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

[Indo-guy]

The inference should be quite simple, if people hold it to be true that being unable to win under a MAD scenario is a debilitating factor then yes the said people are alluding to the notion (held by them) that only when we find ourselves being capable of prevailing under MAD (not actually engage in it, but rather just have the capability to engage in it and prevail) will we have the cards to press our advantage and act in a manner so as to strike against the sub-conventional assets of Pakistan. Stating that we need to be strong enough to prevail under MAD ( a misconception) so that we can deter a Pakistani first strike (from ever taking place) in retaliation to surgical strikes (for example) from our side is not the same as getting hot about a nuclear exchange.

I am asserting, that to the contrary of the above, we can under the present equation still degrade Pakistan's sub-conventional arm and impose upon them a high quantum of civilian casualties by paying them back in kind, thereby leveling the field in terms of asymmetrical capabilities. The context should have been self evident, the only possible threat that Pakistan will EVER pose to us is a sub-conventional and asymmetrical one, which they have executed in the past under the nuclear umbrella.

Indian leadership is not as irresponsible as you think to press it's hypothetical advantage.

You are once again dodging my question ..
did you or did you not imply that some Indians may be thinking that Nuclear war may be way to solve security concerns ???

No Indian leader so far made any such remark or even alluded to such scenario ....

You are trying to wriggle out of your own words by intellectualizing your obviously biased statement which you made to please our Pakistani friends here .

Be magnanimous in accepting mistake and retract your statement

because your statement that implies that some Indians may be thinking that Nuclear war is the way to solve security concerns by eliminating Pakistan forever ...is actually deeply demeaning to us .

We are not the ones who will cut our own nose to just jinx the enemy

 

[SrNair]

@Dillinger , @Secur ,@Muradk , @ares ,@mafiya ,@DRAY ,@gslv mk3 ,@Koovie
@Oscar , @skysthelimit ,@Cherokee, @sreekumar ,@lightoftruth , @AUSTERLITZ , @Aeronaut , @Chinese-Dragon , @NKVD, @Umair Nawaz , @The Deterrent , @Tshering22 , @manojb , @Omega007 ,@Koovie


Hi ,

Here is the opinion from the person who has seen it more closely than all of us .

Here from the horses's mouth itself !!!

Mr Ashghar khan - Ex Air Chief of Pakistan ...

Since Pakistan is quite small in size, so 1 or 2 nukes will completely demolish it, but won't destroy India - Asghar Khan (first native chief of the Pakistani Air Force).

In present condition Pakistan dont have anything to lose while India has everything .That is where the problems lies.
Our only option is to increase our economy to become a dominant economic power in world.Then Pakistan is will automatically stay away from us.Because money always rule this world.

 

[Dillinger]

Indian leadership is not as irresponsible as you think to press it's hypothetical advantage.

You are once again dodging my question ..
did you or did you not imply that some Indians may be thinking that Nuclear war may be way to solve security concerns .

No Indian leader so far made any such remark or even alluded to such scenario ....

You are trying to wriggle out of your words .

Be magnanimous in accepting mistake and retract your statement

because your statement that implies that some Indians may be thinking that Nuclear war is the way to solve security concerns by eliminating Pakistan forever ...is actually deeply demeaning to us .

We are not the ones who will cut our own nose to just jinx the enemy

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.

 

[Indo-guy]

In present condition Pakistan dont have anything to lose while India has everything .That is where the problems lies.
Our only option is to increase our economy to become a dominant economic power in world.Then Pakistan is will automatically stay away from us.Because money always rule this world.

On the contrary Pakistan has everything to lose ...India on contrary will survive the nuclear war although severly crippled ...but will be able to recover much faster than japan perhaps ....

That's my opinion .

and everybody is entitled to their opinions , just as you are entitled to yours .

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.

another ridiculous statement coming after lot of intellectualizing ...

So now you think that being able to win a nuclear war is not necessary for meeting security challenges ???


Do you even understand what you are talking ???

 

[Dillinger]

On the contrary Pakistan has everything to lose ...India on contrary will survive the nuclear war although severly crippled ...but will be able to recover much faster than japan perhaps ....

That's my opinion .

and everybody is entitled to their opinions , just as you are entitled to yours .



another ridiculous statement coming after lot of intellectualizing ...

So now you think that being able to win a nuclear war is not necessary for meeting security challenges ???


Do you even understand what you are talking ???

Here is a thought, there is not a nation on this planet which can win a nuclear war against a pear enemy. So yes, we do not need to "win" a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure MAD, which we already can. After that, any advancement in the arsenal or delivery vehicles is meant to facilitate mitigation of any advancement in capabilities in the other camp.

We do not need to win a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure that IF someone goes nuclear so can we.

The problem occurs, as I stated before, when non-uniformed combatants are utilized by one side against the other with the tag of "non-state actors", thereby causing damage while still ensuring that all such actions still remain within the afflicted side's nuclear threshold, in such a scenario attempting to meet the opponent by trying to render MAD irrelevant for ourselves is impractical. Particularly because we don't need to, there are MANY ways to degrade their sub conventional capabilities while ensuring that our actions too remain below their nuclear threshold (ergo paying them back in their own coin).

 

[SrNair]

On the contrary Pakistan has everything to lose ...India on contrary will survive the nuclear war although severly crippled ...but will be able to recover much faster than japan perhaps ....

That's my opinion .

and everybody is entitled to their opinions , just as you are entitled to yours .



another ridiculous statement coming after lot of intellectualizing ...

So now you think that being able to win a nuclear war is not necessary for meeting security challenges ???


Do you even understand what you are talking ???

World gave them a designation called 'failed state'.I dont know what they have in their hands to loose.While India is considered as an emerging power and that is only due to economy.
Pakistan budget is in a stable state thanks to IMF and aid they got from Saudi ,Us or others.
But our economy is our own effort and hardwork.We can stop them with same economy.

 

[Indo-guy]

Here is a thought, there is not a nation on this planet which can win a nuclear war against a pear enemy. So yes, we do not need to "win" a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure MAD, which we already can. After that, any advancement in the arsenal or delivery vehicles is meant to facilitate mitigation of any advancement in capabilities in the other camp.

We do not need to win a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure that IF someone goes nuclear so can we.

The problem occurs, as I stated before, when non-uniformed combatants are utilized by one side against the other with the tag of "non-state actors", thereby causing damage while still ensuring that all such actions still remain within the afflicted side's nuclear threshold, in such a scenario attempting to meet the opponent by trying to render MAD irrelevant for ourselves is impractical. Particularly because we don't need to, there are MANY ways to degrade their sub conventional capabilities while ensuring that our actions too remain below their nuclear threshold (ergo paying them back in their own coin).

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 !!!

World gave them a designation called 'failed state'.I dont know what they have in their hands to loose.While India is considered as an emerging power and that is only due to economy.
Pakistan budget is in a stable state thanks to IMF and aid they got from Saudi ,Us or others.
But our economy is our own effort and hardwork.We can stop them with same economy.

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) ?

 

[SrNair]

That's your opinion.....
and I am not obliged to accept your assessment .

I do not think even if Pakistan manages to use half of its arsenal against India ...it will create catastrophe as you are predicting .

Country like Japan survived 2 nuclear attacks ...and country like India can't survive 50 nuclear attacks ???

The vast land mass that India possess besides its young population , economy and vast number of overseas Indians will be able to counter any such catastrophic scenario that may present .

Your contention that " India that we know will die " is absolutely laughable ....

Did Japan die after WWII...

If at all it has resurged in different way ...

Change is the only constant and evolution is way of life .

India has witnessed far greater tragedies in the past ...and have overcome it ...


who told you that Indians are justifying nuclear war ?

India has stated policy of NFU .

and India which has always conducted itself as Peaceful country ..will never attack anyone with nukes first ...

where is the question of Indian's asking for Nuclear war .


I am just trying to prove the point that Pakistani's should not led to believe that they will take India down along with them ...

such fatalistic mentality is quite prevalent ....and may be self assuring ...that at least we will destroy India even as we get destroyed ....

I hope you will understand what I am trying to say ..since very beginning .....


please go through my posts since very beginning ...as to what I am trying to say all along !

Of course you are right .India will survive while Pakistan will wiped out.But the cost will be unbearable.
Just check after events .China will rule this Asia perhaps this world.Our economy and emerging status all will go once and for all.
Pakistan also become a liability to us after that.Constant insurgency from a destroyed nation.
And world will treat us as an irresponsible country.We dont need that.If we can sanction them with our economy that is all we need.They will come down to their knees.

 

[Indo-guy]

Of course you are right .India will survive while Pakistan will wiped out.But the cost will be unbearable.
Just check after events .China will rule this Asia perhaps this world.Our economy and emerging status all will go once and for all.
Pakistan also become a liability to us after that.Constant insurgency from a destroyed nation.
And world will treat us as an irresponsible country.We dont need that.If we can sanction them with our economy that is all we need.They will come down to their knees.

Yeh cost will be high ..so what do you expect Indian government to do ...in event of Pakistani nuclear attack ...???

keep quiet ..because cost is too high ?

world will treat us as irresponsible country for retaliating nuclear attack ?

so let us dismantle our nuclear programme ..so that we get pat on back for being a responsible country ...to eliminate nuclear race in south Asia ......

 

[Dillinger]

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) ?

There will be no retraction, because there is no need for one.

When you state that somehow the Indian nation will survive a nuclear war with Pakistan you are yourself asserting that we can win a nuclear war.

There is no rigamole here, working towards a certain capability is not indicative of being hell bent on using said capability.

