FAILURE OF MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD) DOCTRINE TO DETER MUSLIM NUKES- KALKI GAUR
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 9:59:58 PM
http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/ Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
Failure of Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine
QUERY: How India should develop a nuclear doctrine to deter the threat of nuclear attacks from Pakistan and Iran as fundamentalist Jihadi Muslims are not rational human beings to be deterred by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Nuclear doctrine? How Israel should develop a nuclear doctrine to deter Iranian or Islamic nuclear attacks as MAD doctrine fails to deter the Jihadis and Martyrdom seeking Islamic terrorist leadership of the Middle East? How to deter oil-rich Saudi Al Qaeda fundamentalists from using dirty radioactive nuclear bomb to contaminate the civilized metropolitan cities by terrorist dirty nuke attacks?
SOLUTION: (DNA Nuclear Doctrine): The Nuclear Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, warns the Islamic nuclear nations that any attack on any civilized nation (“Y”) by Islamic nuclear power (“X”) would result in the mass execution of the entire male population of that nuclear aggressor (“X”) and all women, lands and assets of the Islamic nuclear aggressor (“X”) shall become the property of the nuclear victim (“Y”)
(1) DOCTRINE OF BIG BOMBS:
The MAD Doctrine was based on the premises that when nuclear powers have big bombs than any nuclear exchange will result in the nuclear holocaust. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, United States has been advocating the use of tactical nuclear weapons and neutron bombs. Indian nuclear doctrine cannot depend upon the nuclear deterrent of MAD Doctrine against United States as India lacks the second strike retaliatory capability. India can deter the preemptive nuclear strikes from United States by proving that it can cause human casualty of over one million by using tactical nuclear weapons against white European Christians. India need not attack against United States to deter the US nuclear strikes. India can also deter US strikes by threatening nuclear strikes against Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
(2) VIRUS OF ISLAMIC BOMB:
Christian World introduced the Virus of Islamic Pakistani Atom Bomb to keep Pagan Hindu India down, just as the Europeans in the past had introduced Plague Virus to eliminate Native Americans. Islamic Bomb cannot destroy Hindu Civilization, on the contrary, Pakistan’s Atom Bomb signals the downfall of Christian and Judaic Civilization. Brown India would be immune to Islamic nuclear barbarism, just as Europeans had developed immunity to Plague while it was lethal to Red Indians. Would brown Asians destroy each other by nuclear weapons, or would India and Pakistan unite like United Europe to demand their place under the Sun?
(3) PAKISTAN PLANNED A NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST INDIA:
How should India retaliate if fanatic irresponsible nations misuse a nuclear weapon? Pakistani Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan declared during June 1998 as follows. Pakistan now has nuclear superiority over India, in terms of weaponry and its command and control system. If war broke out between India and Pakistan, India would surrender within an hour. In case of nuclear conflict Pakistan would be in a better position to absorb, an attack because Pakistan has more scattered population than India, which by comparison has cities that are more populous. After nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan, Islamabad had emerged stronger than Delhi. What should be India’s response to similar Pakistani nuclear threats to India?
(4) NUCLEAR DOCTRINE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY:
Nuclear Weapon is different from military weapons. Use Nuclear Weapons as an instrument of Diplomacy. Atom Bomb is an Instrument of Foreign Policy, provided a clear-cut Nuclear Weapons Doctrine is in place. Without a clear and well-defined Nuclear Weapons Doctrine and Nuclear War Strategy, nuclear weapons would fail as an effective Instrument of Foreign Policy.
(5) PROXY STRIKES AGAINST INDIA:
Nuclear Dilemmas: The first dilemma is that adversaries may use a proxy to launch preemptive nuclear strikes to escape nuclear retaliation. India believes that the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would not provide credible Nuclear Deterrent in the Terrorist Age. MAD Doctrine could not answer questions of China and the United States transferring Nuclear Weapons to Pakistan. Indian Nuclear doctrine should advocate that the nuclear victim of a preemptive nuclear strike would also retaliate against the nuclear powers providing Missiles and Nuclear Weapons to the Nuclear Aggressor. India will not allow the United States or China to use Pakistan as a Proxy to launch nuclear strikes against India.
(6) NUKES AGAINST TERRORISTS:
The MAD Doctrine has a basic flaw that, only when it promotes massive retaliation that it can be effective. The second dilemma is that if for nuclear intransigence, the nuclear Armageddon is the only response available, then responsible Nuclear Powers would hesitate to retaliate against the preemptive strikes by terrorist and fanatic States. Nuclear Weapons would become impotent if the only retaliation possible were the Nuclear Armageddon. Should Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine advocate a limited usage of Nuclear Nukes against terrorist Nations? The answer should be, No.
(7) NUKES NOT ALLOWED IN LAND WARS:
The Nuclear threshold level should not be lowered, otherwise who would deter the frequent use of nuclear weapons by (P-5) nations. It is the third dilemma. Otherwise the Super Powers could be tempted to use nuclear Nukes to avert their defeats in conventional wars, such as American defeat in the Vietnam War and Soviet Union/ Russia’s defeat in the Afghanistan War. Laws of Wars should never allow the use of Nuclear Nukes in conventional Wars. The United States threatened the use of Atom Bombs, first time during the Korean War. The second time United States threatened the use of nuclear weapons was during the Vietnam War. The third time, the nuclear deterrent was exercised was during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, by President Nixon. If the nuclear threshold lowers, then it makes the use of tactical nuclear weapons more likely. Then the United States President will go berserk and start using nuclear weapons against all kinds of threats. It could accidentally lead to A nuclear Armageddon. The use of tactical nuclear weapons should not become a game for the US President. The United States could become the greatest threat to world peace by its cavalier use of Nuclear Nukes. That is why, the threshold level of nuclear nukes should not be lowered. Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine advocates a nuclear retaliation for any use of Nuclear Nukes in any Land War.
(8) NUCLEAR NUKES ALLOWED IN SEA-WAR:
Nevertheless, European Naval Doctrine accepts that Nuclear Torpedoes could be used in a Naval War at High Seas, without causing nuclear retaliation. Indian Nuclear doctrine states that India could use Nuclear Torpedoes and Nukes to deter hostile Naval Fleets and air craft carriers. India would use nuclear torpedoes to sink the hostile naval fleets, if NATO and US Naval fleets were to invade Indian coastlands in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. Rather than allowing the Seventh Fleet and aircraft Carriers to bomb Indian coastal metropolises, it would be prudent to sink the hostile naval fleets by the judicious use of nuclear nukes at the high seas. Nuclear torpedoes allow a Land Powers to deter the naval invasion of Maritime Sea Powers. Nuclear missiles and nuclear torpedoes have made aircraft carriers highly vulnerable.
(9) DEPOPULATION OF NUCLEAR AGGRESSOR:
It is the fourth dilemma. How would Victim Nation retaliate by conventional war to annihilate the terrorist Nuclear State, after the aggressor had launched a preemptive nuclear strike, as the victim would be in a very bad shape? Rather than retaliating at nuclear level, it is more humane if conventional weapons inflict total annihilation of the Nuclear Aggressor. In retaliation to a preemptive nuclear strike, the retaliation by conventional weapons could also be effective in depopulating the Nuclear Aggressor. An Armageddon by conventional weapons is definitely preferable to a nuclear Armageddon. Any nuclear attack against aggressor nations would also contaminate the lands and the river system, threatening the food production. It would be a legitimate Right of the Victim State to use conventional weapons to occupy all the Lands and Resources of the Nuclear Aggressor to resettle its population displaced by nuclear strike. The Adult Male Population of the Nuclear Aggressor would cease to live. The retaliation by DNA doctrine will not harm its Women, Lands and Resources. The displaced residents of the Victim Nation will use these. One should prefer the annihilation of the Nuclear Aggressor, by non-nuclear weapons. Everyone would prefer a Non-Nuclear Armageddon to a Nuclear Armageddon, if one had the choice. The acronym of this nuclear doctrine the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor is DNA Doctrine.
(10) NUCLEAR TORPEDOES ALLOWED AGAINST FLEETS:
Nuclear Nukes in Sea War: The fifth dilemma of the nuclear doctrine, is that during Colonial era Europe, Sea Powers conquered the world by the aggressive use of their deep Sea Navies. Land Powers were helpless to face the onslaught of hostile Navy. Nuclear weapons enable the land powers can now face the fury of hostile Naval Fleets and Sea Powers. Nuclear Torpedoes would sink aircraft Carriers and large Fleets in a highly cost effective manner. Scarce defense dollars should better be spent on nuclear torpedoes rather than on vulnerable aircraft carriers. President Nixon dispatched during 1971 Indo-Pakistan War, the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal. In future Nuclear India would draw a line in the Indian Ocean, warning the hostile Naval Fleets not to cross northward of 10 degree Latitudes toward in Arabian Sea or Bay of Bengal, during the times of hostilities. India cannot allow hostile Naval Fleets and aircraft carriers to enter Indian territorial waters unopposed. India should use nuclear torpedoes against invading naval aircraft carriers while they are at the high seas; otherwise, Indian cannot use the nuclear deterrent. Failure to do so would make India at the mercy of the hostile Naval Fleets, if they enter the territorial waters of India. India’s use of Nuclear Torpedoes to sink hostile Fleet in Bay of Bengal would not lead to a nuclear conflagration. Nuclear Torpedoes and Nukes are used against Naval targets at High Seas during War, without causing nuclear retaliation.
(11) DEVELOP SLBM:
We must study the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, acronym MAD Doctrine. We should evaluate whether MAD Doctrine would provide a credible Deterrent against any Pakistani preemptive nuclear strike against India. Unless India develops the Second Strike Capability, the MAD Doctrine would fail to deter a Chinese or Pakistani preemptive nuclear strikes against India. Deploying Submarines Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), provides the second Strike capability as they are likely to escape destruction in a preemptive nuclear strike.
(12) DEVELOP SECOND STRIKE CAPABILITY:
Doctrine of Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE), which foreswore Indian nuclear weapons made India a target of preemptive nuclear strikes by China and Pakistan. Nuclear powers could launch a preemptive nuclear strike against a new nuclear power, before it develops and deploys its nuclear arsenal. India should embark upon a program of the development, induction, and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery system. So long as Indian nuclear arsenal remains less than 500 deployable, nuclear weapons, India would remain vulnerable to preemptive nuclear strikes. Any delay in the deployment of nuclear weapons by Indian Army, Air Force and Navy would increase the dangers of a preemptive nuclear strike. So long as India lacks Second Strike capability, it would be a target of preemptive nuclear attack.
(13) NUCLEAR DETERRENT DETERS DIRECT ATTACK:
Doctrine Mutual Assured Destruction provided a stable nuclear Deterrent between USA and Russia and a nuclear war free twentieth Century. Chinese Nuclear arsenal deterred the United States from expanding Vietnam War by bombing mainland of China, even when America suffered a humiliating defeat. Cambodia lacked nuclear weapons so the United States invaded Buddhist Cambodia with impunity, even when USA was sure to lose the Vietnam War. Because India lacked nuclear weapons, the United States sent Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal during 1971 Indo-Pak War. The United States had threatened to use nuclear weapons against India had India continued to liberate Kashmir after Pakistan’s defeat. The United States though humiliatingly defeated in the Vietnam War was willing to use the nuclear weapons against India, is a lesson India should never forget. India should diplomatically threaten nuclear retaliation; if ever the United States threatens a nuclear attack on India again as it did in 1971. Had Yugoslavia deployed nuclear weapons under Marshal Tito in early 1960s, then NATO would neither have invaded Yugoslavia nor partitioned it.
(14) DECLARE RETALIATION IN ADVANCE:
Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine should declare in advance the threshold level, when the military use of nuclear weapons would replace the diplomatic use of nuclear weapons. India should draw clear lines in the sand so that the adversaries would know when to withdraw. The fundamental tenet of Nuclear Strategy is that every Nuclear power seeks to realize its political goals, by making a diplomatic use of its nuclear capability, without ever militarily using the nuclear weapons. Nuclear Deterrent is effective only when nuclear weapons are never used.
(15) INDIAN NUCLEAR DETERRENT AGAINST NATO:
Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine declares that in the event of an NATO invasion of India, India would use nuclear weapons against European metropolises on the very first day of the NATO air strikes. Indian nuclear doctrine declares that it would use nuclear torpedoes and missiles tipped with nuclear nukes to sink the hostile aircraft carriers and naval fleets. Enemy carrier battle groups that cross north of 10 degree Latitudes in the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal after the outbreak of the hostilities, will be fired on, and sunk.
(16) NO SUICIDE FOR HOMO SAPIENS:
A rattlesnake is highly poisonous and can kill by a single bite. Nevertheless, two rattlesnakes fight to death and die. Nevertheless, no rattlesnake would ever inject poison into other during a duel even if it would die during the fight. On the other hand, pigeon is very peaceful harmless bird, which out of fear closes its eyes in the presence of a danger; thus, some cats catch them easily. Nevertheless, two pigeons fight to death. Homo Sapiens specie is more similar to the specie of rattlesnakes not that of pigeons. The Homo Sapiens specie will protect the human civilization from nuclear Holocaust like poisonous rattlesnakes, even when one of the Nuclear Weapon States loses a conventional war. Rattlesnakes even in a deadly duel will never poison each other, even if they die in the duel. Are Homo Sapiens like pigeons docile to enemies, but fight to death with a member of its own specie? Both the United States and Russia have proved they are deadly like rattlesnakes and Homo Sapiens sense of self-preservation would save the world from A nuclear Armageddon. There is no reason to doubt that both Pakistan and India would take care not to annihilate their common South Asian Homeland.
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights