chinese and the Pakistanis know you can't use them but a brigade? That will make them think.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 13:07
How many cruise missiles for 1 army brigade?

Scratch that, Obama say US doesn't need those, why would India do :sarcasm:

Oracle
12 Apr 14,, 13:10
The need of the hour is for India to have good governance, minimize corruption, tackle red-tape, speed up pending projects on power and infrastructure, constitute a single window clearance for FDI, adopt DTC & GST, simplify tax laws, adopt uniform labor laws that compliment today's markets and simplify land acquisition. These are just some in a big list of have-to-do's for the next Government in power.

Nuclear weapons, as the Col said, is a black hole guzzling tons of money, something which we need in truckloads. So Th, in my best guess would be for power generation.

Oracle
12 Apr 14,, 13:17
Some more bravado from an even smaller and possibly even more insignificant western block country.

Sigh.

What would you prefer?

#1. 1000 nuclear bombs

OR

#2. An economy that provides food on the table for every single Indian household

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 13:53
What would you prefer?

#1. 1000 nuclear bombs

OR

#2. An economy that provides food on the table for every single Indian household

He probably thinks you can have both.

Doktor
12 Apr 14,, 13:56
He probably thinks you can have both.

USA had both 50 years ago, so...

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 13:58
USA had both 50 years ago, so...

America could feed all its people before it got nukes or out a man into space.

bolo121
12 Apr 14,, 14:28
What would you prefer?

#1. 1000 nuclear bombs

OR

#2. An economy that provides food on the table for every single Indian household

Exactly.
It always comes down to guns vs butter.
We first need to clean our economy up and escape the middle income trap.

China constructed a massive economy before embarking on their build up.
Also given that India follows Sundarji's concepts wrt to deterrence, a limited nuclear capability is all we need.
What is critically lacking is modernisation of conventional forces.
Heck we need to first provide the basics, a good battle rifle, ballistic protection, proper comfortable boots and uniforms.
Not to mention the ever worsening artillery situation

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 14:29
How is that a threat?

Really? I have to explain to you why having a dramatically better economy & infrastructure is more advantageous in a Cold War? Russia & the Soviet Bloc was a more functional relative to the US than you are to China & they lost. China has a domestic military/industrial complex that can churn out fleets of modern warships, squadrons of modern aircraft & divisions of modern tanks if needs be. You still don't have a functional power grid. Just one example.

Threat? What threat?


We may not be doing as good as China (are you? or most others save a handful?) but we're not doing too bad either.

We are doing just fine.


Our growth rate is still one of the highest amongst developing countries and Standard and Poor has once again given us a stable rating.

Still missing the point. In terms of physical & social infrastructure you are one to two generations behind China and they are not slowing up. Your best bits are competitive, but your worst bits dramatically outnumber them & are WAY behind. Further, you lack the system of government to catch up as rapidly as China has done with the West. That isn't political, its structural. Having a nice set of numbers might have a feelgood factor, but unless it translates into road, rail, power, industry, education, health & housing and keeps doing so for generations it is just a nice number.

Same goes for the number of nukes you have. You could use Thorium to help modernize your nation & allow its people to realise their potential or you could squander some of that potential making more nukes. One of those will do you far more good against China than the other.


Can't hurt to have more. Just in case the message did not get across.

It can hurt if it sucks up resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Ask the Colonel, though I doubt the opinion of someone from some 'fringe Western nation' is of much import to a citizen of a Great Power like India.

China got the message. I'm starting to think it is some Indians who haven't.


Give me some time please. I need to figure out what I like about you.

Flattery will get you everywhere, though all this man love is a little awkward in open forum. People will talk.:red:

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 14:34
Exactly.
It always comes down to guns vs butter.
We first need to clean our economy up and escape the middle income trap.
China first constructed a massive economy before embarking on their build up

At the risk of nitpicking, that is only true of China's navy. Their military was huge & nuclear armed while the economy was a shambles and people were living in grinding poverty & dying in the streets. Not a great example to follow. The massive economy allowed for a massive modernization that is ongoing. If India fails to modernize its economy & those parts of its society that lag it will eventually fall far behind militarily.

bolo121
12 Apr 14,, 14:35
America could feed all its people before it got nukes or out a man into space.

Well to be fair at the time we were a poor fractious nation trying to get to our feet after so many years of occupation.
America has always had the benefit of being a massive continent spanning giant with wealth and natural resources never seen before or since.

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 14:42
Well to be fair at the time we were a poor fractious nation trying to get to our feet after so many years of occupation.
America has always had the benefit of being a massive continent spanning giant with wealth and natural resources never seen before or since.

I agree to a point, but America's strength has always been its human resources and its system of government. Natural resources don't mean much without that, ask Nigeria. India has vast human resources that are being under-utilized because the economic & social infrastructure simply doesn't exist. That is where China has raced ahead & what makes it such a potentially dangerous adversary. China has the same natural resources it had in 1949 or 1980, but the potential of its people has changed beyond description.

India can justify having nuclear weapons given its strategic situation, but wasting resources to close some imaginary gap will do more harm than good.

bolo121
12 Apr 14,, 14:42
At the risk of nitpicking, that is only true of China's navy. Their military was huge & nuclear armed while the economy was a shambles and people were living in grinding poverty & dying in the streets. Not a great example to follow. The massive economy allowed for a massive modernization that is ongoing. If India fails to modernize its economy & those parts of its society that lag it will eventually fall far behind militarily.

Their military was huge in numbers yes, but was a peasant army without the tools or training for even late 20th century full scale war.
I get this impression from years of following OOE and Xinhui's conversations on the PLA's buildup.

I believe that China got its nukes due to considerable Soviet assistance back before things turned sour.

Also I believe I was saying the same thing as you, we need to fix our economy first. Once thats done, the cash will be there to gun up.

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 14:51
Their military was huge in numbers yes, but was a peasant army without the tools or training for even late 20th century full scale war.
I get this impression from years of following OOE and Xinhui's conversations on the PLA's buildup.


It was big enough & well equipped enough to scare the shit out of the USSR, which was sort of the point. Yes, it was primitive, but still big & expensive.


I believe that China got its nukes due to considerable Soviet assistance back before things turned sour.

I'd need to do some digging. I seem to recall the first Chinese nukes being in '65. After the split, but probably benefitting from Soviet assistance beforehand.

I would argue that China pre-Deng is an example of a nation that devoted more than it could afford to its military & paid a price. Part of that price was being stuck with a military that was increasingly left behind that of its rivals. India won't face precisely the same problems, but risks still exist.


Also I believe I was saying the same thing as you, we need to fix our economy first. Once thats done, the cash will be there to gun up.

We are in furious agreement, I'm just a pedant. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 14,, 14:53
It was big enough & well equipped enough to scare the shit out of the USSR, which was sort of the point.Errrr, No.

bolo121
12 Apr 14,, 15:05
It was big enough & well equipped enough to scare the shit out of the USSR, which was sort of the point. Yes, it was primitive, but still big & expensive.


I seem to remember reading that the Soviets bashed china around with ease in their occasional border disagreements.
Plus there was a thread a while back discussing how they planned to nuke the heck out of lop nor and charge in behind, provided the US turned a blind eye?

Bigfella
12 Apr 14,, 15:06
Errrr, No.

OK. I withdraw the point.

Still had a very big military before it really had the economy to support it properly.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 14,, 15:48
During the time in question, the Soviets had 45 divisions facing the Chinese 67 divisions. However, the numbers lie. It was a Soviet motorized/armoured division vs a Chinese foot infantry division, yes foot infantry. Given such, even a Soviet regiment would chew a Chinese division apart.

cataphract
12 Apr 14,, 15:54
America could feed all its people before it got nukes or out a man into space.

Difference between could and would. 1950s and 60s in America weren't remembered for great living conditions, especially in the deep south. By the same measure, India grows more than enough food today to feed its people and then some. The point is, military modernization can happen without social progress.

cdude
12 Apr 14,, 20:54
Difference between could and would. 1950s and 60s in America weren't remembered for great living conditions, especially in the deep south.

