What's new

India does not retaliate against Pak due to nukes: US expert

thestringshredder

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
1
Country
India
Location
India
WASHINGTON: India does not retaliate despite Pakistan-backed terrorist attacks against it because of the deterrence of nuclear weapons that the two countries possess, an American defence expert has said.


"All the terrorism that Pakistan has supported against India has been carried out, secure in the knowledge that India cannot retaliate," Stephen Blank, Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Army War College, said.
"If Pakistan had no nukes, if there were no nukes on the South Indian peninsula, India could retaliate and probably would. But their hand is stayed by the threat of nuclear war," Blank told a meeting of National Defense Industrial Association in response to a question.
Similarly, nuclear weapons act as a deterrent for many countries, as was the case during the cold war between the US and China, he noted.
"If you look at the map, the Russian Far East, which directly adjoins China, is what we call an economy of force theatre. It is a theatre that can only survive by sustaining itself," Blank said.
"If a war broke out between Russia and China -- and now and then Russian military and political officials actually allude to the possibility of a Chinese threat -- probably within a day the Chinese could take out the Trans-Siberian Railway and essentially isolate the area from the rest of continental Russia," he said.
"Therefore, the only recourse that the Russian military has in a contingency with China is nuclear," he added.
During the Cold War, at the strategic level of nuclear weapons, the Russians could at any time they wanted destroy all of Europe.
"In return, we threatened to destroy all of the Soviet Union. That was basically the mutual hostage relationship. Then the US also became as well a target of enhanced Soviet capabilities," he said.
"If we are truly looking to build, 'a new world order', whatever that may be, and get beyond the Cold War, then we should not be encouraging people to build more nuclear weapons and to remain frozen in this posture of hostility and thinking about first-use scenarios," Blank said.
"So that already is the utility of nuclear weapons. It confers enormous political capabilities, as well as the strategic capability to wage conventional war. I mean, if you have nukes, you make the world safe for conventional warfare," Blank said.

Link - India does not retaliate against Pak due to nukes: US expert - The Times of India
 
. .
Not true. Pakistan did not have nukes before 1999. India never attacked pakistan in the 90s, although pak sponsored militancy was at its peak back then. Not just terrorism, but there was a raging insurgency they sponsored in Kashmir. India still did not attack pakistan. Now the insurgency is dead and gone, and terrorism has also been eradicated, thanks to the very secure border management and the work done by the Rashtriya rifles.

So we did not attack pakistan in the 90s when they sponsored a lot of terrorism, militancy and even (what was then) a fearsome insurgency, and that had nothing to do with nukes. It's not like India has been constantly attacking pakistan and stopped the attacks once they got nukes.
 
. .
Duuuuuuh..
Which is why if the Nukes go, India will head on homicide through Pakistan.

so,why dint we attack u in the 90's.. kashmir militancy and terro attacks were taking place in the 90's..
 
.
Not true. Pakistan did not have nukes before 1999. India never attacked pakistan in the 90s, although pak sponsored militancy was at its peak back then. Not just terrorism, but there was a raging insurgency they sponsored in Kashmir. India still did not attack pakistan. Now the insurgency is dead and gone, and terrorism has also been eradicated, thanks to the very secure border management and the work done by the Rashtriya rifles.

So we did not attack pakistan in the 90s when they sponsored a lot of terrorism, militancy and even (what was then) a fearsome insurgency, and that had nothing to do with nukes. It's not like India has been constantly attacking pakistan and stopped the attacks once they got nukes.

How Many times India has ATTACKED Pakistan before 1998???

so,why dint we attack u in the 90's.. kashmir militancy and terro attacks were taking place in the 90's..

Because the nukes were there in 91... Crude devices.. but nukes nonetheless.
 
. .
Because the nukes were there in 91... Crude devices.. but nukes nonetheless.

Sir, I guess you are getting me all wrong by CLUBBING my post with others.

I asked - "How many times India ATTACKED Pakistan before 1998, starting from 1947???"

The world knows who started ALL the wars.
 
.
Sir, I guess you are getting me all wrong by CLUBBING my post with others.

I asked - "How many times India ATTACKED Pakistan before 1998, starting from 1947???"

The world knows who started ALL the wars.

Oh I agree, India will use terrorism as the "start" of a war. It will be defending, using cluster weapons on cities , people... there is a whole lot of emotional baggage that needs to be taken out on Pakistan.
 
. .
Oh I agree, India will use terrorism as the "start" of a war. It will be defending, using cluster weapons on cities , people... there is a whole lot of emotional baggage that needs to be taken out on Pakistan.

Again, There was Kashmir & Punjab insurgency all through '80s & India was pretty sure that ISI has a hand in it.

Did India ATTACKED??

Did Pakistan had NUKES than??
 
.
it is actually simple
if pakistan fights a conventional war with india it will have no chance of winning.
if pakistan fires all of its nukes we and them will suffer equally due to 2nd strike.
 
.
In conventional pakistan military is a kid for india, but in nuke war yes that will damage india but completely destroy the pakistan.
 
.
Again, There was Kashmir & Punjab insurgency all through '80s & India was pretty sure that ISI has a hand in it.

Did India ATTACKED??

Did Pakistan had NUKES than??

India only gained a massive conventional advantage over Pakistan since the US decided to with-hold those 71 F-16s in the 1980s due to the Pressler amendment.

Pakistan fell behind the Indians due to the fact that by the late 1980s India had over 100 Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 fighters and Pakistan had to make do with 40 F-16s that could not even fire BVR weapons.

By the time that India had a significant conventional advantage over Pakistan by late 1980s then the nuclear factor came into play.

Without Pakistani nuclear weapons, the IAF would have been bombing Pakistan long ago.

In conventional pakistan military is a kid for india, but in nuke war yes that will damage india but completely destroy the pakistan.

You won't completely destroy Pakistan as it is not a very heavily urbanised country but you can bet that India will cease to exist as the central government would not be able to hold the country together with the loss of it's largest urban centres, airbases, naval bases etc.
 
.
India only gained a massive conventional advantage over Pakistan since the US decided to with-hold those 71 F-16s in the 1980s due to the Pressler amendment.

Pakistan fell behind the Indians due to the fact that by the late 1980s India had over 100 Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 fighters and Pakistan had to make do with 40 F-16s that could not even fire BVR weapons.

By the time that India had a significant conventional advantage over Pakistan by late 1980s then the nuclear factor came into play.

Without Pakistani nuclear weapons, the IAF would have been bombing Pakistan long ago.



You won't completely destroy Pakistan as it is not a very heavily urbanised country but you can bet that India will cease to exist as the central government would not be able to hold the country together with the loss of it's largest urban centres, airbases, naval bases etc.

That's why i said that will damage india.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom