Pakistan likely to use Nuclear weapons on India "a few days" into war: US ambassador

[Cactus]

Sir,

I would suggest you to take this with a bunch of salt. Your basic premise is correct, but then you have to separeate the rank from the file.

Maj DCL, I believe he is fully correct in this assessment. The Paks have pretty much come out and said that it has been the case since EX Brasstacks I. I didn't understand what you meant by separating rank from file, but at the end of the day isn't it the rank that makes the policy? The only qualification we need to make is that in recent years the decision-making may have been delegated slightly downwards (but still high ranks), mainly because of their on-going games with the US.

[Cactus]

I don't like to play into this internet warrior trap (with rude and offensive behavior thats beneath me) a few people here seem to be interested in. Its tough for me as a Pakistani to ever imagine an Indian invasion and to think I can't do anything about it. Thats the way we are wired, we know how to teeth we would fight such an occurrence when push comes to shove, but given the fact they are larger, armed better, better economy its all a likelihood.

You just played the Internet Warrior Role (nothing wrong with that, this is just an ironic observation). Thank your stars that your military leaders are generally more intelligent than yourself, and that they have prevented you from truly learning what it would be to fight a stay-behind action. In 1965 Zhou En-Lai did advise Ayub Khan to continue doing just what you proposed (People's War), so that the PLA had time to mobilize on the other front -- Ayub Khan wisely demurred and quietly went to Tashkent. In 1981 Zia-ul-Haq truly got scared that the Soviets would come and started a very limited program; the Soviets did not even come, the program was quite small, and yet see the blow-back effects happening all over your country now. Do you understand now?

However coming back to the NFU, we expect India to be on the prowl for an opportunity of invasion. It doesn't help when its religious hardliners often keep claiming about glorious futures with Akhand Bharat (Unified India) and comparing the invasion as simple as walking in all over us. If no NFU scares the bejeezes out of such a sick expansionist mentality within some quarters in India, we will continue to ignore India's pleas on it.

FWIW India and China have NFU and MCD policies because it is the right policies for mid-rung powers with limited resources and enormous domestic responsibilities. Not because they are doing a favor to each other, or for the two top-rung powers (US and RU).

You talk about adopting a NFU policy as doing a big ehsaan (favor) for India and the World Community. It will not be a favor for anyone outside Pakistan.

I won't even advocate that Pak do anything about it. Do exactly what you think right, do exactly you want, and reap whatever sprouts from it.

[667medic]

RSS chief roots for Akhand Bharat - Mumbai - DNA

However I would agree that most Indians haven't even heard of the term, for that matter, neither did Pakistanis knew about Ghazwa-e-Hind before all the Indians immortalized Zaid Hamid. For most Pakistanis hes a nut job who is already past his 15 minutes of fame. Nowadays anyone found praising Zaid Hamid comes back with eggs on their face.

The reality of Pakistan - India war itself is far fetched despite what internet warriors want to believe. Pakistanis are sick of war and would not wish to get into a fight with India. The stereotypes however exist in picking the absolute worst comments from our sides and thinking this is the enemies policy.

At some point this has to end. At some point we got to be nice to each other.

"RSS chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat on Wednesday backed the idea of a confederation of the South East Asian countries that would lead to melting of all borders as a lasting solution to the separatist movements and for emergence of a stronger India"

Bhagwat is actually advocating for more co-operation among the countries with India having a dominant role. You can dispute the central role of India in such a entity but he is definitely not implying that India swallow all the neighboring nations.

OTOH proponents of Ghazwa-E-Hind want to see the Pakistani flag fly over the Red Fort

[Asim Aquil]

You just played the Internet Warrior Role (nothing wrong with that, this is just an ironic observation). Thank your stars that your military leaders are generally more intelligent than yourself, and that they have prevented you from truly learning what it would be to fight a stay-behind action. In 1965 Zhou En-Lai did advise Ayub Khan to continue doing just what you proposed (People's War), so that the PLA had time to mobilize on the other front -- Ayub Khan wisely demurred and quietly went to Tashkent. In 1981 Zia-ul-Haq truly got scared that the Soviets would come and started a very limited program; the Soviets did not even come, the program was quite small, and yet see the blow-back effects happening all over your country now. Do you understand now?

A person with zero understanding of the current going ons within Pakistan can compare the 1965 war, a people's war or a General Zia's actions to it.

This is no war, we've already stated that the change would come through the ballot box, not a coup, no rioting.

With all due respect, I've not advocated war nor been belligerent about egging the other side on for a fight. This silly bravado may sell well among warmongers, its just not my style.

You talk about adopting a NFU policy as doing a big ehsaan (favor) for India and the World Community. It will not be a favor for anyone outside Pakistan.

I won't even advocate that Pak do anything about it. Do exactly what you think right, do exactly you want, and reap whatever sprouts from it.

Yeah I don't think so... I think it keeps India from all its warmongering. We don't want to give India any assurances in war. We'll fight with all we have got. India has been trying to curry favors on how it wants to fight a war with Pakistan. "Please let us have a limited war", "Please don't use nukes". If Indians want to go to war this bad, then they should be man enough for all its consequences.

Lets not be holier than thou either and suddenly go from warrior to priest with statements like "You reap what you sow". If Pakistan's woes are of its own making (something I stated from the get go, thank you Lady Superior), then so are India's.

[Cactus]

A person with zero understanding of the current going ons within Pakistan can compare the 1965 war, a people's war or a General Zia's actions to it. This is no war, we've already stated that the change would come through the ballot box, not a coup, no rioting. With all due respect, I've not advocated war nor been belligerent about egging the other side on for a fight. This silly bravado may sell well among warmongers, its just not my style.

The fundamental dangers of fighting a people's war remain the same. You were the one saying that you will fight Indian forces with your teeth if necessary... my point is, your saner generals won't let you. They may preempt it by playing the nuclear card, they may preempt it by making concessions to India, they may preempt it by a range of other choices. But they would have to be completely self-destructive to let you have a go at it. It was Gen Kiyani who recently said something to the effect of, "We will not outsource the defense of Pakistan to militias".

Yeah I don't think so... I think it keeps India from all its warmongering. We don't want to give India any assurances in war. We'll fight with all we have got. India has been trying to curry favors on how it wants to fight a war with Pakistan. "Please let us have a limited war", "Please don't use nukes". If Indians want to go to war this bad, then they should be man enough for all its consequences. Lets not be holier than thou either and suddenly go from warrior to priest with statements like "You reap what you sow". If Pakistan's woes are of its own making (something I stated from the get go, thank you Lady Superior), then so are India's.

You are beating-up a strawman. Lets recap: You said that a first-strike policy is the only policy that made sense for everyone; I disagreed, stating that the resource limitations and political-dynamics makes a nuclear NFU policy perfectly sensible to mid-rung powers like China and India.

I have categorically refrained from any recommending Pakistani nuclear policy, one way or another. Whether you have a stockpile of 3000 warheads (enough to keep "India from all its warmongering"?), or a limited arsenal of 30 counter-value warheads, it is - as I said - entirely your choice. Each choice will have its attendent consequences. In either case you are not doing India and the World Community any favors. It was a Farmer's expression, but a Priest and Warrior could also perhaps agree with it.

Now quit flame-baiting about "being man enough" to do this and that, and go back and figure out whats so wrong with your nuclear policy prescription for one and all. Let us see how much of the sapien runs in your homo sapien.

[Deltacamelately]

Maj DCL, I believe he is fully correct in this assessment. The Paks have pretty much come out and said that it has been the case since EX Brasstacks I. I didn't understand what you meant by separating rank from file, but at the end of the day isn't it the rank that makes the policy? The only qualification we need to make is that in recent years the decision-making may have been delegated slightly downwards (but still high ranks), mainly because of their on-going games with the US.

Cactus,

I didn't contest the Good Colonel's assessment. Just wanted to filter. He is correct that the Pak Generals don't have any hope in hell to withstand an Indian invasion, however, that is not what they want their rank and file to believe. There are two groups mainly, one who share their Generals assessment and another one that believes in the invinsicibleness of a Muslim Army. My own assessment says that the bulk of the common soldier have been galvanized into believing the later.

[Vinod2070]

trolling and flaming

[Asim Aquil]

Invincibility is a very strong word and perhaps according such naivety to Pakistanis is in itself a vice that plagues your understanding as well.

