Thread: No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US

Originally Posted by Tronic

I know many areas of Indian Punjab today, which were Muslim dominated such as Gurdaspur, but are no more. I also know that 2 million Hindu Sindhis today reside in India since their entire homeland was absorbed into Pakistan. Pakistanis are delusional about the ground reality today, yes, but historically, both nation's leaders have been a-holes. Only difference today is that lines have already been drawn, and neither side's leaders can cede a single inch of territory without being lynched alive by the mobs. So this holier than thou atttude is unproductive and some solutions have to prop up. Only problem I see, and which Zrav may not read in Pakistan's attitude, is that for Pakistan it is no longer about simply taking Kashmir back. The hate and the craving for revenge for '71 war is so strong in that nation that even if Kashmir is handed over, their military's stated goal of "cutting India into a thousand pieces" may not end. I feel that in Pakistani establishment Kashmir has actually taken a lower priority than getting revenge for the '71 dismantlement of Pakistan.

Those events you have aluded to occurred during the Partition. The event that I alluded to occurred way after the Partition. Anything that happened in the Partition has to be forgotten because there were plenty of blame to go around. But that event where the Muslims drove out the Pandits well after the Partition ended is, well, inexcusable and need to be accountable. There are no freebies anymore.

As for getting revenge for the '71 War, well that is Pakistan's problem and not ours. We don't need to do anything to "help" them get over the '71 war, a war that they started without provocation.

Zraver,

I don't know how to explain this to you, but I guess you could say that I am a hardliner, not a dove. We have tried on many times to bring peace to Pakistan and each time, Pakistan has slapped it down or backstab us. How many times do we have to keep trying?

Right now, India is not doing anything to try to bring peace because after 11/26, the ball is in Pakistan's court. We have told them repeatedly, if they have brought those responsible over but they keep delaying and saying that we have not provided "enough evidence or proof" and claim that we are just making things up and trying to turn the table back against us.

Not with the events of 11/26 that resulted in hundreds of death in a very deplorable way, India is simply not in a mood to concede anything. Zraver, if you cannot understand that, then at least try to make the comparision of the 11/26 events with 9/11 events when America was and is in no mood to negotiate with Al Queda except unconditional surrender and threaten any state that harboured or continued to harbour Al Queda. See how USA toppled the Taliban when Taliban refused to hand over Al Queda or at the very least, deny sanctuary and material support to Al Queda. You see USA applying pressure on Yemen, Iraq, even Iran, and other nations.

Originally Posted by Tronic

How many tanks and artillery are deployed at the border? Plus, Look back at what Pakistan is asking; they want Indian troops to be decreased on the border in Kashmir; not Punjab or Rajasthan sector. And you tell me how many tanks or artillery are positioned there? Most artillery nests lie empty, and during the Kargil war, it took weeks to mobilize the Bofors artillery guns to fight off the Pakistani intrusion. 2001, it took 2 months to put the army at the borders.

You don't have to pull them back in Kashmir. The simple fact of pulling them back somewhere so that Pakistan can 1- free up troops to fight the TTP, and 2- India looks good and Pakistan has little footing to complain.

Sorry zrav, all i've been seeing is Pakistan not fighting the militants and jumping from one excuse to the next. Let me see Pakistan break ties with the Haqqanis and the Hekmatyar's than i'll believe Pakistan is serious about fighting militants. Why should Indian army reduce troops when Pakistan is still openly in bed with terrorists, who, once done with Afghanistan, will jump into Kashmir next. Pakistan is only fighting against anti-Pak Taliban, and that too, only because those Taliban have declared war on Pakistan, not Pakistan on them. Tell me once Pakistan decides to go after Haqqani or Hekmatyar network of anti-Afghan taliban, and I'll agree with your point. Other than that, no can do. Hell, Lashkar-e-Taiba is still fully operational in Pakistan against India, and openly too, not some underground organization. Theres not a single reason why our troops should turn their backs on the border once again, Kargil was the last time we did that.

Fighting the TTP is a start and it helps India. You don't want them in control. The other groups like LeT are a very real threat but only in the short term. Long term LeT is not a threat to India, only small groups of Indians. A single war holds the promise of a 100 26/11's in life and treasure. The big threat is Pakistan, work on fixing that issue and the smaller threats that are part of the big one will shale themselves out.

