Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Likely Reaction to Rogue State Nuclear Strike

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

  • #46
    Iranian silos will not withstand an American nuke strike.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      And stop making this Pakistani centric. When it comes to nuclear military history, there's only two powers. The US and the USSR/Russia. The rest are wannabes.
      Sir, the topic of the thread is rogue state nuclear strike. I fail to see how this topic can not be Pakistan centric. Unless you would rather the discussion be about the the only country to have made two nuclear strikes and the only country that has its measure in those stakes. 30,000 nukes or 100, as long as the US shies away from directly taking on a rogue nuclear power and bringing it to book, be it Pakistan or North Korea, claims of being "THE only superpower" IMHO ring pretty hollow when militarily recently the only defining victories have been over a small third-world dictatorship and the other over a nation of warring tribes armed with AK47s and rocket launchers.
      Last edited by vsdoc; 01 Jul 11,, 06:32.

      Comment


      • #48
        Rogue nuclear states.

        India qualifies. China qualifies. Pakistan qualifies. South Africa qualifies. Israel qualifies. North Korea qualifies. And Iran qualifies.

        You want to refine your definition?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Rogue nuclear states.

          India qualifies. China qualifies. Pakistan qualifies. South Africa qualifies. Israel qualifies. North Korea qualifies. And Iran qualifies.

          You want to refine your definition?
          This is what the definition of a Rogue state is (as commonly used by the USA, though it is used by many other nations as well):

          Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

          May I know the basis of the broad blanket you have thrown over the states you have mentioned, equating them to universally declared and accepted rogue states?

          Comment


          • #50
            The only accepted legal definition of a nuclear weapons state is defined by the NPT. Yes, India got an exemption ... this decade ... but just as like China who did not signed the NPT, both were not legal nuclear weapons states until the paperwork passed.

            Like it or not, India and Pakistan were rogue nuclear states ... until India got the exemption ... but then again, so did Pakistan. It was no longer illegal for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ... just that the NSG has not decided to trade with them.

            You really have absolutely no clue what India's NSG exemption opened, do you?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              The only accepted legal definition of a nuclear weapons state is defined by the NPT. Yes, India got an exemption ... this decade ... but just as like China who did not signed the NPT, both were not legal nuclear weapons states until the paperwork passed.

              Like it or not, India and Pakistan were rogue nuclear states ... until India got the exemption ... but then again, so did Pakistan. It was no longer illegal for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ... just that the NSG has not decided to trade with them.

              You really have absolutely no clue what India's NSG exemption opened, do you?
              Sir, respectfully, the NPT, much like the current Climate Talks, is a load of hypocritical crock. The message from non-signatories is simple. Practice what you preach. And while you preach in the present, do not forget your past. Cause your past has brought about our present. Your "legalities" only extend to how far you are willing to enforce them by military force. Force you would deny to others. Its not a level playing field and its never going to work with countries such as India or China. You say there was an "exemption" made. We say that it was simply the inevitability of good commerce. Bluntly put - no favors were done for free.
              Last edited by vsdoc; 01 Jul 11,, 07:01.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                Sir the NPT, much like the current Climate Talks, is a load of crock. The message from non-signatories is simple. Practice what you preach. And while you preach in the present, do not forget your past. Cause your past has brought about our present.
                Horse puckey! You know a lot less than you pretend to know.

                Canada was a nuclear weapons state. Germany was a nuclear weapons state. Italy was a nuclear weapons state. Turkey was a nuclear weapons state. Far, far, far more advance than India could even hope to be. My brigade, the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Germany have tactical nuclear weapons assigned to our taskings.

                I can name the equivalent non-Soviet units in the Warsaw Pact who had exact identical taskings. The Czech Front, ie under Czech Generals have over 160 nuclear weapons assigned to their operational order.

                None of these countries were declared nuclear weapons states under the NPT BUT ALL WERE LEGAL. The nuclear warheads belong to the superpowers but the delivery vehicles belong to the allied nations.

                What you are failing to see at this point ... and blinded by your own patriotism is that your own ally, Moscow, seeked to impose their definition of the NPT through war, ie against China and Israel.

                It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

                And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.
                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 01 Jul 11,, 07:05.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Horse puckey! You know a lot less than you pretend to know.

                  Canada was a nuclear weapons state. Germany was a nuclear weapons state. Italy was a nuclear weapons state. Turkey was a nuclear weapons state. Far, far, far more advance than India could even hope to be. My brigade, the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Germany have tactical nuclear weapons assigned to our taskings.

                  I can name the equivalent non-Soviet units in the Warsaw Pact who had exact identical taskings. The Czech Front, ie under Czech Generals have over 160 nuclear weapons assigned to their operational order.

                  None of these countries were declared nuclear weapons states under the NPT BUT ALL WERE LEGAL. The nuclear warheads belong to the superpowers but the delivery vehicles belong to the allied nations.

                  What you are failing to see at this point ... and blinded by your own patriotism is that your own ally, Moscow, seeked to impose their definition of the NPT through war, ie against China and Israel.

                  It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

                  And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.
                  Sir, I repeat. The term "legal" in the present discussion context is greatly dependent on who is using it and his affiliations thereof. It is NOT binding on us should we decide not to be bound by it, regardless of whether Washington OR Moscow believe we should. The legality and punishment for operating out of its bounds is only of importance to those that subscribe to its tenets. At most, beyond diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, the only way proponents of nuclear apartheid have of enforcing such per their own definitions and standards is by concerted military force. Which then would further push states in the opposition into continuing to develop their capabilities. You name states who are happy to have a big brother nuclear hand over them. Or have ceased to realistically need one. Not all nation states are governed on those principles. Or have such luxuries. Not mine for sure. But does that make us a rogue state or a threat to world peace anymore than the "superpowers" of this world? To borrow your favorite term here - horse puckey!
                  Last edited by vsdoc; 01 Jul 11,, 07:16.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                    Sir, I repeat. The term "legal" in the present discussion context is greatly dependent on who is using it and his affiliations thereof. It is NOT binding on us should we decide not to be bound by it, regardless of whether Washington OR Moscow believe we should. The legality and punishment for operating out of its bounds is only of importance to those that subscribe to its tenets. At most, beyond diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, the only way proponents of nuclear apartheid have of enforcing such per their own definitions and standards is by concerted military force. Which then would further push states in the opposition into continuing to develop their capabilities. You name states who are happy to have a big brother nuclear hand over them. Not all nation states are governed on those principles. Not mine for sure. But does that make us a rogue state or a threat to world peace anymore than the "superpowers" of this world? To borrow your favorite term here - horse puckey!
                    And here we have now a criminal's answer to the law. I chosed not to obey the law because I did not write it.

                    GET THIS LIMA CHARLEY.

                    Moscow, not Washington, chosed to view the NPT as the sole legal argument as to who is and who is not allowed nuclear weapons. They've gone as far as to preparations for war for the most obvious of the two NPT violators at the time, China and Israel.

                    Come 1972, India joined that exclusive club of China and Israel ... you have the audacity to argue that Pakistan should be punish by the Americans for following the same rules as China, Israel, and India?

                    Horse puckey alright.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 01 Jul 11,, 07:24.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      And here we have now a criminal's answer to the law. I chosed not to obey the law because I did not write it.

                      GET THIS LIMA CHARLEY.

                      Moscow, not Washington, chosed to view the NPT as the sole legal argument as to who is and who is not allowed nuclear weapons. They've gone as far as to preparations for war for the most obvious of the two NPT violators at the time, China and Israel.

                      Come 1972, India joined that exclusive club of China and Israel ... you have the audacity to argue that Pakistan should be punish by the Americans for following the same rules as China, Israel, and India?

                      Horse puckey alright.
                      Sir, I have said my piece on how a large section of the world views the "legality" of the NPT, and the moral and ethical rights to preach and practice thereof of those who now seek to enforce it on others who seek to acquire the same. Since we are into local colloquialisms, here is one from my country as well (in Hindi) - sau chuhe kha ke billi chali Haj ko! (after killing and eating 100 mice, the cat decides to now go on a holy pilgrimage).

                      But this discussion was never about the "legality" of having nuclear weapons. Not was it about punishment for having them, or trying to acquire them. That is a typically Western way of always looking at the issue. We obviously do not see it your way. That does NOT make us the criminals - anymore than it makes you the papa of criminals for starting this whole thing in the first place. Nobody appointed you (the US/Western world/USSR) as sole Judge and Jury and Law Writer to this effect sir. Not by consensus or democratic vote for sure. So lets go easy on the "criminal" accusations here please. Because you know well my views on the first and only use of nuclear weapons to date in the first place.

                      This discussion was rightly about ROGUE nations with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is THE rogue nation of the world today. Way way way more than either North Korea or Iran. It may not suit US interests to acknowledge as such. Yet. But it does NOT change the blatant facts on the ground for decades now. India is NOT a rogue nation. China is NOT a rogue nation. You cannot compare, much as you would like to by pulling in the legalese - which is highly suspect and discriminatory in the first place. The discussion is about handling rogue nuclear powers. NOT about nuclear powers who cocked a snook at you and went nuclear anyway.
                      Last edited by vsdoc; 01 Jul 11,, 07:55.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        It is not the US you should be arguing against, it is Moscow ... for failing to deliver nuclear war upon China and Israel.

                        And hence, not obligating the US to deliver nuclear war upon India yesterday ... and Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea today.
                        The USSR could no more wage nuclear war against China or Israel at the time (or Pakistan later), as the US could against India, or North Korea for that matter ..... or against Iran today or tomorrow. Its called superpower checks and balances in the big game. The law of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Purely from my own viewpoint, I believe that neither the USSR or the USA are anybody to question which country goes nuclear or how many nukes they develop or how much testing they do. They are simply two sides of the same coin. It is also why it is essential to the world at large that nuke for nuke, and man for man, and tank for tank, and plane for plane, and sub for sub, one cancels out the other. The world is a better and safer place because of that - and not in spite of that.

                        Its in effect the ultimate two-party world democracy that's going on in another thread - and a workable one at that. One without the other, and I have equally no doubt that unilateral nuclear preemption would have been front and square on the table. Its after all what started the whole mess in the first place. I want to be the only big boy on the block with the biggest club. And I will do all in my power, including using (or threatening to use) the same big club to prevent the multitude other small runts from getting a club of their own. Should such a club ever be used against me. No arguments from the self preservation/interest standpoint. But to throw pseudo-legal and ethical/moral jargon into the mix - that is where the hypocrisy of the whole deal becomes unpalatable.

                        Is it coincidence or providence that the only time nukes were used was when no one else had them?
                        Last edited by vsdoc; 01 Jul 11,, 10:35.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                          What stops China from doing to the US what it does to India via Pakistan - in concept and plausibility, regardless of the obvious difference between the two? Once the missiles/capability is in Pakistani hands, what is the US going to do against either China or Pakistan? What can the US do then? Sanctions? Preemptive strikes? War? I am sure there must be wayls for China to ensure that a rogue Pakistan never uses those missiles on China were they to stay true to form and continue biting the hand that feeds them. Or is that the answer to my question in the first place? No guarantees, ergo .....
                          What stops China? The US.
                          Can PRC do the same to the US?
                          Remember there is no power other than the US itself which can restrain US. However, there is the US which can & has restrained India from skinning the bogey.
                          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            Sir, I have said my piece on how a large section of the world views the "legality" of the NPT, and the moral and ethical rights to preach and practice thereof of those who now seek to enforce it on others who seek to acquire the same.
                            A very small portion of the world. Most have signed the NPT.

                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            But this discussion was never about the "legality" of having nuclear weapons. Not was it about punishment for having them, or trying to acquire them. That is a typically Western way of always looking at the issue. We obviously do not see it your way. That does NOT make us the criminals - anymore than it makes you the papa of criminals for starting this whole thing in the first place. Nobody appointed you (the US/Western world/USSR) as sole Judge and Jury and Law Writer to this effect sir. Not by consensus or democratic vote for sure. So lets go easy on the "criminal" accusations here please. Because you know well my views on the first and only use of nuclear weapons to date in the first place.
                            And therefore, just because the history does not suit your view, you chose to deny it. This HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR VIEWS. WE ARE DISCUSSING HISTORY AND THE HISTORY WAS THAT MOSCOW CHOSE THE NPT AS THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR NUCLEAR WAR AGAINST BOTH CHINA AND ISRAEL. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the history.

                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            This discussion was rightly about ROGUE nations with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is THE rogue nation of the world today.
                            Worst than Cultural Revolution China with nukes? Worst than nuclear Israel conquering Arab territory? Worst than North Korea kidnapping foreign women to be brainwashed into suicide bombers? Like I said, you know a lot less than you pretend to know.

                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            India is NOT a rogue nation.
                            Yes, she was. She used CANDU for her 1st nuke.

                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            China is NOT a rogue nation. You cannot compare, much as you would like to by pulling in the legalese - which is highly suspect and discriminatory in the first place. The discussion is about handling rogue nuclear powers. NOT about nuclear powers who cocked a snook at you and went nuclear anyway.
                            China exported her Revolutions to the point of open war against the US in Vietnam. Israel went to Holy War against the Arabs. Does your narrow mindiness not grasp that?

                            Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
                            Is it coincidence or providence that the only time nukes were used was when no one else had them?
                            How about sheer dumb luck? Do you know how many times we came close to nuclear war? Have you ever studied those crisis's before imposing your isolated world view? A U2 plane was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would have happened had the carrier group admiral decided to act on self defence instead of sending word to Kennedy? Two armies were nose to nose during the Berlin Crisis with weapons locked and loaded. A firecracker hit the streets. The tank commander decided to investigate instead of letting lose.

                            Your view of the nuclear world is warped and out of reality.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 01 Jul 11,, 15:48.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              Yes, she was. She used CANDU for her 1st nuke.
                              Nuclear Nonproliferation

                              In terms of safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation, CANDUs meet a similar level of international certification as other reactors. There is a common misconception that plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, Operation Smiling Buddha in 1974, was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, it was produced in the unsafeguarded Canada-supplied CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research reactor. In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some unsafeguarded pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these reactors; however India mainly relies on an Indian designed and built military reactor called Dhruva. The design is believed to be derived from the CIRUS reactor, with the Dhruva being scaled-up for more efficient plutonium production. It is this reactor which is thought to have produced the plutonium for India's more recent (1998) Operation Shakti nuclear tests.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                How about sheer dumb luck? Do you know how many times we came close to nuclear war? Have you ever studied those crisis's before imposing your isolated world view? A U2 plane was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would have happened had the carrier group admiral decided to act on self defence instead of sending word to Kennedy? Two armies were nose to nose during the Berlin Crisis with weapons locked and loaded. A firecracker hit the streets. The tank commander decided to investigate instead of letting lose.
                                Dumb luck helped on its way by very real mortal fear of self annihilation. You are actually confirming what I am insinuating sir. What are the chances of the carrier group admiral taking a breath and sending word to Kennedy first OR the tank commander deciding to investigate before letting loose IF they did not have nukes pointing right back at them in the first place? How would you rate the chances of the opposing armies in both cases were that not the case? Better off or worse off?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X