Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 225

Thread: Pakistan likely to use Nuclear weapons on India "a few days" into war: US ambassador

  1. #31
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    IMO, Pakistan would do better overall in loosing a war with India than it would with starting a nuclear war - which could result in Pakistan's annihilation and wider nuclear exchanges, rather than an admittedly unacceptable occupation. I sincerely hope and pray neither event comes to pass, and I don't believe occupation would be an acceptable alternative either (only the lesser of two terrible, intolerable evils). Note: this is only my personal opinion and there are many other possible scenarios besides the two I have mentioned.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  2. #32
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    I don't understand where the questions and discussions centering around occupation come from. We broke Pakistan into two, yet let the liberated keep their newly renamed country. When in HISTORY have Indian armed forces ever coveted foreign lands (and here I refer to our 5000 year history - during which the farthest we went was the SE Asian island colonies of the Cholas I think)?

    Granted that what is Pakistan today does not exactly fit into the definition of a foreign land, but their people sure do. Even if we want our land back, what are we going to do with the millions of them that are still remaining after we finish with them? Occupation is not going to happen. We will retake what we believe is ours. Even if it means taking some of theirs as bargaining chips. But we do not want them back into our fold. We would be mad to even contemplate something to that effect.

    De-fanging them for posterity serves us just fine. Letting nature then take its course on what was a flawed concept from its very inception.
    Last edited by vsdoc; 10 Jun 11, at 11:47.

  3. #33
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    I don't understand where the questions and discussions centering around occupation come from. We broke Pakistan into two, yet let the liberated keep their newly renamed country. When in HISTORY have Indian armed forces ever coveted foreign lands (and here I refer to our 5000 year history - during which the farthest we went was the SE Asian island colonies of the Cholas I think)?

    Granted that what is Pakistan today does not exactly fit into the definition of a foreign land, but their people sure do. Even if we want our land back, what are we going to do with the millions of them that are still remaining after we finish with them? Occupation is not going to happen. We will retake what we believe is ours. Even if it means taking some of theirs as bargaining chips. But we do not want them back into our fold. We would be mad to even contemplate something to that effect.

    De-fanging them for posterity serves us just fine. Letting nature then take its course on what was a flawed concept from its very inception.

    The discussion is centered around the what we speculate to be the necessary circumstances in a war between India and Pakistan to justify the use of nuclear weapons. The discussion involves talk of Indian occupation of Pakistan because several of us believe that the prerequisite for first use from Pakistan would be for large swaths of Pakistani land to have been taken by India. I think it's fairly understood the chances of such a nuclear war are remote.

  4. #34
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by ace16807 View Post
    The discussion is centered around the what we speculate to be the necessary circumstances in a war between India and Pakistan to justify the use of nuclear weapons. The discussion involves talk of Indian occupation of Pakistan because several of us believe that the prerequisite for first use from Pakistan would be for large swaths of Pakistani land to have been taken by India. I think it's fairly understood the chances of such a nuclear war are remote.
    "Taken" is pretty subjective and by its very nature has temporal connotations. To do damage one would have to take and hold. For how long, and whether it would involve a loss of sovereignty for Pakistan or call into question its very existence in present shape or form, that is a whole different ballgame. If India ceases to be a threat to Pakistan, then Pakistan has no natural predators in the area. And no justification for having nukes anymore. A la South Africa early on. A Pakistan on the brink, with nukes to boot, is not good for anyone, least of all the common Pakistanis who continue dying from self-inflicted wounds. It all comes full circle to the only workable solution there is on the table today. The US must move in, and declare pakistan a protectorate, ensuring security and stability for at least the couple of decades they would need to limp back on to their own feet.
    Last edited by vsdoc; 10 Jun 11, at 14:13.

  5. #35
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    The US must move in, and declare pakistan a protectorate, ensuring security and stability for at least the couple of decades they would need to limp back on to their own feet.
    Why should the US move in? US does not have any interests in getting involved in Pakistan at all.

  6. #36
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
    "Taken" is pretty subjective and by its very nature has temporal connotations. To do damage one would have to take and hold. For how long, and whether it would involve a loss of sovereignty for Pakistan or call into question its very existence in present shape or form, that is a whole different ballgame.
    Why are we talking about damage? We're talking about having IA divisions marching through Pakistani territory and the Pakistani military considering first use in response in hopes of turning those divisions around. That's fairly clear cut.


    If India ceases to be a threat to Pakistan, then Pakistan has no natural predators in the area. And no justification for having nukes anymore. A la South Africa early on.
    How will India cease to be a threat to Pakistan? By killing off any semblence of Pakistani military force and nuclear capability? The way you stated that implies that India more or less loses the war, which I don't see happening. Care to clarify?


    A Pakistan on the brink, with nukes to boot, is not good for anyone, least of all the common Pakistanis who continue dying from self-inflicted wounds.
    What self-inflicted wounds... You mean poverty?


    It all comes full circle to the only workable solution there is on the table today. The US must move in, and declare pakistan a protectorate, ensuring security and stability for at least the couple of decades they would need to limp back on to their own feet.
    I'm sorry. What? You're asking for the US to occupy another borderline failed state? One with a population that is severely annoyed with US military incursions into their territory? If I didn't know better, I would guess that you'd like to see the US dragged down by multiple bloody occupations.

