What's new

Why going ' MAD ' won't work for India ?

did china intervene to save you guys during 1965, 1974 or Kargil ???
Oh come on you guys are ancient as ashoka :lol:
Those were old days which are completely gone.Now the pakistan china freindship scenario is completely different and specially after becoming a nuclear power with second strike capability ,you indians should know the price of messing with pakistan or china.Also dont forget the global significance of china.The world really dont care about a nation whose 80% cant even eat regularly.
post reported for abusive language .
Which abusive language ??He did not use any abusive language .Or just can,t digest the hard truth he said ?
 
.
Oh come on you guys are ancient as ashoka :lol:
Those were old days which are completely gone.Now the pakistan china freindship scenario is completely different and specially after becoming a nuclear power with second strike capability ,you indians should the price of messing with pakistan or china.

Which abusive language ??He did not use any abusive language .Or just can,t digest the hard truth he said ?

I just asked a simple question ...
why did not your all weather ally which shares deeper than ocean and higher than mountains relationship did not help you by intervening during Kargil ???

In fact your great friend china rebuked Pakistan and applauded India's restraint .....

Keep banking on China ....it will really come to your help ...
 
.
why did not your all weather ally which shares deeper than ocean and higher than mountains relationship did not help you by intervening during Kargil ???
Here we are talking about a full scale war with nuclear weapons .Kargil was kind of a secret operation not a full scale war and at that time the nuclear weapons were at their primitive stage.
Just try to invade pakistan with full force and you gonna see china in action.Pakistan alone is capable of wiping you off from the planet but imagine a two side retaliation from china and pakistan leaves you with no chances of surviving.
Remember any attack on china will be attack on pakistan and any attack on pakistan will be an attack on china.And this is part of our military doctrine.
:pakistan::china:
 
.
Here we are talking about a full scale war with nuclear weapons .Kargil was kind of a secret operation not a full scale war and at that time the nuclear weapons were at their primitive stage.
Just try to invade pakistan with full force and you gonna see china in action.Pakistan alone is capable of wiping you off from the planet but imagine a two side retaliation from china and pakistan leaves you with no chances of surviving.
Remember any attack on china will be attack on pakistan and any attack on pakistan will be an attack on china.And this is part of our military doctrine.
:pakistan::china:

You seem to have more confidence in China than your own country ...

Speaks volumes for your country's current state ...

Keep on hoping ....

Best of Luck by the way ....

China turned against her own benefactor like Soviet Russia

If you think China will save your country ...then please go ahead ...
 
.
You seem to have more confidence in China than your own country ...

Speaks volumes for your country's current state ...

Keep on hoping ....

Best of Luck by the way ....

China turned against her own benefactor like Soviet Russia

If you think China will save your country ...then please go ahead ...
First of all we alone are capable of dealing with india i said china because a few posts earlier you arrogantly quoted the global significance of india and were so sure of pakistans destruction and india,s winning in a nuclear war.So please stop day dreaming
 
.
Do you even understand what you are talking about ?

I can't believe I am hearing something like this from someone like @Dillinger ???

at one time you say that surviving nuclear war is no victory ..it's pyrrhic victory
and india we know will die ....and at another point now you feel surviving nuclear war is a victory

and next very moment you are saying we do not have to win nuclear war ???

and then you say we need to ensure MAD

Instead of replying to my posts ...make appoint to read them and see if it makes any sense ...

all your intellectualizations are in vain ...because it just proves that you have no clue as to what you are talking about ...

@Indo-guy @Dillinger

We seem to be arguing in circles. Let's step back.

What we can all agree on is that because of their conventional force disparity, Pakistan considers nukes as a viable war-fighting weapon and have indicated the willingness to use them at much lower thresholds than India.

What is in question whether this indication is real or just a bluff.

