I think this article deserves a rational analysis, people get too caught up in their emotions and we end up pointing fingers at each others shortcomings instead of analyzing what's being said. If you do choose to reply to my comment, please try and counter my arguments, I already know India is poor.
I don't think a short and intense war is completely out of India's capabilities, the Indian armed forces undoubtedly have a way to go before they can be compared to likes of the European or even the Chinese armed forces, that said, India is still more than capable of carrying out a limited war directed towards eliminating terrorist training camps and the like.
It is in Pakistan's interest to keep a check on any and all organizations operating from its soil that seek to harm India. The Mumbai attacks clearly demonstrated that terrorists still operate with impunity in Pakistan. 26/11 really seems like the last straw, I don't see what other options India would have in the event of another major terrorist attack, how is the government going to contain the subsequent public outcry again? If the congress chooses to do nothing the next time around, I doubt they'll ever be elected back into office anytime in the next century. If India does decide to use the military option, they would probably target very specific targets like training camps I suppose.
From the Pakistani angle, would they really want to start a full blown war over a training camp or two? It's not like India is going to try and capture Lahore. I think the resistance would be very symbolic because I don't see what options they really have. Pakistan is already fighting a fierce war with the Taliban, they would have to devote all their resources to fighting India and in turn give the Taliban time to regroup and hunker down. The Taliban might also use the opportunity to score points with the people and expand their influence, something Pakistan will not be very comfortable with. Pakistan is also in some serious debt, so a sustained resistance seems unlikely, the Americans would probably play a pivotal role in making sure the war doesn't escalate, India can use it's new found diplomatic leverage and sympathy in the event of an attack to its advantage. Nuclear weapons will not be used, that's just a bluff, halwa hai kya? The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind, MAD works better than most people think, if anything nuclear weapons will make sure neither side gets too adventurous. I don't buy any of the 'low nuclear threshold' nonsense. Nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons.
From India's perspective, the strikes may lead to heightened tensions for a while, but eventually it would lead to some permanent pay offs. Pakistan will no longer have the advantage of 'plausible deniability', terrorists would no longer see India as a soft target, Pakistan would have to tread carefully with its support for Kashmiri groups fearing a return to violence which in turn would crush the hopes of any remaining separatists. In such a scenario, both countries will see no option but to come to an agreement that would allow them to co-exist. India may have the advantage for a short while, but if it chooses to abuse its position they'll be back to square one, which defeats the purpose of the entire episode.
what do you guys think?