  7. #37
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    My point about occupation is not a recomendation that that is good for India - it clearly isn't. It is a comment on how bad it would be for both sides if a nuclear exchange took place. The obvious solution in my mind is to avoid a nuclear exchange at all costs. First use of nuclear weapons is not a solution at all - it is national suicide in the case of Pakistan. A Chinese occupation of Pakistan is another possible (and undesirable) outcome of Pakistan using nukes. A US occupation (or an Indian one) would be another path to disaster, IMO. Choosing between a bunch of certain failures is not a good approach to any situation. These are all bad ideas - that is what I was saying.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  8. #38
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Jul 04
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    302
    The Pakistanis won't dare use their nukes, until they decide all is lost. For the PA, all is lost if it loses most of its war fighting capabilities. And for the Civilian Govt, all is lost if IA is knocking on the doors of Islamabad. The question is who is going to decide that all is lost.

    I don't think anyone in PA seriously believes that India's got some plan to subjugate and rule them. They know very well that India would not like to add another 180 million muslims to its population or even rule them. They know very well that there is no existential threat from India.

    Testing their nukes on their own soil to deter India may not be enough, if India decides to go all out and punish PA without escalating it any further.
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

  9. #39
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Not going to happen. India sucks at propaganda warfare.
    OOE Sir, Just a quick question, at what point would they have to advise the Chinese of their use if at all? Thanks.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  10. #40
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    When Beijing comes calling asking why are they putting some nukes together.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    That is one aspect of warfare that I don't mind India not playing well. Winning the propaganda warfare doesn't really do that much good, only for domestic consumption. India has no need to win hearts and minds of the Pakistani people.
    You forget the ancient adage that morale is worth 3 times the physical aspect.Propaganda and psychological warfare are just fancy new names for enhancing ones morale while destroying the other's.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #42
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    You forget the ancient adage that morale is worth 3 times the physical aspect.Propaganda and psychological warfare are just fancy new names for enhancing ones morale while destroying the other's.
    No what it does in this case, it increases the stupidity of the people and makes it easier for us to kill them. Darwinism forces at work.

  13. #43
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    When Beijing comes calling asking why are they putting some nukes together.
    Thanks. Would the Chinese know that quickly?
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  14. #44
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Why should the US move in? US does not have any interests in getting involved in Pakistan at all.
    The US should have moved into Pakistan 10 years ago when they invaded Afghanistan. Even tomorrow were the US to withdraw completely from the region as all indications developing today point to, the American people slowly are realizing that the past 10 years was wasted chasing shadows, and that they have withdrawn with the job not even half done. The serpent withdrew and went to ground in safe off-limit sanctuary, and the fear is always going to be around in the years to come, of its spawn crossing the oceans once more one day. Its the nature of the serpent to strike the hand that feeds it. Fear of retribution is a non-issue amongst the neural synapses of its primordial reptilian brain.
    Last edited by vsdoc; 11 Jun 11, at 07:49.

  15. #45
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by ace16807 View Post
    Why are we talking about damage? We're talking about having IA divisions marching through Pakistani territory and the Pakistani military considering first use in response in hopes of turning those divisions around. That's fairly clear cut.
    I am talking about objectives - punitive damage vs take-and-hold occupation of territory. And my point is that India has no interest in the latter, except maybe in the very short tactical term. The crater bit we (the Colonel and I) already had a discussion on in an earlier thread - I forget which.

    How will India cease to be a threat to Pakistan? By killing off any semblence of Pakistani military force and nuclear capability? The way you stated that implies that India more or less loses the war, which I don't see happening. Care to clarify?
    India has never been an existential threat to Pakistan, nor it is argued has she ever had the muscle to be one. We have never initiated war with Pakistan, oftentimes even in the face of constant fingering from their side. In spite of that Pakistan went nuclear. The world should de-nuke Pakistan, just as it forced South Africa to step back.

    What self-inflicted wounds... You mean poverty?
    No, I mean their strategic assets against us and the Afghans now turning against them. We do not shed a tear more than what they deserve for such - which is none. Nada. Zilch.

    I'm sorry. What? You're asking for the US to occupy another borderline failed state? One with a population that is severely annoyed with US military incursions into their territory? If I didn't know better, I would guess that you'd like to see the US dragged down by multiple bloody occupations.
    I am not asking the US to do anything. The US came into the region 10 years ago with a goal in mind. They are now about to leave. And the goal is nowhere close to being achieved. Cause they were in the wrong place at the right time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why is everything "Joint" these days?
    By gunnut in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19 May 11,, 00:12
  2. China's nuclear missiles hidden "underground maze"
    By cr9527 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30 Sep 10,, 18:26
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05 Mar 10,, 02:43
  4. Israelis piqued by nuclear "confirmation"
    By Julie in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10 Dec 06,, 08:27
  5. US "could change" support for Japan on nuclear fusion project
    By Ironduke in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Jan 04,, 01:54

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •