Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JPR who wrote (6207)	9/2/1999 10:23:00 AM
From: JPR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

Qureshi,the Pakistani air chief said the air power had proved its primacy as an element of warfare and strategy over the entire spectrum of conflicts from low-intensify to an all-out open war. Qureshi's statement is correct if he happens to be the air chief in US Air force with technologically most advanced air crafts. Since he is the Air chief of Pakistan's flying Jalopies fitted with cannibalized and or generic parts, the statement is misleading and he is feeding crap to Quetta's attendees.

To: JPR who wrote (6207)	9/2/1999 1:44:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 12475

Pakistan's air chief Air Marshal Pervez Mehdi Qureshi has hinted at continuation of "low intensity conflicts" between India and Pakistan despite the nuclear deterrence. Well, nobody ought to be surprised by this except perhaps the "Hindutva" kooks who went about saying that nuclear deterrence will bring peace, prosperity, happiness, "Raam Rajya" and what not. And they also floated theories about how India can now reduce spending on conventional weapons because it had the N-option. Of course, the whole damn theory was blown right out of water when Kargil happened! "Perhaps the proponents of this theory had begun to propose an enhanced probability of increased low-intensity conflicts between the two protagonists (India and Pakistan), much before Kargil became a reality," he said. Qureshi said lessons to be learnt from Kargil "is that despite various theories of deterrence, armed conflicts between nations will occur if there are other destabilising factors... " Precisely. Well, Gaurav Kampani of the Center for Non-proliferation Studies, Monterey, CA, USA, said this as far back as June 1998 in an article titled, "The BJP's Monumental Blunder". Excerpt : If the first rule of the nuclear revolution is the irrelevance of nuclear superiority, then the second rule is Glenn Snyder's "stability-instability paradox." This means that whereas nuclear weapons confer great stability at the top, there is instability at the bottom. Thus, although large-scale conventional wars between nuclear weapon states are very unlikely (because of the fear that a conventional war might escalate to a nuclear level); the chances of a war at the bottom or along the periphery are quite high. For instance, during the Cold War years, whereas the central balance in Europe remained unchallenged, this did not stop the superpowers from pursuing proxy wars in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The situation in the Indian subcontinent is no different. Nuclear deterrence has ensured that India and Pakistan will never dare confront each other in a large-scale conventional war. But this does not prevent the two countries from waging insurgency or low-intensity conflicts on each other's territories. At that time, the right-wing fruitcakes of India tossed a coin and, depending on the outcome of the toss, labeled Kampani a "CIA agent" or a "Communist". Now, barely a year later, his words are coming home to roost. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most of the saffron-langots don't get it even now! For, they probably will never get it anyway.