Pakistan from almost its inception has been controlled politically & economically by the armed forces and the generals have used this control to divert public wealth into their own pockets. Over the last 60 years they have maintained this control by creating & maintaining the bogeyman of India - how India is just itching to take over Pakistan. It has always been in their interest to maintain this facade, so the general public doesn't question why so much of their GDP is siphoned off to maintain a mighty military machine. This is not unique - North Korea also does the same, telling the people that their Great Leader protects them from the satanic US & South Koreans, where US (at least since the end of Cold War) and South Korea couldn't care less about reunification.

A corollary to this is that the Pakistani generals will never be willing to accept any substantial defeat from India - because they are afraid that then the common people will turn against them & they will lose control. The last time this happened was after the '71 war - and they don't want a repeat. That is why they threaten TNW use in the face of a massive Indian advance. And that includes nuclear strikes as well.

That is the weakness of India's MAD posture - Pakistan uses TNW -> India retaliates in full -> Pakistan also retaliates in full. At that point, whether Pakistan will survive or not does not matter anymore. The generals will feel that they are losing the country anyways, what do they care?

That is why any nuclear retaliation against Pakistan always has to target the armed forces - killing many people may satisfy the craving for vengeance but has limited strategic value.

On the other hand, surgical strikes (using cruise missiles, Special Forces, etc) against terror camps should be a safe option. The army is not likely to escalate such situations - but India may face counter missile/artillery/terrorist strikes from Pakistan.

Again TL/DR, MAD nuclear strikes against Pakistan will escalate to destroy the subcontinent, but more targeted strikes against the army/terrorists yield more benefits.
 
.
Do you even understand what you are talking about ?

I can't believe I am hearing something like this from someone like @Dillinger ???

at one time you say that surviving nuclear war is no victory ..it's pyrrhic victory
and india we know will die ....and at another point now you feel surviving nuclear war is a victory

and next very moment you are saying we do not have to win nuclear war ???

and then you say we need to ensure MAD

Instead of replying to my posts ...make appoint to read them and see if it makes any sense ...

all your intellectualizations are in vain ...because it just proves that you have no clue as to what you are talking about ...

Because your notion of survival and mine are different.

For me the institutions of this nation, of the Republic of India, must remain intact ALONG with its territorial integrity AND the ability meet a limited offensive from a third party post the hypothetical nuclear offensive. For most Pakistanis the simple notion that enough Indians will die seems to be good enough, different priorities to say the least.

I am addressing your posts quite directly.

I will make it even simpler.

You have stated that India's size will ensure that the Indian state will not face a catastrophic quantum of destruction and shall be able to limp on whereas Pakistan will be evaporated.

I am stating that Pakistan will be evaporated but we too will be left on our deathbed (assertion-1). The latter is disputed by you, and I am telling you that what you envision is simply not possible, for starters the Pakistanis will be not so kind so as to aim for air bursts but will rather aim at maximum toxic dispersion.

The point I am making is that whatever survives of India will not be enough to call it a victory.

Ensuring MAD does not equate to winning, it is simply a statement to the foe that if you press the button then so will we and then we can both burn. MAD has never been about winning, not even about surviving, it is about deterrence, about stopping the foe from unleashing nukes by showing it that if it did unleash said nukes then so will we.

Furthermore I have stated that we do not need to look beyond mad either, the fact that we will burn along with Pakistan does not mean that we too cannot operate within the nuclear threshold to meet our objectives.(assertion-2)
 
.
But china will definitely interfere and retaliate now tell me who will win from from your so called economy,size and population perspective?
The hard truth is any nuclear exchange there are no winners and we should pray to god please help us from using such devastating weapons on each other .
ohh really and china will **** his billions of Economic trade with India to Please So called Liability Pakistan The growth of trade between India-china Expected to rise up-to 300 billion dollars by 2020.
 
.
@Indo-guy @Dillinger

We seem to be arguing in circles. Let's step back.

What we can all agree on is that because of their conventional force disparity, Pakistan considers nukes as a viable war-fighting weapon and have indicated the willingness to use them at much lower thresholds than India.

What is in question whether this indication is real or just a bluff.