I know you are joking.


India grows more than enough food today to feed its people and then some. The point is, military modernization can happen without social progress.

That's exactly what Kim Mentally-Ill said if you replace India with "the Best Korea".

commander
12 Apr 14,, 20:57
That's exactly what Kim Mentally-Ill said if you replace India with "the Best Korea".

Owh yeah ? You got any facts to back your claim ?

cdude
12 Apr 14,, 21:01
It was big enough & well equipped enough to scare the shit out of the USSR, which was sort of the point. Yes, it was primitive, but still big & expensive.


I was a PLA brat in the 80/90's. No, they were not well equipped then and I would guess they were even worse in Mao's time. China's MAIN problem pre-Deng was not that the PLA spent too much money , it's that the communist economy didn't produce enough stuff.

You probably could not imagine now that the PLA used to raise pigs so the soldiers could have meat to eat. This was only 20 years ago.

cdude
12 Apr 14,, 21:24
Really? I have to explain to you why having a dramatically better economy & infrastructure is more advantageous in a Cold War? Russia & the Soviet Bloc was a more functional relative to the US than you are to China & they lost. China has a domestic military/industrial complex that can churn out fleets of modern warships, squadrons of modern aircraft & divisions of modern tanks if needs be. You still don't have a functional power grid. Just one example.

Threat? What threat?



We are doing just fine.



Still missing the point. In terms of physical & social infrastructure you are one to two generations behind China and they are not slowing up. Your best bits are competitive, but your worst bits dramatically outnumber them & are WAY behind. Further, you lack the system of government to catch up as rapidly as China has done with the West. That isn't political, its structural. Having a nice set of numbers might have a feelgood factor, but unless it translates into road, rail, power, industry, education, health & housing and keeps doing so for generations it is just a nice number.

Same goes for the number of nukes you have. You could use Thorium to help modernize your nation & allow its people to realise their potential or you could squander some of that potential making more nukes. One of those will do you far more good against China than the other.



It can hurt if it sucks up resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Ask the Colonel, though I doubt the opinion of someone from some 'fringe Western nation' is of much import to a citizen of a Great Power like India.

China got the message. I'm starting to think it is some Indians who haven't.



Flattery will get you everywhere, though all this man love is a little awkward in open forum. People will talk.:red:

You should be an adviser to the Indian government on how to spend their money. I mean some of their purchases are like fucking drunk sailors throwing money after months on board.

I'm not saying some of these Indian Wabbers' are not smart. But it seems to me that Deng Xiao-ping had a better idea of how likely a neighbor power would attack. After 79's Vietnam invasion and the Soviets didn't do shit to China. Deng openly stated that "we will have at least 30 years of peace to develop our economy". And he cut dozens of divisions, let the remaining ones raise pigs to feed themselves and look at where China is now today.


It's true that China could invade and bomb the shit out of New Delhi anytime as some of you guys feared. But the likelihood is extremely small and you don't throw your country's precious resources on that. Deng was genius compared to these commentators on WAB.

antimony
12 Apr 14,, 21:29
Allies - we don't have any as far as I know. Friends - most of our friends are not in a place to worry about Indian nukes nor are they near to us anyway. Enemies - well if you are my enemy even if I go non nuclear doesn't make any difference you are still my enemy, so why not ?


Our friends gradually make defense technology less available to us and more available to our enemies.



Whoa slow down there :biggrin:. Defence preparedness and going after terrorists at home and beyond are something that should be done without making a statement, they don't need to be done after declaring them in a manifesto (IMO atleast).


Really? Tinkering with our nuclear policy is less concerning than dealing terrorism with a strong hand. That's what you are going with?



For an argument lets say the manifesto promises 100% or even 50% more spending for defence (whether it is possible is a different argument) what do you think our Allies , enemies and friends will think and do? Whether you do something or nothing an enemy will always try to take you down.

I am saying it is not the decision of going NFU by itself is something that's reassuring but the WILL to take such a decision. I just wishfully think that Modi can show that same WILL in bringing greater good for our people.

I wouldn't say batting for them is the right word, I only place my trust in Modi, just like millions of other Indians. Seeing Congress in power for 10 years and how things went, I just have a wishful thinking , Modi might just be the guy that can help us out of the pit. Dont get me wrong, I understand (even if it's very minuscule) to my knowledge what this could bring later.


Lets quit with these vague generalities.

I believe using NFU as an election plank is a folly as the consequences go much deeper than they realize. I believe our current deterrence policy serves us well - it establishes us a mature, level headed player. Hence the reason the world made an exception with us, even thought we have not signed the NPT.

You obviously think that the above is unimportant, given your acceptance that Modi/ BJP can talk about tinkering with this without any consequences. Presumably you have given a lot of thought to this and come to the conclusion that our current deterrence policy is not working and needs serious reexamination. I am asking you to lay out your viewpoint.



Just for the sake of the argument , if we had backed out of the Nuclear programme fearing what our allies, friends and enemies will do or think would that have done any good for us ? End of the day every man for himself. Since I am not an expert in international politics my understanding goes like this , if you need me to buy your stuff and give you billions of dollars in return you will come and do business with me. You will not mind me having an armed bodyguard protecting my home/shop.

Does not hold good for nuclear and other WMD arsenal

antimony
12 Apr 14,, 21:30
You should be an adviser to the Indian government on how to spend their money. I mean some of their purchases are like fucking drunk sailors throwing money after months on board.


I was wondering when you would show up

cdude
12 Apr 14,, 21:36
I was wondering when you would show up

I lived in the SF gay area for years. But still, being a raging heterosexual, I'm scared by your obsession with me.

commander
12 Apr 14,, 22:59
Our friends gradually make defense technology less available to us and more available to our enemies.


Fair point. I strongly believe in having indigenous development in the field of defence. So this might even trigger that and might end up as a good thing. Mind you not the going of no NFU a good thing but rather the development of domestic tech



Really? Tinkering with our nuclear policy is less concerning than dealing terrorism with a strong hand. That's what you are going with?


Call me crazy but I already to the limited knowledge of mine think as an aspiring global power there are something as significant as nuclear policy. But this is just my humble opinion.



Lets quit with these vague generalities.

I believe using NFU as an election plank is a folly as the consequences go much deeper than they realize. I believe our current deterrence policy serves us well - it establishes us a mature, level headed player. Hence the reason the world made an exception with us, even thought we have not signed the NPT.

You obviously think that the above is unimportant, given your acceptance that Modi/ BJP can talk about tinkering with this without any consequences. Presumably you have given a lot of thought to this and come to the conclusion that our current deterrence policy is not working and needs serious reexamination. I am asking you to lay out your viewpoint.



Does not hold good for nuclear and other WMD arsenal

Honestly I do think we are not safe currently. You know the state of the army in the recent days. A situation like that would be very rare but however small the chances are anything might go wrong. So in my thinking by saying you will not play by rules of you don't play by the rules then the guy who tries to whack you would know you will not hesitate to take them down with you completely needed. (Am I being too paranoid?)

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 01:58
There is no such thing as no rules. If you turn aroind and say you will not abide by NFU, then others will nuke you right off the bat rather than to let you get ready

commander
13 Apr 14,, 10:58
There is no such thing as no rules. If you turn aroind and say you will not abide by NFU, then others will nuke you right off the bat rather than to let you get ready

But Sir, come on. Just because we say we will go NFU should mean everyone should the bomb the crap out of us. I mean we aren't like Pakistan or Iran...

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 11:44
Why the hell not? You said no rules.

commander
13 Apr 14,, 17:29
Why the hell not? You said no rules.

Sir don't you think there is a hypocrisy here. There are still many countries which are non NFU and if we even think about it then, that's not a fair game?

Quoting from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) Wiki article



Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States,[17] and France[citation needed] say they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies.