When you state that India's security concerns can only be addressed by reaching a point where we can render MAD irrelevant you're stating that somehow nuclear war can be won- " now you think that being able to win a nuclear war is not necessary for meeting security challenges ???"

AND I am telling you quite clearly that we do not need to "win" a nuclear war, we need only ensure MAD.

Here is my statement- "We do not need to win a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure that IF someone goes nuclear so can we." How does this remotely translate to not retaliating in case of a Pakistani first strike.

The content you're referring to, that we have more to loose was meant to highlight exactly why we have so far had a far more cautious outlook wrt nuclear weapons, not to state that we would let a first strike go unanswered.

As for me asserting that Indians believe that a nuclear war is required to solve our issues, AGAIN, I stated that some Indians believe that the capability to win one is required so that it can figure in to our nuclear posturing, very akin to what you are doing right here by stating that somehow India will recover from a massive nuclear exchange (asserting that India can somehow be the relative victor in said exchange). AND I am telling you that that is simply not possible NOR is it required.

 

[Indo-guy]

When you state that somehow the Indian nation will survive a nuclear war with Pakistan you are yourself asserting that we can win a nuclear war.

There is no rigamole here, working towards a certain capability is not indicative of being hell bent on using said capability.

When you state that India's security concerns can only be addressed by reaching a point where we can render MAD irrelevant you're stating that somehow nuclear war can be won- " now you think that being able to win a nuclear war is not necessary for meeting security challenges ???"

AND I am telling you quite clearly that we do not need to "win" a nuclear war, we need only ensure MAD.

Here is my statement- "We do not need to win a nuclear war, we simply need to ensure that IF someone goes nuclear so can we." How does this remotely translate to not retaliating in case of a Pakistani first strike.

The content you're referring to, that we have more to loose was meant to highlight exactly why we have so far had a far more cautious outlook wrt nuclear weapons, not to state that we would let a first strike go unanswered.

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 ...

 

[hussain0216]

You seem to be retarded

Pakistan is a Functioning state, not a failed state idiot. With the amount of resources Pakistan has it could emerge as a major economy with a little planning. Pakistans economic situation has slowed down military procurement but has not ended it and with an improving economy will pick up again to ensure India can be targeted
Pakistan is heading towards 200 nuclear warheads and will not stop, most likely going beyond the 300 war head mark, Pakistan has continued on both increasing its war heads and number of missiles concentrating on missiles that it thinks will be most required in a war situation.
Shields against incoming missiles are very very unreliable especially against numerous incoming missiles at the same time
Even if you get 50% of the incoming missiles (that’s very doubtfull) you will be hit by 150 nuclear war heads and you think India will survive that, that’s mental.
The consequences for the planet let alone India would be dire if anything about 20 nuclear warheads went off at the same time let alone 100+. This is the reason Pakistan continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan knows it needs more then 100 warheads to destroy india hence is building them to ensure India’s complete annihilation
In todays world, military advantage is not enough. Pakistan is a powerfull state with a strong military able to hurt india bad, very bad, with everything from cruise missiles to drones. In any situation where either Pakistans state is threatened or red lines crossed it would not hesitate to unleash its full arsenal against india.
Keep repeating 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india,
Then wake up to the reality that the world, let alone india may not survive such a attack

 

[Indo-guy]

Nuclear war with India will wipe off Pakistan : Ex Air Chief Marshal of Pakistan

 

[Pakistani-nationalist]

Sheer size of country and population, economy , over seas population favors India . This is a cold fact in my opinion .

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 .

 

[Indo-guy]

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 .

did china intervene to save you guys during 1965, 1974 or Kargil ???

You seem to be retarded

Pakistan is a Functioning state, not a failed state idiot. With the amount of resources Pakistan has it could emerge as a major economy with a little planning. Pakistans economic situation has slowed down military procurement but has not ended it and with an improving economy will pick up again to ensure India can be targeted
Pakistan is heading towards 200 nuclear warheads and will not stop, most likely going beyond the 300 war head mark, Pakistan has continued on both increasing its war heads and number of missiles concentrating on missiles that it thinks will be most required in a war situation.
Shields against incoming missiles are very very unreliable especially against numerous incoming missiles at the same time
Even if you get 50% of the incoming missiles (that’s very doubtfull) you will be hit by 150 nuclear war heads and you think India will survive that, that’s mental.
The consequences for the planet let alone India would be dire if anything about 20 nuclear warheads went off at the same time let alone 100+. This is the reason Pakistan continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan knows it needs more then 100 warheads to destroy india hence is building them to ensure India’s complete annihilation
In todays world, military advantage is not enough. Pakistan is a powerfull state with a strong military able to hurt india bad, very bad, with everything from cruise missiles to drones. In any situation where either Pakistans state is threatened or red lines crossed it would not hesitate to unleash its full arsenal against india.
Keep repeating 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india, 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india 150 nuclear war heads going off in india,
Then wake up to the reality that the world, let alone india may not survive such a attack

post reported for abusive language .