Personal Ideas About Cold Start`s Problems

[Yusuf]

If two states are rivals, then what is your solution?

What are China and the US doing?

 

[t_co]

What are China and the US doing?

The US and China aren't rivals, they're competitors. The difference between rivalry and competition is that competition has many areas of common interest, while rivalry is mainly a zero-sum game. The US and USSR were rivals--their systems were both sealed off from each other, so a gain by one was a loss for the other. In contrast, the US and China have loads of things they do together, such as keeping sea lanes open, ensuring free trade in nations not called America or China (for example, the US and China double-teamed India in the Doha round of trade talks to force Indian tariffs down), and keeping the global financial system stable. Of course there are areas of friction as well, such as influence in the Western Pacific and Southwestern Pacific, environmental policy, and IP policy, but those aren't root-level issues that cut across the entire relationship.

I'm fairly certain India, once it takes its natural place on the global stage, will be a competitor to China rather than a rival. The world is entering a phase of Metternichian co-existence and balance-of-power diplomacy. Hard rivalries are exceedingly costly to maintain under the rules of that game.

 

[ersakthivel]

The US and China aren't rivals, they're competitors. The difference between rivalry and competition is that competition has many areas of common interest, while rivalry is mainly a zero-sum game. The US and USSR were rivals--their systems were both sealed off from each other, so a gain by one was a loss for the other. In contrast, the US and China have loads of things they do together, such as keeping sea lanes open, ensuring free trade in nations not called America or China (for example, the US and China double-teamed India in the Doha round of trade talks to force Indian tariffs down), and keeping the global financial system stable. Of course there are areas of friction as well, such as influence in the Western Pacific and Southwestern Pacific, environmental policy, and IP policy, but those aren't root-level issues that cut across the entire relationship.

I'm fairly certain India, once it takes its natural place on the global stage, will be a competitor to China rather than a rival. The world is entering a phase of Metternichian co-existence and balance-of-power diplomacy. Hard rivalries are exceedingly costly to maintain under the rules of that game.

OFCOURSE INDIA AND CHINA ARE NOT RIVALS ONLY COMPETITORS.
they have no burning core interest threatened by other nation so that rivalry is inevitable is also my humble opinion.the border issue is not even a fig leaf of reason for terming this relationship as rivalry.That was the view expounded by chinese a couple of decade s back whe a joint written understanding was reached as not disturbing settled population while reaching a final solution for the border issue.India too never racked up TIBET issue in the talks.

But now china is reneging on that agreement by giving stapled visas to J&K residents.And protesting loudly ever time INDIAN PM visits ARUNACHAL.

But the problem is china's transfer of nuclear tech to PAK.Even after decades of friendship US didnot do it.Yet china did it for no rhyme or reason.How will you view if in futrue india transfers some first rate nuclea missile tech in the guise of strategic co operation with vietnam for exploration of oil?

In the same way chinese are advancind a reason of reaching the GWADOR port to secure oil supplies as the reason for transfering nucler missile tech to PAK?

If china hurtles down the path of shoring up every failed or failing state like PAKISTAN and NORTH KOREA , what are indi's options other than the one mentioned above.

if competition is handled in such careless way it will turn into rivalry.

 

[t_co]

OFCOURSE INDIA AND CHINA ARE NOT RIVALS ONLY COMPETITORS.
they have no burning core interest threatened by other nation so that rivalry is inevitable is also my humble opinion.the border issue is not even a fig leaf of reason for terming this relationship as rivalry.That was the view expounded by chinese a couple of decade s back whe a joint written understanding was reached as not disturbing settled population while reaching a final solution for the border issue.India too never racked up TIBET issue in the talks.

But now china is reneging on that agreement by giving stapled visas to J&K residents.And protesting loudly ever time INDIAN PM visits ARUNACHAL.

But the problem is china's transfer of nuclear tech to PAK.Even after decades of friendship US didnot do it.Yet china did it for no rhyme or reason.How will you view if in futrue india transfers some first rate nuclea missile tech in the guise of strategic co operation with vietnam for exploration of oil?

In the same way chinese are advancind a reason of reaching the GWADOR port to secure oil supplies as the reason for transfering nucler missile tech to PAK?

If china hurtles down the path of shoring up every failed or failing state like PAKISTAN and NORTH KOREA , what are indi's options other than the one mentioned above.

if competition is handled in such careless way it will turn into rivalry.

