Nuclear Deterrent

[Jay_]

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.

You assume the big guy will not shoot first, there goes your game theory.
Assumption is the mother of all f*uck up's

 

[Jay_]

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.

So, there is much more room for India to fight/win a war with Pakistan without threatening the survival of Pakistan.
So I take that, you do agree the big guy small guy gun story is all crap and will never work in this context.

 

[Sid]

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.

It hasnt.

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?

Numerous books say that (Chinese LOCs collapsed or were on the verge of).

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.

There's a difference between 'tactical' nukes and ones that are kept for a last ditch attempt for mutually assured destruction.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

It hasnt.

Only within Pakistan.

Numerous books say that (Chinese LOCs collapsed or were on the verge of).

Did those books say the Chinese won or lost?

There's a difference between 'tactical' nukes and ones that are kept for a last ditch attempt for mutually assured destruction.

Tac nukes by definition are under the command of division and brigade commanders. Pakistan don't have tac nukes.

 

[Sid]

That's an open-ended arguement.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

No, it is not.

Tac nukes are meant to be used on the ever changing battlefield where entire lines are changed 10-20 miles within a couple of hours. Such deployment requires an immediate release authorization by brigade, at most division. Anymore than that, than the battle lines would have shifted beyond the immediate target acquisition and require a whole new targetting procedure.

So, unless you're telling me that Pak Army brigade and division commanders got release authority, then Pakistan does not have any tac nukes.

 

[Sid]

That, I'm sure you know, you'll never be able to find out since such things never get released to the public domain. Especially in the subcontinent's situation since you have two nuclear powers sharing a common border.

If I were to make the sensational claim of Pakistan Army Brigade and Division Commanders having release authority (whether true or not - I'd prefer to leave that to ambiguity for now), it wouldn't be a wise thing to do.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That, I'm sure you know, you'll never be able to find out since such things never get released to the public domain.

You forget which army I served and which front we've prepared for. There is nothing India and Pakistan and even China that is doing that we have not seen before.

Determining which division or brigade have tac nukes is the easiest thing to do. Watch whichever division or brigade that requires NBC qualifications every year or every two years, especially the infantry.

Nuke release authority does not only just mean deploying a nuke. It also means you have to know where, when, and how to deploy the nuke. Not only do you have to hit the enemy, you must also avoid hitting your own people. Instead of stopping the enemy, you could have blast open a door for them or vice versa.

Train as you fight. Fight as you train. The more you train, the better prepared you are but the more noticeable you are. The less you train, the more invisible you are, and also alot more unprepared.

As of right now, we have not seen the prep work we and the Soviets had done during the Cold War.

 

[sigatoka]

You assume the big guy will not shoot first, there goes your game theory.
Assumption is the mother of all f*uck up's

Have you played chess Jay? Would you make a move that resulted in Check mate? Would it be a terrible assumption to say that you would not make a move that deliberately resulted in Check mate?

Does the Assumption that you would not deliberately put your king in checkmate mean that it is the mother of all **** up's? And could you clear out your foul language?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Now, you're moving to chess after we shot down your example. Face it. You're wrong.

 

[sigatoka]

Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight?

Then, the British should not have used their firepower on the Mughal Empire and instead used stick and stones.


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?

The Cuban Missile Crisis - the Soviets backed off

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.

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

Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight? What do you mean by that. The gun represents nuclear weapons, the stick represents conventional forces. If you have nuclear weapons, why wouldnt you bring it to the fight?

The british Mughal eg doenst capture the situation properly, to make it closer you must add that the Mughal empire also had guns in addition to sticks. Secondly that while the British could threaten them with an army of gun carrying soldiers, the Mughal's also had an army in Ireland with guns ready to invade Britian.

1. Yes it is
2. It might, Im still doing the unit, have 2 wait 4 results
3. Your thinking is absolutist, does the husband threaten the wife divorce if she doenst do the dishes?

I havent studied the game theoretic explaination of the Cuban missile crisis, but i plan to within the next two weeks.

Game theory is useful in explaining situations where there are interactions and where interaction can affect the payoffs of players. Such a situation exists in biology, economics and military. That is why it is becoming more important.

2.) Im trying to have a discussion on this forum, not fool people.


No, because if the choice is between nuclear destruction and conventional destruction it makes no difference which u chooce. (what difference does it make if your hit over your head with a club or shot?)

However, Pak. committing to being destroyed by India's nuclear weapons rather than India's tanks does have a benefit in terms of payoffs should it not be destroyed. (In an eerie way, even if your never destroyed the way you choose to be destroyed can have an impact on the present.)

 

[sigatoka]

Now, you're moving to chess after we shot down your example. Face it. You're wrong.

I was just saying that Jay was wrong in saying that Assumptions invalidate the model we use.

 

[sigatoka]

So, there is much more room for India to fight/win a war with Pakistan without threatening the survival of Pakistan.

So I take that, you do agree the big guy small guy gun story is all crap and will never work in this context.

The step down by Pak. in Kargil was because the leadership realised that the entire operation was a mistake. It wasnt worth escalating for. However Indian troops breaking across the LOC in Punjab or so forth will certainly result in escalation and probable nuclear exchange.

 

[sigatoka]

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

I didnt invent game theory mate.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Why the hell would you bring a gun to a stick fight? What do you mean by that. The gun represents nuclear weapons, the stick represents conventional forces. If you have nuclear weapons, why wouldnt you bring it to the fight?

It means that the guy bringing the gun is ready to kill, not to fool around. Your example is getting weaker and weaker.

The british Mughal eg doenst capture the situation properly, to make it closer you must add that the Mughal empire also had guns in addition to sticks. Secondly that while the British could threaten them with an army of gun carrying soldiers, the Mughal's also had an army in Ireland with guns ready to invade Britian.

So, now, you're re-inventing history. This is getting more stupid by the minute. British Regiments were in India. Mughal armies were never in Ireland.

1. Yes it is

Go ahead and delude yourself.

2. It might, Im still doing the unit, have 2 wait 4 results

And keep watching me tearing your theory apart.

3. Your thinking is absolutist, does the husband threaten the wife divorce if she doenst do the dishes?

Thinking absolutetist? You are both blind and stupid. I've given you HISTORICAL EXAMPLES WHERE THIS HAPPENNED EXACTLY THE WAY I SAID IT DID. You can try to twist everything you want but it does not change the fact the only concession the small guy got was not being blown to smithereens.

I havent studied the game theoretic explaination of the Cuban missile crisis, but i plan to within the next two weeks.

And your example will FAIL because you're using 20/20 hindsight. Damn nice to fit the theory when you know the outcome. I'll throw in a twist for you. Castro grabs hold of the rockets.

Game theory is useful in explaining situations where there are interactions and where interaction can affect the payoffs of players. Such a situation exists in biology, economics and military. That is why it is becoming more important.

People ain't games.

2.) Im trying to have a discussion on this forum, not fool people.

Discussion? You throw this tibit out that India is scared crapless of Pak nukes. I challenge you to answer a simple question and you went on a tangent with big boy-small boy and then go around with game theory and when shot down, go onto chess.

You can't stay focus. You can't admit to being wrong, even when provided the proof in your face. Well, you are wrong.

No, because if the choice is between nuclear destruction and conventional destruction it makes no difference which u chooce. (what difference does it make if your hit over your head with a club or shot?)

However, Pak. committing to being destroyed by India's nuclear weapons rather than India's tanks does have a benefit in terms of payoffs should it not be destroyed. (In an eerie way, even if your never destroyed the way you choose to be destroyed can have an impact on the present.)

Then what makes you think India would be cowed by Pak nukes?