Subotai Bahadur

Hmm. It seems that my HTML italics did not work completely. It should have gone back to normal after “have to accept it”. The sentence following is NOT part of the article quoted.

Subotai Bahadur

I have to note that it looks more and more like the ISI is involved via a previously outlawed Muslim terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba. Two vessels with ties to Pakistan have been seized and apparently were used to land some of the terrorists and their equipment. Pakistani nationals are among the terrorists killed and captured. There is apparently an effective terrorist logistics infrastructure in place in Mumbai, as it seems that ammunition and explosives were pre-cached in the hotels. Reports that there were only a couple of dozen terrorists can be discounted. The fighting is still going on even after a number have been caught or captured, and the scope and area of the attacks would indicate a much larger number. If it does not appear that they catch or kill a total of 75-100 Tangos, it is distinctly possible that there will be a round 2 of attacks.

If SIOP’s are not being updated now, what do you want to bet that they will be if there is another attack?

I don’t know if Indian public opinion will tolerate this attack without a counterattack. One Indian writer has reached the end of her tolerance: http://southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers30%5Cpaper2946.html

We did not wish to be ‘enemies’, but since we have been constructed that way, should not we take our roles as ‘enemies’ a bit more seriously? I cannot speak the language of peace and love anymore. If the war is forced upon us, we will have to accept it.

Subotai Bahadur

I was just wondering if you thought that
India—-or anybody else—–could
“Uncle Billy” the Islam problem. Wish there was that in the wings somewhere but does not
seem to be.

You give a good presentation on what might come to pass although we all hope it does not.

The only nit at which I can pick is that I see no advantage in rendering any place unihabitable after the initial radiocatvity wears off. Better to set up an all-religion
academic center and tourist attraction there
just to get the point over that specie survival is, or should be, the universal morality.

I apologise for the delay in answering. Our Thanksgiving gathering was across the state, and we only got back early Friday morning.

At the risk of further damaging whatever “nice” reputation I might have, I will agree that an ideal strike package would be more than one shot. I would envisage 4 specific targets inside the KSA; ground burst, jacketed, and designed to make the targets unsurvivable for humans for generations. Multiple payloads per target would be desirable, but already you would be dealing with problems of fraticide, which more payloads would complicate. Three of the 4 targets are, however, in close enough proximity that any one detonation would suffice as none of them are in any way hardened.

I am assuming a certain mininal standard of competence for the Indian armed forces, especially their planning staff. I do not know how to say “SIOP” in Hindi. But I assume that their equivalent of our Joint Staff does. Indian planners [and their Pakistani counterparts] are operating in a strategic pressure cooker. They are, and have been, engaged in what is for them a strategic nuclear stand off, with minimal to non-existent warning time from a hostile launch; whereby their nation could be destroyed in a matter literally of a very few minutes. Their planners have to be placing an amazing level of priority on anything that would enhance a deterrent effect. Every additional deliverable payload, every additional kilometer of strategic reach; is a matter of national survival. Keep in mind that both Indian and Pakistani personnel do not lack dedication to that goal.

I think that it is reasonably certain that some bright Indian staff officer has noted existence of the ISRO’s boosters as a strategic asset. Approaching the problem from the other side, I am sure that they have looked, and are looking, at possible Pakistani targeting strategies. Once again, their Joint Staff personnel assigned to ponder what the Pakistanis might be considering in the way of a counterforce strike have to have considered that from the Pakistani point of view,ISRO is a strategic threat and have targeted Sriharikota for destruction. Thus, if Indian planners are earning however many Rupees they get per day [and in fact I am sure they are as very few things concentrate the mind more than the imminent prospect of being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike] the use of the launch assets of ISRO has already come under consideration.

If such has come under consideration, IF it has not been rejected [not a high order of likelihood there] further planning to take advantage would not be either apparent or easily detectable. The Indians already have a standard single warhead delivery bus design. While there is some talk of an Indian MRV, that is not confirmed. They have constant access to the design specs and known flight parameters of the space boosters. It would not take a huge project to create a modification of the design of the bus and guidance package since most of the design problems would have been already solved. Fabrication of one or two such packages would not be impossible or too costly. The trajectory, targeting, and launch parameter calculations could proceed both as part of the planning process and discreetly.

You would only need one or two, because ISRO would only have that many boosters at most in a state where preparations for launch could be rushed. It would not be an ideal strike, but you go to war with what you have, rather than what you wish for. From the Indian point of view, it would be another weapon to grasp at the last extremity, even if it was not an ideal strike package.

Do not underestimate either the ingenuity or the intensity of Indian military professionals at that level. Americans get their impressions of the nature of Indians from Bollywood and “The Simpsons”. These people operate under the pressure of a threat to national survival that easily matches that of US nuclear forces in the 1950’s.

I also have to note that the dynamics of the Indian-Pakistani nuclear standoff are such as to place a premium on a counter-value first strike, as neither has a survivable second strike capability to deter the other, or a sufficiently large enough arsenal to depend on counterforce. That tends to encourage thinking outside the box; especially when both national and religious survival is at stake.

The matter of the effects of a successful strike on Mecca is of course conjectural. I have to note that there is a sociological difference between religions that view a discrete location of a Diety as being critical, and those who view a Diety as having passed through a discrete location. Historically, if you destroy that location; with a religion of the first type, the religion tends to fail; q.v: the power of the Druids after their sacred groves were destroyed by the Romans, the Aztec religion after the Spanish destroyed their temples, or indeed innumerable cases where the temples of the local gods were destroyed by conquerers. Conversely, if Muslims conquered Israel and destroyed the Tomb of the Rock or the Church of the Nativity, it would not invalidate Christianity in the eyes of its believers. The ‘exception that proves the rule’would be the Hebrews after 73 AD. However, they had a degree of cultural and religious coherence and identity that a very divided and fractious Islam cannot match.

Of the “5 Pillars” of Islam [the Haj, Prayer 5 times a day towards the Kaaba, Ramadan, alms,and the Shahada]; the first 3 are Mecca dependent.

The matter of what happens if the strike fails is something that would not concern Indian planners. Before such a strike is launched, India would believe itself to be at the metaphorical last ditch. The survival of the nation and the Hindu religion would be at stake. Just as they would not be considering the collateral benefit to the West if militant Islam were to collapse; they would not care if Muslims became more arrogant if they failed. It would not matter if they were dead. We have to take ourselves out of the geopolitical mindset left over from the Cold War, and realize that they have their own dynamics driving their actions.

I mentioned in passing another nuclear power taking advantage of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange to do that strike itself. That got me thinking further on the concept of false flag operations in this venue. We have been concerned, at least those not on the political Left in this country, about the problem of a nuclear terrorist strike in this country with no one taking credit. The set of actors who fail the cui bono test would be so large as to completely paralyze our soon-to-be-installed regime into inaction. However, as I noted, the strike on Mecca would have a similarly large set of actors which would possibly tempt nuclear powers to take advantage of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange.

Let us consider possibilities. All of the non-Muslim nuclear powers have ongoing domestic Muslim insurgencies at different levels of activity; and therefore a motive. However, Russia and China are actively supporting the existence of Islamic nuclear weapons, and external Islamic terrorism against the West. The US to be blunt, has neither the Machiavellian mindset nor the will to do something like that, especially with the incoming regime. Israel may have the will, but lacks the ability to do it covertly. The launch of a ballistic missile is detectable by radar and satellites. The only non-ballistic means available to reach that target with an Israeli weapon would be by one of its few cruise missile capable submarines launching a POPEYE TURBO cruise missile. Getting one of those submarines on station in range, and maintaining it there would be an extremely non-trivial problem. Not feasible. The Brits are merely waiting for conquest. They lack the heart to resist anyone; and the sole contest will be whether they are conquered by Islam or the EU before they cease to exist. Submission to one or the other is in their future.

That leaves the French. They have both the capability AND they are sufficiently A-moral to do something like that if it occurred to them.

False flags are not solely an American problem.

I will close with this thought for the reader. While I have no knowledge base to operate from here; is it not possible that to an Indian planner pushed to the last nuclear ditch, that a Shia Iranian Muslim nuclear capability is as much a danger to whatever remains of India after the exchange as a Sunni Pakistani nuclear capability? I offer the concept of the 1500-1800 mile range circles of the Indian AGNI-III missile with the 500 kg payload, laid over a map of Iran showing its nuclear research, political, and religious centers. And I add the concept also of false flags to complicate the issue.

These are not discrete world problems. What happens there has the potential to affect us in a deadly fashion.

I apologise for the length of this. I am a wordy bugger, and I felt that I needed to get all this out if I was to answer Dave’s questions. Wretchard, I do not know if this busts some sort of bandwidth/length limit you might have. Feel free to delete it if it does.

Subotai Bahadur

Personally, I think they’re the evolutionary next step after we get past the necessity for gender-based reproduction. Which we have.

The problem will remain in place until we face the truth and know that we have to aggressively contain the Ummah and try to impress upon it the disastrous consequences of their intransigence.

I will definitely concede that India has the potential to hit Mecca with an ICBM. However,
turning potential into achieved capability is not a given. The system you descibe would need to be set up and tested with dummy warheads several times to assure reliability.

And for the operation you describe I would definitely want two or even three missles
on the way in short order. Just to make sure.

Failure is not and cannot be an option here.
Try to hit Mecca and fail and the other sides’
sense of invulnerability will escalate to unbelieveable proportions.

Which leads us to the other consideration.
Are you sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a successful hit will in fact either eliminate or transform Islam?

What I said about the consequences of failure
is, I think, actuarily certain. Miscreants have always gotten too big for their britches whenever they have escaped deserved retribution through no talent of their own.
This has held true both individually and collectively since time immemorial.

There are certainly examples of PSYOP strikes having the desired effect on enemy actions. Doolittles’ Raid comes to mind. However enemy transformation is not so confirmed.
After both Hiroshima and Nagasaki only about half of the Japanese movers and shakers were willing to call it quits.

If you are right about Mecca being THE nerve center for aggression, then nuking the place
might well be the thing to do. The “collateral damage” would be acceptable if the act prevented another 1000 years of strife and bloodshed. Or even 100 years.

But would it? The $64 question.

Your thoughts sir?

Okay, good luck with your plan of going to heaven by means of never having sex with someone of your own gender. I hope you don’t have plans for this Saturday. One time in Exodus a guy was picking up sticks on Saturday and he was stoned to death. It’s a sin clearly articulated by the bible, you see.

Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)