Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: A détente?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#6 by sri

In a do-or-die situation, corporations are not likely to matter. Moreover in a country like Pakistan, where leaders are acutely image-conscious (lack of legitimacy in the case of miltary generals and the fear of military in the case of civilian leaders being the cause), these things will not have much of a bearing. Remember, Nawaz Sharif was offered billions of dollars as an incentive for not testing nukes, but he refused to heed to the US. In a conventional war, Pakistan surely cannot compete with India and will resort to nukes as a last resort.

Going forward .... only idiots think Nuclear weapons matter in the sub-continent.

The greatest nuclear deterrent in sub-continent now is India`s continual economic progress and the resulting big corporate control of India. The big corporations are going to make sure that there won`t be any war between India & pakiland. The corporations are going to provide a security cover to India now. Looks like India achieved chutzpah without firing even a single missile.

If ever there is a nuclear strike in the subcontinent, it will have been started by Pakistan. It could be its generals or elected extremists or religion based terrorists who have taken control of nuclear weapons. In any case, the danger is from Pakistan and not from India.

nikki7777 - you are wrong. It does not take fantastic indigenous delivery systems to deliver nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has missiles (whether indigenous or not is not material) that can deliver nukes. Even in the absence of missiles, even planes can do the trick, a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pakistan does have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. It would be ostrichlike to ignore it.

When Indians get up in the morning each day, we need to thank not only God for another day, but also Musharraf or whoever controls Pakistani nukes!

As Kennedy put it, ‘‘if we do what these brass hats want us to do, they’ll be no one left alive to tell them they were wrong.’’

That is the only issue now. Indian nuclear deterrence remains a second strike option because it is under the civilian rule. OTH Pakistan Generals are sure to use it as a first strike option- this makes it very serious on the part of nuclear Pakistan where any rogue General or Jehadi leader can take over the nukes and then launch a strike. So, now the issue is that unless the civilians have the control over the nukes or unless the Americans have the controls to override the launch by the Jehadi leader of a Rogue General the nukes in Pakistan remain the most dangerous propect for the Indians. The Indians need to have the missile shield so that such contingencies can be taken care.
Further, Nash equilibrium does not apply because the number of un-predictable variables in the current context are too large and the Jehadi Generals can also act as non-utilitarian actors who are willing to accept self annihilation in order to achieve their Jehadi goals.
So how does Game theory model such situations of conflict where the actors are not utilitarian individuals but suicidal jehadis??? Any thoughts??

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Grow up, have a beer and apply for asylum in the west , if you have to and stop writing such bilge!!!!

Nikki,
He will need to apply for asylum first. In the land of the pure, the pure are forbidden to enjoy beer.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts