Nuclear Deterrent

[sigatoka]

Pakistan's nuclear capabilities ensure that India will never be able to destroy Pakistan without being destroyed. It superiority in tanks, planes and ships have become irrelevant.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That is the just a whole lot of bull!

 

[sigatoka]

That is the just a whole lot of bull!

Why is it? Can you elaborate?

 

[Jay_]

How many times do you want it to be elaborated? One word, Kargil.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Why is it? Can you elaborate?

Here's a clue. Would Pakistan back down in face of an Indian nuclear threat?

 

[sigatoka]

How many times do you want it to be elaborated? One word, Kargil.

Nuclear deterrent doesnt preclude conventional fighting, no one ever said that. However lets make up a little story.

One big man with stick, one small boy with stick; they both fight and usually the big man wins. Suddenly you introduce a handgun, so both of them at any time can choose to stop fighting with the stick and shoot the other.

Now it doesnt matter that the big man can kill the small boy with the stick and the revolver, the important point is that both can kill the other now.

Now through backward induction, from the point where they both kill each other with the revolver you can see that one can not destroy the other without being destroyed.

For those interested in game theory the book Games of Strategy by Avinash Dixit is quite good.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That is the stupidest example I've heard. Here's a clue. The big guy shoots first. Game theory! Jeeze! You're betting your life on game strategy.

Answer the question. Will Pakistan cow before an Indian nuke?

 

[sigatoka]

That is the stupidest example I've heard. Here's a clue. The big guy shoots first. Game theory! Jeeze! You're betting your life on game strategy.

Answer the question. Will Pakistan cow before an Indian nuke?

You should read the book, its quite informative and doesnt involve maths (except one chapter).

Game theory is a rapidly developing field, now extensively used in economics, biology and military strategy. Its a good book colonel, youll be pleasantly suprised.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Answer the Question!

 

[sigatoka]

That is the stupidest example I've heard. Here's a clue. The big guy shoots first. Game theory! Jeeze! You're betting your life on game strategy.

Answer the question. Will Pakistan cow before an Indian nuke?

The big guy doesnt shoot first, in fact thats totally contrary to their optimum strategy which is to keep the conflict conventional. If anything, the incentive is for the small guy to threaten escalation of the conflict into the nuclear sphere to gain concensions.

So you are wrong.

 

[Sid]

How many times do you want it to be elaborated? One word, Kargil.

IMHO, Kargil proved that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent worked. If it wasn't for that, India could've simply attacked across the international border and gained some ground to use as bargaining chip to make the mujahideen back down from the peaks; but instead they resorted to limited fighting in the concerned sectors only taking one peak at a time.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The big guy doesnt shoot first, in fact thats totally contrary to their optimum strategy which is to keep the conflict conventional.

As I said before, you know alot less than you pretend to know. Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight? To show off how shiny it is? Then, the British should not have used their firepower on the Mughal Empire and instead used stick and stones. Wake Up.

If anything, the incentive is for the small guy to threaten escalation of the conflict into the nuclear sphere to gain concensions.

1 - your example ain't about nukes.
2 - your game theory sucks
3 - what concessions? That you won't be blown out of the sky?

So you are wrong.

So, here we are gentlemen, a kid trying to tell me about war. You're telling me I'm wrong?

The Cuban Missile Crisis - the Soviets backed off
The Berlin Crisis - the Soviets backed off
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War - the Soviets backed off
The late 60s-early 70s Sino-Soviet Border clashes - the Chinese backed off

So, what do these examples all have in common? The small guy threaten nuclear escalation and the big guy said, "Bring it!" The small guy chickened out!

1) Don't try to apply other disciplines to military studies. At best, they explain factors within military studies (game theory, economics, politics, diplomacy), they DO NOT DEFINE military studies to which you're clearly trying to do.

2) You know alot less than you pretend to know. You may have been able to fool this forum before military professionals got here but as of right now, you have at least 4 people with the rank of LCol and above. You're making a fool out of yourself right now.

3) FACTS, especially historic facts, states your all theoritical examples belong in the toilet.

NOW, FOR THE LAST TIME, ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION! WOULD PAKISTAN COW BEFORE AN INDIAN NUKE?!?!?!

IMHO, Kargil proved that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent worked. If it wasn't for that, India could've simply attacked across the international border and gained some ground to use as bargaining chip to make the mujahideen back down from the peaks; but instead they resorted to limited fighting in the concerned sectors only taking one peak at a time.

No, it doesn't work. Pakistan lost. Don't give me that you guys gave up. India won in the diplomatic, political, propaganda, and military levels. Pakistan could not keep her gains.

If the nuke threat had worked, you would have kept those hills.

 

[TexasJohn]

Answer the Question!

OOE I have a strong feeling he will not answer the question. That would blow his theory to bits!!!

 

[Sid]

No, it doesn't work. Pakistan lost. Don't give me that you guys gave up. India won in the diplomatic, political, propaganda, and military levels. Pakistan could not keep her gains.

If the nuke threat had worked, you would have kept those hills.

Nah. As much you'd like to throw your weight around being a military guy, I'd still disagree. Pakistan lost on the diplomatic, political and propaganda levels which made a military withdrawal a must from Kargil along with some shortsighted strategy planning.

And nuke threat is only there if Pakistan's survival is threatened as underlined numerous times by Pakistan. It doesn't mean that if India just crosses the int'l border, that Pakistan would start throwing nukes India's way.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Nah. As much you'd like to throw your weight around being a military guy, I'd still disagree. Pakistan lost on the diplomatic, political and propaganda levels which made a military withdrawal a must from Kargil along with some shortsighted strategy planning.

Translation: you've lost. Look, we can examine all the details and note the exact failure points but it does not change the fact that history has recorded this a lost for Pakistan.

Case in point, the 1962 Sino-Indian War. How many history books said the Chinese won? How many history books said that the Chinese LOCs collapsed and that they had no choice but to withdraw?

Another case in point. The American Vietnam War. How many major battles the Americans won? How many North Vietnam Armies were destroyed by the Americans? Did the Americans accomplished all her strategic goals? And yet, who won the Vietnam War?

A Vietnamese general's reply to an American observer comment on the NVA entering Saigon that had the Americans still been there, the NVA would have been crushed. His reply was "So?"

Pakistan lost on the diplomatic, political and propaganda levels which made a military withdrawal a must from Kargil along with some shortsighted strategy planning."

So?

And nuke threat is only there if Pakistan's survival is threatened as underlined numerous times by Pakistan. It doesn't mean that if India just crosses the int'l border, that Pakistan would start throwing nukes India's way.

That's not what you said.

IMHO, Kargil proved that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent worked. If it wasn't for that, India could've simply attacked across the international border and gained some ground to use as bargaining chip to make the mujahideen back down from the peaks; but instead they resorted to limited fighting in the concerned sectors only taking one peak at a time.

So, which is it? National survival or nukes as barginning chips? Either way, you're wrong. Pakistan's national survival was not threatened (1 Indian corps can do that?) in which case the nuke threat was a bluff everybody can see through or your nukes were barginning chips which again it failed. You've got nothing.