Debate this : Obama fears Pakistan’s disintegration

[King Solomon]

I remember having this debate once with Hyperion somewhere.

 

[Hyperion]

The whole debate is about how to avoid the whole god-damn thing. I have made an edit at the end of the article. ADGE: Assured Destruction of Global Economy.

I remember having this debate once with Hyperion somewhere.

 

[The Deterrent]

The question was, what is this ultimate level?

Note: We don't have enough 'high yield' weapons in stock. Your sources are half baked. Trust me.

Well it wasn't MY source, I picked the info off the net as it was.
Yes we don't.

The ultimate level? Rapidly deploy all the nuclear warheads, integrate the warheads and the delivery systems; disperse them. Although US has enough military hardware to cripple the PAF and take out every TEL that comes out, still the effort would convey a message.

 

[Areesh]

Though I would personally like Pakistan to be divided into a few stable nations. However, this will lead to a scenario where there MAY be a division of nuclear arsenal and this would be a bigger threat to India.

So, if Pakistan can control the terrorist elements inside its areas, a stable Pakistan would be beneficial to India.

I will prefer a disintegrated Pakistan which cannot provide a credible threat to India in the future. Balochistan should become free. Azad Kashmir & Gilgil-Balistan should come back to India. Rest of the pakistan, will be cut off from China and then the military threat will reduce significantly. Also nukes should go. They can keep their F-16s and other toys. Beautiful planes.

Such posts should be deleted as this forum should not be a platform to discuss someone's wet dreams. What you say mods?

Please take action.

 

[OrionHunter]

3) This is for our indian visitors: What would India as a nation prefer?
a) Weak Pakistan?
b) No Pakistan and Uncle Sam in the region?
c) Status - Quo!
d) Better relations with the State of Pakistan?

I'd prefer option (d) ie., Better relations with the State of Pakistan.

This would be a win-win situation for both countries. Pakistan can then concentrate its resources against adversaries towards its West and India would be able to reduce its forces ranged against Pakistan.

But then, for that to happen we need to sit down and sort out all outstanding issues through a mechanism of give and take leaving egos and the baggage of history behind. But this needs urgent redressal as the geopolitical environment is getting nearer the brink, what with the TTP baring its teeth with one of its stated objectives being the take over of the Pakistani state, and the US of A threatening unilateral action against Pakistan sooner than later.

But is anyone listening? That's the moot question.

 

[Fazlu]

From a logical standpoint, I would prefer a weakened Pakistan. "Better relations" is rather vague.

Pakistan as a nation has violated enough peace time agreements that aphorisms establishing its duplicity can be declared as evergreen proverbs. Maintaining militant camps, stoking and funding small flickers of separatism in India, threatening India with nuclear weapons, printing fake currency, etc. are all activities that a stable Pakistan is capable of.

Quite frankly, I am very selfish when it comes to India. I would prefer that we remain as one and not have to go through another "partition".

 

[Hyperion]

A very valid observation. Just one edit: TTP isn't taking over anything

I'd prefer option (d) ie., Better relations with the State of Pakistan.

This would be a win-win situation for both countries. Pakistan can then concentrate its resources against adversaries towards its West and India would be able to reduce its forces ranged against Pakistan.

But then, for that to happen we need to sit down and sort out all outstanding issues through a mechanism of give and take leaving egos and the baggage of history behind. But this needs urgent redressal as the geopolitical environment is getting nearer the brink, what with the TTP baring its teeth with one of its stated objectives being the take over of the Pakistani state, and the US of A threatening unilateral action against Pakistan sooner than later.

But is anyone listening? That's the moot question.

Your feelings are noted.

From a logical standpoint, I would prefer a weakened Pakistan. "Better relations" is rather vague.

Pakistan as a nation has violated enough peace time agreements that aphorisms establishing its duplicity can be declared as evergreen proverbs. Maintaining militant camps, stoking and funding small flickers of separatism in India, threatening India with nuclear weapons, printing fake currency, etc. are all activities that a stable Pakistan is capable of.

Quite frankly, I am very selfish when it comes to India. I would prefer that we remain as one and not have to go through another "partition".

 

[swathi]

Answers:

1) Answer depends on the scenario detail, any action should invite an appropriate reaction and no more no less, consider:
1a) If we do have a broken arrow, we invite all the help we need to locate the warhead.
1b) We take on the invading forces if they try to take more then what we allowed and our response should be appropriate as to the action and no less no more.

2) If the appropriate response moves to 1c then:
a+b+c) If we have to take on India for any reason, the targets should be predetermined military bases, Missile silos and storages etc. which minimize casualty but deal critical blows to any Indian ability to respond similarly. The strikes should be preemtive and final. This would discourage India from retaliating on our Cities as we would have spared their cities.

We annihilate all US bases in Afghanistan, in the middle east and at sea, using non Nuclear weapons including Israel. Lets test the *****, finally!

Shoot the drones first, b) Then you can think about escalating the conflict to a Nuclear Level.

 

[Hyperion]

Read the note. If you've nothing to add, please don't act as an enforcer.

Such posts should be deleted as this forum should not be a platform to discuss someone's wet dreams. What you say mods?

Please take action.

 

[The Deterrent]

Now keeping in mind all of the above. Under which circumstance DO you think that we will not be attacked? Meaning that, what will be the cost that would be unbearable for even to be considered by an western invading force.

The whole scenario is not about going to war or engaging the enemy. It's the opposite. It's about how to best avoid. Think of it as ADGE - Assured destruction of global economy.

My point is...that only Maximum Operational Readiness and an Explicit Show Of Force (i.e. a nuclear weapon test in Baluchistan or Indian Ocean) can force the enemy to think twice (or more times), before Actively engaging Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal.

This also includes private or public threats to the International Community, that Pakistan will cause havoc in the world if attacked, and this event will affect ALL concerned parties.

 

[Hyperion]

Please go home.

Shoot the drones first, b) Then you can think about escalating the conflict to a Nuclear Level.

 

[third eye]

1.
2. If the answer to question one is C, what are our realistic targets in our neighborhood.
a) Target India and invite complete annihilation?
b) Target Afghanistan and have no meaningful impact?
c) Target all of middle east and extract maximum leverage by making sure that the "warring party" understands in no uncertain terms that the payment for our disintegration would be so high that no one will be able to recover. (NOTE: NOT Israel, note that result would be the same as in article 2a)

I still find these options silly in the extreme.

It is unsettling thoughts like these that make the world wonder on what constitutes a responsible nuclear nation.

Do we hear of Russia or China saying that they will nuke the world if they go down ?

Instead of pondering of such options like nukeing the middle east ( they were the ones who helped Pak all the time and this is what Pak contemplates to do in return !), Af or India without any of them going to war with Pak it would be worth the while to remedy the reasons why anyone would like to take control of Pak's nukes.

Why should Pak allow itself to degenerate to a state that it fractures ?

 

[Hyperion]

Well, that can be summed up in a new national nuclear doctrine. The present one, is written by an old colleague of mine, who couldn't even find the toilet, if you guided him to one.

My point is...that only Maximum Operational Readiness and an Explicit Show Of Force (i.e. a nuclear weapon test in Baluchistan or Indian Ocean) can force the enemy to think twice (or more times), before Actively engaging Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal.

This also includes private or public threats to the International Community, that Pakistan will cause havoc in the world if attacked, and this event will affect ALL concerned parties.

 

[swathi]

Please go home.

Those People who dont have guts to shoot the drones must not speak about others.

 

[fatman17]

yes we have been hearing this for the last 20 years........and the beat goes on!!!