SipahSalar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,162
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
A report from 2002 when Pakistan and India were facing each other and war seemed inevitable.
Pakistan has come a long way since then. The gap has become smaller if anything.
The UK think-tank Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) is considered one of the most reputable and influential in the world. Coming in at 2nd in 2013 rankings.
The Think Tanks and Civil Society Program | The 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTTI)
I hope this would force some sense into the vedic commandos on the other side.
Pakistan army has higher quality: UK experts
LONDON, May 22: As the crisis over Kashmir deepens, British military experts say that while India’s armed forces would enjoy a numerical superiority if a war broke out, Pakistan’s army is of higher quality.
Comments by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on Wednesday that “the time has come for a decisive fight” further fuelled fears of an all-out war.
In any long-lasting conflict, India would have the advantage of a stronger economy and a population of over one billion compared to Pakistan’s 142 million. It would thus be able to mobilize more soldiers.
But if a conflict was of short duration, these assets would not necessarily enter into the equation, according to William Hopkinson, of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
“The quality of some of the Pakistani troops is probably better on average than that of the Indians,” he said.
“If the worst happens and a war starts, the pressures from all sides to stop it soon would be obviously enormous, so India’s theoretical long-term advantage might not come into play.”
According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, India has 1,303,000 people in its armed forces, plus 535,000 reservists.
Pakistan has about 612,000 troops and 513,000 reservists.
India is believed to have about 60 nuclear warheads and Pakistan has 25, Britain’s Times reported.
According to British government sources quoted by the paper on Wednesday, the Pakistanis are considered better troops, and could beat off an initial Indian offensive.
But the Indians could then use their superiority in conventional forces to overwhelm the Pakistanis.
In one doomsday scenario which, according to The Times, has been considered by British ministers, Islamabad could then use its weapon of last resort: a nuclear device.
India would survive the strike and hit back with its own atomic weapons, according to the scenario.
The use of nuclear weapons in a war for the first time since the Americans dropped such bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, is a threat that experts are not dismissing.
“Yes, it is possible,” said Hopkinson. “There could certainly be a risk if one side is going down in conventional struggle to use a nuclear weapon.
“Whether their doctrine would be to use it tactically or to make a strike at the enemy’s capital, I don’t know.
“I would have thought that the likelihood would be a tactical use but again, it depends where the forces are... you don’t want to use something (like that) on your own territory unless you can’t avoid it.”
Hopkinson added: “If Pakistan is faced with defeat but the defeat were happening on its own territory or its part of Kashmir, it might well strike for something a bit further back ... it could be forces massed behind the first echelon.”—AFP
Pakistan has come a long way since then. The gap has become smaller if anything.
The UK think-tank Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) is considered one of the most reputable and influential in the world. Coming in at 2nd in 2013 rankings.
The Think Tanks and Civil Society Program | The 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTTI)
I hope this would force some sense into the vedic commandos on the other side.
Pakistan army has higher quality: UK experts
LONDON, May 22: As the crisis over Kashmir deepens, British military experts say that while India’s armed forces would enjoy a numerical superiority if a war broke out, Pakistan’s army is of higher quality.
Comments by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on Wednesday that “the time has come for a decisive fight” further fuelled fears of an all-out war.
In any long-lasting conflict, India would have the advantage of a stronger economy and a population of over one billion compared to Pakistan’s 142 million. It would thus be able to mobilize more soldiers.
But if a conflict was of short duration, these assets would not necessarily enter into the equation, according to William Hopkinson, of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
“The quality of some of the Pakistani troops is probably better on average than that of the Indians,” he said.
“If the worst happens and a war starts, the pressures from all sides to stop it soon would be obviously enormous, so India’s theoretical long-term advantage might not come into play.”
According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, India has 1,303,000 people in its armed forces, plus 535,000 reservists.
Pakistan has about 612,000 troops and 513,000 reservists.
India is believed to have about 60 nuclear warheads and Pakistan has 25, Britain’s Times reported.
According to British government sources quoted by the paper on Wednesday, the Pakistanis are considered better troops, and could beat off an initial Indian offensive.
But the Indians could then use their superiority in conventional forces to overwhelm the Pakistanis.
In one doomsday scenario which, according to The Times, has been considered by British ministers, Islamabad could then use its weapon of last resort: a nuclear device.
India would survive the strike and hit back with its own atomic weapons, according to the scenario.
The use of nuclear weapons in a war for the first time since the Americans dropped such bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, is a threat that experts are not dismissing.
“Yes, it is possible,” said Hopkinson. “There could certainly be a risk if one side is going down in conventional struggle to use a nuclear weapon.
“Whether their doctrine would be to use it tactically or to make a strike at the enemy’s capital, I don’t know.
“I would have thought that the likelihood would be a tactical use but again, it depends where the forces are... you don’t want to use something (like that) on your own territory unless you can’t avoid it.”
Hopkinson added: “If Pakistan is faced with defeat but the defeat were happening on its own territory or its part of Kashmir, it might well strike for something a bit further back ... it could be forces massed behind the first echelon.”—AFP
Last edited:
