What's new

India cannot defeat Pakistan militarily

True that!


You don't need 100 WMD weapons to destroy it. Targeting major economic hubs of India would be enough. India, with its large bulky population, massive foreign investments that would be lost in such a scenario, and complex strategic dynamics, cannot sustain itself if its core economic hub is wiped out.



Maybe after 10 years or 15, but I don't see that happening in the upcoming years at least. It's difficult to capture and control AJK due to its challenging terrain and pro-Pakistani population, esp who are natural fighters. Any misadventure by India could result in serious repercussions. China is directly involved in the region, any move by India could trigger China because of it's specific developments for global power projection, making it difficult for India to handle two militaries simultaneously.

Keep that in mind, CPEC is in real CEC, not CPEC!

India is not capable of fighting a war on two fronts, let alone on the same front. If China opens another front, it would deviate the war of AJK to thousands of kilometers across the north of India, and everyone knows India is nowhere capable of fighting a two-front war, in fact, it was stated by your own mil chiefs multiple times.
Will you personally be participating in the great holy war or does the PA HQ command centre in Canada suffice.

I'd like to ask you about your contribution in the glorious war. What are you going to do?

Preach to raise morale?
Draw up plans for offensive action?
Pointing out the mistakes India makes to PA?
Moral support, thots and prayers from Ottowa?
 
It did not cross even a foot inside. Consult your own sources.
Doesn't matter, the targets were of similar distance, higher significance and quantity.
Is that what you think happened?
Not what I think happened, what actually happened. Don't tell me you're one of the believers of 300 terrorists dying and Abhinandan downing an F-16 without firing a single missile.
Look up the independent sources, and quote one.

Don't quote heroes who last were heard accusing the Americans of conspiring to overthrow him.
They're linked in the original post.
Has any one of you armchair field marshals figured out how your troops will move about? On foot? Swimming the Arabian Sea?
In case you weren't aware, India and Pakistan share a 3,000km long land border, and Pakistan has a vast logistics network near the border.
Meanwhile, the Indian forces lined along the borders - Pakistani forces are NOT lined up like that - will be asleep under their fans.
Pakistani forces are more concentrated near the border, and can mobilise faster in the event of a perceived conflict nearing- India learnt that the hard way in 2002.
It must be their educational system. Nothing else can account for these ways of thinking.
I studied in the British education system, but I wasn't aware that in the Indian education teaches you to pull statistics out of your arse and consider them more credible than those presented by qualified academics and journalists.
your personal opinions
There is international consensus that India was humiliated at Balakot, both militarily and because of the fact that it outright lied, causing the credibility of its claims, past and future, to come under scrutiny.
Kashmir is not a threat.
Separatism is very much alive in Kashmir.
Tourist figures are at an all-time high. 90% of the tourists are Indians.
Kashmiris only hit military targets, tourists aren't military targets. Tourism to Afghanistan has also risen since the Taliban took over.
Do try and work out if an income-starved resident of the Vale will put his newly generated income at risk.
Forget those on income who fund militancy, you have 14-16 year old CHILDREN picking up arms and going on killing sprees of Indian personnel after watching their families be tortured by Indian forces. It doesn't help that while chasing said children, the Indian forces are so afraid, that following a militant operation, they arrest and torture tens of civilians and RPG entire houses to the ground (which is, by the definition of terrorism - using armed forced against civilian targets to impose your rule by fear) instead of entering them and engaging the militants like honorable men.
The fostering of terrorist action will only endanger your own financial and international standing.
As a Kashmiri, I object to your usage of the term "terrorist." You'd probably call those Indians who rebelled against the British in 1847 terrorists too, I assume?
 
Will you personally be participating in the great holy war or does the PA HQ command centre in Canada suffice.

I'd like to ask you about your contribution in the glorious war. What are you going to do?

Preach to raise morale?
Draw up plans for offensive action?
Pointing out the mistakes India makes to PA?
Moral support, thots and prayers from Ottowa?

I don't support the current Pakistani Establishment. They're core to corrupt esp retired 22-grade officer - Army chief. They are busy in political engineering lol
 
Difference being, India can target core economic hubs of pakistan with conventional weapons, pakistan will have to escalate to ballistic missiles to target India's economic centres
You think Pakistani MRBMs cannot be armed with conventional warheads? You think PAF doesn't have SOWs, and PA's artillery doesn't have double the range (150km) of IA's? You think India's breadbasket isn't right at the border?
Thats a big 'if', China wouldn't necessarily open up a front against India unless it feels that it is going to pose a strategic disadvantage to them, which it doesn't since china doesn't have investments of any value in GB, had it been serious CPEC would've changed the entire Sino-Pak trade region.
You think China will let its trade routes be controlled by an American lackey state like India? You clearly don't get why CPEC is important for China. China doesn't care about of South Asia, development,development is just an incentive for Pakistan to accept CPEC. The real reason China wants CPEC is so it has a trade route that can't be threatened by Americans or their allies, like Malacca.

You've seen how the Americans propped up Ukraine against mighty militarily superior Russia. What do you think the Chinese and Turks will do to prop up Pakistan against its military equal India?
which again, are protected by Ballistic Missile Defence systems.
What a joke. Even the US has not developed a reliable ballistic missile defence system yet, and you expect Indian cities will have a force field around them? Even if I were to entertain your fantasy of India having systems more advanced than the US's, you do realise said systems would hardly intercept 30% of missiles?
And unless pak deepstate would wish for complete annihilation of their country, they'll stay away from WMDs.
Lol, and you don't think destroying Pakistan's economic centres will be crossing a nuclear red line? For Pakistan, any weapon above 300km is considered strategic because it covers most of the country.

Pak deepstate will not hesitate to glass India - they all can move to London, Dubai, the US, etc.
 
You think Pakistani MRBMs cannot be armed with conventional warheads? You think PAF doesn't have SOWs, and PA's artillery doesn't have double the range (150km) of IA's? You think India's breadbasket isn't right at the border?
No, it is fed to you that Punjab is India's breadbasket, it isn't. Madhya Pradesh is the biggest breadbasket India has. Other than that no major economic hub of India is under conventional arty range of pakistan. Even if you think you can harm Punjab agriculture, what exactly will you do? Shell each farm?
You think China will let its trade routes be controlled by an American lackey state like India? You clearly don't get why CPEC is important for China. China doesn't care about of South Asia, development,development is just an incentive for Pakistan to accept CPEC. The real reason China wants CPEC is so it has a trade route that can't be threatened by Americans or their allies, like Malacca.
Yet they never took it seriously, how much has CPEC generated volumes in the trade routes built for it, especially Gwadar?
You've seen how the Americans propped up Ukraine against mighty militarily superior Russia. What do you think the Chinese and Turks will do to prop up Pakistan against its military equal India?
Americans did it because Ukraine is the major thing that separates Russia from NATO and Ukraine's fall would mean Russia next door to Nato, especially the European Union's biggest countries.

China and Turkey wouldn't find it useful to spend money to pak, plus they don't own the US Dollar which Americans print as much as they want.
What a joke. Even the US has not developed a reliable ballistic missile defence system yet, and you expect Indian cities will have a force field around them? Even if I were to entertain your fantasy of India having systems more advanced than the US's, you do realise said systems would hardly intercept 30% of missiles?
Something's better than nothing, India is shoring up multi-layered ADS in major cities, would reduce the chances of hit if not nullify it completely.
Lol, and you don't think destroying Pakistan's economic centres will be crossing a nuclear red line? For Pakistan, any weapon above 300km is considered strategic because it covers most of the country.

Pak deepstate will not hesitate to glass India - they all can move to London, Dubai, the US, etc.
If India bombs your only port, will pakistan respond by nuking India? For all the war Russia has fought for a year to even recent "attack" on Putin, they didn't use nuclear weapons on Ukraine, it's not a toy which ya'll keep harping about.
 
