Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Brainstorming Help Needed

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

  • #16
    She knows that, which is part of the challenge of the paper...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #17
      It seems the moderators are still reviewing my suggestion for this project.
      Can't understand why.
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
        Like I said, according to the guidelines for the paper, deterrence has been deemed to no longer be reliable.
        Explain why ?

        If deterrence, that is to say nuclear deterrence in particular is no longer reliable against Pakistan then the consequences are omnious for its neighbours and in turn for Pakistan as likewise their own nukes won't protect them either. This is tantamount to overturning the thinking of Generals Nie Rhongzhen & Sundarji who shaped the deterrence doctrines of their respective countries and in turn every other deterence power out there including Israel except for the US & Russia.

        For the last five years i've been hearing in India how Pakistan has either failed, is failing or will fail and from the west how Pakistan is going to take the rest of the world with them when that eventually happens.

        This is old news, and appears to be the sole premise on which this paper rests :)
        Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Jan 12,, 21:32.

        Comment


        • #19
          Why does the paper assumes intent on part of the Indians or Chinese in the first place, to hit CONUS? A military solution to a threat can be difficult to achieve, if devoid of the actual threat perception and must factor the threat elements at play. Dillydallying around notions of nuking the entire place, destroying carriers etc are fine as long as the real outcomes are factored well, with rationality though.

          Aah...but then the fine line between reality and fantasy.....
          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lemontree View Post
            We went nuclear due to Chinese threats and nuclear blackmail.
            But China won't use their nukes on us as we never plan to go to Beijing.

            We're not going to use our nukes on China either because they're not going to march to Delhi anytime soon. They can dump a load of missiles on us but thats not the same as boots on the ground. Maybe if there were no Himalayas and instead some plains seperating our two countries, otherwise its hard to see.

            We went nuclear as a result of the US after '71. Nixon threatened to nuke us. Now between '62 & '71 there was ample opportunity to do a test but it was continually put off. If it was due to the Chinese we should have tested much earlier ie the 60's.

            If we've got nukes they're to protect us from any nation attmepting a regime change on us, presently there are only two capable, the US or Russia. There is no Chinese or Pakistani nuclear blackmail.

            Pakistan's nukes are directed at us because we have the ability to march to Islamabad. If we don't do that they'll never use them either.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Jan 12,, 02:33.

            Comment


            • #21
              Let me take another swipe at this

              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              Like I said, according to the guidelines for the paper, deterrence has been deemed to no longer be reliable. Militarily is an option, but the question is, can you come up with some other method?
              So the given is that we are dealing with an irrational regime in Pakistan. This is the only possibility where deterrence fails.

              India would have the biggest problem to deal with in that case because we will be first on the firing line.

              What do we do ?

              We could wait for them to become belligerent and start a war and then carry it through to its conclusion. That is the most costly option.

              Before that happens there will be lots of appeasement but nothing will happen unless the other side fires the first shot.

              Trying to get India to disarm will not happen without a fight. It would make an already difficult problem a great deal worse. Better would be to cooperate wth India and together deal with the belligerent. The costs here will be on solely on India because we will be absorbing anything that comes across.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                Another idea she came up with is for the US to somehow manipulate the Indian, Pakistani and Chinese economies so that they are entwined in each other without the countries realizing that and then threatening to topple the house of cards.
                What house of cards are you going to topple here ?

                India has been trying to do more trade with Pakistan but everytime we get something going some terrorist incident or other puts a freeze on it. A lot of stop start.

                Trade with China is easy but the problem is we want to sell more finished products than raw materials. We're not confident enough to do more trade because we cannot balance it out. It would be a Chinese rout. So trade tariffs will be high.

                In the end being each others biggest trading partner isn't enough to prevent a war should the conditions arise. It did not stop France & Germany in WW1.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Jan 12,, 02:36.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                  Bigross,
                  Your friend needs to understand that Indian nukes are not Pakistan centric. We went nuclear due to Chinese threats and nuclear blackmail. So your friend would have to re-orient her perception of the issues at hand.
                  Captain, I am aware of the Indian stance but was there ever an incident that could be perceived as a Chinese threat or blackmail. I know of two incidences with Chinese officers mouthing off (and getting punished for it) but that's vis-a-vi the US (ie trading Taipei for LA, and nuclear attack on the US should be considered an option).

