The Constipated Faujiz

bongdongs #281 jhank ke dekha - aur post #280 maiN nataij darj kiyay. ;-)

bong dongs #277 That`s much better - i.e. you are now focussing on what I have written. And indeed, as you note what I am writing really isnt that unreasonable. For brevity, I will ignore the things you note agreement on, and will focus on places you have questions:

1. ``some nuance here, the Indian nuclear program represents nearly 50 years and untold billions, you dismiss the whole in 1 statement.``

That simply makes it a bigger blunder, and I am not sure if there is much room for nuance -the nuclear program has given basically zero returns to India. It is irrelevant to the current spurt in economic progress in India, the latter being the result of education and a stable, democratic political structure (things Nehru stressed) and not bombs (things ultranationalists in India stress). (As a saving grace, no one is perfect - the US just announced that the entire Chayenne helicopter program was being trashed after 8 billion dollars and 21 years of investment - simply because it no longer fitted into the types of battlefields and enemies that the US now faces).

`` Instead, the best you can do is to pass wide-sweeping judgements``

khud apne gareban mein jhank ke dehkiye

#274
actually TAhmed there are a lot of things I do agree with you:

1) `` My point is that the Indian nuclear program was NOT DRIVEN BY ANY CLEAR OBJECTIVE``
- Yes, for a long time thinking has been and is very muddled on the WEAPONS program`s. even today if you follow the debate on the CDS (Chief of Defense Staff) you will see the issues.

2)Your China - India views are actually quite interesting, and certainly represent a valid line of debate.

But the way you mix them up with this kind of stuff is what bothers me:

1) ``My point is that the entire nuclear program of India (which can be traced to the 1960`s) was a gigantic blunder``

Actually `50`s, but come`on everything a gigantic blunder? some nuance here, the Indian nuclear program represents nearly 50 years and untold billions, you dismiss the whole in 1 statement.

On the `98 tests:

2) ``.. I am not as charitable to Advani as some of the Indian posters, to put it mildly...``
Advani is a minor issue, but you seem to be very sure of yourself on this point as if you actually know the person.

3)You off-hand dismissal of NPT, CTBT, FMCT issues.

bongdongs #276 Now you tell me to some book that presumably refutes what I have written, but (like your original post) chose to ignore the points I made in #271 (and now also what I noted to you in #274). Having read the book you recommend, you should be able to refute what I have written in #271. Instead, the best you can do is to pass wide-sweeping judgements without burdening yourself with specifying what exactly it is in #271 on which you base your judgements.

I am sorry if you dont like a Pakistani challenging your deeply held convictions in the Almighty Wisdom of the Indian government. Just skip my posts if you wish to continue living in your comfortable little world.

CoolAL: Contrary to your assertion, you do give a rodent`s behind (your words, not mine) for being considered Cool. Why else do you take the trouble of inventing a name for CoolAL, and not simply call yourself Arvind or whatever it is you really are called?

I may read the rest of your post later, and if I find something worthwhile will respond to it.

#274

For the fraction fo the time you spend at Chowk you could have read Perkovich`s ``india`s nuclear bomb`` so obviously time is not an excuse, you live in the US and have access to good libraries, so what is your excuse?

TA,

Dude, you think I am not cool :-) you b-i-t-c-h and moan about it. What makes you think that I give a rodent`s behind whether you think that I am cool or not?

So get used to it....Deal with it like a man...Stop whining about it like a mule....

One other thing dude, it is quite obvious to me, you don`t have a clue as to how the Govt of India`s decision making process works. Now, I really don`t care whether you believe me or not. I also would not lose sleep over whether you took my unsolicited advice to you or not. Still, I suggest some open minded research is called for. Be a Talib :-)

Some questions to ponder for you..

1. Yeshwant Sinha and Jaswant Singh switched ministerial portfolios a couple of years ago and nobody has missed a beat. How was that possible?

2. Advani`s rhetoric about what he would do to the terrorists and the ISI before the elections and the rhetoric and actions he has taken after he became the home minister are dramatically different. Why is that?

The common thread running through both the above questions is the ICS. I am sure there is a similar civil service in Pakistan which is full of the brightest and best brains available in the country. That is where the true expertise lies. They are career officers and are not political appointees. They ensure smooth transition and continuity of policies between administrations. Those are the guys who do all the work, evaluate all the options and make the recommendations. The ministers make a choice based on political considerations. No minister is allowed to fire like a loose cannon. If he does that, he won`t last for very long.

There is one heck of a difference between what one spouts off before getting elected -- Advani and BJP -- and what one does after forming an administration -- the NDA. You may scream all you want, but the NDA is a secular, CONSERVATIVE and moderate coalition which survived a full 5 year term.

