Israel Hezbollah Pager Attack.

[blr_p]

What is the fas bulletin?

Nuclear notebook by the federation of American scientists is an open source non partisan reference accepted by the academic community regarding nuclear arsenal size of various countries. The bulletin is annual.

Intel communities have their own assessments but they are all confidential.

Fas allows to have a somewhat more grounded discussion on this topic

 

[guest_999]

Nuclear only deters nuclear. Useless against conventional (Balakote operation) or subconventional (26/11). Nukes did nothing to prevent either of those two operations.

It depends on "threshold" of governing powers involved. It need not even be direct nuclear confrontation. Just like how Russia gave nukes to Belarus as "ally" same way Pakistan could have threatened to give nukes to its "allies" in middle east. That is not applicable for India & Pakistan.

It's their conventional ability to destroy south korea that keeps everyone back. That and an unwillingness by China & S. Korea to absorb 25+ million refugees. Japanese aren't too keen about a unified Korea either.

Neither Korean army can maintain its strength after crossing the most heavily militarized & mined border in the world. Only reason NK behave so unrestrained is because of their nukes.

Nuclear is just an extra guarantee/bargaining chip

You are really underestimating the power of nukes. If Ukraine had even a dozen left from erstwhile USSR there would never be a Russia Ukraine war.

They would have never been allowed to go nuclear in first place. Had they shared border with Israel.

What if scenario but not really applicable in reality.

Second point even under nuclear umbrella . Israel would have gone after 26/11 mastermind . They would have not let them get away. They have a strong will.

That I agree with but it would have been a very precise assassination unlike thousands of exploding pagers.

 

[blr_p]

Nukes serve a different purpose, it has little to do with conventional capability. It's a safety card, and in the modern world something to try and press an opponent without force. In the cold war of course it was just a safety card, MAD.

I wanted to point out the difference in doctrine between counter force (US & Russia) vs. counter value (everybody else). There are differences between the two over what can and cannot be done.

eg. Putin can credibly threaten NATO with a nuclear strike about conventional attacks. In fact its good & responsible that he is being so vocal about it. Less chances of a miscalculation

China, India & Pakistan can do no such thing among each other. Many people don't get this point. Retired personnel included.

Possibility of a conventional war between China & India or with Pakistan exists despite all being nuclear. Yes?

But not possible between NATO & Russians.

Also nukes aren't meant as surgical strikes, the US is trying to develop such a world wide weapon but a nuke isn't it.

US was running submarine deterrence patrols as early as the 60s. We will have to start doing that at some point to fully deter China.

 

[guest_999]

eg. Putin can credibly threaten NATO about conventional attacks.

Really? His forces couldn't even suppress Ukraine without getting assistance from Iranian drones, NK ammunition & Chinese tech on top of handicap imposed by US to not allow its supplied long range weapons to be used to attack deep into the Russian territory & you think his conventional attack threat can really threaten NATO. Only reason Russia is gaining against Ukraine is because of the threat of its nukes to force limits on NATO/US assistance to Ukraine.

China, India & Pakistan can do no such thing. Many people don't get this point. US was running submarine deterrence patrols as early as the 60s. We will have to start doing that at some point to fully deter China.

China, India & Pakistan all share borders with each other unlike US which is literally ocean away from all its enemies so US situation can't be compared with others.

 

[blr_p]

Really? His forces couldn't even suppress Ukraine without getting assistance from Iranian drones, NK ammunition & Chinese tech on top of handicap imposed by US to not allow its supplied long range weapons to be used to attack deep into the Russian territory & you think his conventional attack threat can really threaten NATO.

He's threatening a nuclear attack not conventional and this has been the case since over a year back.

Only reason Russia is gaining against Ukraine is because of the threat of its nukes to force limits on NATO/US assistance to Ukraine.

Bingo! exactly what I'm getting at.

China, India & Pakistan all share borders with each other unlike US which is literally ocean away from all its enemies so US situation can't be compared with others.

Yet people confound the two doctrines easily. Westerners don't understand fully the limitations of the doctrines here and people here think their doctrines are capable of more than in reality.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

I wanted to point out the difference in doctrine between counter force (US & Russia) vs. counter value (everybody else). There are differences between the two over what can and cannot be done.

eg. Putin can credibly threaten NATO with a nuclear strike about conventional attacks.

China, India & Pakistan can do no such thing among each other. Many people don't get this point. Retired personnel included.

US was running submarine deterrence patrols as early as the 60s. We will have to start doing that at some point to fully deter China.