Antimony,

I think Z is saying (what I understood from our exchange) is that regardless of India's legitimate concerns, we are sucking at the PR game by not conceding smaller points and them trumpeting these intiatives.

Its more than just PR, its the mapped out, deliberate and practiced use of soft power to shape the political and physical reality. Soft power is very hard to withstand because even though its obvious end goal can be detected, each application of it brings real benefits to the organization your trying to influence. Whats the average Pakistani going to say about a Tata factory, "we don;t want jobs!" I don't think so. Will a Pakistani politician turn down a small political victory in Kashmir that doesn't fundamentally change Pakistan's position (that comes later)? You make it hard to turn down the offers, in a way you pay more than the perceived value of what you get in return. If your vision is clearer and longer than the other sides, they can be manipulated into any course of action you desire.

Originally Posted by zraver

You don't have to pull them back in Kashmir. The simple fact of pulling them back somewhere so that Pakistan can 1- free up troops to fight the TTP, and 2- India looks good and Pakistan has little footing to complain.

The problem with that approach is that Pakistan will seize upon it and loudly say that India was wrong and Pakistan was right. Pakistan will not act in the manner you envision. We have learned a hard lesson that doing it for international goodwill without any other tangible benefits is no good at all.

Fighting the TTP is a start and it helps India. You don't want them in control. The other groups like LeT are a very real threat but only in the short term. Long term LeT is not a threat to India, only small groups of Indians. A single war holds the promise of a 100 26/11's in life and treasure. The big threat is Pakistan, work on fixing that issue and the smaller threats that are part of the big one will shale themselves out.

Well unfortunately, the GoI does have to answer its boss, and that is its constituents and they demand safety and security from these threats.

Its more than just PR, its the mapped out, deliberate and practiced use of soft power to shape the political and physical reality. Soft power is very hard to withstand because even though its obvious end goal can be detected, each application of it brings real benefits to the organization your trying to influence. Whats the average Pakistani going to say about a Tata factory, "we don;t want jobs!" I don't think so. Will a Pakistani politician turn down a small political victory in Kashmir that doesn't fundamentally change Pakistan's position (that comes later)? You make it hard to turn down the offers, in a way you pay more than the perceived value of what you get in return. If your vision is clearer and longer than the other sides, they can be manipulated into any course of action you desire.

Pakistan very rarely do the things that you expect or want them to do. They are not rational actors.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Zraver,

I don't know how to explain this to you, but I guess you could say that I am a hardliner, not a dove. We have tried on many times to bring peace to Pakistan and each time, Pakistan has slapped it down or backstab us. How many times do we have to keep trying?

As long as it takes, the goal is India's future, not Pakistans. Unless the GoI is willing to act, hard power is useless, it didn't stop 26/11. That means some other avenue needs to be tried. I am not talking tried and failed peace overtures, but an organized campaign to shift the politcal and physical reality of the situation over time.

Right now, India is not doing anything to try to bring peace because after 11/26, the ball is in Pakistan's court. We have told them repeatedly, if they have brought those responsible over but they keep delaying and saying that we have not provided "enough evidence or proof" and claim that we are just making things up and trying to turn the table back against us.

The ball is never out of India's court so long as the guns remain silent.

Not with the events of 11/26 that resulted in hundreds of death in a very deplorable way, India is simply not in a mood to concede anything. Zraver, if you cannot understand that, then at least try to make the comparision of the 11/26 events with 9/11 events when America was and is in no mood to negotiate with Al Queda except unconditional surrender and threaten any state that harboured or continued to harbour Al Queda. See how USA toppled the Taliban when Taliban refused to hand over Al Queda or at the very least, deny sanctuary and material support to Al Queda. You see USA applying pressure on Yemen, Iraq, even Iran, and other nations.

India chose not to go to war, I don't know if that was the right decision or not, but a decsion it was. If India is not willing to go to war, then by default all that is left is politics. Might as well use the tools you have in the best manner possible.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're missing the point. The issue is not about security. No Chinese Army Group is going to march on Dehli, nukes or no nukes. That essentially means that as a measure of power projection, Indian nukes are next to useless.

And I argued the Americans have more to do with that than the Chinese. Mao Tse-Tung didn't p!ssed off Indira Ghandi, Nixon did.

