The Constipated Faujiz

“I have a different personality. I don’t back down” AlephNull #246

I don’t know about others. It took me only a few posts from you to figure out that you are anal!! You have proved that now beyond any doubt.

I can even tell by reading your posts as to which part of India you are from and what you do for living. Writings do tell about people. You let out a whole lot.

I was amazed at your explanation of “Mind Chunking.” Your answer to that is a true characteristic of an obsessive-compulsive person that you are. The problem is you still don’t know what Mind Chunking is, and you will not admit it. I gave you a hint; go to Ben and Jerry’s.

Anals don’t like to be shown. It hurts their ego. When I said you are classic I was not really far off. I can guarantee now that you will respond to this post also.

It is hard to read all your posts I am sorry that I kept you up late writing all those figments of your imagination.

We have another M.Z.H. Isphahani on chowk.

tahmed #246 correction: the post i referred to as #230 should have been #238.

Tahmed #246

Sahib, that reply is on expected lines. It is your standard retreat when you encounter anything that challenges what you believe with the fervour of revealed religious faith. You just don`t have the fortitude to face the truth.

AlephNull #245 You have once again ignored what I have written because it is inconvenient: Please see the last line of my post #230 which reads as follows: ``Last post to you. Have a good day. ``

In keeping with your earlier posts, you ignore things that are inconvenient, and write as if you are the fount of all wisdom and the other party is a fool. While you may enjoy having arguments where the two parties are talking past one another, I do not. I am interested only in understanding things for myself, not in impressing other people with my arguments.

So, once again, please excuse me but I am not interested in engaging in a discussion of the deaf with you.

Sui atak gai hai!!!

Reality check needed for constipated fauzis who are obsessed with nukes!!!

Tahmed #238

{{What you are claiming in your post is that those 5 explosions were not meant to threaten Pakistan.}}

Sahib, there you go again with a trademark Tahmed manoeuvre - the flying leap of logic.

Let me explain this in excruciatingly pedantic detail.

I will deal with the specific post in question first. #230 said absolutely nothing, one way or another, about threatening Pakistan. Read your remark which I quoted. It dealt specifically with the issue of India’s scientists feeling the need to test their weapons. You said this was not credible because there seems to be no need scientific need to test 5 devices at a time, one weapon at a time makes more sense, ‘industry’ standard practice, etc.

I dealt with these specific assertions. I provided you with several online references to refute the claim about simultaneous detonations not being standard practice. The Soviets/Russians made an especially common practice of it. Other nations, such as the US and the Chinese, did it as well. If Hossp is reading this, let him understand that all this can be verified by a trip to a research library – it’s not just online. I have done it myself, half-a-dozen years ago.

I also provided some specific technical reasons for simultaneous detonation. I can give you still more, in the specific context of India and May 1998. Believe me, I have read up on and thought about this in some detail.

In short, using the ‘simultaneous detonations’ argument to advance the claim of lack of scientific need is not tenable. So – once I’d done my hatchet job on your claim on simultaneous detonations – you had to go back to the drawing board to come up with some other argument to establish lack of scientific need. I would not advise you to waste your time on this futile endeavour - there is a lot of evidence out there to establish technical need to test for a country without access to certified tested weapon designs, and in the Indian context specifically. I can point you to resources – publications by organizations like SIPRI, for instance.

You have been at this for a while now. It really behooves you to do a modicum of research before going out on a limb with ill-founded opinions about technical aspects of testing. What puzzles me is your habit of doing so even after it has been pointed out to you many times that you frequently get your facts wrong. It reflects very poorly on you indeed.

Notice I have not yet said anything at all about threatening Pakistan, Advani, etc.

I hope you are with me so far.

---

Now as to my opinion of what the Indian decision to test, and its aftermath, signified:

My basic attitude to questions of this kind is the following: No event or action in the real world has either a single cause or a single consequence. That is simply the way the world is. A politician or statesman who orders a specific action to be taken, is typically dealing with a situation caused by the confluence of several identifiable overt factors; these in turn have further underlying causes, etc.

