Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Mujahideen wanted to nuke Surat, Yasin Bhatkal tells cops

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    In any case, to move the argument along, assume Pakistan is confident of her nuclear assets and command and control surviving an Indian Nuclear First Strike and is able to convey the fact to the Indian leadership that they would be inviting retaliatory nuclear strikes (without actually mobilizing Pakistani nukes) if they went ahead with LT's proposal of nuking Pakistan regardless of whether or not Pakistan was complicit in said WMD event on Indian soil, would the Indian leadership still actually go ahead with the policy outlined by LT, or would they wait the days/weeks/months to confirm complicity before retaliating (if Pakistani complicity is proven)? What would be the drawbacks of waiting for 'nuclear forensics' to be completed before assigning blame and carrying out retaliation, especially if the result of 'nuclear forensics' would damn Pakistani denials (in case they were complicit)?
    You are still thinking escalation.

    Pakistan NEEDS to PROVE she didn't nuke India ... and I already know your next point ... but you refuses to understand the most logical action that Pakistan needs to do.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
      Agnostic Muslim, your arguments rest on why nots, should nots, and cannots. Lemontree, who I understand is an army man, has clearly laid out a scenario and its response. Do you not think that rather than us debating this, we should take cognizance of what a trained expert says? I know I would take a Pakistani army man more seriously than I would you.
      What AM is stating is pretty much along the lines of the unofficial doctrine of SPD.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by notorious_eagle View Post
        What AM is stating is pretty much along the lines of the unofficial doctrine of SPD.
        Then all the more we have to nuke you, nuke you hard (disproportionately), and nuke you quickly, so that you do not and cannot get back off the ground to come back after us.

        Therefore no time for forensics or the theatrics of non state actor hand wringing to the global community.

        I understand from the Colonel that we cannot take out all of your nukes, but I'm sure we can take out many of your nukes (Colonel, Lemontree?). Those we cannot will either be intercepted best case scenario, or land on another of our city/ies worst case scenario. But we have a lot more land (and a lot more water), a lot more people, and a lot many more targets than you have nukes. The same is not true in the reverse. To the same extent.

        Once the bell tolls, we need to make sure that if we get out of it, those of us that do, do not have to deal with a Pakistan (or similar such) again.

        If your doctrine says what you and AM says it says, then LT's response scenario makes a lot more sense than it already made. Thank you for confirming as much.
        Last edited by sated buddha; 15 Jan 14,, 14:15.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
          I understand from the Colonel that we cannot take out all of your nukes, but I'm sure we can take out many of your nukes (Colonel, Lemontree?).
          Not a single one and frankly with the small Indian nuclear arsenal, India would not want to.

          Comment


          • #95
            double post

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Not a single one and frankly with the small Indian nuclear arsenal, India would not want to.
              I'm sorry for not being informed on this and talking in generalities. What exactly is involved in "taking out" a nuke short of your forces capturing the silos and disarming them with their launch codes? Firing one of your own nukes or really heavy deep hardened silo penetrating bombs to blow them up? Would that entail additional chain reaction (friendly) nuclear explosions in addition to the one you sent across or would the enemy nukes just get destroyed without initiating a fission/fusion reaction?
              Last edited by sated buddha; 15 Jan 14,, 17:29.

              Comment


              • #97
                During my time, we tasked 3 nukes per target. Both India and Pakistan is estimated to have 100 nukes each (I think that's way too high for Pakistan but that's what the open source intel says). So, basic theory states that India can only destroy 33 Pakistani nukes and that's without going into detail on how well Pakistan protects their nukes.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  During my time, we tasked 3 nukes per target. Both India and Pakistan is estimated to have 100 nukes each (I think that's way too high for Pakistan but that's what the open source intel says). So, basic theory states that India can only destroy 33 Pakistani nukes and that's without going into detail on how well Pakistan protects their nukes.
                  But considering at the height of the cold war, before each started pulling back, both the US and the USSR had over 10,000 nukes each, even if all were tasked towards taking out enemy nukes, that still left each country defenseless against 7000+ nukes. And obviously that was never going to be enough. So why bother? Why not leverage each to do the maximum damage to the other? Or was there some formula for dividing the arsenal into offense and defense?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                    But considering at the height of the cold war, before each started pulling back, both the US and the USSR had over 10,000 nukes each, even if all were tasked towards taking out enemy nukes, that still left each country defenseless against 7000+ nukes. And obviously that was never going to be enough. So why bother? Why not leverage each to do the maximum damage to the other? Or was there some formula for dividing the arsenal into offense and defense?
                    Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                      Then you have to also give an example of a state that would benefit from such an exercise?
                      Exclude China - since they are not idiots.
                      I don't see any State benefiting from such an exercise, hence the 'hypothetical'.
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                        With Pakistan's long history of using terrorism to wage assymetric warfare against India; a nuke strike by a terror organization in India will be an automatic retaliation against Pakistan. No questions asked.
                        A nuclear strike using 'non-state actors' against an opponent is significantly different from supporting insurgents fighting Indian security forces in internationally disputed territory, so no, it isn't a 'no-brainer'.
                        Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 15 Jan 14,, 20:19.
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          Agnostic Muslim, your arguments rest on why nots, should nots, and cannots. Lemontree, who I understand is an army man, has clearly laid out a scenario and its response. Do you not think that rather than us debating this, we should take cognizance of what a trained expert says? I know I would take a Pakistani army man more seriously than I would you.
                          Lemontree's scenario, of carrying out a nuclear First Strike on Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible for a provocation, is a completely irresponsible one, which is why I am questioning whether such a ludicrous policy would actually be followed by the Indian government.
                          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            Lemontree's scenario, of carrying out a nuclear First Strike on Pakistan in a situation where Pakistan is not responsible for a provocation, is a completely irresponsible one, which is why I am questioning whether such a ludicrous policy would actually be followed by the Indian government.
                            AM,

                            I posted a question in post #83, which is not directed to you, but since you insist on this hypothetical scenario, could you answer it? Thanks.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                              I don't see any State benefiting from such an exercise, hence the 'hypothetical'.
                              I could not see any state benefiting out of Mumbai 2008, apart from pure spite. Yet, there is was. I cannot see anyone like Brig. Amanullah with such suicidal tendencies getting so high up in power. Yes our politicos are corrupt and power hungry but not suicidal like yours.
                              "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


                              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                You are still thinking escalation.
                                Military escalation by Pakistan (in terms of the mobilization of conventional and possibly nuclear forces) WILL happen - Pakistan is not going to trust in the Indian leadership acting rationally - the Indians, through their repeated attempts at pinning events like the Mumbai attacks on the Pakistani State, have shown that they will grasp at any straw to blame Pakistan.
                                Pakistan NEEDS to PROVE she didn't nuke India
                                Pakistan will obviously communicate with the Indians to inform them that all warheads and nuclear material is accounted for, and call for a thorough and impartial investigation into the origin of any nuclear device used in an attack in India, but all of that is not going to be accomplished in '2 hours', and LT's preferred course of action would not allow for anything more than a few cursory Pakistani denials to take place before a full fledged nuclear exchange takes place.
                                ... and I already know your next point ... but you refuses to understand the most logical action that Pakistan needs to do.
                                Pakistan can assuage Indian concerns and assist in an investigation into any such nuclear attack on Indian soil (without compromising on security by ensuring full military mobilization at the same time) - what do you see as 'the most logical action Pakistan needs to do'?
                                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X