But you faced the same strategic picture. There is no way in hell that 1974 was directed against Beijing. Beijing did not even know if she was going to see 1975. 200 nukes and 450,000 Soviet troops were going to nuke their way through Northern China. For India to argue that 1974 was directed against China means that you must have some of the stupidest strategic planners on the planet and I sincerely doubt that.

Instead, you've got a PO PM who authorized a strike against Deigo Garcia and people are trying to tell me that the Americans were not on her mind when she authorized 1974?

Ego.

I don't agree with that assessment. It has to do with sense of security and the feeling of not being overpowered by one side. You want to have some form of deterrence and back in that day, the world had not developed enough technology or knowledge to know that deterence could be achieved through other means. Remember that the thinking of Surdarji occurred well after 1974.

If I had to use one word, I would say fear.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The problem with that approach is that Pakistan will seize upon it and loudly say that India was wrong and Pakistan was right. Pakistan will not act in the manner you envision. We have learned a hard lesson that doing it for international goodwill without any other tangible benefits is no good at all.



Well unfortunately, the GoI does have to answer its boss, and that is its constituents and they demand safety and security from these threats.

Take a long view for once.

Pakistan very rarely do the things that you expect or want them to do. They are not rational actors.

They are very rational actors if you understand where they are coming from. Pakistan is a maelstrom of factions, you cannot vie wmost events as reflective of all of Pakistan. Rather look for who benefitted from each action, in America we call this following the money. Seperate out the factions, determien what their centers of gravity and motivatoions are and you can work them to your benefit and play them against one another. why India does not understand this approach is perplexing, look at what the Brits did to you guys doing this exact same thing. They kept you chasing each others tails for centuries and even had you dying in thier wars.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I don't agree with that assessment. It has to do with sense of security and the feeling of not being overpowered by one side. You want to have some form of deterrence and back in that day, the world had not developed enough technology or knowledge to know that deterence could be achieved through other means.

Do you mean China's nukes? Strange thing was that they've developed them, deployed them, and then put them straight into storage, vulnerable to a Soviet first strike (less than a dozen nukes) and the rockets that were supposed to carry them could have been taken out by Soviet air strikes. This was NOT a nuclear power looking to fight a nuclear war and looking back, don't even know how to fight one. Chinese aircrafts would have been shot down before reaching their targets and Chinese rockets were as accurate and dependable as Iraqi SCUDs.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Remember that the thinking of Surdarji occurred well after 1974.

Field Marshall Nie Rongzhen developed the doctrine in the 1960s.

Originally Posted by zraver

They are very rational actors if you understand where they are coming from. Pakistan is a maelstrom of factions, you cannot vie wmost events as reflective of all of Pakistan. Rather look for who benefitted from each action, in America we call this following the money. Seperate out the factions, determien what their centers of gravity and motivatoions are and you can work them to your benefit and play them against one another. why India does not understand this approach is perplexing, look at what the Brits did to you guys doing this exact same thing. They kept you chasing each others tails for centuries and even had you dying in thier wars.

If I understand it correctly, each time we come close to doing that, something catatrophic happens to India, either a December 2001 or a 26/11 or Kargil. This forces the Indian leadership to stop what would be seen as "appeasing moves" and rattle sabers in a knee jerk reaction. Now it would be great if once in a while we took that saber out and chopped some limbs, but we never seem to have the cojones to do that especially in a nuclear scenario.

Originally Posted by antimony

If I understand it correctly, each time we come close to doing that, something catatrophic happens to India, either a December 2001 or a 26/11 or Kargil. This forces the Indian leadership to stop what would be seen as "appeasing moves" and rattle sabers in a knee jerk reaction. Now it would be great if once in a while we took that saber out and chopped some limbs, but we never seem to have the cojones to do that especially in a nuclear scenario.

And its usually the ISI behind it. The ISI and by extension the PA is a mortal enemy of India, not becuase they hate India, but becuase India is a tool for power inside Pakistan. So far India has not been willing to use hard power to deal with the problem. Now this is shooting from the hip, but the ISI's primary misisons seems to be keeping the strings of power firmly in the armies hand, even if politicans are danced from the end of them like puppets.

Obviously cutting the strings is a goal of both India and the average Pakistani politicans, and just as obviously the two cannot openly collude. So the question becomes how can India aid the politcal establishment in Pakistan. We know the ISI will act to protect the armies power and that means dead Indians, we also know that any forceful Indian responce is a win for the ISI.

Since we know the ISI wants India to react with force, and will hide behind the specter of war and that no Pakistani politican can just hadn over an ISI general what to do? The obvious answer is to not react with force. But India must react somehow, the lack of responce after 26/11 almost demands another attack. So how to react outside of the box the ISI is going to try and paint India into?

Natural instinct is to want blood, but what about suits in the court of Justice. Or UNGA resolutions aimed at the indivuals responsbile. India should still have a store of goodwill from her leadership of the NAM. Targeted economic action to build more or restore influence is also possible. Interpol warrants, personal lawsuits from Indian civilians against the GoP and ISI generals.

Or if you want to be nasty, get some really good hackers and enlist the aid of Bollywood. Smear a particular ISI general, make bank desposits just cleverly enough concealed to look like real concealment. Create films of your targets meeting with Indian agents (leaked to pakistani media or via double agents), but have your government declare "No Comment" or issue denials. produce emergancy cell records or telegrams from your target to India trying to warn India of the attack weeks or months before, but then blame a break down in communication for the attack beign successful. Make is a media spectacle in India. It is incredibly hard to fight back agaisnt an attack on a reputation where the attack plays into natural fears.

Also, take the attackers alive if possible, try them (I dont care how you break them) and make thier confessions public and boradcast them into Pakistan. Most Pakistanis will reject it, then imprison them to deny them mayrtrdom, but offer special visas for mothers and imediate family to visit them as often as any normal murderer would be allowed visits in India. Treat them like nothing more than the common trash of humnaity, nothing special. Offer to return the bodies to thier families in Pakistan. Make Pakistan turn down a mothers request to see or at least bury her son, she will talk about it and it will get out.

@ Officer of Engineers, I read the links you provided sir. They were most informative. Thank you.

The more I think about this conundrum involving a country which grows smaller and smaller in relevance to the common Indian, the more I am convinced that the easier and more cost effective way to bring down Pakistan is to help it on its way to terminal implosion.

Violence is a way of life for them. Deny them the national catharsis of a a chance to kill the devious fork tongued Hindu baniya, and the Pakistani will find a target closer to home.

Sunni on Shia. Sunni and Shia on Ahmedi. Sunni Shia and Ahmedi on Christian and Hindu. Punjabi on Pashtun. Punjabi on Baloch. Pashtun on Baloch. Punjabi vs Sindhi. Sindhi vs Mohajir. Army versus Politician. Land owner versus landless. The equations are endless. As are the opportunities for India.

The enemy of an enemy is a friend.

The cruel joke of a safe haven for Muslims being carved out in 1947 is not lost on 1.2 billion Indians as it is not on 200 million Pakistanis as over the past 6 decades more Muslims have been butchered by Muslims in Muslim on Muslim violence than all the Muslims collectively killed by Hindus and Sikhs many many times over, both in divided as well as undivided India.

Coming back to the Nuclear debate, I would like to think a little out of the box and propose a solution to the august forum of military and strategic experts here. If it sounds absurd, please excuse the ramblings of an amateur trying his hand at armchair warfare.

Simply put, India is looking in the wrong direction with regard to a third power reining in and controlling a nuclear Pakistan from tipping over the point of no return.

The events of the past few years have amply demonstrated that the US, while well intentioned, is fast losing relevance in military Pakistan. The only Pakistan that actually counts. Not only that, when push comes to actual radioactive waste shove, the US has nothing to lose directly if nukes start getting chucked across the border.

But China does.

Increasingly the world as well as India is becoming aware that it is not defending two sectors versus two different enemies, but is being effectively hemmed in by a single hostile alliance. The two front war talked about by our General is not just for sound bites alone. Its a stark reality of the theater of geopolitical operations we are operating in currently.

Its time to put China at the front of the line, rather than "supporting ally" status it would like to get away with as it keeps fingering India via pakistan, and dictate the cost of accountability which we plan to extract for that relationship should the need arise.

Simply put, India should come out in the open and state in no ambiguous terms its revision of its Nuclear use policy in light of the changing dynamics. The US and the world will have to accept this, or provide a better alternative. National survival is at stake and we are not playing for peanuts here on the world stage.

A nuclear first strike by Pakistan against ANY Indian asset, will bring with it retaliatory strikes by India against the alliance - both Pakistan as well as China.

If an Indian city burns, any city, then Pakistan will be obliterated, and so will Beijing, and every major Chinese city as far north as Harbin and as far west as Chengdu and Kunming and as far east as Shanghai, along with every nuclear installation within this kill area (esp. the military installations at Xian, Guangyuan, Mianyang, Haiyan, Jiuquan, and Jiajiang) would be unusable for generations (of mutants) to come.

That's the part of the 3 links by this Slade chappie that OOE sent me that really made sense and provided the most obvious doctrine for India.

If one flies, all fly.

And its no secret where more than 70% of Indian warheads are aimed today.

Anything less than that would just downgrade the nuke to the level of a very very dangerous strategic weapon. One amongst many, albeit at the top of the heap. Indirectly legitimizing sanction for limited use, if there can be such a term in today's context. A dangerous and counterproductive doctrine.

The other part that made sense to me was that reiterated by Zraver time and again about the aftermath being worse for the survivors than the actual blast. No sense in putting the survivors through that.

Total anhilation is the better alternative all around, one way or the other, if the spectre of that at least has a shot at preventing the chain of events that lead to it from being triggered in the first place.

Hence its a must to get China involved to bolster the nuke firepower that pakistan would bring to the table versus India.

See how quickly and effectively the Chinese give the Pakistanis a nuclear wedgie post this. After all, we are talking about more than a third of the human race here.

Cheers, Doc

Originally Posted by antimony

We definitely can improve in smaller matters of regional cooperations, no question. However, each time we make a step, we seem to be struck with some event that bring us back to the starting line - Lahore Bus diplomacy followed by Kargil, the 2004-2004 cricket diplomacy followed by bombings in 2006, and finally 26/11.

2006 was a response to Godhra, it was our own ppl. Instead what you mean to say was in 2007, the Samjhauta express bombing.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Only problem I see, and which Zrav may not read in Pakistan's attitude, is that for Pakistan it is no longer about simply taking Kashmir back. The hate and the craving for revenge for '71 war is so strong in that nation that even if Kashmir is handed over, their military's stated goal of "cutting India into a thousand pieces" may not end. I feel that in Pakistani establishment Kashmir has actually taken a lower priority than getting revenge for the '71 dismantlement of Pakistan.

You have this backwards i think. '71 was OUR response for '47. The scores are even now on that subject.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I don't know how to explain this to you, but I guess you could say that I am a hardliner, not a dove. We have tried on many times to bring peace to Pakistan and each time, Pakistan has slapped it down or backstab us. How many times do we have to keep trying?

Today, post 26/11, I do not find your views to be hardliner wrt to this topic at all. I daresay a lot of moderates would not entirely disagree with what you have said.

Originally Posted by zraver

They are very rational actors if you understand where they are coming from. Pakistan is a maelstrom of factions, you cannot vie wmost events as reflective of all of Pakistan. Rather look for who benefitted from each action, in America we call this following the money. Seperate out the factions, determien what their centers of gravity and motivatoions are and you can work them to your benefit and play them against one another. why India does not understand this approach is perplexing, look at what the Brits did to you guys doing this exact same thing. They kept you chasing each others tails for centuries and even had you dying in thier wars.

Yes, and they have been dictating the dialog now for a long time

They set the terms of what can and cannot be discussed and when we refuse they say we are not interested in peace. From a PR and more importantly psychological perspective they are wiping the floor with us here. To put it another way they are in charge of any dialog and not us.

Originally Posted by zraver

Take a long view for once.

This is the key, the problem is changing the mindset of not only our politicans but a pretty large section of the electorate and this includes the educated lot as well. As of now we have been programmed into thinking that peace is not possible. The positions & vocabulary used by various sections are as follows

- the peaceniks want peace at any cost
- the jingo's want war at any cost
- the moderates do not want to talk to them

The first two are just two sides of the same coin so they cancel themselves out and tend to be generally useless on conversations of this nature. The bad part is the moderates are no longer interested any more. That the best thing is to just leave Pak to its own devices whilst arming ourselves to the teeth.