The action being contemplated may have one or more primary desired goals – killing two or more birds with one stone is not to be despised. There may also be consequences that are not specifically desired but anticipated and not considered overly harmful. Then there are consequences that are anticipated and considered highly unpleasant but unavoidable. Finally there are unanticipated consequence that may be be desirable, undesirable or neither.

Moreover, there are immediate consequences of an action, and consequences that eventuate further down the road. A competent politician tries to anticipate these to the best of his ability.

With that preliminary out of the way, let me say that IMO the 1998 Indian tests had “multiple desired goals or effects.”

* They were meant to test a deliverable weapon, as well as some weaponized designs.

* They were meant to signal intent not to submit to the CTBT/NPT regime, particularly in the context of the September 1999 CTBT EIF.

* They were intended to send signals to multiple international actors, large and small, beginning with the US, China and the rest of the P-5.

* They were intended to garner the purported ‘prestige’ that nuclear weapon possession brings.

* They were meant to bring out into the open various issues which other actors were trying to suppress.

* They were intended to destabilize the region and the system to India’s advantage.

* They were intended to provide a signal to Indian public opinion.

* They had an anticipated domestic political fallout which the ruling coalition expected to work in their favour.

* They were anticipated to cause a powerful reaction in Pakistan, present its stupider denizens with a perceived challenge and a threat, and it was desired to press this to the point that Pakistan felt compelled to test nuclear weapons in response.

* Etc.

Note that there is absolutely no reason why multiple goals cannot be pursued simultaneously. I’d argue that in fact, this is the rule rather than the exception in real life.

These multiple goals/effects can be ranked in order of importance/priority, an exercise I will not do in detail, except to stress that technical issues were certainly vital.

---

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, let me say explicitly, that threatening Pakistan was clearly a major item on the Indian government’s immediate agenda after testing. It was not the most important item – the US was the single most important international actor to deal with – but it was not a minor issue either. Offhand, I’d assign it a 20% weight in immediate post-test period. That threat was not made for stupid chest-thumping reasons but to achieve specific goals. Of course there was no intention to reassure Pakistan – at least not before they’d been forced to test.

This means, incidentally, that your inference about what I was claiming (“not meant to threaten Pakistan”) was not quite correct.

Advani’s inflammatory remarks after the tests were almost certainly cleared with Vajpayee if not the relevant cabinet committee. Don’t for a moment assume that they were not made without the most cold-blooded deliberation.

---

That’s the best I can do in the limited time I have available to explain my take on a somewhat complex situation. I’ve tried to make my position clear. Tahmed may not read it. He may read it inattentively. He may fail to comprehend and assimilate what I’ve spelled out in the most excruciating detail. He may come up with a silly three-sentence ‘summary’ that turns what I’ve tried to say on its head. He may come up with another flying leap of logic. He has done all these things before, not once but many times. That is a risk one runs in dealing with him.

Hossp #236

{{The problem is that you are anal. If you don’t know what anal is then please ask some colleague tomorrow morning and don’t assume the meaning as it is not what you think it is.}}

First, I supposedly ‘forgot what I wrote’. Next, I’m anal. Are you now trying to patronize me? That is a piss-poor substitute for argument.

While on the subject of being anal, your “there are many a slips between a cup and the lips” in #177 is ludicrously ungrammatical. It would have been anal of me to correct you on the spot, and mean-spirited as well.

I normally care very little for the other person’s grammar; it’s more important that the ideas be sound or interesting. I mention it in this case to indicate to you that since your English is not quite up to the mark, you should not attempt to lecture me on the meaning or connotations of any English word or idiomatic expression. It only makes you look ridiculous.

{{You also don’t know what “Mind Chunking” is.}}

You seem mighty confident about just what I know or don’t know. Is it on the basis of half-a-dozen interacts with me, or on the strength of my 400-odd posts on Chowk? Or is this some sort of silly ‘trap’?

I first came across the term ‘chunking’ at the age of twelve, probably in the context of digit span. I remember it figures prominently in Hofstadter’s Godel Escher Bach which I read as an undergraduate. I’ve encountered it since in connection with studies of chess skill in humans and in more general contexts of machine intelligence and human cognition. If I had to bet, I’d guess that the term was introduced by Alan Newell and Herbert Simon. I’m quite familiar with its common CogSci connotations, thank you very much.