In April 2013 Shyam Saran, convener of the National Security Advisory Board, affirmed that regardless of the size of a nuclear attack against India, be it a miniaturized version or a "big" missile, India will retaliate massively.[15] This shift was earlier implied as a Pakistani development of a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon, would nullify an Indian "no first use" doctrine.[16]


What are the reasons that many believe this change of implemented is a disaster? I would like to know some valid concerns. It is better safe than sorry especially in a time like this.

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 19:18
Sir don't you think there is a hypocrisy here. There are still many countries which are non NFU and if we even think about it then, that's not a fair game?What's left out is the policy of proportional response. We're not going to nuke you if you just pee on our snow.


What are the reasons that many believe this change of implemented is a disaster? I would like to know some valid concerns. It is better safe than sorry especially in a time like this.I don't understand your question.

commander
13 Apr 14,, 19:24
What's left out is the policy of proportional response. We're not going to nuke you if you just pee on our snow.


Sir we aren't gonna nuke someone just because they ventured in our country borders too...



I don't understand your question.

Sorry I could have been more clear.. what I wanted to ask was why this change affect any existing relations, why is it perceived to be bad?

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 20:05
Sir we aren't gonna nuke someone just because they ventured in our country borders too...Difference is that we have spelled out the conditions in which we will use nukes. A Russian tank column on the streets of Paris will be nuked even if we have to toss the first one.


Sorry I could have been more clear.. what I wanted to ask was why this change affect any existing relations, why is it perceived to be bad?Because you are a small power. You don't have the nuke numbers to be flexible. The Russians can afford to nuke an Israeli tank column driving towards Damascus and it will stop there. The Israelis ain't stupid enough to try to nuke Moscow.

India, China, Pakistan? None have the nuke numbers to just hit military targets. That's not an unacceptable hurt. Whoopee Do, you've just wiped out an entire division HQ, 300 men. Wow. Your first hit got to hurt the other guy and that means a city.

France and the UK can be flexible because they're piggy backing off of the US.

commander
13 Apr 14,, 20:16
Difference is that we have spelled out the conditions in which we will use nukes. A Russian tank column on the streets of Paris will be nuked even if we have to toss the first one.


I am pretty sure the nuclear doctrine of ours wouldn't be vague to. I too am aware how much of a broad term so I Wil wait and see what are the changes to come



Because you are a small power. You don't have the nuke numbers to be flexible. The Russians can afford to nuke an Israeli tank column driving towards Damascus and it will stop there. The Israelis ain't stupid enough to try to nuke Moscow.

India, China, Pakistan? None have the nuke numbers to just hit military targets. That's not an unacceptable hurt. Whoopee Do, you've just wiped out an entire division HQ, 300 men. Wow. Your first hit got to hurt the other guy and that means a city.

France and the UK can be flexible because they're piggy backing off of the US.

Fair point. Although this pegs the question for the future of country, as an aspiring superpower does just concentrating on conventional strength a good idea or to plan for the future and start working now towards a better nuclear arsenal?

Apologies if my comments seem to be silly, In my understanding this seems fairly good move

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 20:41
I am pretty sure the nuclear doctrine of ours wouldn't be vague to. I too am aware how much of a broad term so I Wil wait and see what are the changes to comeI'm telling you what your first use is. A city. You don't have the numbers to do otherwise. You don't have a chance to de-escalate after 1st use. And if the other side believes you use first, guess what? They will try to beat you to the punch.


Fair point. Although this pegs the question for the future of country, as an aspiring superpower does just concentrating on conventional strength a good idea or to plan for the future and start working now towards a better nuclear arsenal?First off, there is no such thing as an "aspiring superpower." No country in history sought out to be a superpower. It's a bunch of little steps that one day, they found themselves to be stronger than everybody else but most certainly, they did not aim out that way. They were pretty happy just to stay alive.

Case in point, neither the USSR nor the US were superpowers in the beginning of WWII. France and the UK still dominated that title. After the war, those two were the only ones left standing. You can't tell me that when the war started, they knew they were going to be masters of the planet.

2nd, the days of 60,000+ nukes are gone, never to return. India would be damned stupid if she wants to spend money pursuing such goals.

commander
13 Apr 14,, 21:27
I'm telling you what your first use is. A city. You don't have the numbers to do otherwise. You don't have a chance to de-escalate after 1st use. And if the other side believes you use first, guess what? They will try to beat you to the punch.

Maybe that's why the speech about Thorium and the decision to revise the nuclear policy. the manifesto says the following as per this article (http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-how-progressive-is-bjp-s-election-manifesto-in-foreign-nuclear-and-defence-policies-1976004)


On defence, the BJP promises to regularly update India’s nuclear doctrine and maintain a minimum credible deterrent whose definition may change with evolving geostrategic realities

So by that , the minimum is the number that is of importance. If we are to ignore China in this I am pretty sure that can't be a good move. Sir , do you think with the current arsenal of India we can as much damage as China can do to us ? .. I think no , hence we need to start thinking about the future , where we have an arsenal not a big number like 2 or 3k but rather a respectable number which would give any enemy a second thought.



First off, there is no such thing as an "aspiring superpower." No country in history sought out to be a superpower. It's a bunch of little steps that one day, they found themselves to be stronger than everybody else but most certainly, they did not aim out that way. They were pretty happy just to stay alive.


But Sir, in India the talk about becoming the global power , a super power , has been a bit strong recently. Everyone knows that playing a bigger role in a global scale is definitely good for us as a country , like the talks about being a permanent member of the UN security council (this is just an example though - one of many things we hope to achieve).



Case in point, neither the USSR nor the US were superpowers in the beginning of WWII. France and the UK still dominated that title. After the war, those two were the only ones left standing. You can't tell me that when the war started, they knew they were going to be masters of the planet.

2nd, the days of 60,000+ nukes are gone, never to return. India would be damned stupid if she wants to spend money pursuing such goals.

They didnt knew BUT they did realize it sooner and started to capitalize on that didnt they. If they didnt wanted to play a bigger role they wouldn't have become what they are now. I agree, the number of nukes in the range of 60,000 is insane , as to my understanding just a portion of it is enough to take the planet down completely.

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 14,, 22:27
Maybe that's why the speech about Thorium and the decision to revise the nuclear policy. the manifesto says the following as per this article (http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-how-progressive-is-bjp-s-election-manifesto-in-foreign-nuclear-and-defence-policies-1976004)Thorium is about nuclear power, not nuclear weapons but frankly, I've been hearing about thorium for over 20 years and nobody has yet made a successful viable commercial reactor. At this point, it's more empty hype than real policy.


So by that , the minimum is the number that is of importance. If we are to ignore China in this I am pretty sure that can't be a good move. Sir , do you think with the current arsenal of India we can as much damage as China can do to us ? .. I think no , hence we need to start thinking about the future , where we have an arsenal not a big number like 2 or 3k but rather a respectable number which would give any enemy a second thought.I am going to give up soon. The Chinese strategic threat to India isn't her nukes, it's her conventional strike force of 2000 missiles. That is her counter-force arsenal. China does not need nukes to target India's nukes.

Get it?


But Sir, in India the talk about becoming the global power , a super power , has been a bit strong recently. Everyone knows that playing a bigger role in a global scale is definitely good for us as a country , like the talks about being a permanent member of the UN security council (this is just an example though - one of many things we hope to achieve).Those who do, do. Those who don't, talk.

You know what was behind Deng's China rise? Deng was not aiming to make China a world economic power and after that, a military power. He just want to give everyone a job.


They didnt knew BUT they did realize it sooner and started to capitalize on that didnt they. If they didnt wanted to play a bigger role they wouldn't have become what they are now.It's not that they wanted a bigger role. They wanted a never again situation. Yeah, like that happened.


