India Coffee House Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (5907)	8/27/1999 2:10:00 PM
From: Shivram Hala	Read Replies (1) of 12475

> Rejecting the theory of having nuclear weapons as a > deterrent, he said the Kargil crisis has demonstrated that > such steps do not prevent a war. Eminent nuclear scientist M V Ramana should be posed the question. If india didn't have nuclear weapons but pakistan did, would the kargil conflict have ended on the LOC ? Pakistan's calculation was to internationalise the kashmir issue playing on the fears of a nuclear conflict between hostile neighbours. Once pakistan realised that it was been internalionised for all the wrong reasons and that the conflict would widen, they accepted the humiliation and a lesser loss than to not exist at all (this statement particularly riles you) Dr. M V Ramana is right about the damage it could cost, but you don't have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that one out. When Ramana says "The calls for punitive retaliation and the use of sufficient nuclear weapons (in the doctrine) would, if implemented, lead to largescale destruction and deaths among civilians,'" he doesn't address why such thinking is needed. He doesn't address the effects of a first strike which is the option that pakistan adheres to. He should ask why pakistan refuses to sign a no-first use policy.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next