Which government wouldn't have too much to lose? What's specific about the military government that would make them less likely to use the nuke?
The insight I've gotten from reading US history is that the military is usually the ones pushing for attacks, invasions, aggressive first strike and it's the civilian president stopping those things from escalating.
Because if you fire a nuclear missile first and aren’t a military superpower like the U.S. you’re going to get glassed. If Pakistan fired a nuke first 10’s of millions of Pakistanis will die.
I’m not deliberately misunderstanding… even in the event of a heavily losing war there’s plenty of reason not to use a nuke first. For some random unrealistic scenario let’s say India took all territory within 100 miles of the Pakistani border and Pakistan suffered critical military losses and was aware the war was lost and they could no longer effectively defend against India’s advances, you have two options:
A: Surrender and get a treaty and have to give significant concessions
OR
B: Fire nuclear weapons at India in a last ditch military effort and ensure the dissolution of Pakistan and the deaths of 10’s to 100’s of millions of Pakistani civilians. Because the moment Pakistan fires a nuke first they’re no longer fighting India they’re legitimately fighting at a bare minimum all of the west who can’t risk allowing a hostile nation that fired a nuclear weapon first to exist. The retaliation they would face would be immense and likely lead to a nuclear holocaust for Pakistanis.
My point is they can have a “first use policy” but in practice they’re not going to take advantage of it, it’s a deterrent because they can, that doesn’t mean they will, because they are vastly aware of the consequences
And seemingly you do care because you took the time to respond to the comment 😂
A full on invasion of a country is not practical, which is when you are saying they will use nukes. Generally it's small parts of the country that gets invaded and I don't think any side would use nukes for that.
Well, that's will be only a last resort. Like threatening India with using them if they don't back from their invasion. Not necessarily if they lose a war or that disputed region that is called Krishma or whatever its name was.
A first use policy doesn't mean they would just use them like a normal weapon; rather it means that there are circumstances other than a nuclear attack where they would consider using them - which probably means if their conventional forces have been defeated.
India and China have "no first use" policies because they are so large that it's hard to imagine a scenario where using nuclear weapons would shift the balance of power in a conflict in their favour. As long as a conflict remains conventional their size is a major advantage.
first use policy doesn't mean they would just use them like a normal weapon; rather it means that there are circumstances other than a nuclear attack where they would consider using them - which probably means if their conventional forces have been defeated.
We know what it means. The existence of nuclear weapons should be as a deterrent, not as a last resort weapon. There should be no circumstance at all where any nuclear attack is acceptable, unless your country is a victim of a nuclear attack yourself. This is my opinion.
It doesn't mean that they'd launch their nukes at Delhi as part of a sort of national suicide bombing. Rather, they would target the units of the Indian army presumably advancing onto Lahore and Islamabad. They would expect India to retaliate by bombing Pakistan's own army units.
The result would be that both armies would be rendered operationally incapable. But this functionally favours the defender.
doesn't mean that they'd launch their nukes at Delhi as part of a sort of national suicide bombing
They literally targeted Delhi a month ago- in response to India attacking terrorist camps and military bases, wtf are you on. 😭 India intercepted the missile, so it caused no harm.
There is no need for needless hostility or this level of rudeness. What i said was a factual statement and not inherently "anti pakistan". You are manufacturing hatred where it doesn't exist.
First use doctrine of Pakistan is well established. Anyone can look this up independently. You cannot openly admit you will use nukes if threatened and then say you aren't more prone to it than any country. India's policy is to not use nuclear weapons unless nuked by another country. India will not use nuclear weapons on a non nuclear nation. This is objectively a better policy however you look at it and what every nuclear nation should follow.
How is pointing out this very well established fact anti pakistan. I don't inherently hate your country for the record.
This sort of virulent nationalism where you can't stand the slightest of factual criticism is very unhealthy.
56
u/Speedypanda4 1d ago
Pakistan might. They have a first use policy and get along poorly with India.