Nuclear Prolifferation

This is not news to me but is a useful link to initiate a conversation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... go-atomic/

It should be pointed out that anyone who can build a high endurance, compact, high energy density reactor for a submarine can produce large volumes of fissile Uranium or Plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

An interesting context is this earlier article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... not-a-bug/

I disagree with the premise that possession of nuclear weapons reduces the fatalities from war. The US along with the USSR and now Russia have fought some serious conventional wars even though they both have nuclear weapons. In spire of the low casualties, India and Pakistan have been involved in some skirmishes that could easily have escalated. Pakistan has been explicit about having a very low threshold to go nuclear.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: In spire of the low casualties, India and Pakistan have been involved in some skirmishes that could easily have escalated. Pakistan has been explicit about having a very low threshold to go nuclear.

Not exactly low - more likely very well-defined. They would use nuclear weapon in case of any of the following situations:

A - the Pakistan would be invaded and attempts to stop the enemy by conventional means would not be successful.
B - the Pakistani military would be seriously weakened by the enemy first strike and would not be able to compensate.
C - the Pakistan national welfare would be critically threatened by the enemy blockade, or by the damage to civilian infrastructure, or by attempts to limit Pakistan access to water resources (Pakistan received quite a lot of its water resources from the trans-border rivers).
D - the Pakistan national unity would be threatened by externally-supported separatism, or insurrection.

In any of such cases, the procedure to act is such:

1 - the enemy is warned about crossing the nuclear threshold.
2 - the nuclear charge would be detonated on proving ground to assure the enemy about the seriousness of Pakistan intentions.
3 - the nuclear weapon would be used against enemy troops on Pakistan land.
4 - the nuclear weapon would be used against enemy military installations, preferably ones removed from population centers (Pakistan have no desire to start counter-population strikes; India have much more population)

So, this is the well-defined system of thresholds and escalation, which allow Pakistani military a good space to maneuver & react as they would consider the best.

P.S. Interesting to note, that India did not have such scheme, and seems to not thinking much about "how exactly we would fight the nuclear war?" Their only defined strategy is they would not use nuclear weapon first, but how exactly they should use it - seems that nobody actually thought about it. This put India in serious disadvantage in case of nuclear exchange; while Pakistan have clear understanding when and how to use nukes, India would be forced to make their nuclear strategy in haste of real warfare.

P.P.S. It should be also noted, that India was actually quite... shaken, when it became known that Pakistan actually have MORE nuclear bombs than India, and also have four times more production capabilities...

Dilandu wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote: In spire of the low casualties, India and Pakistan have been involved in some skirmishes that could easily have escalated. Pakistan has been explicit about having a very low threshold to go nuclear.

Not exactly low - more likely very well-defined. They would use nuclear weapon in case of any of the following situations:

A - the Pakistan would be invaded and attempts to stop the enemy by conventional means would not be successful.
B - the Pakistani military would be seriously weakened by the enemy first strike and would not be able to compensate.
C - the Pakistan national welfare would be critically threatened by the enemy blockade, or by the damage to civilian infrastructure, or by attempts to limit Pakistan access to water resources (Pakistan received quite a lot of its water resources from the trans-border rivers).
D - the Pakistan national unity would be threatened by externally-supported separatism, or insurrection.

In any of such cases, the procedure to act is such:

1 - the enemy is warned about crossing the nuclear threshold.
2 - the nuclear charge would be detonated on proving ground to assure the enemy about the seriousness of Pakistan intentions.
3 - the nuclear weapon would be used against enemy troops on Pakistan land.
4 - the nuclear weapon would be used against enemy military installations, preferably ones removed from population centers (Pakistan have no desire to start counter-population strikes; India have much more population)

So, this is the well-defined system of thresholds and escalation, which allow Pakistani military a good space to maneuver & react as they would consider the best.

P.S. Interesting to note, that India did not have such scheme, and seems to not thinking much about "how exactly we would fight the nuclear war?" Their only defined strategy is they would not use nuclear weapon first, but how exactly they should use it - seems that nobody actually thought about it. This put India in serious disadvantage in case of nuclear exchange; while Pakistan have clear understanding when and how to use nukes, India would be forced to make their nuclear strategy in haste of real warfare.

P.P.S. It should be also noted, that India was actually quite... shaken, when it became known that Pakistan actually have MORE nuclear bombs than India, and also have four times more production capabilities...

It is politically incorrect to contemplate an actual nuclear strategy in the West. Anyone who attempts to do so is derided as "Dr Strangeglove.".

On the other hand, Pakistan has has somewhat ambiguous, low threshold to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks by India while simultaneously supporting terrorists against India that inevitably provoke a military response.

Pakistan is far more irresponsible than India.