Page 1 of 15 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 225

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

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor commander's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    921

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

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

    Submitted by Vijay Sharma on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 08:02
    The US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, argued strongly with her Government to sell Pakistan more F-16 fighter jets to, ironically, prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
    Patterson, in a 2009 cable, pointed out that Pakistan is likely to use Nuclear weapons against India in a matter a few days if the two countries go to war with each other again, because Pakistan would start losing the war by then.
    "To overcome overwhelming Indian military superiority, Pakistan developed both its nuclear and missile program and its air power," she wrote two years ago, according to Wikileaks.
    She pointed out that India had nearly double the number of jets (736 to 370 jets) that Pakistan has and many of them have the ability to fire missiles at targets that cannot be seen directly in front or are beyond the visual range. Pakistani jets, she points out, can only fire at targets in sight and urged the US to help Pakistan overcome the power imbalance.
    She pointed out that a Pakistan which is evenly or nearly evenly matched with India is less likely to attack India with Nuclear weapons than one which felt it stands no chance.
    "F-16 aircraft, armed with AMRAAM [beyond visual-range missiles], essentially buy time to delay Pakistan considering the nuclear option in a conflict with India. Given India's overwhelming military superiority, this would only be a few days, but these days would allow critical time to mediate and prevent nuclear conflict," she said.
    The Ambassador's comments make it clear that despite political statements on "no first use" of Nuclear weapons, the Americans expect the Pakistanis to use Nuclear weapons against India in case of a war, albeit a few days after the war starts.
    Patterson pointed out that, as of 2009, Pakistan didn't stand much of a chance of winning a war against India unless it used Nukes.
    "Pakistan's shortfalls in training and tactics multiply India's edge. Pakistan also plans to buy/jointly produce 150 inferior JF-17 fighters from China, but it is unclear how they will pay for them. Meanwhile, India plans to acquire 126 multi-purpose fighters (F-18 or equivalent) that will give India significant new technologies and further expand its air superiority over Pakistan," she worried.
    In another cable, she also pointed out that India will not be threatened by the F-16s as it is in the process of buying even more advanced jets.
    "The escalation of Indo-Pak tensions following the Mumbai attacks demonstrated to the Pakistanis that the threat from India still exists. The Pakistani F-16 program, however, will be no match for India's proposed purchase of F-18 or equivalent aircraft," she said.
    She also pointed out that her purpose in recommending the sale was not simply to even the odds against India.
    "We do deny Pakistan requests for arms sales that could upset the regional balance of power," she argued, adding that on February 20, she had recommended that Washington should reject Pakistan's request to buy the Coastal targeting Suppression System, which gives AGM-84 Harpoon ship missiles the capability of hitting land targets.
    "This acquisition would have given Pakistan an overt offensive capability to threaten India and served no counter insurgency purpose," she said.
    But, she said, the Pakistani army must be beefed up to help the US in fighting terror.
    "Our goal is to enable Pakistan to fight the militants using Pakistani safe havens so that we will not have to deploy U.S. troops to do the job. Post agrees that F-16s are not the ideal tool for targeting militants and we are working to enhance Pakistan's combat helicopter fleet/capabilities.
    "Pakistan already is using its F-16s in counter-insurgency operations in the tribal areas, but its inability to executive precision targeting or fly at night creates counter-productive civilian casualties and minimizes operations. The new/MLU aircraft and their munitions packages (with JDAMs and GBUs) will improve Pakistan's precision strike and night vision capability," she pointed out.
    Coincidentally, India's defence minister AK Antony raised a red flag on Saturday over Pakistan milking the US' War on Terror funds to strengthen its defences against India.
    Giving into the demand, the Obama administration last year supplied 17 out of the 18 F-16 fighter jets that Pakistan wanted. F-16s are one of the most widely used fighter jets in the World, with deployments in most countries that buy jets from others.
    Source: Pakistan likely to use Nuclear weapons on India "a few days" into war: US ambassador (Wikileaks) | Real Time News India

    Another supporting news to the above news.

    Wikileaks reveals Pakistan's Kayani against 'no first use' nuclear policy,

    Pakistan's powerful army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani does not support President Asif Ali Zardari's "no-first-use" nuclear policy, according to US diplomatic cables released by whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.

    "Although he has remained silent on the subject, Kayani does not support Zardari's statement last year to the Indian press that Pakistan would adopt a 'no first use' policy on nuclear weapons.

    "Despite increasing financial constraints, we believe that the military is proceeding with an expansion of both its growing strategic weapons and missile programs," the "scenesetter" cables sent by the then US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson prior to Kayani's Washington visit between February 20-27, 2009, said.

    The major US concern has not been that an Islamic militant could steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan's facilities could gradually smuggle enough fissile material out to eventually make a weapon and the vulnerability of weapons in transit, according to the recently released cables.

    However, they also noted that Pakistan's strategic assets are under the control of "the secular military, which has implemented extensive physical, personnel and command and control safeguards."
    Source: Wikileaks reveals Pakistan's Kayani against 'no first use' nuclear policy, World news

    Ilyas Kashmiri wanted to provoke India-Pakistan war

    LONDON: Ilyas Kashmiri, who had a pathological hatred for India and a long history of launching cross-border terror attacks, had in recent years become obsessed with the idea of provoking a war between India and Pakistan in order to distract Pakistan's attention from its campaign against al-Qaeda, according to a new book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 by the murdered Pakistani investigative reporter Syed Saleem Shahzad, the only journalist to have interviewed Kashmiri.
    As the pressure on al-Qaeda grew, Kashmiri became increasingly desperate to get the Pakistan Army off its back by engineering a confrontation with India “thereby allowing al-Qaeda to manipulate its war against NATO in Afghanistan.'' And it was he — and not Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI, Shahzad insists — who masterminded the Mumbai attacks to “provoke India to invade Pakistan.''
    Shahzad claims that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as “Pakistan and India stood eye to eye, the fighting between Pakistan's military and al-Qaeda militants came to a complete halt'' with militants saying “Qunut-e-Nazla (prayers in days of war).''
    They prayed that al-Qaeda and the Pakistan Army would join and fight India together,'' he writes, pointing out that as the threat of a war loomed, with the Pakistan Army “readying for a showdown with India'' al-Qaeda used the “opportunity” to disrupt NATO supply lines in the Khyber Agency.
    Plan for bigger attack
    In the event, a war was averted but Kashmiri didn't give up. In a rare media interview in October 2009, the notoriously elusive Kashmiri told Shahzad that he was planning a much bigger attack on India with the purpose of plunging the region into a war.
    Mumbai was nothing compared with what has already been planned for India in the future,'' he said.
    Shortly afterwards, David Headley and several members of Kashmiri's outfits were arrested and they confessed to planning simultaneous attacks on a number of high-profile targets in India including its nuclear installations and the National Defence College in Delhi.
    “The aim was to keep Pakistan and India engaged in hostilities, which would provide a breathing space to enable al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies to realise their objectives in Afghanistan,'' Shahzad argues.
    Kashmiri, he says, had vowed to wreak havoc on India or what he calls “Ghazwa-e-Hind.'' Sometime last year, he received an email — the first-ever —from Kashmiri which he says amounted to “a declaration of war'' against India. In it, he threatened to continue to target India until the Army left Kashmir and the Kashmiris were given the right to self-determination. He also threatened to “take revenge'' against the “massacre'' of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
    Kashmiri wrote: “We warned the international community to play their role in getting the Kashmiris their right of self-determination and preventing India from committing brutalities in Kashmir, especially in Bandipur, raping women, and behaving inhumanly with Muslim prisoners. We warn the international community not to send their people to the 2010 Hockey World Cup, IPL and the Commonwealth Games. Nor should their people visit India — if they do, they will be responsible for the consequences. We, the mujahideen of 313 Brigade, vow to continue attacks all across India until the Indian army leaves Kashmir and gives the Kashmiris their right of self-determination. We assure the Muslims of the subcontinent that we will never forget the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The entire Muslim community is one body and we will take revenge for all injustices and tyranny. We again warn the Indian Government to compensate for all its injustices otherwise they will see our next action. From 313 Brigade.''
    Ironically, for a man who is alleged to have been bumped off by ISI though the latter denies this, Shahzad clears the agency of any direct involvement in the Mumbai attacks and claims that it was masterminded almost single-handedly by Kashmiri using retired Pakistan Army officers. Although the ISI had endorsed a Lashkar-e-Toiba plan to launch an attack in India it was intended as a “low-profile routine'' operation. Even its targets were not known and “the official policy was to drop it.'' Kashmiri hijacked it and turned it into one of the world's most devastating terror atrocity.
    “Despite both Headley and [Tahawwur Rana] identifying figures such as Kashmiri, retired Major Haroon and retired Major Abdul Rahman as responsible for the India operations, the Indian establishment and the U.S. counter-terrorism experts continue to suspect the Pakistan army and its proxy LeT of being behind the Mumbai carnage. At one point, they even thought that the Pakistan army and al-Qaeda had developed relations to operate against India together!,'' Shahzad writes dismissing allegations of ISI's involvement in the attacks.
    Source: The Hindu : Front Page : Ilyas Kashmiri wanted to provoke India-Pakistan war

    My question are

    1. What IF Ilyas Kashmiri is not dead** and he works on to provoke a war between India and Pakistan ?

    2. If so do the experts here think Pakistan will use it's nukes first ?

    ** Reason I believe he might be alive is because of this article

    No confirmation that Ilyas Kashmiri is dead: Pentagon

    Press Trust of India, Updated: June 06, 2011 22:09 IST

    Washington: The United States has no confirmation that Ilyas Kashmiri, the Al Qaeda leader and a key planner behind the gruesome 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, has been killed in a US drone attack, a top Pentagon official said today.

    "No confirmation," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told reporters during his off-camera daily briefing when asked about news reports coming from Pakistan that Kashmiri has been killed.

    "The Department of Defense has no confirmation (on the death of Kashmiri)," he noted when told that Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said today that the US has confirmed the death of Kashmiri.

    Gilani told a news conference in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Balochistan province, that "as far as the death of Kashmiri is concerned, America has confirmed that his death occurred on Friday".

    47-year-old Kashmiri, a former Pakistani army commando on whose head the US had put a price of USD five million, was killed on June 3 when a predator drone fired four missiles at a compound in Ghwakhwa area of Pakistan's restive South Waziristan.

    His outfit Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami confirmed his death in faxed messages to Pakistani TV channels.
    Source: No confirmation that Ilyas Kashmiri is dead: Pentagon


    IMHO Pakistan has acted in this just to relieve the pressure and has already shifted the terrorist along with the others like Hafiz..

  2. #2
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Ummm, I dont think the Chinese are going to like that very much considering they are right next door and given the possibilty of air curents carrying it up the coast..........

    *I've read already that Gen David Petraus is said to believe that conformation cannot be made and therefore will not say nor act as though he is dead. Not exactly in those words but expresses:


    The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, raised doubts about Kashmiri's death, saying on ABC News on Monday: "I'm not sure that's been confirmed.

    U.S., Pakistan authorities dispute Ilyas Kashmiri's death - Yahoo! News
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 08 Jun 11, at 01:51.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Plus both China and USA know where Pak nukes are. Am curious if we could see combined effort to neutralize them if such scenario takes place as it's not in anyone's interest these to fall on random.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,926
    What war???

    If anything from the December 2001 attacks to the November 2008 events could not goad India into any action, the only way any war will start is if Pakistan invades India. Which is pretty much what was happening in Kargil
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  5. #5
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,644
    Do unto others as they do unto you ,,,,,,,but better still,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, DO IT 1ST


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  6. #6
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by tankie View Post
    Do unto others as they do unto you ,,,,,,,but better still,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, DO IT 1ST
    Amen.


    Honestly Eric,

    If only you could have seen those beautiful ladies living yonder, you would have changed your mind.
    Last edited by Deltacamelately; 08 Jun 11, at 14:40.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor Asim Aquil's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jun 04
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    2,034
    Few days, many days... Basically we'll do it once the doomsday scenario hits, basically like losing territory. We won't if we are winning, probably India will then.

  8. #8
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Amen.


    Honestly Eric,

    If only you could have seen those beautiful ladies living yonder, you would have changed your mind.

    Mjr , if they are anything like Thai girls , yer right , hoy India , ang on while i check em out


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  9. #9
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Patterson pointed out that, as of 2009, Pakistan didn't stand much of a chance of winning a war against India unless it used Nukes.
    This sound ridiculous to me - if Pakistan uses nukes, how will it "win"? Pakistan is the smaller, weaker country and India has nukes too. India would retaliate with its own nukes. If nukes come into play, both sides (and their neighbors) will loose far more. Nuclear weapons can't help either side win, and particularly will not help Pakistan "win" a war with India. They will just increase the death toll, and create far more problems than a conventional war would.
    "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."

  10. #10
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    This sound ridiculous to me - if Pakistan uses nukes, how will it "win"? Pakistan is the smaller, weaker country and India has nukes too. India would retaliate with its own nukes. If nukes come into play, both sides (and their neighbors) will loose far more. Nuclear weapons can't help either side win, and particularly will not help Pakistan "win" a war with India. They will just increase the death toll, and create far more problems than a conventional war would.
    This is almost completely speculation because relatively speaking, I'm clueless as to Indian and Pakistani delivery capabilities, but as I recall, India has pledged no first use (a byproduct of their nuclear weapons being "peaceful nuclear explosive") and thus doesn't have much of a flexible response. But let's assume that Pakistan is losing a hypothetical war. It has three choices as to how to use its nuclear weapons.

    1: Strictly CF targets: The best outcome I can forsee is to remove India's second strike capability. But since they weren't going to use it in the first place, I don't see how this changes the tides of war too much. The only other option is to use some of their nuclear arsenal for tactical purposes, but as their arsenals are approximately equivilant, that allows the possibility of a second strike from India in which case Pakistan is in an even worse of a situation.

    2: Strictly CV targets: I suppose this is the "If I go down, I'm going to try to bring you down with me" mentality? But that requires an irrational actor to be in power (which I suppose is possible of such a large war broke out in the first place). But then you have a very pissed off India who can either expend some of its arsenal as tactical nukes/killing CF targets and kill off almost all organized resistance Pakistan has left or not bother using nukes at all and continue "winning the war". It'd be foolish for India to engage in reprisal CV attacks.

    3: A mixture of CV and CF: So Pakistan deminishes India's second strike capability and hits a few population centers. But India still has some sort of second strike ability. Now Pakistan is in the same situation as mentioned before; not as bad but still pretty bad.


    If someone sees any crucial flaws in my logic, please point it out, but unless there's a nutcase in power, I don't see the slightest logic in Pakistan using nukes.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Asim Aquil's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jun 04
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    This sound ridiculous to me - if Pakistan uses nukes, how will it "win"? Pakistan is the smaller, weaker country and India has nukes too. India would retaliate with its own nukes. If nukes come into play, both sides (and their neighbors) will loose far more. Nuclear weapons can't help either side win, and particularly will not help Pakistan "win" a war with India. They will just increase the death toll, and create far more problems than a conventional war would.
    The MAD (the acronym) theory is that nukes will come into play only in a doomsday scenario and in that scenario there won't be just one or two nukes used, probably a barrage of them. People don't like it when I say this, but its reality, I don't condone it, but having a policy anything short of first use is unrealistic. The US and Pakistan are the only two nations that still hold on to nuclear first use policy - that is if need be.

    Anne Patterson had a very dubious role in Pakistan and she wasn't being supportive of Pakistan when she said this statement. Her time was spent breaking and making up political alliances that form the current government. US F-16s are no match for what India has in its AF. If she wanted to avert nuclear war by bringing up a parity between the conventional power of India and Pakistan's she would've argued the same with some better weapons.

    In all likelihood, this was done to scare congress and to make sure Pakistan does not completely turn towards China.

  12. #12
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Asim Aquil View Post
    The US and Pakistan are the only two nations that still hold on to nuclear first use policy - that is if need be.
    Russia has adopted first use back in the late 1990s. Both the British and French nuclear arsenals have no NFU restrictions. Israel shuts up about her nuclear weapons doctrine.

  13. #13
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ace16807 View Post
    If someone sees any crucial flaws in my logic, please point it out, but unless there's a nutcase in power, I don't see the slightest logic in Pakistan using nukes.
    According to those with links to Pakistani nuclear thinking, 1st use is a demonstration, not a military strike, ie a nuke built crater in the line of an Indian advance and then hoping to hell that India takes the hint and back off. Otherwise, both sides will start lobbing nukes at each other.

    It must be clearly stated that Pakistani Generals have no hope of surviving such an exchange. They firmly believe India will destroy Pakistan in the process. It does not seem that they are all that concern with what happens to India after that.

  14. #14
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    According to Indian doctrine, any use of nukes on her armed forces anywhere or on her soil automatically calls for nuke retaliation.

  15. #15
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    According to those with links to Pakistani nuclear thinking, 1st use is a demonstration, not a military strike, ie a nuke built crater in the line of an Indian advance and then hoping to hell that India takes the hint and back off. Otherwise, both sides will start lobbing nukes at each other.

    It must be clearly stated that Pakistani Generals have no hope of surviving such an exchange. They firmly believe India will destroy Pakistan in the process. It does not seem that they are all that concern with what happens to India after that.

    Even if they have no hopes of surviving a nuclear duel with India, do they believe that India will destroy Pakistan by turning every major population center into a smoldering nuclear crater? I can understand that organized resistance would crumble, ending in an occupation/annexation (I figured a war of this scale would end in the aformentioned results) of Pakistan but do they see this and Pakistan's occupation by India as a permanant end to Pakistan? It seems like engaging in a guerrilla war has better chances of ending in a "liberated Pakistan" rather than throwing all your cards out the window and giving up. (I plead borderline ignorance re India-Pakistan tensions. Just trying to learn more.)

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,, 01:12
  2. China's nuclear missiles hidden "underground maze"
    By cr9527 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30 Sep 10,, 19:26
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05 Mar 10,, 03:43
  4. Israelis piqued by nuclear "confirmation"
    By Julie in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10 Dec 06,, 09:27
  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,, 02:54

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
  •