I agree, the number of nukes in the range of 60,000 is insane , as to my understanding just a portion of it is enough to take the planet down completely.The number is insane but not possible to take down the planet. Carl Sagan lied.

commander
13 Apr 14,, 22:50
Thorium is about nuclear power, not nuclear weapons but frankly, I've been hearing about thorium for over 20 years and nobody has yet made a successful viable commercial reactor. At this point, it's more empty hype than real policy.


Fair point, like I have mentioned earlier in another reply I too wonder why no one has taken exploring in this seriously. Maybe because of the multiple issues of availability, extraction and etc. I am interested what India will do with all it's massive resource of Thorium,Nuclear Power - sure with that amount we can create energy for a long time but , is that all ? I am sure there might be other plans to make use of it. Not maybe a weapon but maybe something else like some mentioned before , a shield ? nuclear shields are a good idea.



I am going to give up soon. The Chinese strategic threat to India isn't her nukes, it's her conventional strike force of 2000 missiles. That is her counter-force arsenal. China does not need nukes to target India's nukes.

Get it?


Agreed Sir, the manifesto has talked about improving the defense sector as well. But keeping a respectable number is what India might try to achieve.



Those who do, do. Those who don't, talk.

You know what was behind Deng's China rise? Deng was not aiming to make China a world economic power and after that, a military power. He just want to give everyone a job.


Agreed on this as well, although there were idea's in India for a long time there were not much that we did towards it.Heck we didn't even improve some of the basic things. Hoping that will change with the upcoming government.



It's not that they wanted a bigger role. They wanted a never again situation. Yeah, like that happened.

The number is insane but not possible to take down the planet. Carl Sagan lied.

My understanding was , that exactly is the sole reason why they wanted to have influence all over the globe (i.e. becoming a super power) to stop the opponent and control the global politics thus making sure there will never be a similar situation again. This is only my assumption of it though.

Doktor
13 Apr 14,, 23:24
The number is insane but not possible to take down the planet. Carl Sagan lied.

Just to express a bit of confusion.

60k nukes dropped on 40k cities (that's world's total by some), of which only 500 are larger then million.

Another thing that's been bothering me, what happens if a nuke warhead hits a nuclear power plant?

Finally if all 60k (I know they are fewer now) lob, what else goes in the air with them?

Yeah the planet might survive, but the humanity?

commander
13 Apr 14,, 23:25
Stumbled on the below article which explains in a way why the nuclear doctrine needs to be revised. In general not only on no NFU.

Source (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/revisiting-indias-nuclear-doctrine/)



Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine

In its manifesto for 2014 general elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has promised to review India’s nuclear doctrine. But does India really have a proper nuclear doctrine in strict sense of the term? In my considered opinion, we do not have a proper nuclear doctrine. We in India, and I think that it is a part of our strategic culture, love to keep things and policies as ambiguous as possible, leaving them to many and different interpretations. Unlike the cases in many leading countries, our leaders hesitate to enunciate clear policies or doctrines.

What we have actually is a “draft nuclear doctrine”, released on August 17, 1999, by the then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra. Some clarifications on this draft were “shared with the public” on January 4, 2003, through a press release by the then Cabinet Committee on Security. I do not think any major power will ever deal with such a sensitive issue in such a cavalier manner.

Be that as it may, the BJP manifesto says: “The strategic gains acquired by India during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime on the nuclear programme have been frittered away by the Congress. Our emphasis was, and remains on, beginning of a new thrust on framing policies that would serve India’s national interest in the 21st century.” That, according to the manifesto, will mean “study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times”, “maintain a credible minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities, and “invest in India’s indigenous Thorium Technology”.

India’s draft doctrine at the moment has the following key features:

While committed to the goal of a nuclear weapon free world through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament, India, till the realisation of this goal, will possess nuclear weapons.
India will build and maintain a credible minimum deterrent.
India will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.
India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if it is attacked through nuclear weapons in its territory or on Indian forces anywhere, then its nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.
In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will also retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.
India will continue strict controls on export of nuclear and missile related materials and technologies, participation in the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations, and continued observance of the moratorium on nuclear tests.
India’s nuclear Command Authority comprises a Political Council and an Executive Council. The Political Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the sole body which can authorise the use of nuclear weapons. The Executive Council is chaired by the National Security Advisor. It provides inputs for decision making by the Nuclear Command Authority and executes the directives given to it by the Political Council.
It may be noted here that in the clarifications that were given in 2003, there were two important changes that were made to the draft doctrine of 1999. The draft doctrine had said: “Any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.” The 2003 clarifications said: “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.” Emphasis here should be given to the addition of the word”massive”.

The second important change in the 2003 clarifications was that a new scenario was added under which India would retaliate with nuclear weapons, and that was the attack through biological or chemical weapons on India or on Indian forces anywhere.

What emerges from the above is that India’s nuclear weapons posture, after the country went officially nuclear in 1998, did undergo changes during the Vajpayee regime itself. Now after 11 years, if Vajpayee’s party is seeking a further review of it, then it is not surprising. In fact, as the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), a leading Indian think-tank with which I am associated, as a Distinguished Fellow, advocated in 2012, “A doctrine, any doctrine, incorporates a set of beliefs or principles held by a body of persons. A national nuclear doctrine represents, therefore, the collective set of beliefs or principles held by the nation in regard to the utility of its nuclear weapons. Beliefs and principles are not immutable. Nations and their leaderships change with the efflux of time. And circumstances require their national doctrines to be revisited, reviewed and recast if deemed necessary. Change for the sake of change is not wise. But, stagnation of thought hardly serves the national interests.” In fact, the IPCS has accordingly presented “INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: An Alternative Blueprint.” Because, there are some problematic areas in our present nuclear doctrine that the next government of India must ponder over. Let me explain few of them.

First, as Vipin Narang of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rightly argued, “It is impossible for India to achieve a ‘credible minimum deterrent’ toward both of its primary strategic adversaries, China and Pakistan. China’s own force structure and modernisation effort, combined with the location of its primary strategic centres in the far east of the country—furthest from Indian territory—mean that India’s deterrence requirements against China far exceed what it would ‘minimally’ require toward Pakistan in terms of numbers, deployment modes, and reach. Therefore, what is credible toward China will likely not be minimum toward Pakistan; and what is minimum toward Pakistan cannot be credible toward China. This theoretical paradox means that India’s security managers had to choose whom they envisioned their primary deterrent adversary to be, and against whom they wanted to build and maintain a credible minimum deterrent.”

It is against this backdrop that the IPCS blueprint talks of “minimal deterrent”, rather than “minimum deterrent”. It says, “India shall maintain a credible minimal deterrent, where credibility comprises three specific components—leadership credibility, force credibility, and technological credibility. ‘Minimal’ was seen as a word better suited than ‘minimum’ to qualify India’s deterrent, which is subject to numerical changes in response to its strategic environment. In conceptual terms, ‘minimal’ provides greater flexibility than ‘minimum’. On the other hand, ‘minimum’ deterrence seals the lower limit of the arsenal, indicating that any number below this limit could endanger deterrence. The term ‘minimal’ therefore better conveys the relationship between the credibility of the deterrent and its numerical flexibility. ‘Minimum’ is both an adjective and a noun. ‘Minimal’, on the other hand, can only be used as an adjective, which emphasises its dependent usage.”

Secondly, the concept of “no first use”(NFU) policy needs a thorough debate. The United States or for that matter other western nuclear powers such as Britain and France do not have the NFU policy. Russia, which initially had NFU pledge, has withdrawn it long ago. China, another country that professed NFU policy, is now silent on it. Its latest biannual defence white paper (2013) omitted for the first time a promise never to use its own nuclear weapons first. Even otherwise, China had asserted before that its NFU would not apply against countries that are in possession of the Chinese territory. That means that China’s NFU does not apply to India as it claims over our lands in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. That leaves Pakistan, our other major adversary. But Pakistan too does not believe in NFU.

