India army chief calls for Pakistan nuclear cap

[blain2]

It doesnt. It still reduces the number of targets with the given number of warheads, albeit reducing the original numbers.

It still raises the cost for Pakistan to attain the same level of nuclear capability vis-a-vis India.

Lastly, it also induces the element of probability and increases chances of survivability of regions protected for India, and thus correspondingly increases the chances of a full scale retaliation-something that Pakistani generals would now have to factor in-because Pakistan has always planned for a first strike.

The commissioning of the nuclear sub in IN, would also be something significant to factor in Pakistani equations.

All in all, it still raises the bar for Pakistan.

Indian response is a foregone conclusion. However if you try to deploy technology that will blunt Pakistan's first strike then obviously Pakistan will upgrade. Cost etc. is all fine, but in Pakistan's case its a necessity.

 

[blain2]

India will shift to more offense based nuclear arsenal because of China. All the new ballistic missile developments in India are now China centric, incase you missed it. The Agni III and Agni V are solely being made with the aim to be able to target China's key cities and industrial centres, and the capital ofcourse.

MIRV is a part of the plan. Regardless whether Pakistan switches to a more offensive arsenal or not, India will.

It does not matter how China-centric you consider them. This is a dual-purpose capability. So the ramifications for Pakistan are clear. Pakistan and China will be doing exactly the opposite of what your chief is cribbing about.

 

[Xeric]

Well you have 22 and you kinda hid 8 away.

I have limited knowledge of Indo-US nuke deal, but the 8 reactors are meant for Armys use, and that was clearified before hand.

Ahan, now you are talking, for the Army use, yeah, that's right, but are they reserved for the army to make chicken bread for your jawans? Ofcourse not!

If you can keep 8 reactors dedicated for the military's use, then why on earth are you bothered with the Pakistani Nuclear Program.

Do you want to suggest that the indians can do what ever they want by we had to seek permissions and make sure that feelings are not hurt across the borders!?

 

[jeypore]

You missed my entire point. You place an ABM then Pakistan won't sit there and watch its nuclear strike capability erode. The next logical step beyond our current capabilities is the MIRV technology. Also that definition of the MIRV above is by no means comprehensive. The baseline idea with MIRV technology is to saturate the opposing side's missile defences in order to ensure that you get your strike through. If you deploy ABM then obviously Pakistan's current single warhead capability would become limited in terms of its use. As such Pakistan has no option but to scale it.

Secondly, AAZ has been caught with his foot in his mouth quite a few times. There is no change in Pakistan's nuclear doctrine. We retain the right to strike first because that is what gives us the appropriate level of deterrence. There has been no talk of the idiotic AAZ no-first-strike posture ever since the earlier snafu.

I did not missed your point at all Blaine, Pakistan is free to do whatever for it's souverity, but at this critical junture by taking such step, gives India enough amo to further it's soft power stance on Pakistan (Which justifies Indian army chief), plus it push uncle sam further.

It would have been prudent step for Pakistan to pursue nuclear deterance missisle program, and countries such as China could have step in for help.

 

[Contrarian]

Indian response is a foregone conclusion. However if you try to deploy technology that will blunt Pakistan's first strike then obviously Pakistan will upgrade. Cost etc. is all fine, but in Pakistan's case its a necessity.

This is exactly what is not fine, and your missing half the goal here.

Secondly, whether in Pakistan's case its a necessity or not is arguable. I dont think its necessary. Bangladesh is living quite peacefully even after knowing about our ABM intentions. Pakistan chooses to show it is not militarily inferior to India, and thus must constantly compete.

You know blain, all this talk of maintaining minimum deterence also has only evolved in like the last decade or two. Before that Pakistani establishment believed that they could militarily comprehensively defeat India in a conventional war. As time has gone on, that aim has been reduced to maintaining minimum deterrence, its all about cost and size.

 

[Contrarian]

It does not matter how China-centric you consider them. This is a dual-purpose capability. So the ramifications for Pakistan are clear. Pakistan and China will be doing exactly the opposite of what your chief is cribbing about.

Sure. I and many others have mentioned before. Pakistan is no longer considered a threat that militarily challenge India on an equal footing.

China is considered more than capable of that, thus the military preparations are slowly but steadily shifting towards catering that threat after years of focussing only on Pakistan.