{{Anals have a common thread; they can read the book, follow it, and memorize it but have serious limitations in analyzing the book. You are a classic.}}

Detail-oriented reductionism is one cognitive style among many, with its uses. It can and often does coexist with other styles. Your amateur armchair psychologizing based on fragmentary online evidence is an amusing diversionary tactic, no doubt convenient to escape the necessity of actually producing a solid counter-argument.

I’m quite cautious about coming out with diagnostic generalizations about a person’s mentality on the strength of half-a-dozen interactions. I certainly won’t go public just yet with my own tentative assessment of your style, your knowledge, your biases and your mental limitations.

{{You wanna read posts from Gaurav(Fountainheader) well thought out, to the point, and with clear understanding of the issue at hand. We agreed on most of the things including the goodies part.}}

Fountainheader goes out of his way to not ruffle feathers. Maybe he suffers fools gladly. He says things like:

“A humble observation. No offence meant. … You seem to have different standards for debating and logical coherency for yourselves and for others. … For something you say, you state some facts, and then arrive at conclusions without following a clear logical trajectory from those facts.”

I`d have put it more bluntly. I have a different personality. I don’t back down - inconvenient for you. Whatever makes you imagine I’ll defer to your judgment and supposed authority?

Hossp #236

{{You just continue your “I said and you said” mantra.}}

Forgot who said what; deal with the substance of the argument.

{{For every page that you can find to favor your argument, I can find three more that are against your argument…. To me authentic sites are .gov sites, university research sites, sites by some well known institutions etc. }}

Go ahead. You seem to take me for a fool with a poor memory, who hasn’t done his homework. I am not really a votary of Allama Google; it’s just a tool to be used with caution. I actually visit libraries, read the newspapers, American, Indian, and even Pakistani. Taken together, they’ll provide a record of what carrots were offered to Pakistan for not testing. You can of course dismiss this as not substantive. The Nuclear Weapons Archive is (or used to be) affiliated with the Federation of American Scientists – certainly an established organization, though one I disapprove of. The page I provided is written by Carey Sublette who is very well-known to people with an amateur interest in high-energy weapons. It mostly focuses on technical aspects, but Sublette has a track-record of producing stuff that is thoroughly researched and copiously footnoted. The NWA index has a splendid collection of links to the relevant official sites from the DoE downwards. It is not on the same footing as some geocities site produced by some Pakistani undergraduate. Incidentally, the bottom of the page I provided says:

This was prepared using materials provided by the Indian, Pakistani, and United States governments, by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Times of India News Service, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Associated Press of Pakistan, the Press Trust of India, Science News, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Nuclear Weapons Archive.

Of course that may not be substantive enough for you.

Hossp #236

{{I never said that offers of goodies were never there, all I said was and I repeat that the offers of goodies was not enough to deter Pakistan from NOT testing. How hard it is for you to follow?}}

Believe me, the skeletal structure of your argument is not difficult to follow. That does not make it sound.

Pakistan did not need to test to verify a bomb design – since they were not doing the primary design work, but instead getting certified tested designs from the Chinese.

They might have needed to test to verify their capability to fabricate the design correctly, but it would be simpler to get the Chinese to do the fabrication.

They did not need to test to deter the Indians – the Indian government had been deterred from the late 80’s and through the 90s by the ambiguous threat of a putative Pakistani nuclear capability of which they had no solid confirmation but which they could not prudently discount.

Had the Pakistani regime been able to refrain from testing, they could have eaten their cake and had it too. Namely, retained their nuclear capability (such as it was) intact, and its deterrent value against India, with the world looking the other way; extracted various goodies in exchange for not testing, from various nations, not just one time but on a continuous basis, through the blackmail threat of testing; refused to sign the CTBT and the NPT unless India did so; and still kept up the terrorist pressure on India.

