Ladakh Flash Point

Mohsin77 · Oct 28, 2021

Xsizor said:
"Theater nuke nation" is my tagging

I told you there is no such thing and even the assumption that theater/tactical exchanges won't lead to strategic exchanges is flawed and dangerous.

Xsizor said:
he is different from other Indian YouTube defence analysts but ....

He isn't a "youtube defense analyst". I already gave you his credentials and the fact that you're ignoring them is telling. It is you who is asking me to take your word for it, and I have no reason to, given your lack of grasp of this subject.

Xsizor said:
Sure, my wording may make Pakistan look weak but that's not my intention.

It's not your wording I have an issue with. It's your logic, lack of evidence for your claims, and your brushing aside valid secondary sources in favor of your own authority.

Xizor · Oct 28, 2021

Mohsin77 said:
I told you there is no such thing and even the assumption that theater/tactical exchanges won't lead to strategic exchanges is flawed and dangerous.

He isn't a "youtube defense analyst". I already gave you his credentials and the fact that you're ignoring them is telling. It is you who is asking me to take your word for it, and I have no reason to, given your lack of grasp of this subject.

It's not your wording I have an issue with. It's your logic, lack of evidence for your claims, and your brushing aside valid secondary sources in favor of your own authority.

Well, I am not certainly going to rub your back by saying Pakistan is super powerful - conventionally or otherwise. My wordings and takes will certainly be of issue to you in that regard.

You are ready to gulp down what one person - Pravin Sawhney - says. But then, I'm going to readily assume you support every single thing that this source says since you bet by his credentials so much. His Twitter is very much open for all to read and retweet.

A post of his -

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362217596053909504

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Mohsin77 · Oct 28, 2021

Xsizor said:
Well, I am not certainly going to rub your back by saying Pakistan is super powerful - conventionally or otherwise. My wordings and takes will certainly be of issue to you in that regard.

Again, I don't care about your "wordings." You're making claims on technical subjects without an understanding of them, that's the problem.

Xsizor said:
You are ready to gulp down what one person - Pravin Sawhney - says.

I gave you a citation from a valid secondary source. All you've given in the past few pages is conjecture and your own opinion.

Xsizor said:
But then, I'm going to readily assume you support every single thing that this source says since you bet by his credentials so much. His Twitter is very much open for all to read and retweet.

A post of his -

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362217596053909504

So he implies that Pakistan has lost all strategic autonomy and is merely a vassal.

You're putting words in his mouth with the intent to trigger and distract. But I'm not taking the bait. All I have to do is focus on the citation I provided which provides a detailed analysis contradicting your claim, while you waste your time digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Xizor · Oct 29, 2021

Mohsin77 said:
Again, I don't care about your "wordings." You're making claims on technical subjects without an understanding of them, that's the problem.

I gave you a citation from a valid secondary source. All you've given in the past few pages is conjecture and your own opinion.

You're putting words in his mouth with the intent to trigger and distract. But I'm not taking the bait. All I have to do is focus on the citation I provided which provides a detailed analysis contradicting your claim, while you waste your time digging a deeper hole for yourself.

You didn't provide a citation. Just a video which has Pakistani fan boys showering him with the rare praise for an Indian in the comments section.

That Pakistan depends on Tactical nukes and India does not engage in any big conflict with Pakistan due to that is what I claimed. And that remains.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Mohsin77 · Oct 29, 2021

Xsizor said:
You didn't provide a citation. Just a video which has Pakistani fan boys showering him with the rare praise for an Indian in the comments section.

That Pakistan depends on Tactical nukes and India does not engage in any big conflict with Pakistan due to that is what I claimed. And that remains.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your entire argument is based on rejecting the validity of my source.

But the paper which you cited, actually cites my source:

I warned you that you were digging a hole for yourself, and now you're all the way in it. So instead of pretending that my source isn't valid (which is no longer an option for you), you have left yourself no options but to actually deal with what Sawhney is saying. And by the way, you are also over-simplifying and misrepresenting the paper which you cited (just like you were putting words in Sawhney's mouth earlier.)

Xizor · Oct 29, 2021

Mohsin77 said:
Your entire argument is based on rejecting the validity of my source.

But the paper which you cited, actually cites my source:

View attachment 78569

I warned you that you were digging a hole for yourself, and now you're all the way in it. So instead of pretending that my source isn't valid (which is no longer an option for you), you have left yourself no options but to actually deal with what Sawhney is saying. And by the way, you are also over-simplifying and misrepresenting the paper which you cited (just like you were putting words in Sawhney's mouth earlier.)

Digging a hole is what you'd like to think.

"Whereas the international debate on Pakistan’s perceived policy of battlefield nuclear weapons primarily consists of Western and Indian analysts, the debate within Pakistan takes place between serving and retired military officials and academics.2"

Pravin Sawnhey is merely listed as an analyst who opines about what the pakistani tactical nukes are about and its relevancy, in the references of the said article.

