Pakistan

[Sandhi Yudha]

Talking about Pakistan, got this article:

Pakistani minister threatens India with nuclear attack in 'the bloody last war'

A PAKISTANI minister has threatened India with a nuclear attack in “the bloody last war” and says only Muslims will survive. Sheikh Rashid made the threat of nuclear war, claiming that …

www.thesun.co.uk

Off course they're Hawks in both India and Pakistan administration now. However with both edging more to sectarianism politics with Pakistan media and public call BJP lead administration as Hindu-Nazi and Indian media and public call Imran Khan lead administration as Teroristan, they practically build and nurture their own Constituents toward Nationalistics stances.

This for me make potential armed conflicts that lead to all out war is bigger compared to all highten tension in East and Southeast Asia between China and it's neighbors. Calmer thinking between India and Pakistan seems more and more put in the back. More Hawkish position seems more prevailing. At least when India under Congress and Pakistan under Bhutto's they're still maintain possition to talk first.

More worrying is potential nuclear war between those two still can be contain just between those two only. Thus unlike nuclear war between China-Russia and US-Western power that will lead on Global problems, seems other Global powers just watching what will happen between Pakistan and India but will let them sort it all out by themselves. In sense, at least on my impression, Global powers will let both of them destroying each other if it comes to that.

Am I right on that ?

Thank you for the information about Alamgir.

I do not think that a full scale war will happen, specially not a nuclear one.

Its devastating for the economies of both countries, and the losses will be immense.

I believe that countries like the worldpowers will try to de-escalate the situation.

Its far more profitable to sell defence systems to two economical strong countries with tension between these two, than two countries destroyed by war.

Besides that if a war was to be start, it would have been after the Mumbai-terroristic attacks.

 

[Ananda]

Yes, logically should be that. However with both current administration, I'm just bit worried on the way they are pushing their own grass roots toward sectarianism and short view of Nationalistics. I just see more cooler head during Congres and Bhutto's, but not BJP/Moodi and Imran Khan administration.

They're selling idea of nuclear wars more easily on both grass roots. Somehow I begin see some hot heads in Pakistan and India believe they can win and survive nuclear wars. The trend is just worrying if that kind of thinking being installed in the grass roots.

 

[John Fedup]

Thank you for the information about Alamgir.

I do not think that a full scale war will happen, specially not a nuclear one.

Its devastating for the economies of both countries, and the losses will be immense.

I believe that countries like the worldpowers will try to de-escalate the situation.

Its far more profitable to sell defence systems to two economical strong countries with tension between these two, than two countries destroyed by war.

Besides that if a war was to be start, it would have been after the Mumbai-terroristic attacks.

I tend to agree, de-escalation by world powers is very likely, especially by Russia and China which have influence. Besides, the radiation release from 10-15 bombs or more is certainly not in their best interest.

 

[ngatimozart]

The real problem is how would other nations with nuclear weapons react if India and Pakistan go nuclear? The US, Russia and PRC and most likely France and UK will have spaceborne sensors that will detect atmospheric nuclear blasts in real time. We know that the US and Russia basically have hair triggers when it comes to such events. We don't know how they or the others will react to a nuclear attack between third parties. What will the PRC do because it has invested a lot in Pakistan to get access to the Indian Ocean port? Can they risk taking Pakistan's side in a nuclear war with India and drawing in the US / UK on the Indian side? That maybe far too risky for the PRC Central Military Commission to bet the state farm on.

 

[John Fedup]

The real problem is how would other nations with nuclear weapons react if India and Pakistan go nuclear? The US, Russia and PRC and most likely France and UK will have spaceborne sensors that will detect atmospheric nuclear blasts in real time. We know that the US and Russia basically have hair triggers when it comes to such events. We don't know how they or the others will react to a nuclear attack between third parties. What will the PRC do because it has invested a lot in Pakistan to get access to the Indian Ocean port? Can they risk taking Pakistan's side in a nuclear war with India and drawing in the US / UK on the Indian side? That maybe far too risky for the PRC Central Military Commission to bet the state farm on.

I think the PCR should be more concerned about Russia. India is a better client to them than Pakistan is to China. If the major parties can’t get these two to de-escalate then letting stuff happen makes more sense than taking sides. China won’t need access to an Indian Ocean port afterwards.