Pakistan is plenty cautious and well aware of Indian capabilities and its threats. Don't mistake our bravado for tactics or strategy as a whole.

Cactus,

I didn't contest the Good Colonel's assessment. Just wanted to filter. He is correct that the Pak Generals don't have any hope in hell to withstand an Indian invasion, however, that is not what they want their rank and file to believe. There are two groups mainly, one who share their Generals assessment and another one that believes in the invinsicibleness of a Muslim Army. My own assessment says that the bulk of the common soldier have been galvanized into believing the later.

[Officer of Engineers]

Any officer worth his salt should be extremely confident of the battle before him. It is the battle afterwards that he should be worrying when he's low on ammunition, food, water, and especially men.

[Asim Aquil]

Any officer worth his salt should be extremely confident of the battle before him. It is the battle afterwards that he should be worrying when he's low on ammunition, food, water, and especially men.

Perhaps thats why they say pick your battles wisely.

[antimony]

Cactus,

I didn't contest the Good Colonel's assessment. Just wanted to filter. He is correct that the Pak Generals don't have any hope in hell to withstand an Indian invasion, however, that is not what they want their rank and file to believe. There are two groups mainly, one who share their Generals assessment and another one that believes in the invinsicibleness of a Muslim Army. My own assessment says that the bulk of the common soldier have been galvanized into believing the later.

Major,

For the troops, would not be part of basic indoctrination/ mental training? For the common soldier, isn't some sense of invincibility a must to maintain morale before the fight? from that respect, I would think this would be the same across all armies. Pakistan bat be using a combination of religion and nationalism. Others, like us, might go in for nationalism, history or whatever to achieve this state of mind.

Just my thought as a civvie...

[Tronic]

Major,

For the troops, would not be part of basic indoctrination/ mental training? For the common soldier, isn't some sense of invincibility a must to maintain morale before the fight? from that respect, I would think this would be the same across all armies. Pakistan bat be using a combination of religion and nationalism. Others, like us, might go in for nationalism, history or whatever to achieve this state of mind.

Just my thought as a civvie...

The Sikh Regiment of the Indian army is deeply religious. The good thing about it is high morale and a heap of awards, battle honours and theatre honours. The negative is what we saw after Operation Bluestar, various units of the Sikh regiment revolted upon hearing of the operation, resulting in the shortlived Vaidya's mixed battalions.

[antimony]

The Sikh Regiment of the Indian army is deeply religious. The good thing about it is high morale and a heap of awards, battle honours and theatre honours. The negative is what we saw after Operation Bluestar, various units of the Sikh regiment revolted upon hearing of the operation, resulting in the shortlived Vaidya's mixed battalions.

So let's take that as an example. When they cry "Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal" I would imagine that they truly believe god is on their side and would lead them to victory. That is indoctrination, probably not much different from the belief of the average Pakistani jawan.

By the way, I am not passing a judgement here, just making an observation.

[Tronic]

So let's take that as an example. When they cry "Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal" I would imagine that they truly believe god is on their side and would lead them to victory.

No doubt, as I said, deeply religious. It goes beyond the war cry. All soldiers of the Sikh regiment are required to grow beards (clean shaven or trimmed Sikhs are barred from joining and must opt for the other Punjab regiments) and alcohol or other intoxicants are strictly banned at their base. Its a regiment where soldiers are recruited strictly from the more religious section of the Sikh community.

That is indoctrination, probably not much different from the belief of the average Pakistani jawan.

With the slight difference that Pakistani indoctrination is institutionalized and is more of an anti-India/Hindu (they don't see a difference between the two) indoctrination. Sikh indoctrination is strictly religious, happens from the time the child is born, and revolves around the concepts of Miri and Piri and in the foundations of the Khalsa Panth; which advocates a warrior role to defend the political and spiritual freedoms of the community.

[hammer]

Sikh indoctrination is strictly religious, happens from the time the child is born, and revolves around the concepts of Miri and Piri and in the foundations of the Khalsa Panth; which advocates a warrior role to defend the political and spiritual freedoms of the community.

It is difficult to imagine India as it is right now without the Sikh warriors defending it throughout their history. They not only defended their own community but everyone in India. I have always regretted the fact that they failed to preach their way of life through out India and just confining themselves to Punjab.