Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I just don't trust any other country to "not allow" this or "allow" that. We need to be ready to take care of things ourselves and that includes keeping all our options open at all times. Yes our options are open. India never said we wont use nukes ever- it has a no first use policy. Which is a perfectly sensible & humane policy to begin with. India doesnt NEED a first strike policy- we can take out Pakistan without nukes (even if they launch nukes) & any war with China will not require nukes, since its gonna be a bloodbath between the armies stuck at 20,000 feet Himalayan wastelands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I just don't trust any other country to "not allow" this or "allow" that. We need to be ready to take care of things ourselves and that includes keeping all our options open at all times. You are slightly confused here Yoda. India's Nuclear policy is very much its own Nuclear policy. The only country apart from India that has similar policy is China(erstwhile USSR used to have it too). We have a very correct policy and this has helped our case a lot since our Nuclear tests. Even though we have not signed NPT and other policies USA has been interested in giving us Nuclear technology. It is interesting to note that no-one mentions China here. China also has a no-first use policy. While people worry about Pakistan and how India should change its no-first policy, can you imagine what would happen if China changes its policy to no-first too! Now that would be a nightmare! It is easy to brandish your sword when you talk of Pakistan, but the one we should always think of is China. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yes our options are open. India never said we wont use nukes ever- it has a no first use policy. Which is a perfectly sensible & humane policy to begin with. India doesnt NEED a first strike policy- we can take out Pakistan without nukes (even if they launch nukes) & any war with China will not require nukes, since its gonna be a bloodbath between the armies stuck at 20,000 feet Himalayan wastelands. Yep. Pakistan will be overrun by India if its a lengthy war. We wouldnt need Nuclear weapons to achieve that result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can you trust china for their word on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yep. Pakistan will be overrun by India if its a lengthy war. We wouldnt need Nuclear weapons to achieve that result. We needed US intervention in Kargil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yep. Pakistan will be overrun by India if its a lengthy war. We wouldnt need Nuclear weapons to achieve that result. Yep. And the clueless fools who advocate nukage of Pakistan are all stunningly silent on the critical question of repurcussions of nuking a land 400 Km from our borders. Glad such idiots don't run our country- gimme corrupt politicians over total idiotic waste-of-oxygen any day of the week. My policy on Pakistan nuking us is simple- Pakistan nuking us will see atmost half-a-dozen or so mushroom clouds in Indian skies, with the rest shot down before arrival. After such an event, India declares war and terms for cessation of war is ' complete and unconditional surrender of the Pakistani military and beurocracy'. Such a goal can be accomplished by India in a conventional war anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can you trust china for their word on anything? I am sure Pakistanis also the same question - Can you trust Indians? See we can talk about this trust/interest/selfish-world angle whole day. The point is rather simple - If you have conventional strength you choose the no-first strike capability. You have little to lose, you gain everyone's respect and its a win-win. On the other hand if your conventional strength is weak then N-weapons is your best bet. Thats where Pakistan differs from India. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 We needed US intervention in Kargil. Do you think it was India who brought US to the table or Pakistan? Also who lost more diplomatically from Kargil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can you trust china for their word on anything? Yes and no. 'trusting the word' of a nation in the field of international relations is all the same. As such, no nation is really more trustworthy than another in this aspect. We needed US intervention in Kargil. Intervention ? No we didn't need US intervention in kargil. But the fact that US intervened to warn Sharif about not doing a nuclear strike is down to the very nature of India's no-first-use policy & the goodwill it earns India in international politics. He who ignores international political angle in today's world is a fool of the highest order, for we are a global community today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I am sure Pakistanis also the same question - Can you trust Indians? xxx You think the Paks trust us? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Do you think it was India who brought US to the table or Pakistan? Also who lost more diplomatically from Kargil? We had a concerned US president in Clinton. Don't expect such favors always. Anyways I was addressing yours and Bongo's assertion that our conventional strength is extra-ordinary and we can ram it through anyone. Apparently, not the case, which is pretty sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 You think the Paks trust us? :D I will let MP or Kablooee answer that. What I would say is that I have seen a shift in both Indian and Pakistani mindset circa Kargil. It was really worse around 2002 but now it seems to be chugging along. We still dont love each other but atleast we can do business with each other. Heck earlier we couldnt even sit together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 We had a concerned US president in Clinton. Don't expect such favors always. Ah but you again skirted the question Yoda. Do you think it was India that was interested in having USA on discussion table? Or do you think it was Pakistan? (Hint - Just check which country's PM went to meet Clinton). Also I was under the impression that the President that followed Clinton, George Bush, is even more of an Indo-phile, no? xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 We had a concerned US president in Clinton. Don't expect such favors always. No, EXPECT such favours, since the world is a global community today & NOBODY wants to see a nuclear war- it is irrelevant whether its Clinton,Bush, Bush Snr. or Blair- they'd have all done the same because nobody wants to face the question in the west ' what did you do to prevent this nuclear holocaust?' People forget one critical thing of nuclear weaponry- the yeilds we have now makes Little Boy & Fat man (Hiroshima & nagasaki bombs)look like peanuts and if you have a fusion bomb (like India claimed to after Pokhran II), its a no-comparison. And all it takes is 10-15 of these super-nukes going off ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET & we enter global nuclear winter. As such, there will ALWAYS be intervention from the more educated & liberal nations in a fight between two nuclear powers to keep it a nuke-free war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Anyways I was addressing yours and Bongo's assertion that our conventional strength is extra-ordinary and we can ram it through anyone. Apparently' date=' not the case, which is pretty sad really.[/quote'] Yes our conventional strength is much better compared to Pakistan. In fact many defence analyst argue that Nuclear tests have helped Pakistan much more than it helped India. To use a defence jargon - It has restored the power disparity in South East Asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Anyways I was addressing yours and Bongo's assertion that our conventional strength is extra-ordinary and we can ram it through anyone. Apparently, not the case, which is pretty sad really. Who said ram it through anyone ? The only one we have to worry about is PAKISTAN and our conventional edge is good enough to own Pakistan inside of six months. True, their army is comparable to ours & their Air force is a strong unit in itself- but we are still ahead- numrically & technologically- on these two fields. But what seals the deal against Pakistan is our overwhelming naval superiority. We can blockade Gwadar & Karachi without breaking a sweat and in such an event, Pakistan runs out of oil to fuel its tanks& planes & war machines long before it runs out of bullets. India's conventional strength is no match for China, Russia or America- all three nations can school us in a conventional war AND a nuclear war. But the only nation amongst these 3 we are ever likely to fight a war with is China. And in an Indo-China war of TODAY, conventional superiority counts for squat- 95% of our border is through 15000-20000 feet himalayan wasteland terrain & you gotta be a fool of the highest order to wage a potracted war in that zone. For in those battlefields, tactical command(which is down to individual brilliance of the war planners) & natural balance (who has the high ground, who holds the passes,etc) mean far more than any sort of conventional superiority. So either way, India has no need for a first-strike option, particularly since first-strike option reduces India's political leverage in wartimes massively with the world community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Points made. Disagreements continue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesiChap Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 It worries me to this day that India doesnt have an assured second strike capability!Fack!! All land based warheads/missiles can be taken out by Pakistan in a first strike scenario. Where the hell is our sea based SLBM capability?!?!? How can one neglect it when the very survival of a country depends on it?!? You have no idead about India's stike capabilities ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 You have no idead about India's stike capabilities ! Pardon my ignorance - enlighten me por favor!:confused_smile: Dude, its one thing to have strike capability in concept/theory/drawing-board/Jane's journal and a totally different thing to have fully operational nuke subs with SLBMs at sea. Dont be blinded by just the Pak threat, consider China as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts