India reacts strongly to reports of US-Pak nuke pact, says 'check Islamabad's prolife

[anil]

Because at the end of the day, a Pakistani Army will march west into Iran, hold against a Russian march south, against an Indian Army march west while no Indian Army will ever march north when a Chinese fleet sails east against Taiwan or Japan.

The pakistanis will not do that

Although you answered the question correctly. Russia, US and both their allies will move in co-ordination once shit goes down. Balance of power will hold as long as the players behave predictably. When a player acts unpredictably, there will be a skirmish which itself is an unpredictable behaviour.

The map Colonel Sir. Its the Godamn world map.

More

[Cactus]

None of you remembered the Cold War when either you are on my side or his. India was clearly siding with Moscow during the Cold War, at least from everybody's perspective.

Ahh... but do you remember George Washington's Farewell Address, the ups-and-downs of early U.S-French relations (Jay Treaty, XYZ Affair, Mortefontaine, etc) and the Monroe Doctrine? Or, are these too Paleozoic for you Jurassic whippersnappers :P

[Officer of Engineers]

Thailand and Malaysia are too flush with Chinese money to ever fight the Chinese:

So is the US and the entire Western World. So is Japan and Taiwan but they're getting ready for war.

In case of a war between India and China, the SCS is a likely theatre.

With the permission of the USN

[Officer of Engineers]

The pakistanis will not do that

Yeah, they will. You forgot the near Iran-Afghanistan War?

[Cactus]

... India was nowhere to be found. You reward those who helped you. You don't reward those who stood on the sidelines.

Yes, we don't reward those who stood on the sidelines.

Unfortunately we often bribe those who hurt us, either out of strategic miscalculation or narrow-minded tactical calculations. We rewarded the PRC with a permanent UNSC seat after they helped kill tens of thousands of Americans in Korea and Vietnam, and we hit them with sanctions after they stopped being a nuisance for a couple of decades.

What kind of a message does this send to the world?

A nuclear deal with Pakistan -- whether out of a tactical calculation of a face-saving withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2016 elections, or out of a strategic miscalculation that the Pakistani nuclear weapons program is an independent and unconnected program -- is simply an invitation for the countries on the sidelines to join the battle against us. It lays out a clear game-plan for Iran to follow as well.

[anil]

@cactus

If the US can go that far in 71 considering the toll in mind, can the profile remain a doubt

[Cactus]

If the US can go that far in 71 considering the toll in mind, can the profile remain a doubt

That is Colonel OOE's assertion, and I'll hold off on saying anything about it until he backs it up with evidence from people who were actually part of the National Command Authority in 1971. What we do know is that President Kennedy and SECDEF McNamara did seriously consider using nuclear weapons to defend India, fully aware of the toll it would take:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/wo...dia-clash.html

MUMBAI, India, Aug. 25 - In May 1963, President John F. Kennedy and his aides discussed the feasibility of using nuclear weapons in the event China attacked India for a second time, according to newly declassified audio recordings that were released Thursday by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.

Over the crackle of the decades-old tapes, President Kennedy and his advisers can be heard discussing how to prevent India from becoming, in the popular idiom of the day, another domino to fall to Communism.

On the tapes, Robert S. McNamara, who was President Kennedy's defense secretary, is heard to say: "Before any substantial commitment to defend India against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that commitment against any substantial Chinese attack, we would have to use nuclear weapons. Any large Chinese Communist attack on any part of that area would require the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S., and this is to be preferred over the introduction of large numbers of U.S. soldiers."

[Officer of Engineers]

Unfortunately we often bribe those who hurt us, either out of strategic miscalculation or narrow-minded tactical calculations. We rewarded the PRC with a permanent UNSC seat after they helped kill tens of thousands of Americans in Korea and Vietnam,

We needed them to tie down 400,000 Soviet troops and 200 warheads. Taiwan was going to do squat at that end. In the end, that helped prevent WWIII,

and we hit them with sanctions after they stopped being a nuisance for a couple of decades.

And gave us bargin basement prices for over a decade.

What kind of a message does this send to the world?

Don't piss us off.

A nuclear deal with Pakistan -- whether out of a tactical calculation of a face-saving withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2016 elections, or out of a strategic miscalculation that the Pakistani nuclear weapons program is an independent and unconnected program -- is simply an invitation for the countries on the sidelines to join the battle against us. It lays out a clear game-plan for Iran to follow as well.

Frankly, there's nothing on this end about any such deal. I will want to see the actual negotiations before making a comment. I don't if this is just Indian imagination or some exploratory feelers.

[cataphract]

So is the US and the entire Western World. So is Japan and Taiwan but they're getting ready for war.

There lies the rub. Thailand and Malaysia won't fight the Chinese. Everybody else would at least make an attempt.

With the permission of the USN

Why would the USN stop us?

[Officer of Engineers]

There lies the rub. Thailand and Malaysia won't fight the Chinese. Everybody else would at least make an attempt.

The assertion is that India would fight the Chinese for them.

Why would the USN stop us?

The busiest sea trade lanes on this planet and you want to start a friggin war? Are you nuts?

[Officer of Engineers]

That is Colonel OOE's assertion, and I'll hold off on saying anything about it until he backs it up with evidence from people who were actually part of the National Command Authority in 1971.

In 1971? The USS ENTERPRISE was armed with nukes. If you want to assume that they won't be used during a nuclear exchange, then, that's your pre-orgative.

But any doubts about India being a nuclear target disappeared in 1973 and a full blown strategic nuclear target after the deployment of INS CHAKRA.

[Oracle]

But any doubts about India being a nuclear target disappeared in 1973 and a full blown strategic nuclear target after the deployment of INS CHAKRA.

Sir, do you mind explaining it briefly.

[Oracle]

I remember seeing a video of our current NSA stating in a conference before he took the chair of NSA, that 'another 26/11, and Pakistan will lose Balochistan'.

After PoK, India turns focus on Balochistan

Good to see work in progress.

I fully agree with Cactus' initial post. This deal with Pakistan won't happen. Our lobbyists are stronger and numerically superior than Pakistan's. And POTUS is changing in 2016. But, can't the President use executive powers to force the deal?

Murmurs were on since 2008.

[cataphract]

The assertion is that India would fight the Chinese for them.

If China can fight India down to the last Pakistani, why can't India fight China down to the last Vietnamese?

[cataphract]

The busiest sea trade lanes on this planet and you want to start a friggin war? Are you nuts?

Didn't stop the British and French in Suez.