We won't go to war with them neither will we make peace with them. That's a total psychological victory for Pak objectives isn't it

And this has happened because there is this false dichotomy that its either war or appease them. Your many posts are suggesting a fourth way. I say fourth because the third way is do nothing at all.

Here is an example of a peace initiative (Aman ki Asha or Hope for peace) that got started at the beginning of this year between media houses of the two countries. It appeared on the front page of the TOI on New Year's day. I can tell you that the reactions to it was very largely cynical among many moderates and that it alienated many of those it was targeted at. Because it just seems like some empty hope without any strategy in mind.

I would agree its a lack of a long term view, and say such a view does not exist at all. To be frank we have NFI how to even get started on what you have said. Any attempt to bridge gaps from us blows up in our faces. And it always does for reasons that favour the other side. They get us to stop very effectively instead of continuing as they are a bit further down the learning curve than we are

Originally Posted by zraver

India chose not to go to war, I don't know if that was the right decision or not, but a decsion it was. If India is not willing to go to war, then by default all that is left is politics. Might as well use the tools you have in the best manner possible.

If we went to war after 26/11 what would happen to your supply lines to Afghanistan ?

Our interests are aligned here. Terrorist attacks in the noughties were a good deal higher than they were in the past. My only indicator for that is US presence in Afghanistan and the Pakistani's knew we would not react.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Why should Indian army reduce troops when Pakistan is still openly in bed with terrorists, who, once done with Afghanistan, will jump into Kashmir next.

They can try but our hands won't be tied any longer and the Pakistani's know it.

Originally Posted by zraver

Since we know the ISI wants India to react with force, and will hide behind the specter of war and that no Pakistani politician can just hand over an ISI general what to do? The obvious answer is to not react with force. But India must react somehow, the lack of response after 26/11 almost demands another attack. So how to react outside of the box the ISI is going to try and paint India into?

From what i see, the violence is a way to force India to talks on their terms and come out with a give and take solution. Attacks that follow talks could be due to the failure of talks to be shaped to their advantage.

India on the other hand has nothing to gain from a give and take settlement, there is nothing that will force the politicians to 'give' anything (and risk negative sentiment at home).

The only thing Indian authorities are ready to talk about is a change in Pakistan's policy towards supporting anti-India terrorist groups, Pakistan's position on the topic seems to be a settlement of Kashmir Issue(which will automatically finish the anti-India part), i don't think anything will change in the foreseeable future on the diplomatic front or that the Indian leadership have any incentive to change the current situation.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

Simply put, India is looking in the wrong direction with regard to a third power reining in and controlling a nuclear Pakistan from tipping over the point of no return.

vsdoc,

With all due respect, sir, you have been spending too much time with Pakistanis to come up with the threat of nuking China. It is a classic sign of Lahori Logic - putting a gun to one's own head and demanding the world to solve your problems. It is not a unique thought at all. At one point of time I remember Blademaster proposing the same; it lead to endless and useless discussion proving how Lahori the whole thing was.

You are indeed correct that India is looking in the wrong direction with regard to someone reining in Pakistani nukes - but you just went from looking West to looking East, no real change there. What you should be doing is instead of looking Out, you should be looking In. Build up your internal security mechanism to root out the Pakistani eyes, ears and fingers in India; build up your disaster management systems to contain and minimize the damage in a conflict (it will also make your daily lives more comfotable); build up your special operation and targetting capabilities to defang/declaw as thoroughly as possible. Think simple.

China is not special, dont make it special. It is just doing what scores of foes had done before, from Alexander cutting deals with Raja of Ambi down to British cutting deals with M A Jinnah. That is, exploiting India's problems to solve its problems. Going toe-to-toe with China does not solve India's underlying problems. India's conflict with China is over resources, but resources are something that people on both sides can compromise on. Of all the outsiders India has had conflicts with before, China is the one it can most easily respect. The Chinese have put up tremendous sacrifices -sacrifices that most Indians can easily relate to- to reach today's levels. It is not right to threaten those lightly, as it ir-revokably poisons a simple conflict into a dangerous zero-sum conflict. Today India's strategic weapons program is indeed Sino-centric ~ but it is the Last Option!