Do you seriously believe that Advani could just go and spout off to the press on matters that do not concern him directly (Defence and Foreign Affairs) without proper clearence from all concerned?

If you want to, then go right on ahead. You see, that proves my point. He did a magnificient job on you and people like you. You got on the ride then and refuse to get off even after all this time.

:-)

bongdongs #273 This broad-sweeping judgement on my post tells me that you are uncomfortable with what I write, but are unable to point to anything unreasonable or factually incorrect that I have written.

And btw, there are no links in plats post that you refer to either. As for polemics - rest assured that that is better than simply passing broad-sweeping judgements without bothering to focus on the issues themselves, as you have just done.

#271

There are those on chowk who make an honest effort to understand the opposing point of view. They read references that people provide and can offer a detailled critique of the opposing position.

And then there are those who indulge in polemics...

dont bother...

LOL!! its now turned into a diahorria !!

CoolAL #269 There are two types of people on chowk: those who exchange views, and those who exchange insults. I consider the former to be Cool, and the latter to be NotCool. I suggest you change your self-flattering nick to CoolALNot. That would be consistent with the content of your posts.

Plats #268 .

1. ``Is it your claim that had May 1998 not happened, a conventional war between India and Pakistan would remain conventional ?``

Any response to this question would be speculation.

2. ``If not, then how does the possibility of India overrunning Pakistan in a conventional war arise ? ``

Perhaps I did not make myself clear: My point is that the entire nuclear program of India (which can be traced to the 1960`s) was a gigantic blunder. All that happened in 1998 was that Advani and co revealed their lack of realism with their premature celebrations and threats to Pakistan, all of which came to a halt when Pakistan responded in kind. My point is that the Indian nuclear program was NOT DRIVEN BY ANY CLEAR OBJECTIVE. Contrast this with the US program in wwii, which was to avoid large casualties in taking Japan; and after wwii, which was to neutralize overwhelmning Soviet advantage in in conventional weapons in europe. This is the point which has annoyed a lot of Indian posters on this board, but none of them has been able to provide a convincing objective for the Indian program. Of course the same can be said for the French and possibly the British programs too, but at least they did not incur any major cost to those nations: For India, the cost of this program has of course been to give military parity to Pakistan with India.

Please tell me if I am being unreasonable in the above para. in any way.


The next point you make is: ``Your second paragraph is even more baffling. You think China cannot attack India because of the Himalayas and history and culture ?``

Lok at it this way then: Can anyone seriously imagine China trying to overrun India? What would they gain as a result? I mention the himalayas because historically they effectively kept the two civilizations apart. Links have been through the silk route, and mostly involved trade. There are no major historical ``wrongs`` (as seen by either side) to be righted (as has been the case of kashmir, e.g., in case of India and Pakistan). The 1962 clash was essentially a boundary dispute (similar to the one the Chinese had a bit later with the Russians in the north). It was not an existential struggle of the kind that calls for a nuclear race. Culturally, there is no sense of common nationhood between India and China. That is the way I see it, and that is the way history history has unfolded the past few decades.

Next point you make is: I think that ``Advani thumped his chest right after Pokhran, the sole purpose of Indian explosions was to browbeat Pakistan. As people keep mentioning, part of that bluster was to raise the internal stakes in Pakistan for testing - it is always better to have an overt nuclear neighbour than a covert one. ``

We can have different views of his intentions (I happen to believe that Advani was certain that Pakistan`s program was a bluff, and that this was based not on facts but on arrogance - but then I am not as charitable to Advani as some of the Indian posters, to put it mildly). However we cannot have different facts: the result of the Pakistani explosions was (as I have mentioned below), that economic sanctions that had crippled Pakistan`s economy in the 1990`s were lifted. Advani (along with previous Indian leaders from Indira on) proved not only to be Pakistan`s finest Minister of Defence, he also proved to be the finest Minister of Economic Affairs and Minister of Foreign Affairs as well. That is all I am saying, and please correct me if I am wrong.

Next point: You quote me: ``The fact is that there are dozens of nations around the world that could have build the bomb if they wanted to - and wisely chose not to do so. THAT is the ``wisdom`` that I was referring to`` And you respond: ``May I remind you that much of this so called ``wisdom`` derives from being covered under the US nuclear umbrella ? Do you honestly believe that South Korea or Japan would not possess nuclear weapons by now if the US didn`t babysit them ? ``

South Korea and Japan were under direct threat of being overrun by the Communist regimes during this period. And indeed, South Korea was partly overrun during the Korean war until the US stepped in under the UN umbrella. India was under no such threat: The USSR was India`s best buddy, and China I have already discussed.