When talking of nukes it is best not to get bogged down in doctrine, countries use it as they please. Doctrine is just a message. I did mention previously about quickly and effectively hitting a target, the US and Russia can do this, most of the other's have limitations with delivery technology and possible interception. The UK and France have reasonable technology (the UK uses American made missiles and it's SLBM fleet is it's only nuclear deterrence last I checked) but their mass is low, that is also what I was talking about, that you may need to cover land area, also of course to saturate enemy air defenses. I am not sure I agree that countries like China,India and Pakistan can not deter each other, they can unless their nuclear arsenal is unavailable for some reason or unless it is taken out in a first strike. If a country with nuclear weapons is facing an invasion they can't stop they will use it. If you simply mean threaten, then countries understand among the ones you listed that any conventional attack that threatens to overrun the other will be met with a nuclear response, there isn't a need to threaten they understand, any border skirmishes are considered irrelevant in the grand situation.

I know that but don't remember the date, as we type there should be at least 5+ SSBNs from various countries patrolling the world's oceans. As for us doing it to deter China, I don't really care.

 

[blr_p]

When talking of nukes it is best not to get bogged down in doctrine, countries use it as they please. Doctrine is just a message.

Your ability dictates your doctrine. What you can and cannot do.

Credible minimum deterrent means you don't need thousands of nukes to deter the other. You do not plan to fight a war using nukes but rather as a credible punishment if struck with them. In a sense nukes here are political weapons and not military.

With a counter force doctrine its about total war. You intend to fight with nukes like other arms because you have so many to begin with. You can make nuclear threats over conventional attacks.

During the berlin airlift there were 5,000 marines in Berlin managing things. They were surrounded by tens of thousands of Soviet troops nearby. Would not have been difficult to take out the marines and stop the Americans but the Soviets never did because the threat was a nuclear strike on Russia if they did.

I did mention previously about quickly and effectively hitting a target, the US and Russia can do this, most of the other's have limitations with delivery technology and possible interception. The UK and France have reasonable technology (the UK uses American made missiles and it's SLBM fleet is it's only nuclear deterrence last I checked) but their mass is low, that is also what I was talking about, that you may need to cover land area, also of course to saturate enemy air defenses.

Both UK & France went nuclear by the early 60s because Nikita had threatened both that his missiles could reach their capitals and they feared an isolationist US may not come to their help. In such an event both UK & France would be operating under a credible minimum doctrine.

However within NATO, UK nukes would be under American control. When one goes they all go. With France the Americans don't have control of French nukes but the French don't have autonomy either. They would be operating under counterforce in alliance with the US.

In a way you are agreeing with me. Ability dictates doctrine

You mentioned limitations of delivery tech. I'm talking raw numbers. If you don't have enough your options are limited. They would be deployed to protect your assets and would not be free for discretionary use. Hence why both China & India are no first use. Because they don't have enough for a first strike as they are reserved for a response to one. If you get what I mean.

I am not sure I agree that countries like China,India and Pakistan can not deter each other, they can unless their nuclear arsenal is unavailable for some reason or unless it is taken out in a first strike. If a country with nuclear weapons is facing an invasion they can't stop they will use it. If you simply mean threaten, then countries understand among the ones you listed that any conventional attack that threatens to overrun the other will be met with a nuclear response, there isn't a need to threaten they understand, any border skirmishes are considered irrelevant in the grand situation.

Neither India, Pakistan or China can prevent a conventional war from breaking out with the nukes they have. Two examples.

Kargil was more than a border skirmish yet the Paks were not deterred from starting a war over it. Revenge for Siachen who under Musharraf a decade earlier was lost.

After the parliament attack, Musharraf said if one Indian soldier crossed the LoC he would nuke India. This charade continued until the first raid in 2016 which they denied happened and the second raid which saw an attack in Pakistan proper. Again they played it down.

Pak nukes did not prevent the conventional Indian raids. More troubling for Pakistan since they claim first use but blinked when tested.

Another example is yom Kippur in '73. Egyptians attacked Israel. They had to have known at a minimum the Israelis had the ability to deliver a nuke or more with their jets yet were not deterred. Why? Same reason.

Now if Iran hypothetically gets nukes the Israelis say Iran can use nuclear blackmail against Israel. Like was said about Pakistan.

Nope. Not a damn chance. Israeli jets will attack Iran. Nukes or not. Because nuclear can't deter conventional. A bigger Balakote yes?

But I've not succeeded in getting Israelis to agree

 

[guest_999]

Pak nukes did not prevent the conventional Indian raids. More troubling for Pakistan since they claim first use but blinked when tested.

Because politicians/generals talk one way for the public & another way for the real audience. It doesn't matter who use nukes first in India Pak war the end result would be total destruction of all major cities of India & complete annihilation of Pakistan. That is why only insane ppl in power in either country would ever think about launching a nuke first & thankfully no such insane person has ever been able to come to power in either country till now.

Another example is yom Kippur in '73. Egyptians attacked Israel. They had to have known at a minimum the Israelis had the ability to deliver a nuke or more with their jets yet were not deterred. Why?

Because political leadership of Israel at that time was not reckless enough as Netanyahu of today & would not have agreed to launch nukes in response to an attack not posing any existential threat to Israel at that point. That war was mainly to take back occupied territories by Israel in previous war.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Your ability dictates your doctrine. What you can and cannot do.

Credible minimum deterrent means you don't need thousands of nukes to deter the other. You do not plan to fight a war using nukes but rather as a credible punishment if struck with them. In a sense nukes here are political weapons and not military.

With a counter force doctrine its about total war. You intend to fight with nukes like other arms because you have so many to begin with. You can make nuclear threats over conventional attacks.

During the berlin airlift there were 5,000 marines in Berlin managing things. They were surrounded by tens of thousands of Soviet troops nearby. Would not have been difficult to take out the marines and stop the Americans but the Soviets never did because the threat was a nuclear strike on Russia if they did.

Both UK & France went nuclear by the early 60s because Nikita had threatened both that his missiles could reach their capitals and they feared an isolationist US may not come to their help. In such an event both UK & France would be operating under a credible minimum doctrine.

However within NATO, UK nukes would be under American control. When one goes they all go. With France the Americans don't have control of French nukes but the French don't have autonomy either. They would be operating under counterforce in alliance with the US.

In a way you are agreeing with me. Ability dictates doctrine

You mentioned limitations of delivery tech. I'm talking raw numbers. If you don't have enough your options are limited. They would be deployed to protect your assets and would not be free for discretionary use. Hence why both China & India are no first use. Because they don't have enough for a first strike as they are reserved for a response to one. If you get what I mean.

Neither India, Pakistan or China can prevent a conventional war from breaking out with the nukes they have. Two examples.

Kargil was more than a border skirmish yet the Paks were not deterred from starting a war over it. Revenge for Siachen who under Musharraf a decade earlier was lost.

After the parliament attack, Musharraf said if one Indian soldier crossed the LoC he would nuke India. This charade continued until the first raid in 2016 which they denied happened and the second raid which saw an attack in Pakistan proper. Again they played it down.

Pak nukes did not prevent the conventional Indian raids. More troubling for Pakistan since they claim first use but blinked when tested.

Another example is yom Kippur in '73. Egyptians attacked Israel. They had to have known at a minimum the Israelis had the ability to deliver a nuke or more with their jets yet were not deterred. Why? Same reason.

Now if Iran hypothetically gets nukes the Israelis say Iran can use nuclear blackmail against Israel. Like was said about Pakistan.

Nope. Not a damn chance. Israeli jets will attack Iran. Nukes or not. Because nuclear can't deter conventional. A bigger Balakote yes?

But I've not succeeded in getting Israelis to agree

Ability is what you can and can't do. Doctrine is just laying down a plan in case something happens. It isn't absolute.

Deterrence is simple, it is what it says, to give the enemy a reason not to use nukes. You can make threats for conventional attacks with fewer nukes as well, as long as you have the delivery and enough of them to destroy the opposing country. My thoughts are simply rational about what a country can do with it. I don't believe in doctrine since things are random in nature and one must adjust to it. If you think any country that says no first strike will abide by it when first strike favors it then it won't. You can prevent a conventional war by threatening nukes but you need to show them you mean it, also the world works by precedent, there is none (that I am aware of). The only point here is the potential between NATO and Warsaw Pact. I already mentioned mass before, maybe I would have been clearer by saying number of nuclear missiles. No comment on the India/Pakistan part, not interested. When/if israel has nukes is not "officially" confirmed. They didn't use nukes because they weren't about to loose. Nukes are something most countries generally seem to reserve for the most difficult scenarios, again we don't know but history suggests so. The point here is that the conventional war must present a significant threat to the country, I don't consider any of your examples to qualify. Certainly not kargil, I consider this a border skirmish.

 

[blr_p]

Because politicians/generals talk one way for the public & another way for the real audience. It doesn't matter who use nukes first in India Pak war the end result would be total destruction of all major cities of India & complete annihilation of Pakistan. That is why only insane ppl in power in either country would ever think about launching a nuke first & thankfully no such insane person has ever been able to come to power in either country till now.

I'm not getting into use because it's game over at that point. What I'm talking about is deterrence. In a way you can say the scope for a response has reduced after both became nuclear. So instead of another Kargil we get a Balakote.

Meaning you can't have another Kargil size conflict any more because now it's too risky and could go nuclear. I'm not fully onboard with that idea but it's what some retired personnel think.

Because political leadership of Israel at that time was not reckless enough as Netanyahu of today & would not have agreed to launch nukes in response to an attack not posing any existential threat to Israel at that point. That war was mainly to take back occupied territories by Israel in previous war.

And how would the Egyptians know that beforehand ? That too after the audacity of '67

Agreed it was about getting the Sinai back. But a non nuclear Egypt started a war with a nuclear power isn't it. That is not supposed to be possible according to conventional wisdom

This is why I say nukes for the non super powers cannot deter conventional conflict.

There is yet another example. The sino soviet split of the late 60s where the soviets were close to nuking their fellow communist China after a border dispute in '67 escalated.