The most important drivers for Pakistani testing had to do with internal Pakistani politics. A goat-headed population had to be reassured; honour and dignity had to be preserved by keeping up the ‘competition’ with India; etc. A smarter population and more mature polity would have smugly refrained from testing, struck a hard bargain with the international community, taken the offered goodies and laughed all the way to the bank. Advani’s inflammatory remarks certainly drove the nails in the coffin of that scheme.

{{In your post #176 you outline what coulda, woulda on the table and I said that is speculative. Is there any ambiguity there?}}

What “coulda woulda” is speculative precisely because those variations were closed off. Does that mean that those contingencies would not have to be considered? It`s a matter of record that some of those carrots were actually dangled. Others were very plausible based on past history.

{{Anals have a common thread; they can read the book, follow it, and memorize it but have serious limitations in analyzing the book. You are a classic.}}

Translation – you can’t counter my arguments, can’t really fault my facts, can’t sweet-talk me into ‘agreement’, can’t browbeat me – so you try to patronize me and start spouting inane armchair pop psychology. A pathetic performance.

CoolAl #45 I believe I have responded to your posts in a reasonable manner, without adding insults of any kind. If you disagree, please cut and paste the insult I have written. Otherwise, I will assume you are simply wasting your time and mine by merely tossing my words back at me.

If you dont have an example to cut and paste, I will make this my last post to you as well, and wish you a good day.

(For all the bootlickers)

Their constipation has gone acute and is turning into an unstoppable diahorria.!
Sombody call 911.!

``..Petty insults and specious arguments are no substitute for common sense and honesty...``

Go back and read what you have written in thread so far....maybe the light will dawn..maybe not...

CoolAL #34 Glad you agree with me 100 % (whatever it is that you agree on). BTW, how do you know I dont practice (whatever it is that you think I preach)?

AlephNull #335 What you are claiming in your post is that those 5 explosions were not meant to threaten Pakistan. What I have repeatedly said below is that this claim is disproved by Advanis threats to Pakistan following the explosions (with those threats ending when Pakistan responded in kind).

These are facts that you can ignore but cannot explain.

As for calling me names, show me where in the posts below I have been ``pompous``. You can either have a reasoned, mutually respectful discussion with me (as hossp did) or you can exchange insults with me. You cant, as you did in your post #230, have BOTH a discussion and an exchange of insults.

Last post to you. Have a good day.

AlephNull!

I like your nick it shows some ingenuity. Alas! It ends there too.

The issue is not what I said and you said or this post # or that post #.

The problem is that you are anal. If you don’t know what anal is then please ask some colleague tomorrow morning and don’t assume the meaning as it is not what you think it is.
You also don’t know what “Mind Chunking” is; Hint. Go to some Ben & Jerry Ice cream store to figure this one out.

There are 10 billion pages on the Net and Google has only captured some 4 billion of them. For every page that you can find to favor your argument, I can find three more that are against your argument. Finding something on the Net does not make it authentic; finding an authentic site on the net makes your argument substantive! To me authentic sites are .gov sites, university research sites, sites by some well known institutions etc. You spend hours in finding a site on Google and quoted something out of there that has not been challenged by anybody on this board yet!!!!

I never said that offers of goodies were never there, all I said was and I repeat that the offers of goodies was not enough to deter Pakistan from NOT testing. How hard it is for you to follow?

In your post #176 you outline what coulda, woulda on the table and I said that is speculative. Is there any ambiguity there?

What you are quoting from my post #177 had an operative word “speculated” If you think that is a comparison then dude you are challenging your own intelligence.

You wanna read posts from Gaurav(Fountainheader) well thought out, to the point, and with clear understanding of the issue at hand. We agreed on most of the things including the goodies part.

You just continue your “I said and you said” mantra.

Anals have a common thread; they can read the book, follow it, and memorize it but have serious limitations in analyzing the book. You are a classic.

Tahmed #234

Sahib,

Honesty demands that you get your facts straight rather than making them up on the fly. You invariably find yourself cornered here because of your utter intellectual laziness combined with an unwillingness to revise your conclusions once your ground facts are shown to be wrong. You really ought to thank me for showing you the error of your ways. Pompous flatulence is no substitute for having done your homework. Reflect on this.