Catering for China automatically caters for Pakistan. And India would still keep on developing ICBM's and developing offensive capabilities like MIRV, regardless of whether Pakistan does so or not.

 

[sergente rehan]

India would still keep on developing ICBM's and developing offensive capabilities like MIRV, regardless of whether Pakistan does so or not.

So india can do what ever he wants and Pakistan have to ask permissions from India and the hole world?!

i don't think so...we can do what ever we want to take apropriate measures to defend the homeland.

 

[blain2]

Sure. I and many others have mentioned before. Pakistan is no longer considered a threat that militarily challenge India on an equal footing.

China is considered more than capable of that, thus the military preparations are slowly but steadily shifting towards catering that threat after years of focussing only on Pakistan.

Catering for China automatically caters for Pakistan. And India would still keep on developing ICBM's and developing offensive capabilities like MIRV, regardless of whether Pakistan does so or not.

Malay,

Again word play. If Pakistan is no longer considered a military threat then why have 3 of your strike corps face Pakistan along with the entire Western Air Command arrayed against Pakistan? Both of the elements are the creme of your forces and are arrayed against Pakistan.

The threat is Pakistan and as such Pakistan is reacting to your moves.

 

[jeypore]

Well you have 22 and you kinda hid 8 away.

Ahan, now you are talking, for the Army use, yeah, that's right, but are they reserved for the army to make chicken bread for your jawans? Ofcourse not!

If you can keep 8 reactors dedicated for the military's use, then why on earth are you bothered with the Pakistani Nuclear Program.

Do you want to suggest that the indians can do what ever they want by we had to seek permissions and make sure that feelings are not hurt across the borders!?

By no means feelings are not hurt. The thread is about Indian army chief speaking out, and my argument is that he has every right to do so.

First reason for his justification is this:

As Pakistan battles a growing Taliban insurgency, reports in U.S. media have raised the nightmare scenario of its nuclear weapons falling into militant hands.


Second reason is this:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration was confident Pakistan would not use a planned increase in U.S. aid to strengthen its nuclear arsenal.

Regarding the 8 nuclear that India dedicated for the army use, it was spoken before hand, and America had every right to walk away. Rest is history!!!

 

[blain2]

So india can do what ever he wants and Pakistan have to ask permissions from India and the hole world?!

i don't think so...we can do what ever we want to take apropriate measures to defend the homeland.

No we do not. We will do what we need to, notwithstanding the comments of the Indian Army chief (it matters little to us what they say).

 

[Contrarian]

Malay,

Again word play. If Pakistan is no longer considered a military threat then why have 3 of your strike corps face Pakistan along with the entire Western Air Command arrayed against Pakistan? Both of the elements are the creme of your forces and are arrayed against Pakistan.

The threat is Pakistan and as such Pakistan is reacting to your moves.

Ofcourse the Western Command is arrayed against Pakistan, just like the Eastern COmmand is arrayed against China in the Eastern sector. Heck check out the opeining of the DBO airfield and the new developments they are trying out in that area against China.

I said a gradual shift away from Pakistan mate. It doesnt imply that over night the strike corps would shift to Assam.

Heck, even the IBG's which are being tried out are exclusively for Pakistan. That concept would not work against China. Preparing for China does not imply abdandoning the Western Border. I'll repeat again, its a gradual shift away from Pakistan to China.

 

[blain2]

Ofcourse the Western Command is arrayed against Pakistan, just like the Eastern COmmand is arrayed against China in the Eastern sector. Heck check out the opeining of the DBO airfield and the new developments they are trying out in that area against China.

I said a gradual shift away from Pakistan mate. It doesnt imply that over night the strike corps would shift to Assam.

Heck, even the IBG's which are being tried out are exclusively for Pakistan. That concept would not work against China. Preparing for China does not imply abdandoning the Western Border. I'll repeat again, its a gradual shift away from Pakistan to China.

The gradual shift remains to be seen. Obviously if the threat to Pakistan is reduced, even we may not pursue further enhancements, however the reality on the ground today is fairly different.

 

[Contrarian]

The gradual shift remains to be seen. Obviously if the threat to Pakistan is reduced, even we may not pursue further enhancements, however the reality on the ground today is fairly different.

No the threat to Pakistan as perceived by the Pakistani establishment would keep increasing. Developing capabilities against China would cater for Pakistan and most likely will be viewed with extreme suspicion in Pakistan.

 

[muse]

A few days ago, some Pakistanis were very pleased with themselves when some indian officer, in a speech, said the Pak Fauj was among the best in the world - today another Indian says, "ye tamasha band karo" - interesting, however; we all hope for cold sobriety and not "praise whore" behaviour:


Editorial: Worrying over South Asia’s bombs

The world (read the West and Japan) is worried over the weapons of mass destruction accumulating in South Asia where India and Pakistan cannot give up their conflictual relationship and are ramping up their nuclear programmes. As the Washington Post wrote on Thursday, Pakistan is supposed to start “churning out plutonium for its nuclear arsenal, which will eventually include warheads for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles capable of being launched from ships, submarines or aircraft. India is designing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads; it is also trying to equip its Agni missiles with such warheads and to deploy them on submarines”.

On the other hand, Pakistan was celebrating the anniversary of its nuclear test of 1998 the same day, calling its programme “the safest in the world” which had provided the nation with “an unshakeable defence against any enemy”. Both Indian and Pakistani experts have debunked the fear expressed in the US and other capitals that the two programmes in South Asia are vulnerable to “theft” by “a rogue scientist or a military officer”. It is argued that any rollback of their programmes is not possible because of the national consensus behind them. Therefore it would not be wrong to say that in part their mutually hostile nationalisms are driven by their “collective pride” in these nuclear weapons.

India and Pakistan have been gradually accepted as non-Non Proliferation Treaty signatory nuclear powers. Last year the United States concluded a nuclear cooperation treaty with India allowing it to import uranium and allowing the military to draw on enriched uranium produced by eight reactors that might otherwise be needed for civil power. The world cried “foul” half-heartedly before accepting it as part of the new global reality. Another step towards the regularisation of the status of the two nuclear South Asia powers was taken this month when France agreed to supply Pakistan with civilian nuclear technology “the same way America had done to India” (that’s not possible because the Nuclear Suppliers Group is not involved in the France-Pakistan deal in the way it is solidly behind the US-India deal).

Pakistan stands to gain from this new development, which has gone without much comment internationally. The US-India nuclear deal was finalised after the 45-strong Nuclear Suppliers Group declared its approval of it. One must note here that assent to the deal was given both by China and France. China has always been in favour of treating Pakistan at par with India on the provision of civilian nuclear technology. In other words, if India is to be exempted from the NPT conditionality of signing it before buying this technology, then Pakistan should also qualify. Now France too has adopted this point of view. It is also possible that France has moved forward after realising that China will ultimately come forth for Pakistan. On the other hand, there is no bar on Pakistan signing a nuclear treaty with more than one state provided the Nuclear Suppliers Group okays it. All this goes in favour of “equalising” Pakistan with India as a recognised nuclear power.
Pakistan’s non-reconciliation with India and its reluctance to allow the freezing of the status quo delays the process of “equalising the unequals” which lies at the core of nuclear possession. India’s unwillingness to return to peace talks in 2009 is adding to the problems of an unstable deterrence which scares the world. Pakistan has been politically unstable over the past thirty years because of its efforts at living up to its status of a revisionist state. In the new millennium it has been destabilised internally by uprisings and territorial losses to terrorist militias that contain men from as near as the Gulf and as far as Algeria, to say nothing of the Uzbeks and Chechens from areas nearer the region.

But a nuclear bomb is the best bargain counter for an agreement on peace and related economic arrangements that consolidate and perpetuate normal relations with perceived enemy states. In that sense the bomb is a weapon of peace, not of war. Today, the only unchanging element in Pakistan’s strategy is the perception of India as a permanent enemy. At the same time it is accepted on all hands that India cannot attack Pakistan because of the latter’s nuclear deterrence. This deterrence, however, will not be stable as long as the two countries remain daggers drawn against each other. That is why Pakistan wants the United States and its allies to persuade India to come to the negotiating table, because that is the only way forward to achieving stability in the region.

 

[Hellfire]

Such reports make me proud! Man, we must be a great country when India is always whining. I can fell them shitting in their pants haha. Seriously, that is no Superpower, that is a nation of tears and cowards.

nice intellectual post