From the article itself:

"Most recently, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry confirmed in Washington, DC, in October 2015 that Pakistan had built low-yield battlefield weapons in response to India’s Cold Start strategy.11"

Cold start is a strategy comprised of conventional weapons, right? Why should pakistan prepare tactical nukes against a conventional strategy? It goes against its conventional power credentials. Ofcourse, I am not going to ponder over whether Cold Start, as a strategy, is really alive and well nowadays. But several Pakistani honchos in the defense seem to have taken that strategy of India seriously.

He (Adil Sultan ) maintains, however, that Pakistan’s emerging posture is not different from NATO’s flexible response strategy during the Cold War.13 Pakistan’s strategy uses the Nasr to “pour cold water on Cold Start,” according to Kidwai.14 Brigadier Zahir Kazmi, director in the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs branch of the SPD, agrees: “If Nasr forecloses India’s dangerous option to fight a limited war under nuclear overhang, it contributes to the regional stability and makes Pakistan’s deterrence more credible.”15

Air Commodore Adil Sultan—director of research and analysis at the policy, doctrine, and strategy branch of the SPD. SPD is the agency that is concerned with protecting and handling Pakistan's nuclear profile, right?

He ( Zafar Nawaz Jaspal) states that due to Pakistan’s resource constraints, the Nasr is a cost-effective way to mitigate the rapidly growing conventional asymmetries between Pakistan and India (India has been the world’s largest arms importer since 2009), and counter the threat of limited war.

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, director of the School of Politics and International Relations at Quaid-i-Azam University.

Maybe you should read the article instead of doubling down on your opinion that Pakistan's Theater Nuclear warheads are not there to prevent a conventional war with India. You do have the freedom to side with opinionated figures who disagree but you can't insist its the fact.

Mohsin77 · Oct 29, 2021

Xsizor said:
Digging a hole is what you'd like to think.

"Whereas the international debate on Pakistan’s perceived policy of battlefield nuclear weapons primarily consists of Western and Indian analysts, the debate within Pakistan takes place between serving and retired military officials and academics.2"

You are still digging a whole and it's only getting deeper.

1) Do you understand how citations work? That citation mark means that the statement the author made is what his source said. It is Sawhney's view which the author is repeating. And this would've been obvious to you if you actually listened to Sawhney (timestamp @ minute 2:55):

2) Instead of cherry picking excerpts from that paper (like you have done) I'll just point out a simple academic fact: Your paper is from 2016. We're discussing the events of 2019. By definition, this means that your paper isn't a valid source for this discussion. Whereas my source (which your source itself cites as a reliable authority) is from 2019 and it is specifically analyzing what happened in that event.

By the metric of your own source, you have proved Sawhney's point, because he is using the Pakistani military establishment's statements and posture in 2019 to make his case that TNWs are not what Pakistan is relying on, and then he goes into detail on how things have changed over time in the conventional capability-space. He has discussed this issue many times and in great detail.

Xizor · Oct 29, 2021

Mohsin77 said:
You are still digging a whole and it's only getting deeper.

1) Do you understand how citations work? That citation mark means that the statement the author made is what his source said. It is Sawhney's view which the author is repeating. And this would've been obvious to you if you actually listened to Sawhney (timestamp @ minute 2:55):

2) Instead of cherry picking excerpts from that paper (like you have done) I'll just point out a simple academic fact: Your paper is from 2016. We're discussing the events of 2019. By definition, this means that your paper isn't a valid source for this discussion. Whereas my source (which your source itself cites as a reliable authority) is from 2019 and it is specifically analyzing what happened in that event.

By the metric of your own source, you have proved Sawhney's point, because he is using the Pakistani military establishment's statements and posture in 2019 to make his case.

Your attempts to discredit are getting amusing. I'm the one who bought in references to this exchange. That reference statement is a blanket one. Pravin Sawnhey is only among the multiple sources cited within that Reference (numbered 2).The article doesn't go into details what Pravin Sawnhey thinks but merely classify him as an Indian analyst.

Again, READ the Article.

I did cherry pick - from very reputable sources. You may cherry pick opinions that goes against it from even more weighted sources and I'll gladly welcome it.And no, Pravin Sawnhey is not at all significant against the sources I have "cherry picked".

Pravin Sawnhey has the full freedom to interpret the things the way he wants. For somebody who is passionate about Pakistan and Muslims, your blind devotion to him is remarkable. If you can't attack the content, attack the author.

You are grasping at straws when you say that the article I cited is from 2016 while the topic is about 2019 conflict. Don't forget my assertion - Indian military didn't escalate because of Pakistani TNW and the deterrence it brings against conventional war.

