Article

2002-05-21

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2002-05-21 06:37 pm|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It takes but one madman to start such a war, but I don't think that either Vajpayee or Musharraf is crazy enough to go nuclear.

It's one thing to plan for such a war, it's another to actually pull the trigger. The Cold War went a half-century without going nuclear, and I don't think we'll see it with the current administrations on the subcontinent.

I'm giving no guarantees on future administrations, though.

Posted by Mark Byron 2002-05-21 19:16:34|| [markbyron.blogspot.com] 2002-05-21 19:16:34|| Front Page Top

#2 Wish I had your confidence. The jihadis want this war, and they're not going to stop until they get it. Once it starts, they're going to push for the Big Boom against the infidels.

Posted by Fred 2002-05-21 20:47:32|| 2002-05-21 20:47:32|| Front Page Top

#3 For a country like Israel or Pakistan, the sovereignity of the country is totally dependent on its military forces remaining in existence. This is quite unlike the US, Russian, or Chinese cases where the nations are essentially continental powers whose national existences are largely predicated upon geopolitical realities, not military circumstance. The use of WMD by these two sets of countries is therefore predicated by completely different motives. The old line nuclear club members have nuclear employment strategies which essentially assume that their countries are going to remain in existence in some form or another after any military conflict, and that WMD are just another way of influencing that outcome favorably for themselves. The newer nations to the nuclear club, with the exception of India, cannot make this assumption of national longevity. Israel if defeated by its neighbors, would disappear. Pakistan would either be dismembered by India or assimilated into a greater subcontinental federation. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons by the IDF or Pak military would happen for completely different reasons than the PRC or US would use nuclear weapons. Given the possibility of decisive military defeat, either Israel or Pakistan would probably choose to strategically respond with WMD, as opposed to the US, PRC, or Russia chosing to tactically respond.

So to call the nuclear option for Pakistan dumb in relation to what the US other nuclear club members have or haven't done in the past 50 years is quite besides the point. The difference in contexts and the paucity of alternative options for Pakistan, given Indian conventional preponderance, makes the nuclear option quite probable without outside intervention diplomatically or militarily. In addition, given the untested quality of Pakistan's nuclear release system, the Pakistani military may well feel that a use it or lose it preemptive strike after an Indian attack may be logical.

Posted by Tom Roberts 2002-05-22 06:17:09|| 2002-05-22 06:17:09|| Front Page Top

06:43 Tom Roberts
06:41 Tom Roberts
06:34 Tom Roberts
06:17 Tom Roberts
20:47 Fred
19:16 Mark Byron