The concept of NFU has other problems as well. For one, imagine that there is a conventional war between India and Pakistan (or for that matter China), and Indian forces target at military establishments within the enemy territory. They do not know which of these establishments are nuclear or nonnuclear and in the process of their operations, they hit at an enemy target that turns out to be a nuclear one and the consequent results are strategically horrible. Will it mean that India did not observe its NFU pledge? For another, imagine also a situation when the Indian forces engaged in conventional wars simultaneously against China and Pakistan find it difficult to carry on. And here, as the situation challenges the very integrity of the country, should one not exercise the nuclear option? After all, we have already modified our nuclear posture in the events of chemical and biological attacks. Why should then we tie our hands with the NFU when faced with multi-fronted attacks on our territories or forces?

Thirdly, review is also due on the concept of our “massive” nuclear retaliation when attacked by nuclear weapons, particularly when Pakistan is openly preparing to use what it says tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) against India’s superior conventional forces. Pakistan has developed “Nasr” ballistic missiles with a range of 60 km that is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These have been specifically built with the intention of targeting not only Indian cities but also Indian military formations on the battlefield. Now, suppose, one of our Army’s tank columns is attacked by Pakistan’s TNW. Should then India go for a massive retaliation to destroy the whole of Karachi or Lahore? Will not that be highly disproportionate and unethical? If so, should India not go for a proportionate retaliation with its own TNW?

And if we really go with our TNWs, then there will be a new problem. By their very nature, the TNWs and their eventual uses are better determined on the spot, that is, in the battlefield itself, by the military commanders concerned. How then that will go with our strict provision that it is only the Prime Minister who will decide when and where to use our nuclear weapons?

All these are very tricky but vital questions. But answers to them cannot wait any more. The future Indian government cannot sit over them.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 01:13
Stumbled on the below article which explains in a way why the nuclear doctrine needs to be revised. In general not only on no NFU.

Source (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/revisiting-indias-nuclear-doctrine/)In a phrase, what a load of crock of shit. Has these guys even read Nuke War 101, 102, and 103?

Edit later on: Wait a second, a think tank? They need a paycheque. Never mind. Carry on.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 01:45
Just to express a bit of confusion.

60k nukes dropped on 40k cities (that's world's total by some), of which only 500 are larger then million.No, the majority of those 60k nukes were aimed at each other, ie bomber bases, missile silos, SSBNs, etc

Countries like Somalia or Afghanistan would not notice any difference in life style. You cannot be bombed back to the stone age if you're already living in the stone age ... but yeah, you and I would have been able to read in the dark.

sated buddha
14 Apr 14,, 06:54
There is no such thing as no rules. If you turn aroind and say you will not abide by NFU, then others will nuke you right off the bat rather than to let you get ready

I agree that when the time comes to act (or react), rules mean squat and not even worth the paper they are written on (even if put to a different use of personal hygiene).

That said Colonel, there are nuclear powers in the world today which do not have a NFU policy. Nobody has nuked them right off the bat yet. Why do you feel someone would buck that trend for India?

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 09:55
Have you not been reading? Those countries have a written policy of proportional response. And yes, when war came, we were going to nuke each other on the first day. Hell, on the Czech front alone, they will use more nukes in the first day than the entire Indian nuclear arsenal both in numbers and yield.

sated buddha
14 Apr 14,, 10:00
Have you not been reading? Those countries have a written policy of proportional response. And yes, when war came, we were going to nuke each other on the first day. Hell, on the Czech front alone, they will use more nukes in the first day than the entire Indian nuclear arsenal both in numbers and yield.

I was referring to Pakistan and North Korea Colonel. Neither has a NFU policy. Neither has been nuked yet.

Why would a far bigger and far more credible and responsible nuclear power be different?

lemontree
14 Apr 14,, 10:37
I am going to give up soon. The Chinese strategic threat to India isn't her nukes, it's her conventional strike force of 2000 missiles. That is her counter-force arsenal. China does not need nukes to target India's nukes.
Sir, thank you for taking the trouble of explaining this to some of my compatriots wabbers.

Leave alone the Chinese conventional missile strength. The biggest threat to India are the political clots who do not know the difference between a guerilla and gorilla, a mortar and a motor or a gun and a howitzer.

Today, the threats faced by India are from within, from the very men and women who claim to (mis)govern it.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 13:28
I was referring to Pakistan and North Korea Colonel. Neither has a NFU policy. Neither has been nuked yet.Pakistan stated first use is a DEMONSTRATION. Not a military target.

North Korea doesn't have a nuke.


Why would a far bigger and far more credible and responsible nuclear power be different?India is not a bigger nuclear power. Your credibility lies with your understanding of NFU as a responsible nuclear doctrine. And your claim to responsibility just went out the window with such stupid talk of abandoning NFU.

Good God, have you not been following my posts? NFU is deterrence and Deterrence is NOT Warfighting. Frankly I will put that piece of garbage think tank article to shame if they want to start talking nuclear warfighting.

sated buddha
14 Apr 14,, 13:45
Pakistan stated first use is a DEMONSTRATION. Not a military target.

Essentially a warning shot in the air? And what if we do not heed? The next one on our advancing military formation?

That would still be first use. Regardless of the non-lethal warning.

Doktor
14 Apr 14,, 13:56
Essentially a warning shot in the air? And what if we do not heed? The next one on our advancing military formation?

That would still be first use. Regardless of the non-lethal warning.

SB,

Noone, but Russia and USA will lob nukes first. Not UK, France and certainly not China. For that to happen they will have to be sure Russia and USA are OK with it.

Heck, I doubt even Russia will have the guts to nuke someone without a nod from USA.

Now, what your politicians propose is for your domestic use. Outside the intended recepients it will be seen as a bluff, just like Pakistani threshold.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 14:09
Essentially a warning shot in the air? And what if we do not heed? The next one on our advancing military formation?No, you numbskull, did you not read what I wrote. The next one ain't going to be on your advancing military formation. The next one will be on one of your cities. No one is going to waste a nuke on killing 300 men.

sated buddha
14 Apr 14,, 14:13
No, you numbskull, did you not read what I wrote. The next one ain't going to be on your advancing military formation. The next one will be on one of your cities. No one is going to waste a nuke on killing 300 men.

But they are ok wasting one as a demonstration?

Numbskull. Haven't heard that since school. Thanks Colonel for the refresher! No matter how old you get, there's always someone older (and smarter).

Coming back, what does that demonstration buy the Pakistanis?

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 15:05
Coming back, what does that demonstration buy the Pakistanis?An Indian nuke strike on Islamabad.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 15:40
Today, the threats faced by India are from within, from the very men and women who claim to (mis)govern it.Captain, the more I read how things are run in India, the more I am convinced the only sane people are in your Army ... which begs the question why isn't the Army running India.

Then, the answer hit me ... because the Indian Army ain't that stupid. Smart bunch of lads you have wearing the uniform.

commander
14 Apr 14,, 16:01
Captain, the more I read how things are run in India, the more I am convinced the only sane people are in your Army ... which begs the question why isn't the Army running India.

Then, the answer hit me ... because the Indian Army ain't that stupid. Smart bunch of lads you have wearing the uniform.

In my opinion, IA should have worked from the beginning to increase it's influence on the policy making with regards to Defense. Maybe then the state of our Army would have been at a better side.

Blademaster
14 Apr 14,, 17:15
In my opinion, IA should have worked from the beginning to increase it's influence on the policy making with regards to Defense. Maybe then the state of our Army would have been at a better side.

The best way to do that is to have retired Army officers/personnel work in the MoD as civilians or be elected to office as MPs or be promoted to IAS bureacrats, not active Army personnel seeking to increase influence. Otherwise, it will smack of perceptions that the Army is trying to take over India.

Civilian control over the military is a must but we can have retired armed forces work in the capacity of civilians and exercise control over the military.

antimony
14 Apr 14,, 17:22
Captain, the more I read how things are run in India, the more I am convinced the only sane people are in your Army ... which begs the question why isn't the Army running India.

Then, the answer hit me ... because the Indian Army ain't that stupid. Smart bunch of lads you have wearing the uniform.