Xsizor said:
"Most recently, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry confirmed in Washington, DC, in October 2015 that Pakistan had built low-yield battlefield weapons in response to India’s Cold Start strategy.11"

He (Adil Sultan ) maintains, however, that Pakistan’s emerging posture is not different from NATO’s flexible response strategy during the Cold War.13 Pakistan’s strategy uses the Nasr to “pour cold water on Cold Start,” according to Kidwai.14 Brigadier Zahir Kazmi, director in the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs branch of the SPD, agrees: “If Nasr forecloses India’s dangerous option to fight a limited war under nuclear overhang, it contributes to the regional stability and makes Pakistan’s deterrence more credible.”15

Air Commodore Adil Sultan—director of research and analysis at the policy, doctrine, and strategy branch of the SPD. SPD is the agency that is concerned with protecting and handling Pakistan's nuclear profile, right?

He ( Zafar Nawaz Jaspal) states that due to Pakistan’s resource constraints, the Nasr is a cost-effective way to mitigate the rapidly growing conventional asymmetries between Pakistan and India (India has been the world’s largest arms importer since 2009), and counter the threat of limited war.

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, director of the School of Politics and International Relations at Quaid-i-Azam University.

The above is enough to support that. You ignoring it isn't a concern. What's concerning is you placing Pravin Sawnhey, a defence analyst over Pakistani Defence leaders. He doesn't know what Indian Army thinks. Neither is he privy to what Pakistani Army thinks.

ougoah · Oct 29, 2021

Let's leave Pravin topic for this thread. He's a bit of a character, and does speak and write in a way that over-exaggerates the threats to India. He is wrong about China wanting war with India but maybe part of his purpose/job/personal mission is to convince Indians of the threats to India and how frightening the adversaries are. He's rather balanced compared to Indians like those who claim radar cannot "see" through clouds, or Chinese photos and videos showing Indian captives are using Bangladeshi actors (what a sad attempt from those Indian ex-military smh).

On many other points he's way too off and talks about stuff he surely don't know that much about e.g. Chinese cyber capabilities and so on. He exaggerates the threats a little too much. China has a lot of AI running things nowadays but it's not got some monster AI weapon or whatever he's recently been on about.

Who knows why India did not retaliate after Pakistan response in 2019. Maybe it just wasn't worth escalating or maybe they couldn't. Pakistan purposefully did not damage India except to make a point (and ignoring air combat aspect) since Pakistan gave India an out option as well. Smart. India supposedly did not damage Pakistan or Pakistani interests (claimed by one or many as such) and Pakistan had no real reason to disproportionately escalate here without wanting escalation pattern forming. It could have nothing to do with theatre nukes.

Xizor · Oct 29, 2021

ougoah said:
Let's leave Pravin topic for this thread. He's a bit of a character, and does speak and write in a way that over-exaggerates the threats to India. He is wrong about China wanting war with India but maybe part of his purpose/job/personal mission is to convince Indians of the threats to India and how frightening the adversaries are. He's rather balanced compared to Indians like those who claim radar cannot "see" through clouds, or Chinese photos and videos showing Indian captives are using Bangladeshi actors (what a sad attempt from those Indian ex-military smh).

On many other points he's way too off and talks about stuff he surely don't know that much about e.g. Chinese cyber capabilities and so on. He exaggerates the threats a little too much. China has a lot of AI running things nowadays but it's not got some monster AI weapon or whatever he's recently been on about.

Who knows why India did not retaliate after Pakistan response in 2019. Maybe it just wasn't worth escalating or maybe they couldn't. Pakistan purposefully did not damage India except to make a point (and ignoring air combat aspect) since Pakistan gave India an out option as well. Smart. India supposedly did not damage Pakistan or Pakistani interests (claimed by one or many as such) and Pakistan had no real reason to disproportionately escalate here without wanting escalation pattern forming. It could have nothing to do with theatre nukes.

Pravin Sawnhey in his talks (Back during the hot period of India China Ladakh conflict ) mentions certain technologies to be applied in defence. Very interesting in that you are certain he is exaggerating the application of certain technologies in the militaries of South and SE Asia. I'm glad that you noticed that.

He also uses AI and terms like Nano Technologies very graciously. I may be behind the curve here, but I don't think nano technologies have become mature or cost competitive for wide scale military use. His comment section is filled with fawning Pakistanis and ofcourse some angry Indians who question is loyalties. I'd only use him to counter far-right Indian Military analysts.

Ladakh Flash Point

Mohsin77

Senior Member

Xizor

Captain

Mohsin77

Senior Member

Xizor

Captain

Mohsin77

Senior Member

Xizor

Captain

Mohsin77

Senior Member

Xizor

Captain

ougoah

Brigadier

Xizor

Captain