Short thread (hopefully in plain English) on the nuclear deterrence dynamics in the India-Pakistan relationship and where this goes if escalation continues. <1>
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
We now know that one of the chief dangers in the Cuban Missile Crisis was that K & K were only loosely in control of their respective sides, and that a number of on-the-scene officers had the power, if not the lawful authority, to go nuclear.
I'm thinking specifically of the submarine with the nuclear torpedo that nearly nuked the USN units that were throwing depth charges at it, and the guy with the nuclear cruise missile outside Gitmo who'd probably have launched it if he'd mistaken the low-flying surveillance plane for an attacker.
An ISI army with a country on the side doesn't exactly operate with scruples, polices, procedures and protocols. The only solution to this is to dismantle this madness.
Scruples like bombing a mosque in Pakistan with civilians and claiming to target "terrorist infrastructure?" Modi has zero scruples. He is at par with Netanyahu, Putin and trump in his lack of morals and authoritarian fantasies.
When throwing stand-off missiles around, what keeps them from inadvertently striking nuclear-related facilities (radar, launchers, command and control, … ) in such a way that fears of a subsequent first strike are triggered?
The inadvertent escalation risks are hopefully being considered in each side's strike planning but it is a fair concern. And even if you make very obvious target withholds, how do you know your opponent realizes that's what you're doing?
India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. They both have roughly the same number of nuclear weapons (most sources suggest Pakistan has a handful more). Both countries have a version of a "minimum deterrence" approach (i.e., enough nukes to make sure the other side is scared and no more). <2>
In strategy, their approaches are very different. Pakistan is smaller, less secure, and weaker in all measures of national power than India. As a result, it hopes to offset its weaknesses, especially military ones, with the threat of nuclear first use. Its threshold is low. <3>
India, by contrast, has the larger and more sophisticated non-nuclear military force. It professes a nuclear No First Use policy (with some asterisks), but largely wants to maximize the space of non-nuclear military solutions to its Pakistan problems (mainly punishment for terrorism). <4>
In the current crisis, we are seeing intense, multi-domain war between the two sides: lots happening in the air, lots happening with mortars and artillery, but no large-scale ground mobilization by India. <5>
At some point, if the prospect of a larger Indian ground mobilization appears to be in the cards, Pakistan will, by all expectations, begin to rather overtly rattle its nuclear saber. The message? A ground invasion of Pakistani territory will lead us to use nuclear weapons. <6>
The good news is that India almost certainly understands what I've said above, which is why it is prosecuting this conflict as it is: with standoff capabilities, drones, and other sophisticated means absent a ground mobilization. <7>
While India may NOT want to mobilise ground troops precisely for the reasons you mention, its hand could be forced if Pakistan wants cover for its nuclear saberrattling. Just images of unusual troop movements towards LoC will do. Such a dangerous game of cat and mouse. Hopefully cooler heads prevail
As others have suggested would/could China mediate a pullback? If so would that further elevate China as a global peace-maker as the US retreats from its historic position?
How does that square with the Pakistani successes in the 2019 skirmish and the apparent present success against the Indian Air Force's Rafales? Does Pakistan have an advantage in (non-drone) airpower that mitigates other deficiencies? No worries if you're too busy to comment -- thanks!
Ankit, how do you rate the risks of inadvertent escalation type dynamics as India seemingly starts to conduct SEAD and conventional BM strikes? Both belligerents' smaller less sophisticated arsenals have some use it or lose it risks associated. And what about loose Pakistani NC2?
These are a limited number of fission weapons aren’t they? So there is no equivalence with a Dr Strangelove scenario which some people seem to be imagining
Well the very first H bomb was 20 Megatons which is equivalent to about 1,000 Nagasaki type fission weapons and the combined arsenal is estimated at 200 or so weapons of Nagasaki yield. The largest Russian test, Tsar Bomba was over 55Mt
I guess the difference is that the NASA study assumed a lot of fire storms from targeting cities while tests were held in places like atolls which don’t burn
From the article: ”Crops like maize, rice, wheat, and soybeans could suffer global yield reductions of up to 11%”. This sounds like typical global warming projections, although in this case it would be quick global cooling instead.
Key being worldwide decline, which itself would have severe effects. But that decline would be concentrated regionally in already vulnerable regions. The fatality prediction was up to billions.
But hey, it's happening "over there", so it's "not a Dr Strangelove situation"...
Sorry, but Sid Meiers had YEARS to correct that record (and while not just a superstar about it, he *isn't* interview shy: he's had opportunities). But he comes out saying it isn't, but enigmatically refuses to say why he did it intentionally...right before he's releasing his memoirs?
Thank you very much for the current political approaches by both parties regarding their nuclear options. I haven't kept up on developments in recent years and needed up to date information.
Back in 2005 there was a “first nuclear exchange” sweepstake at work. I took IND - PAK mid 20’s though it was premised on water rights. I do hope I was wrong… (US - JAP doesn’t count as it wasn’t an exchange)
Would be nice if that were true. But, in this conflict in the past, "tactical" nuclear weapons were forward deployed (i.e., they were loaded onto fighter jets, and those jets were forward deployed and ready to be used).
We certainly hope cooler heads will always prevail. But it's not guaranteed.
Comments
@DC_Draino
But wait, the media told me Trump would start WW3?
So why does he keep making peace deals?!
Were we lied to?!
And taking Greenland and Panama Canal by force sounds so peaceful!
But it’s only 3 months…😄
Within the memory of people still living.
Do we know if that's the case here?
No, its no help to blame defenders for your attackers
Water is wet and salty.
So PN & PAF are open game 👍
https://khybernews.tv/nuclear-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan-could-trigger-global-climate-disaster-nasa-led-study-warns/
But hey, it's happening "over there", so it's "not a Dr Strangelove situation"...
"Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"
A history of the Plowshares movement from 1980 to 2009, compiled from the records of many friends by Ardeth Platte OP and Susan Crane.
https://youtu.be/KqzsL-Z2kI4
We certainly hope cooler heads will always prevail. But it's not guaranteed.