Pakistan and the Nuclear Option

Ohio Guy…its very difficult to predict the outcome of the war…between Pakistan and India, but with 700,000 troops already in the vale of Kashmir…and they couldnt stop the infiltration there…so what has Vajpayee in mind when he threats Pakistan…does he want to have intenational pressure on Pakistan? Its long since a real battle was fought between the two countries…therefore its very difficult to predict the strengths and weaknesses of both countries defence capabilities…

Here’s some comments by some British Defence Analysts…
http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/23/top6.htm

Pakistan army has higher quality: UK experts

LONDON, May 22: **As the crisis over Kashmir deepens, British military experts say that while India’s armed forces would enjoy a numerical superiority if a war broke out, Pakistan’s army is of higher quality.
**
Comments by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on Wednesday that “the time has come for a decisive fight” further fuelled fears of an all-out war.

In any long-lasting conflict, India would have the advantage of a stronger economy and a population of over one billion compared to Pakistan’s 142 million. It would thus be able to mobilize more soldiers. But if a conflict was of short duration, these assets would not necessarily enter into the equation, according to William Hopkinson, of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).

“The quality of some of the Pakistani troops is probably better on average than that of the Indians,” he said.

“If the worst happens and a war starts, the pressures from all sides to stop it soon would be obviously enormous, so India’s theoretical long-term advantage might not come into play.”

According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, India has 1,303,000 people in its armed forces, plus 535,000 reservists. Pakistan has about 612,000 troops and 513,000 reservists. India is believed to have about 60 nuclear warheads and Pakistan has 25, Britain’s Times reported.

According to British government sources quoted by the paper on Wednesday, the Pakistanis are considered better troops, and could beat off an initial Indian offensive. But the Indians could then use their superiority in conventional forces to overwhelm the Pakistanis.

In one doomsday scenario which, according to The Times, has been considered by British ministers, Islamabad could then use its weapon of last resort: a nuclear device.

India would survive the strike and hit back with its own atomic weapons, according to the scenario.

The use of nuclear weapons in a war for the first time since the Americans dropped such bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, is a threat that experts are not dismissing.

“Yes, it is possible,” said Hopkinson. "There could certainly be a risk if one side is going down in conventional struggle to use a nuclear weapon. "Whether their doctrine would be to use it tactically or to make a strike at the enemy’s capital, I don’t know.

“I would have thought that the likelihood would be a tactical use but again, it depends where the forces are… you don’t want to use something (like that) on your own territory unless you can’t avoid it.”

Hopkinson added: “If Pakistan is faced with defeat but the defeat were happening on its own territory or its part of Kashmir, it might well strike for something a bit further back … it could be forces massed behind the first echelon.”-AFP

[quote]
Originally posted by Satavahana:
...REmember this 'Tamasha' has been going on for a long time now...
[/quote]

I agree, the following Indian tamasha has gone far enough. The fake hijacking, the genocide of muslims, burning of mosques, the blaming of Pakistan everytime someone sneezes in India.

The Hinduvta BJP/RSS/VHP has one agenda - the subjugation of the Muslims in India. Evertime they have some political problems at home, the go on a war footing with Pakistan.

It is about time the Indians clean up their own back yard. Like many western analysts have said, what are the 700,000 Indian troops (1 soldier for every 6 Kashmiri)doing in the valley, especially if they cannot prevent the scale of the alleged infiltration they calim is taking place? It is about time India took some resposibility.

I used to be a real "peacenik".

Now I am waiting to see a mushroom cloud over Bombay.

This is the comparision between Pakistani and Indian forces according to BBC.

The Indian public are apparently itching for a war, and let's not forget that it was their Hindutva public that voted these demented religious freaks into office.

These people almost deserve to be nuked for taking things this far.

The latestdevelopments wrt the nuclear question:

=============================================

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=297984

India has since declared a nuclear “no first-use” policy, but Pakistan has declined to reciprocate. To the contrary, in fact, Pakistan under General Musharraf has made clear that it will use nuclear weapons in defence of its territory.

Last weekend General Musharraf ordered Pakistan’s Shaheen missiles, which have a range of 750km (470 miles), to be moved to forward positions. He said yesterday: “If war is forced on Pakistan, the enemy will find us fully prepared.” He went on to add that Pakistan’s strategy was “basically one of deterrence”. Pakistan’s barely veiled threat is that if India breaches the line of control, it would answer with nuclear missiles ­ and the first would be aimed at Delhi.

Many siren voices in India are clamouring for India to call General Musharraf’s bluff and settle the Indo-Pakistani dispute “once and for all”. The popular excitement is helped by the fact that many Indians have little concept of what nuclear weapons can do. There are new aspects to the crisis that make it uniquely perilous. The most serious is the presence in Kashmir of Islamic militants disaffected from the Musharraf regime, eager to embroil India and Pakistan in a disastrous war.

The clear danger now is that one or two more atrocities will prompt Mr Vajpayee to attack Pakistan. And after all his talk of “deterrence”, General Musharraf will have little left in the locker but to launch the third nuclear attack in human history.

=============================================

Stay cool Veggie-pie. For once bring some credit to your nation instead of making it a laughing stock around the world.

Does anyone here have a good handle on the type and inventory of nukes in both arsenals? In addition to the big ones (Nagasaki and Hiroshima types), the US has a big inventory of smaller "tactical" battlefield nukes.

If both sides have arsenals of tactical battlefield nukes, I would think/fear that there is a much higher likelihood of an India/Pak war culminating in a nuclear exchange. Neither side will be willing to accept a defeat while holding them in reserve. Hopefully, the exchange of a few tactical nukes would sober everyone up enough to avoid using the big ones on a city.

Myvoice,

This is the best I have been able to find:

“On 11 and 13 May 1998, India conducted what it claimed were five nuclear explosive tests. According to Indian officials, the 11
May tests included a fission device with a yield of about 12 kilotons, a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 kilotons,
and a third test with a yield of about 0.2 kilotons. An Indian spokesman stated that the first set of tests was intended “to establish
that India has a proven capability for a weap onized nuclear program.””
http://www.csis.org/pubs/download.htm

The small scale test would indicate that India at least has a low yield nuke.

Pakistans capability from the same report:

As a response to India’s tests, Pakistan conducted its own series of nuclear tests in May 1998. Pakistan claimed to have tested six
devices, five on 28 May and one on 30 May. Dr. A. Q. Khan, a key figure in Pakistan’s nuclear program, claimed the five devices
tested on 28 May were boosted fission devices: a “big bomb” and four tactical weapons of low yield that could be used on small
missiles."

The real question is, what will the world think about any nuclear use? Is the genie really out of the bottle, or are there acceptable and controlled uses? My bet is that any use will make that country a pariah state.

[quote]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
**Pakistani Tiger,

After some thought, I am convinced that Democracy is not just the leader at the top. It is a country that fights corruption, a court system that works, a military that absolutely positively will follow civilian control. It is political freedom for all citizens, and elections that are trusted and a police force that follows strict procedures.**
[/quote]

If you are thinking Pakistan could come near America. Forget it Man!

[quote]
*Beyond that, the people must have a desire to assume the yoke of responsibility. Nowhere is this more true than in a country that has nuclear weapons. Given the above, my only concern was that of the last "referrendum". *
[/quote]

Didn't you see tremendous amount of Criticism over Musharraf's move of Referendum? You know what, it wasn't in the past during General Elections and press of Pakistan wasn't even free as it is now partly during Military Govt. Najam Aziz Sethi, a political analysists used to be in jail during elections and now the same person has been criticizing Musharraf for his better health.

[quote]
Moving towards democracy means that the election process must be as clean as snow. This has not yet been evident.
[quote]

I was in Pakistan during Referendum Day and that's true it was a big turn out around 60-70%. People from rural areas of Pakistan did participated in Referendum. Agreed some reports says that people have voted more that one. That raises a question, why people of Pakistan, who hate Musharraf so much, didn't go out to express their views?

[quote]
** When all of the prerequisites for a democracy are in place, then a lasting peace can be agreed upon.**
[/quote]

Sure, I'm in favor of Democracy but the Government should work like a Elected Govt. During the past 11 years of pathetic Democracy, I have seen Dictatorship by Elected Govt.

[quote]
*Hopefully Musharraf wants to finish his five years and leave the country with a real peace contract. If that is indeed his plan, then having this showdown with India during year one will allow him some time to work on a peace plan by year five. *
[/quote]

Yep, (sorry no source of this news) Musharraf has decided to do Golfing after 5 years.

[quote]
*I think his calls for international help have been very timely, and the appropriate thing to do. *
[/quote]

Yep, he wanted that because India is no where near for Peaceful Agreement and continously be denying the fact and fate of Kashmir.

[quote]
Unfortunately for him to be able to really sign a Peace Agreement, he must be able to guarantee his side of the agreement. That will meant that the semi-lawless territories must become part of the country, rather than ill-behaved step children. Let's hope that the five year plan will assume that Central Pakistan will be able to assure that it's side of the agreement, is enforced by law and protected by it's weaponry, not the other way around.
[/quote]

There is no need to be worry and feel sorry about Musharraf sigining Peace Agreement. Main thesis of this agreement, it should work.

Take Your Best Shot At Me

OG:
Thanks for the response.

I find it more likely that someone will use a tactical battlefield nuke than a big bomb. Whether one is actually used is probably a product of whether a conflict gets to a stage where one side would have to admit "defeat." Neither side will, IMO, in circumstances where they have not, at least, used all battlefield weapons at their disposal. And, if one side does use a battlefield nuke, the other side cannot end the conflict without also using one.

If the current conflict goes further, I certainly hope one of the scenarios you laid out occurs where both sides can claim some sort of victory for their home consumptions while stopping short of a tactical nuke strike. The world will certainly be a different place if that genie is let out of the bottle.

Myvoice,

This morning India appeared to back off a bit, and they came out with some statement about "two months". Personally I think the heat and the weather had more to do with the decision, as well as arm twisting by the US. I think Vajpayee was told by his military that the hot weather would have more of a toll on the atteckers than the defenders. When do the monsoons come? If the atmospheric temperature moderates but the political does not, start looking again for some bellicose statements before a real move.

[This message has been edited by Ohioguy (edited May 24, 2002).]