Hey now, you just hurt my feelings. I am going to mail you some SWWNBN cds.

antimony
14 Apr 14,, 17:23
In my opinion, IA should have worked from the beginning to increase it's influence on the policy making with regards to Defense. Maybe then the state of our Army would have been at a better side.

The fact that the Army is peripheral in polity is a very good thing. Show me one place where inclusion of military into a democratic polity has been beneficial.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 17:55
Hey now, you just hurt my feelings. I am going to mail you some SWWNBN cds.Do so and I will sit outside your house and blast you with her music and project her videos through your windows.

commander
14 Apr 14,, 18:13
The best way to do that is to have retired Army officers/personnel work in the MoD as civilians or be elected to office as MPs or be promoted to IAS bureacrats, not active Army personnel seeking to increase influence. Otherwise, it will smack of perceptions that the Army is trying to take over India.

Civilian control over the military is a must but we can have retired armed forces work in the capacity of civilians and exercise control over the military.

I agree , I am not saying that the absolute control over decision making should be given to the Army wrt defense, but things would have been a lot better with their input actually being considered and not just scraped away by politicians. Like the recent reports about the state of our InN ships , which was reported to the government multiple times , however the govt failed to do anything about it.

commander
14 Apr 14,, 18:14
The fact that the Army is peripheral in polity is a very good thing. Show me one place where inclusion of military into a democratic polity has been beneficial.

I should have been more clear I guess, I am not saying absolute control should be given to them, but their recommendations should be considered strongly and needs (not wants) taken care with atmost priority.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 18:31
I wasn't going to but I need some fun


Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine

In its manifesto for 2014 general elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has promised to review India’s nuclear doctrine. But does India really have a proper nuclear doctrine in strict sense of the term? In my considered opinion, we do not have a proper nuclear doctrine. We in India, and I think that it is a part of our strategic culture, love to keep things and policies as ambiguous as possible, leaving them to many and different interpretations. Unlike the cases in many leading countries, our leaders hesitate to enunciate clear policies or doctrines.So, you listen to a bunch of politicians instead of the people whose lives and livelihood depend on the said doctrine. In other words, why didn't you ask the military what the doctrine is. They have been clear from day 1.


What we have actually is a “draft nuclear doctrine”, released on August 17, 1999, by the then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra. Some clarifications on this draft were “shared with the public” on January 4, 2003, through a press release by the then Cabinet Committee on Security. I do not think any major power will ever deal with such a sensitive issue in such a cavalier manner.Boy, if you think Obama was clear on military doctrine, I hate to think what you think confusion is. ... Oh, sorry, the BJP.


Be that as it may, the BJP manifesto says: “The strategic gains acquired by India during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime on the nuclear programme have been frittered away by the Congress. Our emphasis was, and remains on, beginning of a new thrust on framing policies that would serve India’s national interest in the 21st century.” That, according to the manifesto, will mean “study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times”, “maintain a credible minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities, and “invest in India’s indigenous Thorium Technology”.Translation: we don't know what the hell is going on but let's change it so that we can look like we know.

There has not been a nuclear threat to India since the bluff during the Kargil War but you like to find one.


India’s draft doctrine at the moment has the following key features:

While committed to the goal of a nuclear weapon free world through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament, India, till the realisation of this goal, will possess nuclear weapons.
India will build and maintain a credible minimum deterrent.
India will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.
India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if it is attacked through nuclear weapons in its territory or on Indian forces anywhere, then its nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.
In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will also retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.
India will continue strict controls on export of nuclear and missile related materials and technologies, participation in the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations, and continued observance of the moratorium on nuclear tests.
India’s nuclear Command Authority comprises a Political Council and an Executive Council. The Political Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the sole body which can authorise the use of nuclear weapons. The Executive Council is chaired by the National Security Advisor. It provides inputs for decision making by the Nuclear Command Authority and executes the directives given to it by the Political Council.
It may be noted here that in the clarifications that were given in 2003, there were two important changes that were made to the draft doctrine of 1999. The draft doctrine had said: “Any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.” The 2003 clarifications said: “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.” Emphasis here should be given to the addition of the word”massive”.India will act as though she is a NPT nuclear weapons state. Funny for a country who eschew the NPT, she lives up to its tenets but one. The non-nuclear weapons state.


The second important change in the 2003 clarifications was that a new scenario was added under which India would retaliate with nuclear weapons, and that was the attack through biological or chemical weapons on India or on Indian forces anywhere.Highly doubtful but ok. Indian soldiers get sick all the time. It is the nature of the human body. A sick monkey running through an Indian peacekeeping camp in Africa can give the entire battalion ebola.


What emerges from the above is that India’s nuclear weapons posture, after the country went officially nuclear in 1998, did undergo changes during the Vajpayee regime itself. Now after 11 years, if Vajpayee’s party is seeking a further review of it, then it is not surprising. In fact, as the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), a leading Indian think-tank with which I am associated, as a Distinguished Fellow, advocated in 2012, “A doctrine, any doctrine, incorporates a set of beliefs or principles held by a body of persons. A national nuclear doctrine represents, therefore, the collective set of beliefs or principles held by the nation in regard to the utility of its nuclear weapons. Beliefs and principles are not immutable. Nations and their leaderships change with the efflux of time. And circumstances require their national doctrines to be revisited, reviewed and recast if deemed necessary. Change for the sake of change is not wise. But, stagnation of thought hardly serves the national interests.” In fact, the IPCS has accordingly presented “INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: An Alternative Blueprint.” Because, there are some problematic areas in our present nuclear doctrine that the next government of India must ponder over. Let me explain few of them.And there it is. Self promotion. Pay me and I will tell you what you are doing wrong. Never mind that I don't know what I am talking about nor have I ever talked to the right people, ie I have never talked to India's nuclear weapons targeteers.


First, as Vipin Narang of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rightly argued, “It is impossible for India to achieve a ‘credible minimum deterrent’ toward both of its primary strategic adversaries, China and Pakistan. China’s own force structure and modernisation effort, combined with the location of its primary strategic centres in the far east of the country—furthest from Indian territory—mean that India’s deterrence requirements against China far exceed what it would ‘minimally’ require toward Pakistan in terms of numbers, deployment modes, and reach. Therefore, what is credible toward China will likely not be minimum toward Pakistan; and what is minimum toward Pakistan cannot be credible toward China. This theoretical paradox means that India’s security managers had to choose whom they envisioned their primary deterrent adversary to be, and against whom they wanted to build and maintain a credible minimum deterrent.”First, who the hell is Vipin Narang? 2nd, he sure the hell is not responsible for Indian nuclear security? 3rd, what kind of idiot ignores that China is facing two vastly superior nuclear foes, the US and to a lesser extent, Russia. The Chinese are facing a combined threat of 20,000+ warheads with their meager 200. Does anyone think that they've got nukes to spare for India?

Consistently, consistently, India's Generals and Admirals have stated that India's nuclear deterrence is viable and credible. These are the men whose paycheques depend on doing exactly just that. Guess what? Neither Pakistan nor China has ever used the nuclear sabre, not even to rattle it, the Kargil rumour mill not withstanding. Hell, it was a surprise to the Pakistanis that the Indians thought they were rattling the nuclear sabre.


It is against this backdrop that the IPCS blueprint talks of “minimal deterrent”, rather than “minimum deterrent”. It says, “India shall maintain a credible minimal deterrent, where credibility comprises three specific components—leadership credibility, force credibility, and technological credibility. ‘Minimal’ was seen as a word better suited than ‘minimum’ to qualify India’s deterrent, which is subject to numerical changes in response to its strategic environment. In conceptual terms, ‘minimal’ provides greater flexibility than ‘minimum’. On the other hand, ‘minimum’ deterrence seals the lower limit of the arsenal, indicating that any number below this limit could endanger deterrence. The term ‘minimal’ therefore better conveys the relationship between the credibility of the deterrent and its numerical flexibility. ‘Minimum’ is both an adjective and a noun. ‘Minimal’, on the other hand, can only be used as an adjective, which emphasises its dependent usage.”Self promotion. Who the hell cares about "minimal" or "minimum." As if one single word would add or subtract from your nuclear effectiveness. I mean come on! You've spent an entire paragraph taking about a word?


Secondly, the concept of “no first use”(NFU) policy needs a thorough debate. The United States or for that matter other western nuclear powers such as Britain and France do not have the NFU policy. Russia, which initially had NFU pledge, has withdrawn it long ago. China, another country that professed NFU policy, is now silent on it. Its latest biannual defence white paper (2013) omitted for the first time a promise never to use its own nuclear weapons first. Even otherwise, China had asserted before that its NFU would not apply against countries that are in possession of the Chinese territory. That means that China’s NFU does not apply to India as it claims over our lands in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. That leaves Pakistan, our other major adversary. But Pakistan too does not believe in NFU.I've already gone through this song and dance. Dumbass don't know what he's talking about.


The concept of NFU has other problems as well. For one, imagine that there is a conventional war between India and Pakistan (or for that matter China), and Indian forces target at military establishments within the enemy territory. They do not know which of these establishments are nuclear or nonnuclear and in the process of their operations, they hit at an enemy target that turns out to be a nuclear one and the consequent results are strategically horrible. Will it mean that India did not observe its NFU pledge? For another, imagine also a situation when the Indian forces engaged in conventional wars simultaneously against China and Pakistan find it difficult to carry on. And here, as the situation challenges the very integrity of the country, should one not exercise the nuclear option? After all, we have already modified our nuclear posture in the events of chemical and biological attacks. Why should then we tie our hands with the NFU when faced with multi-fronted attacks on our territories or forces?And you are advising on nuclear policy without ever know about nuclear warfare history. How many examples I have touted ... hell never mind, this idiot doesn't know anything. Oh hell, I'm going throw him a bone. Hey, idiot Chinese Field Marshall Rie and Li Peng's order to mate nukes to rockets. Look it up.


Thirdly, review is also due on the concept of our “massive” nuclear retaliation when attacked by nuclear weapons, particularly when Pakistan is openly preparing to use what it says tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) against India’s superior conventional forces. Pakistan has developed “Nasr” ballistic missiles with a range of 60 km that is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These have been specifically built with the intention of targeting not only Indian cities but also Indian military formations on the battlefield. Now, suppose, one of our Army’s tank columns is attacked by Pakistan’s TNW. Should then India go for a massive retaliation to destroy the whole of Karachi or Lahore? Will not that be highly disproportionate and unethical? If so, should India not go for a proportionate retaliation with its own TNW?My god, this fucking idiot is touting "limited nuclear war."


And if we really go with our TNWs, then there will be a new problem. By their very nature, the TNWs and their eventual uses are better determined on the spot, that is, in the battlefield itself, by the military commanders concerned. How then that will go with our strict provision that it is only the Prime Minister who will decide when and where to use our nuclear weapons?What a dumbass. How the hell did you think NATO and the Warsaw Pact did it? Actually, come to think of it, are you really that stupid that you think that the Indian PM actually pushes the launch button himself? That the entire Indian nuclear arsenal is all wired to one button?

The target selection is pre-selected, dumbass. The procedures are in place. The PM gives the order and the military acts. A battlefield commander has a set of boundaries in which he is supposed to act. Release the weapon to him and he will act within his boundaries.


All these are very tricky but vital questions. But answers to them cannot wait any more. The future Indian government cannot sit over them.One thing for sure, I don't want your answers.

Blademaster
14 Apr 14,, 18:42
Hell, it was a surprise to the Pakistanis that the Indians thought they were rattling the nuclear sabre.


How can you say that? It has been on record that Pakistan leadership were saying that if threatened, they would resort to nuclear use. And that was during the height of Kargil War.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 19:08
Sharif says he didn't know anything about nukes when confronted by Clinton.

And Musharraf said nukes were not ready in his memoirs.

And aside from Indian sources, I cannot find one reference by any Pakistani source about a nuclear threat.

cdude
14 Apr 14,, 20:56
3rd, what kind of idiot ignores that China is facing two vastly superior nuclear foes, the US and to a lesser extent, Russia. The Chinese are facing a combined threat of 20,000+ warheads with their meager 200. Does anyone think that they've got nukes to spare for India?

Holyshit, that's SMACKDOWN!

Go home everybody, we have a winner here, as always, THE OOO OOO EEE!

Blademaster
14 Apr 14,, 21:28
Sharif says he didn't know anything about nukes when confronted by Clinton.

And Musharraf said nukes were not ready in his memoirs.

And aside from Indian sources, I cannot find one reference by any Pakistani source about a nuclear threat.

Google fu shows the following:

Monsoon - The Asian Journal of Brandeis (http://people.brandeis.edu/~monsoon/articles/harrison_kargil.htm)

U.S. intelligence possessed disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment.

Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia - P. R. Chari, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Stephen P. Cohen - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=9cSLKn2BoYIC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=nuclear+blackmail+kargil+war&source=bl&ots=rSMMFD8kt5&sig=e-kACFgmLHEMVxE6-GmS7_eqwwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjJMU5vzA6q50gHfhoGYAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20blackmail%20kargil%20war&f=false)

Riedel’s authoritative study which, he says, concluded that “apkistan had indeed resorted to nuclear blackmail”


Pakistan’s foreign secretary warned that his country “would not hesitate to use any weapon in our arsenal to defend our territorial integrity.”


It was strongly implied without using the magic words, "nuclear" "bomb". It didn't take a genius to figure out what they were talking about.

Blademaster
14 Apr 14,, 21:32
Holyshit, that's SMACKDOWN!

Go home everybody, we have a winner here, as always, THE OOO OOO EEE!

Then based on your acceptance of OOE, you shouldn't be in any position to bark since you have admitted your country cannot walk the talk. :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 21:45
First of, US intel was wrong. Neither Sharif nor Musharraf gave any prep order. In the latter case, Musharraf knew his nukes were not ready.

2nd, Pakistan's 1998 tests were duds.

3rd, hindsight is 20/20 but Pakistan did hesitate.

TopHatter
14 Apr 14,, 21:51
Holyshit, that's SMACKDOWN!

Go home everybody, we have a winner here, as always, THE OOO OOO EEE!
Take a few days off. Grow up and come back when you have something of substance to contribute.

commander
14 Apr 14,, 22:15
Sharif says he didn't know anything about nukes when confronted by Clinton.

And Musharraf said nukes were not ready in his memoirs.

And aside from Indian sources, I cannot find one reference by any Pakistani source about a nuclear threat.

Sir, in my understanding if I got something that I can use to hurt my neighbour whom I hate from the very beginning, I will downplay or even deny any existence of such thing. Why would I risk the advantage that I have , by openly admitting that I was indeed planning to knock him out ?

PS: Thanks for discussing about the earlier article. It was funny at the same time informative.

Blademaster
14 Apr 14,, 22:20
First of, US intel was wrong. Neither Sharif nor Musharraf gave any prep order. In the latter case, Musharraf knew his nukes were not ready.

2nd, Pakistan's 1998 tests were duds.

3rd, hindsight is 20/20 but Pakistan did hesitate.

Right but they never refuted or corrected the Pakistani foreign secretary's statement. They did not give any signal or indication that there were no nuclear prep.

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 14,, 22:38
Sir, in my understanding if I got something that I can use to hurt my neighbour whom I hate from the very beginning, I will downplay or even deny any existence of such thing. Why would I risk the advantage that I have , by openly admitting that I was indeed planning to knock him out ?Take your time and reword your question. I am not following.


Right but they never refuted or corrected the Pakistani foreign secretary's statement. They did not give any signal or indication that there were no nuclear prep.Still does not change the fact that Sharif was visibly confused when Clinton confronted him and Musharraf had no idea what anyone was talking about when Sharif confronted him.

