Yes and yes.
The US is not an ally, and will not do anything in case of a limited invasion/aggression by India. The US cannot even act to force Israel to end occupation and come to a fair settlement on such an obvious FP issue as the Israel-Palestine conflict, so nobody (in Pakistan at least) believes it'll come to Pakistan's rescue in case of aggression by India.
With respect to the nuclear deterrent, there is already plenty of literature on both the Pakistani and Indian sides of South Asian conflicts being fought under a nuclear umbrella - these conflicts would not result in existential threats to the other nation, and therefore would not cross the nuclear threshold, but, if successful, could offer tactical and strategic victories.
Limited territorial and/or strategic losses in such conflicts will be almost impossible to recoup for either side once one side is entrenched in new positions. Given Indian capabilities deployed against the Pakistani border and LoC, such scenarios are a real concern and threat, and must be catered to with an adequate conventional deterrent.
Whatever else the Taliban do, they cannot hold on to territory as can a conventional military.Yes the deployment of less than ideal numbers of troops slows down the COIN effort, but a longer COIN effort may be preferable to a permanent loss of territory/strategic advantage in case of a limited conflict initiated by India.
...Now stop trolling the leave the thread if you have nothing concrete to contribute...