And there's the rub. This view, that Chinese assistance for Pakistan is a problem for India, only makes sense when India views Pakistan as a rival. Pakistan is not a natural rival for India--the two states have many, many interests in common. Unfortunately, they are divided not by any present reality, but by a bloody communal history. And more importantly, India and Pakistan consistently threaten to invade each other.

What India needs to understand is that not all of Pakistan supports a proxy war against India. India can engage and should engage with the parts of Pakistani society that favor peaceful coexistence, and lead Pakistan towards a more secular, positive, direction. China would not mind this at all--China wants its neighbors to be stable and sane, after all, and no one in China believes that a theocratic Pakistan would be a more pleasant neighbor than a secular and democratic nation. If any transfer of nuke tech from China to Pakistan did occur, that was the aim--to make sure Pakistan was stable and did not feel too threatened by its larger neighbor--a balance of power, if you might call it that.

 

[ersakthivel]

And there's the rub. This view, that Chinese assistance for Pakistan is a problem for India, only makes sense when India views Pakistan as a rival. Pakistan is not a natural rival for India--the two states have many, many interests in common. Unfortunately, they are divided not by any present reality, but by a bloody communal history. And more importantly, India and Pakistan consistently threaten to invade each other.

What India needs to understand is that not all of Pakistan supports a proxy war against India. India can engage and should engage with the parts of Pakistani society that favor peaceful coexistence, and lead Pakistan towards a more secular, positive, direction. China would not mind this at all--China wants its neighbors to be stable and sane, after all, and no one in China believes that a theocratic Pakistan would be a more pleasant neighbor than a secular and democratic nation. If any transfer of nuke tech from China to Pakistan did occur, that was the aim--to make sure Pakistan was stable and did not feel too threatened by its larger neighbor--a balance of power, if you might call it that.

How will an ordinary cinese view if india gives nuclear missile tech and fighter planes to JAPAN and SOUTh KOREA and VIETNAM, not very different from an indian viewing china's arm transfer to pakistan, i suppose.

 

[sayareakd]

we have supplied Vietnam with few Prithvi missile with special delivery package for their self defence, along with Brahmos missiles.

 

[t_co]

How will an ordinary cinese view if india gives nuclear missile tech and fighter planes to JAPAN and SOUTh KOREA and VIETNAM, not very different from an indian viewing china's arm transfer to pakistan, i suppose.

China doesn't really mind. When America sells fighter planes to Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam, it doesn't really help them that much, since individually, they still lack any strength to really impede China, while as a group, they have severe internal disagreements (Dokdo Island) between each other.

 

[Ray]

China doesn't really mind. When America sells fighter planes to Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam, it doesn't really help them that much, since individually, they still lack any strength to really impede China, while as a group, they have severe internal disagreements (Dokdo Island) between each other.

I would think hat one would look at the bigger threat first and then solve internal issues,

It is collective strength that matter and not the individual strength.

 

[ice berg]

we have supplied Vietnam with few Prithvi missile with special delivery package for their self defence, along with Brahmos missiles.

Bullshit. Provide a source or I will take it as another fantasy of yours.

 

[sayareakd]

Bullshit. Provide a source or I will take it as another fantasy of yours.

why cant we sell our under 300 km range missile to countries which want it for self defence.

 

[ice berg]

why cant we sell our under 300 km range missile to countries which want it for self defence.

Nobody is deny you the right to sell arms. I am asking for evidence that India has provided missiles to Vietnam that you claimed.
Besides without OTH assets, long range missiles is worthless. before you try to hit anything you need to identify them first.

Modern wars is not about platforms any more. It is about systems.
Any way this is getting off topic.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

How will an ordinary cinese view if india gives nuclear missile tech and fighter planes to JAPAN and SOUTh KOREA and VIETNAM, not very different from an indian viewing china's arm transfer to pakistan, i suppose.

China doesn't really mind.

Your Gov perhaps do but deny to preserve there image in open air..

1. China threaten to Taiwan after Taiwanese military official discuss security issue in new Delhi.

2. China reacted to Japan`s removal of weapon export issue and saw India as future Major buyer of Japanese military hardware.

There are more but i am lazy to Google..

 

[Daredevil]

Something for @t_co to think up on

Logical Application

The Pakistani views expressed above are emotional and lack logical application. There are two issues which emerge on the application of NASR, targeting Indian mechanised spear heads attacking Pakistan. At the strategic level it is using a nuclear weapon and as Air Chief Marshal (Retired) P V Naik has stated "Tactical or Strategic, it is a nuclear weapon. Our response would be absolutely violent, if it is used as per our existing policy. Accordingly it is not a game changer." The second aspect to be considered is the modus operandi by which Pakistan can dissuade our forces from under taking proactive operations. Pakistan must give up its covert sub conventional operations against India by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure that exists in the form of terrorist camps across the Line of Control (LOC). This would definitely send a positive signal resulting in lowering of tensions on both sides.