Edit: Actually, the bluff worked. For India. Musharraf knew he would be on the receiving end of a one way nuclear exchange. And sought to reduce the crisis.

notorious_eagle
14 Apr 14,, 22:59
Still does not change the fact that Sharif was visibly confused when Clinton confronted him and Musharraf had no idea what anyone was talking about when Sharif confronted him.

Sir

In Sharif's defence, the nuclear program during the 90's was largely off limits to the political leadership thus he had no idea what was going on. Benazir Bhutto always cried about how she barely had any visibility into the nuclear program. Thus, it makes sense why Sharif was confused after Clinton confronted him.

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 14,, 03:27
That is extremely scary in more ways than one.

cataphract
15 Apr 14,, 03:31
That is extremely scary in more ways than one.

Hardly surprising though. Much of nuclear development in Pakistan happened during the Zia dictatorship.

sated buddha
15 Apr 14,, 06:39
Colonel, LT, Blade, this is a question for you guys please. What is the cost of one of these 2000 odd conventional missiles that China has?

And how many similar ones do we have in return? And how many do we plan to eventually have? And what is the timeframe for this?

Also, if this is (hope I get the term correct) China's counter-force battery, since they have more nukes than us, does it imply that India would need greater numbers (missiles per nuke target) to have an equivalent anti-Chinese arsenal counter force missile battery?

I am assuming here that we have the missiles to hit China anywhere ("bomb the shit out of Beijing" to borrow the eloquent phraseology of one of our recently departed .....). Just asking about the logistics.

Doktor
15 Apr 14,, 07:12
You don't need missiles for China. You need to fix the economy, and make it attractive for the Americans and Chinese to invest pile of cash and then some.

Noone will bomb their investments and your people will prosper.

Oracle
15 Apr 14,, 07:38
You don't need missiles for China. You need to fix the economy, and make it attractive for the Americans and Chinese to invest pile of cash and then some.

Noone will bomb their investments and your people will prosper.

Very well said.

The Chinese are keen to invest in India. Below is an article by the Chinese Ambassador to India, Wei Wei.

Silk Route: The way to prosperity for India, China and the Entire Asia (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-04-14/news/49126193_1_silk-route-maritime-silk-road-indian-ocean)

I sincerely hope the next Government is committed in resolving the boundary dispute, so that trade and other areas could be focused on.

sated buddha
15 Apr 14,, 07:48
You don't need missiles for China. You need to fix the economy, and make it attractive for the Americans and Chinese to invest pile of cash and then some.

Noone will bomb their investments and your people will prosper.

Do you know how much business Germany and America did before going to war?

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 14,, 08:34
Colonel, LT, Blade, this is a question for you guys please. What is the cost of one of these 2000 odd conventional missiles that China has?Why do you care? They had 30 years to do this.


And how many similar ones do we have in return? And how many do we plan to eventually have? And what is the timeframe for this?Nowhere near 2000.


Also, if this is (hope I get the term correct) China's counter-force battery, since they have more nukes than us, does it imply that India would need greater numbers (missiles per nuke target) to have an equivalent anti-Chinese arsenal counter force missile battery?The Chinese nuclear arsenal is estaimated at between 90 (Jeffery Lewis) and 240 (Hans Christensen). The Chinese report to the IAEA states that they have enough fissile materials for around 400 warheads. The second part of your question is just silly chest beating and dick measuring.


I am assuming here that we have the missiles to hit China anywhere ("bomb the shit out of Beijing" to borrow the eloquent phraseology of one of our recently departed .....). Just asking about the logistics.The AGNI-IV and AGNI-V are the only missile in your inventory that can cover all of China.

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 14,, 08:35
Do you know how much business Germany and America did before going to war?France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners. Did squat to stop Hitler from marching through Belgium.

sated buddha
15 Apr 14,, 08:45
France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners. Did squat to stop Hitler from marching through Belgium.

Exactly what I was pointing out to Doktor. Doing business with someone does not mean he's not going to one day bomb your cities.

Hence it is well in India's interest to both build our economy (its not broken) as well as to close the gap to our threats.

One cannot (and should not) be at the cost of the other.

Just because China does something for 30 years does not mean that India follows the same template. North Korea and Pakistan are both near bankrupt. They still have million-man standing armies. Did they become bankrupt because of those armies, or was there no connection between the two?

Oracle
15 Apr 14,, 08:53
Exactly what I was pointing out to Doktor. Doing business with someone does not mean he's not going to one day bomb your cities.

Hence it is well in India's interest to both build our economy (its not broken) as well as to close the gap to our threats.

One cannot (and should not) be at the cost of the other.

Just because China does something for 30 years does not mean that India follows the same template. North Korea and Pakistan are both near bankrupt. They still have million-man standing armies. Did they become bankrupt because of those armies, or was there no connection between the two?

We'd have seen nuclear winter, if China and Pakistan were ruled by crazy despots like Hitler. And btw, NK and Pakistan are bankrolled by China and US respectively.

Doktor
15 Apr 14,, 08:54
Do you know how much business Germany and America did before going to war?

What was the level of economic activity between Japan and USA?

IIRC, USA was pretty much isolationist before Japan hit PH.

Doktor
15 Apr 14,, 08:56
France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners. Did squat to stop Hitler from marching through Belgium.

Noone said a looney will distort the equation.

sated buddha
15 Apr 14,, 08:56
What was the level of economic activity between Japan and USA?

IIRC, USA was pretty much isolationist before Japan hit PH.

Using your line of reasoning, the USA should not be at war with any country, since it does business with most.

Doktor
15 Apr 14,, 08:58
Using your line of reasoning, the USA should not be at war with any country, since it does business with most.

Going your line... show me an official document where USA is in war with anyone.

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 14,, 09:05
Exactly what I was pointing out to Doktor. Doing business with someone does not mean he's not going to one day bomb your cities.You're also doing business with the US and they've just moved 800 cruise missiles to Deigo Garcia.


Hence it is well in India's interest to both build our economy (its not broken) as well as to close the gap to our threats.That's the point. You have absolutely no idea what is the threat. You did not even pay any attention. Here it is again. None of those 2000 missiles are aimed at you. They're primarily aimed at Taiwan and now, North Korea.

There is no threat to you ... unless you force the Chinese to move their missiles. I can tell you this. I don't care how much money you spend. They can move 2000 missiles alot faster than you can build 60.


One cannot (and should not) be at the cost of the other.Of course they are. Always is. Always will be. As soon as you can't pay to house, clothe, and arm your armies, at best, they run away, at worst, they switch sides.


Just because China does something for 30 years does not mean that India follows the same template.Chinese factories took 10 years going from 5 missiles a year to 30. Do the math on how long your factories can be reved up to do the same.


North Korea and Pakistan are both near bankrupt. They still have million-man standing armies. Did they become bankrupt because of those armies, or was there no connection between the two?Yeah, both of them.

sated buddha
15 Apr 14,, 09:18
Colonel, when China started out building their missiles, they too were hopelesly outnumbered and behind by decades in terms of lead time calculations (being put forward by you) in relation to both the US and the USSR. But yet that did not deter them from embarking on that pathway. And today the US takes them seriously (in spite of the pooh poohing you read on the Net).

China and us are on each other's doorsteps, with the Himalayas in between. China and us have both land and water issues, yet unresolved. China and us have close to 40% of humanity to look after. There is always going to be a tussle for land, water and resources. Its not going to get better. At best we can enforce a status quo, and move our rivalry away from our doorsteps and on to someone else's (either doorstep or home).

There is no way that India is going to sit quietly on the curent status quo. We are going to (and going to have to) close the gap to China. Saying it can't be done is not an option.

I do not understand what is the meaning of the fact that their 2000 missiles are not pointing at us? Its a software thing to turn them wherever you want to right? Some lines of code commands? Or is there physical movement from silo/site involved?