 

[Ananda]

We don't know how they or the others will react to a nuclear attack between third parties.

Is't their satellites will determine where those missiles coming from and where it will be targeted ? This's what intrigued me, will a localised nuclear war between two known belligerent neighbor being left alone by other major powers ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Is't their satellites will determine where those missiles coming from and where it will be targeted ? This's what intrigued me, will a localised nuclear war between two known belligerent neighbor being left alone by other major powers ?

That's what I was asking as well. We can be reasonably sure that the leadership in Beijing, Moscow, London and Paris will act with considerable logic and listen to their experts in the relevant fields. They take this stuff very seriously.

 

[John Fedup]

I thought you missed a city and then a noticed the “act with logic and listen to their experts in the relevant fields” part.

 

[Todjaeger]

I thought you missed a city and then a noticed the “act with logic and listen to their experts in the relevant fields” part.

Ouch. Unfortunately there is likely more than a little truth to this.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

Pakistan is an interesting yet highly complex nation. It likes to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds and at some stage this may come to bite it in it's proverbial bum. It has had a relationship with the US since 1947. However the relationship between Pakistan and the US has been anything but stable. Pakistan has forged a close relationship with the PRC and recently it has begun to forge a closer relationship with Russia, buying weapons from Russia, which will most likely incur US sanctions. We must also remember that Pakistan and India are both mortal enemies and nuclear powers.

Since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, which toppled the Taliban from power, Pakistan has been accused, rightly or wrongly, of supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The latest US State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 states that Pakistan is still allowing the Taliban and the Al Qaeda linked Haqqani Network to operate in Pakistani territory. Of course the Pakistani govt denies such accusations but, over the years, there appears to be more than a grain or two of truth to the accusations.

Pakistan continues to harbor Taliban, including al Qaeda-linked Haqqanis | FDD's Long War Journal

My own view is that in the longer term, Pakistan will move further into the orbits of Beijing and Moscow, reducing any influence that Washington may have over it. To be honest, this may be a blessing in disguise because the machinations that come out of Islamabad must be stressful. On the flip side, that should move Delhi closer to the West and wean them off Russian equipment.

Your prediction in 2018 was largely accurate. Although realignment was already in progress during this period. To many ordinary Pakistanis moving out of US sphere is also considered a blessing. The US Pakistan relation has been marred by mistrust. From the very start this relationship has been reluctant and uneasy. The US had to partner with Pakistan during the Cold War due to geographical and religious advantages. Pakistan was eager to exploit US military hardware in exchange. As many historical commentators have rightfully pointed out, this relationship was transactional in nature. The relationship was never based on mutual respect and understanding. Pakistan China relations predate Pakistan US relations. China and Pakistan are regionally connected. There is no comparison there.

It is also true that Pakistan Russia rapprochement despite all odds is now an established fact. As India has moved closer to the Western camp and buys more Western equipment, Russia feels the urgency to seek better relations with Pakistan. The irony is that Pakistan has played a pivotal role in breaking up the former USSR. The saying is true, interests bring even old enemies close to each other. Pakistan Russian soldiers participate in various military exercises which was unthinkable. Russia sells engines and helicopters to Pakistan. A total transformation in relationship as both countries have forged a closer relationship.

This is my take on the future of Pakistan US relations. The US won't ditch Pakistan. Neither can Pakistan afford to ignore the US. The US cannot sever ties with Pakistan for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, Pakistan occupies an important locality geographically. Apart from the Afghan war, Pakistan also serves as a gateway to CAS. China is already investing to reap the benefits. Pakistan is also a nuclear power and the US intelligentsia doesn't approve. The US has after almost two decades discovered that Afghanistan cannot be conquered and controlled. Despite promises of no negotiations with the Taliban we are today witnessing a deal. Pakistan played an important role for the US in this regard. Without a meaningful relationship negotiations and a deal would be unthinkable. Pakistan US relations are going to remain shaky at the best of times and lukewarm when interests are at stake. The relationship is going to remain transactional although US aid has dried up since Trump's presidency. Pakistan is going to move deeper into China Russia orbit as India moves closer to the US camp. The rivalries are visible. From the UN stage where both camps continue to exchange jabs to geopolitical rivalries.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

The real problem is how would other nations with nuclear weapons react if India and Pakistan go nuclear? The US, Russia and PRC and most likely France and UK will have spaceborne sensors that will detect atmospheric nuclear blasts in real time. We know that the US and Russia basically have hair triggers when it comes to such events. We don't know how they or the others will react to a nuclear attack between third parties. What will the PRC do because it has invested a lot in Pakistan to get access to the Indian Ocean port? Can they risk taking Pakistan's side in a nuclear war with India and drawing in the US / UK on the Indian side? That maybe far too risky for the PRC Central Military Commission to bet the state farm on.