Pakistan from almost its inception has been controlled politically & economically by the armed forces and the generals have used this control to divert public wealth into their own pockets. Over the last 60 years they have maintained this control by creating & maintaining the bogeyman of India - how India is just itching to take over Pakistan. It has always been in their interest to maintain this facade, so the general public doesn't question why so much of their GDP is siphoned off to maintain a mighty military machine. This is not unique - North Korea also does the same, telling the people that their Great Leader protects them from the satanic US & South Koreans, where US (at least since the end of Cold War) and South Korea couldn't care less about reunification.

A corollary to this is that the Pakistani generals will never be willing to accept any substantial defeat from India - because they are afraid that then the common people will turn against them & they will lose control. The last time this happened was after the '71 war - and they don't want a repeat. That is why they threaten TNW use in the face of a massive Indian advance. And that includes nuclear strikes as well.

That is the weakness of India's MAD posture - Pakistan uses TNW -> India retaliates in full -> Pakistan also retaliates in full. At that point, whether Pakistan will survive or not does not matter anymore. The generals will feel that they are losing the country anyways, what do they care?

That is why any nuclear retaliation against Pakistan always has to target the armed forces - killing many people may satisfy the craving for vengeance but has limited strategic value.

On the other hand, surgical strikes (using cruise missiles, Special Forces, etc) against terror camps should be a safe option. The army is not likely to escalate such situations - but India may face counter missile/artillery/terrorist strikes from Pakistan.

Again TL/DR, MAD nuclear strikes against Pakistan will escalate to destroy the subcontinent, but more targeted strikes against the army/terrorists yield more benefits.


such fatalistic policy will invite nuclear attack from Pakistan as it's leadership will think that it can get away with nuclear attack on India .

Nothing less than assured full retaliation can prevent Pakistan from using nuclear weapons .

Pakistani leadership is not stupid enough to put very existence of their country at stake . they know well that no matter what Pakistan will not be able to destroy India even at its own cost ....
 
.
and where did this winnability of nuclear war came into question ???
just to dodge my question you brought this non winnability of Nuclear war ...

do you even understand that you are tying yourseves in knots by your twisting in this topic totally tangential issues ....

From your assertions that "
" Most of the Indian posters cannot see beyond the popularly held views and prescribed dynamics. We don't need to go nuclear or wage a full scale Clausewitz-esque war to solve our security concerns, that requires a far different approach. "

and then
" No I am stating that some Indians think that being able to win a nuclear war is necessary for meeting our security challenges, the nuance, that is to say the difference between my assertion in its content and how you have perceived is significant

All nuclear posturing is about pressing your advantage or perceived advantage without actually pressing the button "


You have done lot of rigmarole to get rid of responsibility of your irresponsible statement where you actually implied that some Indians may be thinking of nuclear war as solution to our security concerns ....

which by no means nobody ever ...even remotely suggested .


I will not let you off the hook until you retract your statement !!!



Whether world calls then ' failed state ' or they call themselves beacon of " Islamic world ' ...it is immaterial

Did the world came to our help when 26/11 happened ?

did world do justice to us ?

and what exactly you are implying here ..If tomorrow Pakistan launches nuclear attack ...are we supposed to sit quite ..because we have everything to lose ...and they have nothing to lose ( as per your thoughts) ?

If they attack us with their nukes .our former official Syam Saran already told us what will be our response and that will quite right.But I dont think they will attack us unprovokedly.
 
.
Because your notion of survival and mine are different.

For me the institutions of this nation, of the Republic of India, must remain intact ALONG with its territorial integrity AND the ability meet a limited offensive from a third party post the hypothetical nuclear offensive. For most Pakistanis the simple notion that enough Indians will die seems to be good enough, different priorities to say the least.

I am addressing your posts quite directly.

I will make it even simpler.

You have stated that India's size will ensure that the Indian state will not face a catastrophic quantum of destruction and shall be able to limp on whereas Pakistan will be evaporated.

I am stating that Pakistan will be evaporated but we too will be left on our deathbed (assertion-1). The latter is disputed by you, and I am telling you that what you envision is simply not possible, for starters the Pakistanis will be not so kind so as to aim for air bursts but will rather aim at maximum toxic dispersion.

The point I am making is that whatever survives of India will not be enough to call it a victory.

Ensuring MAD does not equate to winning, it is simply a statement to the foe that if you press the button then so will we and then we can both burn. MAD has never been about winning, not even about surviving, it is about deterrence, about stopping the foe from unleashing nukes by showing it that if it did unleash said nukes then so will we.

Furthermore I have stated that we do not need to look beyond mad either, the fact that we will burn along with Pakistan does not mean that we too cannot operate within the nuclear threshold to meet our objectives.(assertion-2)


This is your assessment which has no scientific basis.

Indian leadership and policymakers have figured out ...India will survive nuclear war although with huge cost ...and not on being death bed .
 
.
@Indo-guy @Dillinger

We seem to be arguing in circles. Let's step back.

What we can all agree on is that because of their conventional force disparity, Pakistan considers nukes as a viable war-fighting weapon and have indicated the willingness to use them at much lower thresholds than India.

What is in question whether this indication is real or just a bluff.

Pakistan from almost its inception has been controlled politically & economically by the armed forces and the generals have used this control to divert public wealth into their own pockets. Over the last 60 years they have maintained this control by creating & maintaining the bogeyman of India - how India is just itching to take over Pakistan. It has always been in their interest to maintain this facade, so the general public doesn't question why so much of their GDP is siphoned off to maintain a mighty military machine. This is not unique - North Korea also does the same, telling the people that their Great Leader protects them from the satanic US & South Koreans, where US (at least since the end of Cold War) and South Korea couldn't care less about reunification.

A corollary to this is that the Pakistani generals will never be willing to accept any substantial defeat from India - because they are afraid that then the common people will turn against them & they will lose control. The last time this happened was after the '71 war - and they don't want a repeat. That is why they threaten TNW use in the face of a massive Indian advance. And that includes nuclear strikes as well.

That is the weakness of India's MAD posture - Pakistan uses TNW -> India retaliates in full -> Pakistan also retaliates in full. At that point, whether Pakistan will survive or not does not matter anymore. The generals will feel that they are losing the country anyways, what do they care?

That is why any nuclear retaliation against Pakistan always has to target the armed forces - killing many people may satisfy the craving for vengeance but has limited strategic value.

On the other hand, surgical strikes (using cruise missiles, Special Forces, etc) against terror camps should be a safe option. The army is not likely to escalate such situations - but India may face counter missile/artillery/terrorist strikes from Pakistan.

Again TL/DR, MAD nuclear strikes against Pakistan will escalate to destroy the subcontinent, but more targeted strikes against the army/terrorists yield more benefits.


Now you've hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what I have been saying, the whole point of having to loose more correlates to the very fact that the Pakistani general can conceive that in a purely conventional war he could very well see his country engulfed (assuming its a total war and not a localized conflict) whereas no Indian general would even feel the need to operate on that basis wrt Pakistan.

For Pakistan the nuke is a weapon to use when its conventional arm fails, for us the question of the conventional forces failing in such a scenario does not even arise, for us nukes are weapons to be used only in counter to nukes.

This is the very "cautious approach" I was referring to.

We as a nation have built too much to ever even conceive of gambling it away (1).

This (1) is taken to be a weakness.

The people who think that this is a weakness then ponder upon how to sidestep MAD.

AND I am saying that we need not sidestep MAD at all, IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS, It is the sign of a zinda kaum which looks to a future of possibilities albeit marred by all our ills rather than a future of simply blood and fire at the drop of a hat.

Furthermore, not only is this NOT a weakness (which relates to my point that any Indian who thinks that we can only deal with cross border terrorists the day we can fight a nuclear war and win) but under the current scenario we have plenty of tools and options to pay back Pakistan in its own coin.
 