A more appropriate comparison would be with Brazil and Argentina: both had launched a nuclear arms race (as both at one time saw one another as rivals in South America) - and both discarded it as being a pointless and dangerous exercise.

I hope that current peace initiatives succeed between India and Pakistan. And one day we too get rid of nuclear weapons. For that to happen, peace between India and Pakistan would have (as also discussed below) to be accompanied by goodwill and trust. Until that day, we are cursed to live with these weapons for self-defense.

Plats,

How dare you challenge TA`s pet wet dreams? After all, how can the `Orrible Yindoos be capable of such subtle thought? You wreaking havoc with TA`s image of India and Indians.

I am impressed with his technique of countering though. All you do is just ignore all the refuting arguments and keep asking the same question over and over again as though it was fresh point being made. Sooner or later, people will give up in frustration.

I suggest let him wallow in his pet wetdreams. As somebody told me earlier in this thread, that you cannot wake someone who is pretending to be asleep. I should have listened to him....

Tahmed #267,

``By switching weaponry from conventional to nuclear, Indian rulers ``neutralized India`s clear
ability to overrun Pakistan in a conventional war``. Do you disagree with this?``

Yes, I disagree completely. I also fail to understand your point. Is it your claim that had May
1998 not happened, a conventional war between India and Pakistan would remain conventional ?
If not, then how does the possibility of India overrunning Pakistan in a conventional war arise ?

From the Indian point of view (and the world`s, to be honest), Pakistan nuclear intentions became
very transparent during Brasstacks in 1987 (A. Q. Khan`s interview to Kuldip Nayar). In 1990,
Ghulam Ishaq Khan suggested that if the theater of war expanded beyond Kashmir, Pakistan would
use nuclear weapons sooner rather than later - which is why Robert Gates rushed to the region.
You can visit any number of sources to verify this information.

So, for at least a decade before 1998, it was clear that Pakistan was willing to activate and deploy
it`s nuclear capabilities even in the face of a conventional war. This is not unexpected of a smaller
neighbour threatened by a much larger adversary, but it was quite clear that the nuclear threshold
for Pakistan would be rather low.

Your second paragraph is even more baffling. You think China cannot attack India because of
the Himalayas and history and culture ? I don`t get it. The Himalayas provide a major terrain problem
for the army, but what about China projecting itself through a deep blue navy, for instance ? I am
quite ignorant of military strategy, but what does history and culture have to do with foreign policy ?

``The simple point is that it is the same grandiose view of India that so many Indian posters
have displayed on chowk that was also guiding Indian ``strategists``: their belief that the whole
world would be in shock and awe because they were able to master a 60 year old technology``

No, it is not. Vacuous sermonising is not a substitute for long-term policy making. You tend
to think that since Advani thumped his chest right after Pokhran, the sole purpose of Indian
explosions was to browbeat Pakistan. As people keep mentioning, part of that bluster was to raise
the internal stakes in Pakistan for testing - it is always better to have an overt nuclear neighbour
than a covert one. My suspicion is that the Indians were pretty well aware that these ``patakas``
would not stun the world into shock or awe - the pros and cons of the event were relatively
carefully measured. The tests followed by aggressive diplomacy has not served India badly
in the following years.

``The fact is that there are dozens of nations around the world that could have build the bomb if
they wanted to - and wisely chose not to do so. THAT is the ``wisdom`` that I was referring to``

May I remind you that much of this so called ``wisdom`` derives from being covered under the
US nuclear umbrella ? Do you honestly believe that South Korea or Japan would not possess
nuclear weapons by now if the US didn`t babysit them ?

plats8 #266 ``I am truly at a loss trying to figure out how to debate with you. ``

Perhaps you could make a start by reflecting upon the point I made in my previous post: By switching weaponry from conventional to nuclear, Indian rulers ``neutralized India`s clear ability to overrun Pakistan in a conventional war``. Do you disagree with this?

As for ``other reasons``, the only reasons I have read on this board as I recall are that this was to neutralize the China threat. The fact of course is that any realistic assessment would indicate that China and India are separated quite effecitely by the Himalayas as well as by history and culture. The simple point is that it is the same grandiose view of India that so many Indian posters have displayed on chowk that was also guiding Indian ``strategists``: their belief that the whole world would be in shock and awe because they were able to master a 60 year old technology. The fact is that there are dozens of nations around the world that could have build the bomb if they wanted to - and wisely chose not to do so. THAT is the ``wisdom`` that I was referring to