First, there won't be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Entertaining this thought is out of the question. Getting back to your question of taking sides. Sides have already been taken. China and Pakistan have an economic pact. A military pact is a logical extension subsequent to an economic pact. In a sense, Pakistan and China already have a military pact. China sells military hardware to Pakistan and provides critical assistance in many other areas. The same applies to the Indian side which receives weaponry and assistance from various Western sources. We are essentially witnessing two competing camps.

 

[ngatimozart]

First, there won't be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Entertaining this thought is out of the question.

Why is it out of the question? What is the point of investing significant amounts of treasure in nuclear weapons if you are not willing to use them when the state is at war and in extremis? Most certainly the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, French et al., would if they had too.

China and Pakistan have an economic pact. A military pact is a logical extension subsequent to an economic pact. In a sense, Pakistan and China already have a military pact.

No. My country and Australia both have Free Trade Agreements with the PRC. Given our democratic culture and history, there is no way that we would consider a military pact with the PRC.

So both your arguments are based on flawed logic. I suggest that you do some further reading of reputable sites and sources.

 

[Ananda]

there won't be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Entertaining this thought is out of the question.

There's enough politicians from both nation that being Hawkish that talking on nuking each other. India and Pakistan condition is hotter than US and USSR ever be in cold War. Even then there's no politicians and military leadership in US and USSR that think nuclear war is out of questions. They always prepared for that.

Pakistan going nuclear due to off set their disadvantage on conventional Military balance with India. Nuclear deterrences are being hoped never being used. However never cross in any politicians and military leaders who has nuclear arsenal in their hand, on scenario for 'never' used them. They hope they'll never used them, but it is not the same with scenario on never having used them. After all that's deterrences means; "hope you will never used them, but always prepared to used them".

Frankly speaking in any probabilities scenario on nuclear confrontation at this moment, Pakistan and India exchanging nuclear 'punch' is higher then anybody else, including US and China due to SCS or Taiwan.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

Why is it out of the question? What is the point of investing significant amounts of treasure in nuclear weapons if you are not willing to use them when the state is at war and in extremis? Most certainly the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, French et al., would if they had too.

No. My country and Australia both have Free Trade Agreements with the PRC. Given our democratic culture and history, there is no way that we would consider a military pact with the PRC.

So both your arguments are based on flawed logic. I suggest that you do some further reading of reputable sites and sources.

You haven't understood the reasons why nations possess nuclear weapons. They are primarily meant as deterrence. Not as weapons to be used against others. There is only one country on the planet that has actually used nuclear weapons. No other nuclear state has ever used such weapons against another state.

No one is talking about Australia or NZ having a military pact with China. I was referring to Pakistan and China. Isn't this topic related to Pakistan? Both China and Pakistan are involved in a military pact.

PS. I have been a member of various defence forums for many decades now.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

There's enough politicians from both nation that being Hawkish that talking on nuking each other. India and Pakistan condition is hotter than US and USSR ever be in cold War. Even then there's no politicians and military leadership in US and USSR that think nuclear war is out of questions. They always prepared for that.

Pakistan going nuclear due to off set their disadvantage on conventional Military balance with India. Nuclear deterrences are being hoped never being used. However never cross in any politicians and military leaders who has nuclear arsenal in their hand, on scenario for 'never' used them. They hope they'll never used them, but it is not the same with scenario on never having used them. After all that's deterrences means; "hope you will never used them, but always prepared to used them".

Frankly speaking in any probabilities scenario on nuclear confrontation at this moment, Pakistan and India exchanging nuclear 'punch' is higher then anybody else, including US and China due to SCS or Taiwan.