.
If they attack us with their nukes .our former official Syam Saran already told us what will be our response and that will quite right.But I dont think they will attack us unprovokedly.

so if Pakistan launches nuclear attack ...should India retaliate in full swing or no ???

India's official doctrine is clear that any nuclear attack - strategic or tactical , state actor or by non state actor will be met with full fledged retaliatory attack...some members are here suggesting that rather India let Pakistan walk away with minor attacks such as surgical precision strikes ....

I find it absolutely absurd ...and fatalistic .

this way Pakistan will only be emboldened to launch nuclear attack on India with no fear of massive reprisals...
 
.
This is your assessment which has no scientific basis.

Indian leadership and policymakers have figured out ...India will survive nuclear war although with huge cost ...and not on being death bed .

Our Indian policy makers are yet to frame a nuclear doctrine beyond a draft, which is exactly what Modi has been touching upon (contrary to our brain dead reporters, he is not looking at getting rid of NFU but rather qualifying it, which has not been done so far) when he states that the nuclear doctrine of the nation needs to be looked at and perhaps even modified.

so if Pakistan launches nuclear attack ...should India retaliate in full swing or no ???

India's official doctrine is clear that any nuclear attack - strategic or tactical , state actor or by non state actor will be met with full fledged retaliatory attack...some members are here suggesting that rather India let Pakistan walk away with minor attacks such as surgical precision strikes ....

I find it absolutely absurd ...and fatalistic .

this way Pakistan will only be emboldened to launch nuclear attack on India with no fear of massive reprisals...

If you are referring to me, then the surgical strikes are meant for the terror camps WITHIN THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD, AS IN AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED WE CAN RISK SUCH A STRIKE AND CALL PAKISTAN'S BLUFF THAT IT WILL GO NUCLEAR.

"Let me add my own opinion though, I'd call their bluff and conduct strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan held Kashmir, only on the camps, with standoff munitions and covert raids, without attempting to breach their ADGE in any substantial manner. Good odds that the Pakistani executive and uniforms will not risk mutual destruction for the sake of jihadis. But then I like my odds, our executive might not."
 
.
Because your notion of survival and mine are different.

For me the institutions of this nation, of the Republic of India, must remain intact ALONG with its territorial integrity AND the ability meet a limited offensive from a third party post the hypothetical nuclear offensive. For most Pakistanis the simple notion that enough Indians will die seems to be good enough, different priorities to say the least.

I am addressing your posts quite directly.

I will make it even simpler.

You have stated that India's size will ensure that the Indian state will not face a catastrophic quantum of destruction and shall be able to limp on whereas Pakistan will be evaporated.

I am stating that Pakistan will be evaporated but we too will be left on our deathbed (assertion-1). The latter is disputed by you, and I am telling you that what you envision is simply not possible, for starters the Pakistanis will be not so kind so as to aim for air bursts but will rather aim at maximum toxic dispersion.

The point I am making is that whatever survives of India will not be enough to call it a victory.

Ensuring MAD does not equate to winning, it is simply a statement to the foe that if you press the button then so will we and then we can both burn. MAD has never been about winning, not even about surviving, it is about deterrence, about stopping the foe from unleashing nukes by showing it that if it did unleash said nukes then so will we.

Furthermore I have stated that we do not need to look beyond mad either, the fact that we will burn along with Pakistan does not mean that we too cannot operate within the nuclear threshold to meet our objectives.(assertion-2)

I have lost all respect for you due to your intellectual dishonesty .
Do you even understand that you have been contradicting yourself in last several posts ...?

at one time you say that surviving nuclear war is no victory ..it's pyrrhic victory
and India we know will die ....and at another point now you feel surviving nuclear war is a victory
and next very moment you are saying we do not have to win nuclear war ???
and then you say we need to ensure MAD
Instead of replying to my posts ...make appoint to read them and see if it makes any sense ...
all your intellectualizations are in vain ...because it just proves that you have no clue as to what you are talking about ...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom