India can launch a short war in case of a Pak misadventure

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

corrections Omar


1. 1948 you invaded a kingdom which chose neither Pakistan nor India as per mutually agreed terms concluded with the British. Your representatives raped and plundered forcing the king to aceede to India. Period.

Not 'our representatives' - the Tribal invasion was already going ahead before a Major from the nascent PA was assigned to work with it.

The reason the Tribal invasion, without Pakistani support, started was because the Maharajah started a campaign of violent suppression against local Kashmiris who rose up against his rule (he was a dictator after all). There were thousands of refugees that crossed into Pakistan before the Tribal invasion, from Poonch especially, that carried sordid tales of the atrocities committed by the Mharaja's troops.

Simultaneously, there were trains full of massacred migrants from India - men, women and children all killed by Sikh extremists on the way to Pakistan.

It was a combination of these factors that led to the Tribal invasion.

3. You did not withdraw from Kargil. You were rather kicked out. You even refused to acknowledge and accept your own dead! Shame on you for refusing recognition to those valiant soldiers who died fighting for your nation!!

So please dont be proud of it.

Actually we did withdraw from Kargil - a location where we never applied our complete military might in the first place.

And please don't flame by using the 'refused to accept our soldiers canard' - its been debunked on other Kargil threads.

Pakistan had issues with the Indian attempt to make theater out of the handover, and not utilize the traditional mechanism employed by the two nations to exchange prisoners and bodies.

What was disgraceful was the Indian attempt to gain propaganda mileage out of POW's and dead bodies.

 

[Patriot]

Anyway you dont have to tell us where you will strike.Worry about where we will strike back.We will use all weapons to retaliate.

 

[Omar1984]

2. 1965 you tried to occupy Sir Creek and later launched OP. Grandslam, a grand failure!!

Sir Creek is another disputed territory between Pakistan and India and still hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

OP Grandslam was used on another disputed territory Kashmir again hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

Are Lahore and Sialkot disputed territories that where invaded by Indians in 1965 by crossing INTERNATIONAL BORDERS.

Everyone in the world agrees, including India, that Lahore and Sialkot are part of Pakistan and still India decided to invade these areas in 1965.

Everyone in the world recognizes Sir Creek and Kashmir as disputed territories between Pakistan and India that hasn't been resolved for 62 years now.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This comes on the back of the statement by the IAF chief that India was considering strikes in Pakistan after Mumbai.

I think the argument, that Pakistan reacted unnecessarily after Mumbai, and reacted on the basis of 'media reports', has now been debunked completely.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir Creek is another disputed territory between Pakistan and India and still hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

OP Grandslam was used on another disputed territory Kashmir again hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

Are Lahore and Sialkot disputed territories that where invaded by Indians in 1965 by crossing INTERNATIONAL BORDERS.

Everyone in the world agrees, including India, that Lahore and Sialkot are part of Pakistan and still India decided to invade these areas in 1965.

Everyone in the world recognizes Sir Creek and Kashmir as disputed territories between Pakistan and India that hasn't been resolved for 62 years now.

And if Sir Creek, Op. Grandslam and Kargil are 'aggression', then so is Siachen in 1984.

Indian destabilization of East Pakistan does not even come into this category, since EP was sovereign, undisputed Pakistani territory - and Indian support for separatist groups there was a blatant act of aggression.

 

[Kasrkin]

"India is a stable democracy surrounded by Pakistan, China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka which are troubled states," Air Marshal Singh said...

It is sad to see that such dangerous delusions have hold over the high offices of the Indian state. No doubt this is part of the dangerous self-aggrandizing ideology that lends justification to (in their mind) the violation of sovereignty of ‘lesser’ neighborhood states. In Pakistan’s case it might be the last mistake India ever makes (quite literally!).

 

[paritosh]

well one short question...What keeps a short war 'short'?

 

[Zob]

hellfire i know you are patriotic however, you might have conventional superiroty however it becomes meaningless when it coems to nukes....

pakistan is currently investing in its missile technology....because that is the only sphere we can compete with india....

so when you talk about INDIAN military might.... it becomes meaningless once nukes & missiles are added to the equation....


1948 india annexed KASHMIR...and indian troops entered KASHMIR....when pakistan's intervened NEHRU went to UN....

1965 pakistan started operation grandslam....in the LoC area which was a disputed territory....india crossed the international border HENCE the war started....

in the end india held areas of PUNJAB and we held areas in RAJHISTAN....so it was a stalemate....which we consider a victory because of the sheer size of our enemy...the fact that they couldn't run us over meant a victory to us!!!

1971 INDIA entered a civil war within PAKISTAN....that led to the 1971 war and FOR THAT BACK STABBING MY FRIEND....we shall take our revenge!!

1984

India invaded SIACHEN....but pakistan army didn't retaliate....

1999 KARGIL pakistan army entered KARGIL thinknig the indians won't do anything like we didn't do anything in 1984.....again not considered a war because it was fought in DISPUTED TERRITORY...


so my friend india can claim its victories in 1971 but that was back stabbing....and in kargil well we WITHDREW....so my friend stop lreading Bharat RAK THE SHAK


as for INDIA doing SURGICAL STRIKES & PAKISTAN not retaliating....well it would be the biggest mistake on india's part to hallucinate in such a manner i don't see why it won't....!!!! so i guess both will have a bloody nose before the world steps in to stop the fight & that is just the BEST case scenario....

 

[Spitfighter]

hellfire i know you are patriotic however, you might have conventional superiroty however it becomes meaningless when it coems to nukes....

pakistan is currently investing in its missile technology....because that is the only sphere we can compete with india....

so when you talk about INDIAN military might.... it becomes meaningless once nukes & missiles are added to the equation....


1948 india annexed KASHMIR...and indian troops entered KASHMIR....when pakistan's intervened NEHRU went to UN....

1965 pakistan started operation grandslam....in the LoC area which was a disputed territory....india crossed the international border HENCE the war started....

in the end india held areas of PUNJAB and we held areas in RAJHISTAN....so it was a stalemate....which we consider a victory because of the sheer size of our enemy...the fact that they couldn't run us over meant a victory to us!!!

1971 INDIA entered a civil war within PAKISTAN....that led to the 1971 war and FOR THAT BACK STABBING MY FRIEND....we shall take our revenge!!

1984

India invaded SIACHEN....but pakistan army didn't retaliate....

1999 KARGIL pakistan army entered KARGIL thinknig the indians won't do anything like we didn't do anything in 1984.....again not considered a war because it was fought in DISPUTED TERRITORY...


so my friend india can claim its victories in 1971 but that was back stabbing....and in kargil well we WITHDREW....so my friend stop lreading Bharat RAK THE SHAK


as for INDIA doing SURGICAL STRIKES & PAKISTAN not retaliating....well it would be the biggest mistake on india's part to hallucinate in such a manner i don't see why it won't....!!!! so i guess both will have a bloody nose before the world steps in to stop the fight & that is just the BEST case scenario....

what are you talking about? We will have our revenge?

-48, 'irregular forces' attacked Kashmir, the king asked for Indian assistance, India responded, of course the PA failed to stop non-military personnel from taking the law into their own hands, rather they assisted them. if Kashmir would have been left alone, India, Pakistan and Kashmir would've eventually come to some sort of an agreement. Looks like Pakistan has never been able to control any of these non state actors in its territory.

-65, you already stated that Pakistan initiated operation grandslam. Don't you think attacking the soldiers of a country is a declaration of war?

-71, India took advantage of the situation, I doubt Pakistan would act differently if it had a similar opportunity. In the process we saved millions of Bangladeshis, but that was by default of course. It's been 38 years, the time for revenge is over I think.

-kargil, Irregulars once again, at least that's what they said in the beginning. if there are terrorist training camps in *** and India bombs them, its not a war right? It's disputed territory after all, so by your logic everything will be hunky dory. If Kashmir isn't ours, its not yours either.

If India does decide to strike a terrorist camp or two, would Pakistan really want to escalate the situation? do you really want to defend these people? why not simply wipe out all the 'non-state actors'? doesn't that seem like the best option? controlling them is one thing, but if they get out of hand its your responsibility right? is it worth the risk? wiping them out completely is the only way.

and don't talk about nukes all the time, don't be silly, no ones going to nuke anyone.

 

[Spitfighter]

where did those 'irregular forces' get their weapons and training from anyways in 48?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

where did those 'irregular forces' get their weapons and training from anyways in 48?

No training to speak off really, and the logistics behind it was poor as well.

The Pakistani administration was struggling to put together a working government and procure resources for the government, migrants, military etc. Many historians have recorded that the Pakistani Army had very little supplies to work with.

The tribals had essentially set off with whatever they had, and when a major was put in charge of trying to organize the effort, it was not very well organized, funded or supplied.