Highly unlikely. Even if India decides to cross the border and resort to some conventional war. I think India got the message recently that Pakistan will retaliate conventionally. A nuclear war is not picnic. Any side that uses nuclear weapons is going to affect the entire region very badly. It will plunge both countries into nuclear radiation. The close proximity won't allow any side to use the weapons by any means. Nuclear weapons in both states are for posturing. Initially when India became a nuclear power it briefly had the upper hand. Soon after Pakistan followed suit the nuclear bluff became just that. Granted there are hotheads on both sides, but hotheads exist in other conflicting nuclear states too. As mentioned earlier, there is only one country to have used such weapons against human beings.

FYI, Imran Khan is not a hothead. He is not a nationalist like Modi. If anything, Imran Khan is a socialist. Look at his policies.

 

[ngatimozart]

You haven't understood the reasons why nations possess nuclear weapons. They are primarily meant as deterrence. Not as weapons to be used against others. There is only one country on the planet that has actually used nuclear weapons. No other nuclear state has ever used such weapons against another state.

No one is talking about Australia or NZ having a military pact with China. I was referring to Pakistan and China. Isn't this topic related to Pakistan? Both China and Pakistan are involved in a military pact.

PS. I have been a member of various defence forums for many decades now.

I understand very well why countries have nuclear weapons. Yes they are deterrence and that means that your foe must know that you will use them if needs be. If you look at NATO and Warsaw Pact war plans, both sides intended to use tactical nukes to blast their way through defences. From memory that was how the Warsaw Pact intended to open up the Fulda Gap for their tank armies.

Yes they have been used in anger once, but the alternative was far worse.

If you have belonged to other defence forums for as long as you claim then you would be familiar with the requirement to supply sources to back up your claims that nukes aren't meant to be used against others. I don't resile from my previous position, so how about some reputable reliable sources to substantiate your claims please.

Be advised we are a professionally run defence forum with many defence professionals active on here. They have blue tags against their names.

 

[Ananda]

Nuclear weapons in both states are for posturing. Initially when India became a nuclear power it briefly had the upper hand. Soon after Pakistan followed suit the nuclear bluff became just that.

By your logic, then the chances of Nuclear War during the hight of Cold War is negligible as both USSR and USA more than 12000 each war heads are only posturing and bluffs as like they're doing poker card game.
After all US and USSR never involved with hot war against each other, unlike India and Pakistan.

That's flaw logic, and I don't know what military forums you're participating but seems you're still not learning how close US and USSR on several occasions with potential nuclear exchange. I don't believe India and Pakistan nuclear safe guard protocols already as robust as US and USSR. Any incident of miss reading and miss understanding on tracking like what happened several times between US and USSR, can be reacted differently between India and Pakistan.

Nobody saying that India and Pakistan has high percentage chances on nuclear war presently, but still the chances are bigger between those two compared to what happened between US and USSR or between US and China or Russia now.

Deterrences not being build for bluffs, and that's why I say your logic is flaw.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

I understand very well why countries have nuclear weapons. Yes they are deterrence and that means that your foe must know that you will use them if needs be. If you look at NATO and Warsaw Pact war plans, both sides intended to use tactical nukes to blast their way through defences. From memory that was how the Warsaw Pact intended to open up the Fulda Gap for their tank armies.

Yes they have been used in anger once, but the alternative was far worse.

If you have belonged to other defence forums for as long as you claim then you would be familiar with the requirement to supply sources to back up your claims that nukes aren't meant to be used against others. I don't resile from my previous position, so how about some reputable reliable sources to substantiate your claims please.

Be advised we are a professionally run defence forum with many defence professionals active on here. They have blue tags against their names.

There is day and night difference between tactical nuclear weapons as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons. In our discussion I am referring to strategic capability. Pakistan and India are not very likely to use strategic nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller in explosive yield and have an entirely different design and purpose. The two are incomparable.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Strategic & Tactical Missiles

www.aerospaceweb.org

I have served in the army. Where are your sources which can prove to me that Pakistan and India are going to use nuclear weapons against each other? I am very interested in sources that can explain to me that the likelihood of nuclear war between India and Pakistan are as high as many of you are suggesting.

PS. There are tons of articles on the internet that claim both outcomes. The opinions are divided on the subject matter.