                  Was there some veiled threats (such as the US implicit threat against Saddam's use of chems during both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars) by some know nothing bureaucrat?

                  Because I cannot find one situation where the Chinese actually moved targeted India with nukes or even gave the order for consideration.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Captain, I am aware of the Indian stance but was there ever an incident that could be perceived as a Chinese threat or blackmail. I know of two incidences with Chinese officers mouthing off (and getting punished for it) but that's vis-a-vi the US (ie trading Taipei for LA, and nuclear attack on the US should be considered an option).

                    Was there some veiled threats (such as the US implicit threat against Saddam's use of chems during both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars) by some know nothing bureaucrat?

                    Because I cannot find one situation where the Chinese actually moved targeted India with nukes or even gave the order for consideration.
                    Sir,

                    The conventional imbalance comes to play.

                    The InA doesn't respects the PA's capability to impose conventional superiority.
                    The InA more than respects the PLA'e capability to try impose conventional superiority, hence the Chinese oriented deterence mindset.
                    sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Sino-US no first use treaty, no IRBM+ treaty. China gets to divert the money spent on the bigger missiles and her nuclear program into other areas, the threat of an American nuclear strike goes away. Anyway however its done, on what ever terms. China can't disarm unless India does, and India won't unless Pakistan does, so the US puts Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella and enters a NW sharing agreement for 10 years (US weapons Pakistani delivery platforms), Russia does the same for India and also inspects Chinese nuclear sites. All parties create a joint monitoring team to inspect or monitor each other. US provides India with real time spy sat footage of Pakistan and vice verse for example. Pakistani nuclear materials sold to the US, Indian nuclear materials sold to Russia, Chinese nuclear materials reprocessed as reactor fuel.
                      This is not the seventies. India's integration with the West, specifically with the Us has grown by leaps and bounds through gov yo gov, people to people and B2B exchanges while our relationship with post communist Russia has stagnated.

                      I am not sure it would be easy for India to go back to Russia's embrace, instead of lobbying the US through various means.
                      "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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I don't see that any of the above discussion has looked at the possibility of China starting a border war with India, and the chance of the escalation of that conflict then affecting the entire region. That is a very good possibility.

                        China likes to claim that various regions have been "Chinese" since antiquity, and its national leaders feel that that is justification enough for military action.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          are you saying that the Chinese leaders would risk all their trade in that region for some barren hills? Which is more risky for the Chinese leader, millions of unemployed or not reclaim some land that in status quo since 1962?
                          “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                            are you saying that the Chinese leaders would risk all their trade in that region for some barren hills? Which is more risky for the Chinese leader, millions of unemployed or not reclaim some land that in status quo since 1962?
                            Andy,
                            The Chinese are not interested in Arunachal Pradesh. It is of no strategic value to them. For India it is a buffer zone.
                            The Chinese needed Aksai Chin for the road to Xinjiang.

                            They are more than willing to risk trade for that road.

                            Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                              What I'm wondering is, can you guys come up with a couple more hypothetical ideas in how to get Pakistan and India to disarm from their nukes? All means acceptable, but just remember that every single act has consequences.
                              Simple. Get India & Pakistan to use all of their nukes ON EACH OTHER; no more nukes, no problem. The only problem is getting the war started without leaving your fingerprints; THAT'S the creative part.

                              Other than that, I can't think of a way to get EITHER country to voluntarily disarm.
                              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                                Simple. Get India & Pakistan to use all of their nukes ON EACH OTHER; no more nukes, no problem. The only problem is getting the war started without leaving your fingerprints; THAT'S the creative part.
                                Gotta wonder which way the wind will blow when that happens.

                                Other than that, I can't think of a way to get EITHER country to voluntarily disarm.
                                Park 6-7 CVGs in the neighborhood, and press them hard to demobilize. Stop aid, trade, sanction those who still trade... similar to Iran.

                                Oh and secure funds to do it for few decades
                                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X