This is not rocket science - just think through the conditions and difficulties faced by the newly formed Pakistani state in just getting up and running.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyway - lets move away from the historical arguments and focus on what, if anything, the IAF chief's statement implies.

My argument is that it means little - whether another terrorist attack occurs in India or not, the decision to launch strikes into Pakistan will be governed by an analysis of the 'pros and cons' of such a move, and those (with respect to a military solution) are unlikely to be greatly changed from the situation that existed in the immediate aftermath of Mumbai.

Given that the Indian Military does not enjoy large enough conventional military superiority to achieve overwhelming military dominance in a short war, the potential benefits are not immediately clear, to me at least, given the almost certain Pakistani retaliation.

In fact, the IAF chief's threat of a 'short war' plays into Pakistani hands, since it is a long term war that India would hold the upper hand in, with its larger stockpiles of the resources necessary for war, and the potential of its navy to blockade Pakistan if the war drags on.

A 'short war' is something Pakistan is extremely capable of fighting and holding its own in.

 

[afriend]

Anyway - lets move away from the historical arguments and focus on what, if anything, the IAF chief's statement implies.

My argument is that it means little - whether another terrorist attack occurs in India or not, the decision to launch strikes into Pakistan will be governed by an analysis of the 'pros and cons' of such a move, and those (with respect to a military solution) are unlikely to be greatly changed from the situation that existed in the immediate aftermath of Mumbai.

Given that the Indian Military does not enjoy large enough conventional military superiority to achieve overwhelming military dominance in a short war, the potential benefits are not immediately clear, to me at least, given the almost certain Pakistani retaliation.

In fact, the IAF chief's threat of a 'short war' plays into Pakistani hands, since it is a long term war that India would hold the upper hand in, with its larger stockpiles of the resources necessary for war, and the potential of its navy to blockade Pakistan if the war drags on.

A 'short war' is something Pakistan is extremely capable of fighting and holding its own in.

I dont understand the term short war??? A war is a war.. and Its not in indias hands to determine whehter it will be short or long.. unless we are defeated in a short warr..!!! Pakistan is going to retaliate and its gonna be messy..
I believe this beilief is fueling the confidence in pakistani establishment to take less priority or turn a blind on anti-india "non state actors". But it will not go on forever for sure and there will be an end to it. What ever deterence is applied.. india would infact initiate a war in case the frequency of the terrorists attacks in india increases and it becomes a serious security threat to india..!!!! Currently the people advocating war is far less and is virtually non existant in different parts of india based on the terrorists attack they had to suffer in their respective regions..!!!

 

[Spitfighter]

Anyway - lets move away from the historical arguments and focus on what, if anything, the IAF chief's statement implies.

My argument is that it means little - whether another terrorist attack occurs in India or not, the decision to launch strikes into Pakistan will be governed by an analysis of the 'pros and cons' of such a move, and those (with respect to a military solution) are unlikely to be greatly changed from the situation that existed in the immediate aftermath of Mumbai.

Given that the Indian Military does not enjoy large enough conventional military superiority to achieve overwhelming military dominance in a short war, the potential benefits are not immediately clear, to me at least, given the almost certain Pakistani retaliation.

In fact, the IAF chief's threat of a 'short war' plays into Pakistani hands, since it is a long term war that India would hold the upper hand in, with its larger stockpiles of the resources necessary for war, and the potential of its navy to blockade Pakistan if the war drags on.

A 'short war' is something Pakistan is extremely capable of fighting and holding its own in.

pros and cons-

Pakistan is distracted its already fighting a war, if India pressurizes enough places Pakistan will have to devote all its resources to defending itself, the Taliban will run amok, the americans will be unhappy, pakistan is short on money, I think India at least for the moment has an advantage. besides given Pakistan's current war its not going to be looking for an escalation. and I still don't believe Pakistan will retaliate, not given its current situation. war is serious business.

 

[MastanKhan]

pros and cons-

Pakistan is distracted its already fighting a war, if India pressurizes enough places Pakistan will have to devote all its resources to defending itself, the Taliban will run amok, the americans will be unhappy, pakistan is short on money, I think India at least for the moment has an advantage. besides given Pakistan's current war its not going to be looking for an escalation.


" and I still don't believe Pakistan will retaliate, not given its current situation. war is serious business ".

Hi,

Your last quote is a very damning statement---many a millions have lost their lives over the centuries---because their foolish generals made believe the politicians and the citizenery that the " enemy will not react "---.