 

[Maximuswarrior]

By your logic, then the chances of Nuclear War during the hight of Cold War is negligible as both USSR and USA more than 12000 each war heads are only posturing and bluffs as like they're doing poker card game.
After all US and USSR never involved with hot war against each other, unlike India and Pakistan.

That's flaw logic, and I don't know what military forums you're participating but seems you're still not learning how close US and USSR on several occasions with potential nuclear exchange. I don't believe India and Pakistan nuclear safe guard protocols already as robust as US and USSR. Any incident of miss reading and miss understanding on tracking like what happened several times between US and USSR, can be reacted differently between India and Pakistan.

Nobody saying that India and Pakistan has high percentage chances on nuclear war presently, but still the chances are bigger between those two compared to what happened between US and USSR or between US and China or Russia now.

Deterrences not being build for bluffs, and that's why I say your logic is flaw.

First and foremost I am a Pakistani native. I have a clear understanding of the political background and history of both nations. Secondly, I have also served as a military officer. I am familiar with my country Pakistan and its armed forces.

Hostility between two nations doesn't guarantee an all out nuclear war. Like I have already explained, a nuclear war between Russia and the US cannot be used as an example for India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are proximity wise as close as neighbors can get. You need to look at a world map. Any side that resorts to first use is also going to be impacted heavily by the nuclear fallout. That is a big incentive for both nations to never use such weapons against each other. By the way, Indian nuclear weapons aren't Pakistan centric. Neither are Pakistani nuclear weapons India centric anymore. You can gauge this by the technological sophistication and increased range of the various delivery systems. Pakistani and Indian nuclear capabilities aren't in their infancy anymore. Both nuclear powers had substantial support and input from other nuclear powers. In my opinion, the likelihood for any side to use strategic nuclear forces against each other is extremely minimal.

Again, you continue to compare apples with oranges. The USSR and US example doesn't apply to Pakistan and India. You cannot use the USSR US nuclear conflict as a template and apply it in each scenario. There is small chance of both nations using such weapons against each other. Simply because geographically both are doomed in an instant. There is nothing to be gained by India and Pakistan if they went nuclear. Both would be impacted instantly and casualties on both sides would be catastrophic.

The day and age where enemies used nuclear weapons to blackmail each other has gone. In this day and age, nuclear weapons serve a symbolic deterrence. It is a force multiplier and primarily used in the political arena for posturing and extracting leverage.

Read the following article to get a good idea why a nuclear war between Pakistan and India is almost a fantasy. The author is also a native.

Why We Do Not Need to Worry About a Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan

Why We Do Not Need to Worry About a Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan - The Geopolitics

Following India’s revocation of the special status for Kashmir, there was a lot of brouhaha over the risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

thegeopolitics.com

 

[Ananda]

have served in the army. Where are your sources which can prove to me that Pakistan and India are going to use nuclear weapons against each other? I am very interested in sources that can explain to me that the likelihood of nuclear war between India and Pakistan are as high as many of you are suggesting.

And what are your sources that saying the likelihood of Pakistan and India gone to nuclear exchange is lower than USSR and US risk in cold war ?

Again US and USSR has not facing each other directly in hot war, While India and Pakistan already done it. You can't state that cause you're Pakistan native or you are in the Army of Pakistan, thus it's enough to say that India and Pakistan risk for nuclear exchange is lower than anyone else.

Again US and USSR/Russia has lot off protocols and satellites network that can be used to verified and counter verified any potential nuclear build up. Something that India and Pakistan is not on that level.

Pakistan and India has higher risk on nuclear exchange is not mean both of them will have nuclear exchange tommorow. However it's clearly without the protocols that Big 5 already build toward each other, their risk is on nuclear exchange is smaller than India and Pakistan.

That article you have put is meaningless, as it's not shown how Pakistan and India have developed protocols and safe guard measure to avoid potential Nuclear exchange. It's just article on opinion of Pakistan and India already reach mutual destruction capabilities. Again US and USSR or Russia now even China has build multiple protocols and safe guard to avoid potential miss calculations or miss interpretation.

You can find multiple sources that can explain that. There's a lot off reading that shown how those protocols can avoid in several occasions of US and USSR miss interpretation.
So please, enlighten us if India and Pakistan already develop that in same level of the Big 5.

Other than that, the risk of Nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India still higher than anyone else with nuclear weapons.