Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hammer View Post
    It is difficult to imagine India as it is right now without the Sikh warriors defending it throughout their history. They not only defended their own community but everyone in India. I have always regretted the fact that they failed to preach their way of life through out India and just confining themselves to Punjab.
    They've always been more on the ethno-religious side. When Dr Ambedkar, along with his hundreds of thousands of low caste Dalit followers, was looking for a different religion to convert to, he first had turned to Sikhism. He was poorly received by the Sikh clergy and none were too inviting. Ambedkar finally got frustrated and decided, along with his followers, to convert to Buddhism. Even in the US, the Caucasian Sikh community has their own gurudwaras separate from the Punjabi Sikh community. In Canada though it is more mixed and more inclusive, since the caucasian Sikhs are fewer in number so you will find them at the local gurudwaras. Many have taken up preaching roles to young Sikh kids which has made them more recognized and known among the Punjabi Sikh community, helping better integrate them into the community.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
      Also, couldn't India give the same reasons as well?

      1. She doesn't trust Pakistan
      2. She doesn't trust the US (not completely, at least)
      3. Domestic reasons.
      Originally posted by Tronic View Post
      India has already signed off on a NFU policy.
      Yeah, I know, Tron.

      Just meant that India could've used the same excuses to not sign off on it if it so choses.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
        Just meant that India could've used the same excuses to not sign off on it if it so choses.
        Ah but we are serious about getting more bang for the buck.

        This way our arsenal is smaller and is still a credible deterrent without instigating our neighbours to justify larger arsenals which would only spark an nuke arms race in the region.

        Pakistan of course does not see it that way given the disparity in conventional arms.

        Comment


        • I see the Pakistani use of nukes as the equivalent of falling on their swords - a suicidal act of desperation. Being beaten without using their nukes would be a better thing for Pakistan, IMO.
          sigpic"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."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
            I see the Pakistani use of nukes as the quivalent of falling on their swords - a suicidal act of desperation. Being beaten without using their nukes would be a better thing for Pakistan, IMO.
            You are both right and wrong.

            Right if you consider the amount of suffering Pakistanis as a whole would undergo post triggering nukes.

            Wrong if you consider that the entire Pakistani Military establishment would stand naked in front of both its political leadership as well as the civilian population itself, the moment they concede the fact that without nukes they don't have any hope in hell to keep an Indian invasion at bay, while continuing to fuel its anti-India proxy war and militancy.

            Here I would advice you to go through that particular thread, wherein a PA Brigadier actually advocated nuking India and getting thoroughly nuked and back to stone age, so as to start anew. Intersting indeed, considering that such a view came from a PA Officer, a Brigadier and not from a Jihadi a$$hole.
            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              Ah but we are serious about getting more bang for the buck.

              This way our arsenal is smaller and is still a credible deterrent without instigating our neighbours to justify larger arsenals which would only spark an nuke arms race in the region.

              Pakistan of course does not see it that way given the disparity in conventional arms.
              DE,

              In India's case, NFU and a smaller arsenal do not have a direct co-relation. Considering the Good Colonel's assessment that Deterance is NOT Nuclear Warfighting, I would think that you can have a considerably bigger arsenal and can still have a NFU in place. As a result India while subscribing to a NFU has actually maintained a deliberate ambiguity about its arsenal.
              sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                You are both right and wrong.

                Right if you consider the amount of suffering Pakistanis as a whole would undergo post triggering nukes.

                Wrong if you consider that the entire Pakistani Military establishment would stand naked in front of both its political leadership as well as the civilian population itself, the moment they concede the fact that without nukes they don't have any hope in hell to keep an Indian invasion at bay, while continuing to fuel its anti-India proxy war and militancy.

                Here I would advice you to go through that particular thread, wherein a PA Brigadier actually advocated nuking India and getting thoroughly nuked and back to stone age, so as to start anew. Interesting indeed, considering that such a view came from a PA Officer, a Brigadier and not from a Jihadi a$$hole.
                Sir, Thank you for your insights, I wasn't thinking of the PA when I made that statement - except that IMO, an army is formed to protect a nation, and to carry out its goals by force in some cases - in history many armies have been defeated without their nation loosing its identity or ceasing to exist (of course there are exceptions). Can you give me link to the thread you are referring to? This topic (India and Pakistan) is challenging to understand and is a real concern for many of my coworkers, I would like to learn more about it.
                sigpic"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."

                Comment


                • http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/cen...r-testing.html

                  Comment


                  • Thank You OOE.

                    I have another point to make on the subject of nuclear weapons, nukes are fabulously expensive - both to build and to an admittedly lesser extent to maintain. The cost of these expensive weapons (if spent elsewhere) could go a long way to providing much needed progress in other more useful areas.
                    sigpic"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."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      An excellent read sir, so is Pakistani policy still technically NFU in all but name? This is nuclear policy in relation to counterbalancing Indian Nuclear policy, not when used in counterbalancing Indian conventional superiority.
                      "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
                        An excellent read sir, so is Pakistani policy still technically NFU in all but name? This is nuclear policy in relation to counterbalancing Indian Nuclear policy, not when used in counterbalancing Indian conventional superiority.
                        Pakistani policy is second strike preservation in all but name. Close but not the same as a NFU policy. No First Use is worth the paper its printed on if push comes to shove since first use can be defined in so many different ways. Second strike preservation means retaining the capability to mortally wound your enemy not matter what if they mortally wound you. Because of the dispersed nature of the Pakistani arsenal and delivery systems it would actually be harder for Pakistan to go nuclear than any other NWS state I know. India likely keeps some weapons and delivery systems in readiness or near readiness, China keeps a number of them in near readiness, and the other big 4 keep a large number on ready alert. Only Pakistan has to mate fissile material to the package and the package to the delivery system from across widely spaced locations.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                          Sir, Thank you for your insights, I wasn't thinking of the PA when I made that statement - except that IMO, an army is formed to protect a nation, and to carry out its goals by force in some cases - in history many armies have been defeated without their nation loosing its identity or ceasing to exist (of course there are exceptions). Can you give me link to the thread you are referring to? This topic (India and Pakistan) is challenging to understand and is a real concern for many of my coworkers, I would like to learn more about it.
                          Hope you got an understanding of the Pakistani perspective.

                          The PA is more concerned about losing its identity as the sole guaranter of the Pakistani state than they are about the identity of the Pakistani state itself.
                          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                            Hope you got an understanding of the Pakistani perspective.

                            The PA is more concerned about losing its identity as the sole guaranter of the Pakistani state than they are about the identity of the Pakistani state itself.
                            Yes, Thank You Sir, that thread is very enlightening. I most often hear about the Indian perspective, and my Pakistani colleagues haven't been working with me as long so I haven't had as many opportunities to discuss things with them. Thank you again Sir (OOE) for sharing the link - I hadn't taken the time to read it before - still working on it now.
                            sigpic"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."

                            Comment


                            • It ain't gonna happen. No state will ever start a nuclear war against another nuclear power. It's all talk. JMO.

                              Comment


                              • we got damn close quite a few times in the Cold War...and a lot of that, I think we got away due to damn-fool luck.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X