It is of interest to note the timing when this weapon will be used. In case the weapon is to be used in non Pakistan territory it would imply usage of TNW on our forces while they are commencing the offensive. The targets in such case would be the areas where troops are concentrated or assembling in their process of under taking proactive operations. In such an eventuality usage of NASR frees India from the No First Use and gives us the liberty to use nuclear weapons. This option is unlikely due to the advantages it accrues to India. The next option is to use NASR once our forces are on the verge of capturing shallow objectives. In such an eventuality, due to close proximity of Indian and Pakistani forces casualties would occur on both sides and the weapons would be used on Pakistani soil causing radiation hazards which would continue for a long time apart from inviting retaliation. In either case the overall result does not favour Pakistan.

Implications

The introduction of NASR has certainly added a new dimension to the usage of nuclear weapons by Pakistan. In a way Pakistan is possibly imitating the NATO route during the Cold War. The concept was to use TNWs from the commencement of operations to block the Warsaw Pact offensive. The thought process had to be changed as it was prudent to reply with nuclear weapons instead of TNWs as they did not prevent escalation and it led to use of more destructive weapons as a matter of course. Similarly use of Nasr would lead to punitive retaliation which would be detrimental to Pakistani interests. It would be naive to presume that there would be no retaliation to usage of TNW.

The response of India to the usage of NASR should be clear to all authorities. In consonance with our stated policy of 'No First Use' usage of NASR should be treated as use of a nuclear weapon and suitable response undertaken. As regards our land strike elements, they should be prepared for a TNW attack and be trained in undertaking protective measures while undertaking offensive operations.

The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

 

[t_co]

Something for @t_co to think up on



The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

Nice article--however, I think the reason for Pakistan to adopt the Nasr is that it makes Indian policymakers realize that any conventional invasion of Pakistan will lead to a nuclear exchange. Pakistan is not worried about costs to itself in this scenario; it is banking on Indian aversion to costs to keep itself safe. In some ways, this is a sound strategy, as I highly doubt Indian society would be happy risking a nuclear war in response to sub-conventional terrorist activity.

 

[t_co]

Basically, the Nasr is not really a strategy that seeks to minimize losses to oneself; it is a strategy that seeks to maximize costs to the other party.

The important task for India will be how to encourage the formation of institutions in Pakistan that are not happy with a martyr-esque strategy of national survival. Only then can a lasting peace in the subcontinent be achieved.

 

[farhan_9909]

Nice article--however, I think the reason for Pakistan to adopt the Nasr is that it makes Indian policymakers realize that any conventional invasion of Pakistan will lead to a nuclear exchange. Pakistan is not worried about costs to itself in this scenario; it is banking on Indian aversion to costs to keep itself safe. In some ways, this is a sound strategy, as I highly doubt Indian society would be happy risking a nuclear war in response to sub-conventional terrorist activity.

indeed

pak may not even use nasr ever

this is just a signal that if you guys started war.we will lead it to nuclear warfare..whatever the consequences are not our concern

 

[farhan_9909]

--------------------- Infraction handed ------------------------

 

[asianobserve]

The problem with CSD is that a lot of Pakistanis are suicidal. They won't mind blowing up Indian cities and getting blown up themselves. Indians on the other hand have low tolerance for suicide and their already low tolerance is getting lower as their standard of living goes up...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The thing what most dont understand is, Once the conflict starts there is no going back..

Things follow`s up as in the book, Starts with massive precision strikes and if some one puts a nuke and say lets 'stop' it wont do, unless the objective is archived..

 

[asianobserve]

The thing what most dont understand is, Once the conflict starts there is no going back..

Things follow`s up as in the book, Starts with massive precision strikes and if some one puts a nuke and say lets 'stop' it wont do, unless the objective is archived..

You're right about no turning back. But this is not what the CSD is all about. CSD is all about calculated risk, ie. Pakistan will settle once the blistering Indian invasion reached a certain dept inside its territory. I think this thinking behind CSD is too optimistic at best and simplistic at worst...

For me the best deterrence that India can have is an ability to operate clandestinely deep inside Pakistan (like the Mossad to its enemies) and make heavier damage with full deniability.