Who was the aggressor in 48?
India, by sending its military to support Hari Singh in his genocidal campaign against Kashmiri Muslims which had led to an uprising against him. By the way, the Pakistan Army didn't enter Kashmir until May 1948.
Who was the aggressor in 65?
India, who first enroached upon Pakistani patrol points in Kutch, and then launched a failed invasion of Pakistani territory after Pakistan merely instigated an insurgency in retaliation for the Kutch misadventure.
We were certainly not the aggressors in 71; we intervened on behalf of a province of the erstwhile Pakistan that had been brutalised.
We were certainly not the aggressors in 48; we intervened on behalf of an independent state that had been brutalised by its genocidal British installed ruler.

We were also not the aggressors in 2001
You merely sent a few hundred thousand troops to the border, killing thousands of them in the process to damage our reputation and coerce us into obeying you, just as you tried in 2016 and 2019.

The only time Pakistan was the undisputed aggressor was 1999, and that too was in retaliation for India's uncalled for annexation of Siachen.
 
Indians have learned the lessons. They are letting Pakistan army defeat itself
 
India can defeat Pakistan militarily, depending on the scenario.
It depends on the objectives of each side. Pakistan's at the moment is most likely to defend itself and seize small pockets of Indian territory where possible and perhaps a larger offensive into southern Kashmir (judging by ORBAT and historical trends), by which time the international community will have stopped the war before India can fully utilise its numerical advantage.

According to CSD, India's objective is to quickly seize large chunks of territory to gain favourable terms when the war ends, while also stopping it from going nuclear (only physically possible south of Jhelum, and realistically in the Thar region). But the problem is all of Pakistan's essential territory is near the border, and the nuclear red line is dangerously blurred.

Per Pakistan's doctrine, the mostly likely sequence of escalation is first a nuclear test and mating warheads, and then TNWs and on to SNWs. By the first stage the international community will have lost its collective sh!t and will do go any extent to stop the war - like the Americans rapidly did in Feb 2019.

Most likely, each side's army won't even be able to cross a few kms into the other side of the border before the war ends.

Pakistan has realised this and adopted the same model against India that it used against the far conventionally superior Soviets. The problem is, Uncle Sam disapproves, and Pakistan doesn't have shitloads of money to wage proxy war against India like it did with the Soviets.
 
Americans did it because Ukraine is the major thing that separates Russia from NATO and Ukraine's fall would mean Russia next door to Nato, especially the European Union's biggest countries.
And Pakistan is the only link China has to the Arabian sea, and China's closest ally - we are to China what Israel is to the US, as a Chinese diplomat once said.

You seriously overestimate India's capabilities, and underestimate China's. You also wrongly believe that annexing Kashmir will not be crossing a nuclear red line of Pakistan.
Something's better than nothing, India is shoring up multi-layered ADS in major cities, would reduce the chances of hit if not nullify it completely.
You cannot stop a strategic range range ballistic missile, the Americans can't nullify North Korea's measly arsenal, there is no way in hell India can stop Pakistan's.

Even Pakistani HQ-9s have ABM capabilities against shorter range ballistic missiles - but they won't stop MRBMs. ABMs are largely a waste of money, which is why Pakistan has invested in MIRV to nullify any meagre advantage Indian ABMs had.

If Ababeel with 3 warheads is launched at Mumbai - and we assume India has systems at par with America's - you do realise 2 of the 3 warheads will still hit their target, right? And if we're talking about 2 nukes, it's more than enough to put Mumbai down forever.
 
And Pakistan is the only link China has to the Arabian sea, and China's closest ally - we are to China what Israel is to the US, as a Chinese diplomat once said.

You seriously overestimate India's capabilities, and underestimate China's. You also wrongly believe that annexing Kashmir will not be crossing a nuclear red line of Pakistan.

You cannot stop a strategic range range ballistic missile, the Americans can't nullify North Korea's measly arsenal, there is no way in hell India can stop Pakistan's.

Even Pakistani HQ-9s have ABM capabilities against shorter range ballistic missiles - but they won't stop MRBMs. ABMs are largely a waste of money, which is why Pakistan has invested in MIRV to nullify any meagre advantage Indian ABMs had.

If Ababeel with 3 warheads is launched at Mumbai - and we assume India has systems at par with America's - you do realise 2 of the 3 warheads will still hit their target, right? And if we're talking about 2 nukes, it's more than enough to put Mumbai down forever.
As I said, fantasising of nukes is good for online debates, it will never be used no matter how much you argue.
 
As I said, fantasising of nukes is good for online debates, it will never be used no matter how much you argue.
Nukes will never be used, because your fantasies of annexing Gilgit Baltistan, destroying Pakistani economic centres, and defeating Pakistan in a war, and using your BMDs, will never come true.

It is still rather amusing to me that Indians such as yourself live in utter delusion about Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Either you lot believe you can survive hundreds of nukes, or you believe you can defeat PA and not end up glassed. It's no surprise though, considering the average IQ in India is 76.
 
Wonder how this Country has survived 75 years where most of the citizens are living in fantasy. Their reputation of being a failed quom spreads wherever they go. Pakistanis are spreading dirt everywhere - Europe, US even in their Ancestral land Arab and Turkey. They are regarded as terrorists, kam chor, Zahil and anti social elements worldwide. Good that they consider themselves very impotant within temselves.

Now back to the topic, no sane person, govt, military will ever attempt to wage war against Pakistan. The money spent in war against Pakistan is regarded as a unnecessary expense when the country is on the path of destruction by itself. Indian govt and Military do not consider Pakistan as a threat anymore and the Pakistani atomic bluff has been called out many times.

The Status of Pakistan be like — Khairat me mila hua money and mulk deir tak nahi tiktey.
Ab to Khairat ke paise milney bhi bandh ho gaye. Ab kya karogey?

Dukh hota hai yeh sab boltey hue but Dil pe patther rakh ke bol ra hu 😭🙁😐🙂😀🤣🤣😂
 
Last edited:
It is still rather amusing to me that Indians such as yourself live in utter delusion about Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Either you lot believe you can survive hundreds of nukes, or you believe you can defeat PA and not end up glassed. It's no surprise though, considering the average IQ in India is 76.
Yeah Indians are deluded low IQ guys, and nukes are toys, happy?
 
India, by sending its military to support Hari Singh in his genocidal campaign against Kashmiri Muslims which had led to an uprising against him. By the way, the Pakistan Army didn't enter Kashmir until May 1948.
The government of Pakistan sent everybody but the Army, and that sent contingent included military officers 'on leave', who played an active role in leading the tribals.

India sent its military to support an acceded princely state. What did either do wrong?

Kashmiri Muslims did not lead an uprising against him. It was the breakaway faction of the National Conference, headquartered in Muzaffarabad, and supported by the Mirpuris and the Sudans, who revolted.

If you were not brainwashed by your doctored textbooks, you might have known this for yourself.

India, who first enroached upon Pakistani patrol points in Kutch, and then launched a failed invasion of Pakistani territory after Pakistan merely instigated an insurgency in retaliation for the Kutch misadventure.
'...merely instigated...' :crazy:

The Kutch incident pitted armed policemen from the Indian side against armoured formations from Pakistan. If India had wanted to invade, do you think armed policemen would have been deployed?

The dispute over Kutch was handed over for arbitration by consent of both sides after a ceasefire. Would you consider it normal to first agree to a ceasefire, then agree to an arbitrated settlement, and then go and mount a clandestine attack with special forces troops?

We were certainly not the aggressors in 48; we intervened on behalf of an independent state that had been brutalised by its genocidal British installed ruler.
If your forefathers believed that the terms of the legislation allowing princes to decide their accession could be flouted, what will you answer to the Hindutva lunatics who will then argue that with the violation of one part of the legislation, the rest of the legislation became null and void?

Think before you answer. The Dominion of Pakistan was created by separating out Muslim-majority provinces of the Crown Colony of India by act of parliament in Britain. Invalidating the provisions of that act involves invalidating the basis for the creation of Pakistan, that had no legal foundation other than the law passed.
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom