Indian army chief says military ready for short, swift war

[Nicky G]

Well then try to come across by all means test the threshold. and find out if history repeats itself as you claim

Sure - will happen in the coming years, your country is not going to stop its terrorist activities.

I don't want war, I merely find it inevitable.

 

[Bossman]

Sure - will happen in the coming years, your country is not going to stop its terrorist activities.

I don't want war, I merely find it inevitable.

Coming years? You guys have been saying that since the 1980s

 

[Nicky G]

Coming years? You guys have been saying that since the 1980s

You guys have been trying to liberate Kashmir since '48. You have only moved backwards in that regard. In the interim, you lost East-Pak.

 

[Spectre]

You believe we do not already have "justified provocation" based on past terror attacks?

By your logic, why not have terrorists have nukes? They too do not have a 'no first use' policy. After all, what's the difference between a nation without 'no use first' policy for nukes and a suicide bomber?

Countless lives are already being laid to waste due to Pak sponsored terror and attempts at infiltrations at the LoC.

As for US and Iraq, dude, get over it. Very different dynamics, hardly applicable here, even without the nukes.

Yes and No. Mumbai attacks called for a limited strike. Govt of the day didn't go through with it due to immense US pressure and veiled threats of financial isolation.

They did a cost/benefit analysis of situation and decided that bettering the lives of millions of Indians dependent on US and western markets is more important than inflicting limited and ultimately inconsequential damage to terrorist infrastructure.

The other option was too go for a full - scale war like what US did in Afganishtan but neither had the means nor the overwhelming superiority required to take such an action without destroying ourselves in the process.

Pakistan state and populace are not a terrorist, their are certain elements within them which are. I wish more people would understand this fact. As have been stated many times by senior posters from Pakistan like @Oscar that there were certain elements within Pakistan's establishment who advocated use of terrorism to achieve their objectives back in the days . This was a foolish strategy and for which Pakistan has paid a heavy price.

I believe such elements will slowly fade away now that they are no longer appreciated and relevant

This does not mean we should let our guards down. The change is always volatile and there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered man so expect many more such acts in times to come. Also due to nature of our dispute and interests involved, terrorism from Pakistan will never die out but it will become manageable and non state-sponsored. Of-course certain elements within establishment will still hold sympathy for terrorist actors and support them in their endeavors but they will be far and few.

To hope for anything other than a relative peace is foolish and seeing the ground realities that is the best we will get until a settlement is reached on Kashmir.

Till then we can continue having a tit for tat policy like Doval advocated but I have grave concerns about that as things do tend to get out of control

Your call.

Regards

 

[Humble Analyst]

Why its always India's responsibility to thwart nuclear holocaust ? When you don't give a damn about it ?

On kashmir . Its really unnecessary invasion by Pakistan which in turn costed huge chunk of ur land mass now a happy independent country called Bangladesh . It was you who invaded kashmir .But British and muslim agent Nehru led congress thought this could solve the issue as kashmir is divided into half . What a foolish thing to do . Till now no one knows why it was not retaken and why muslims allowed to live in india when huge landmass given away just for one muslim community . ?

Your best time to invade j and k is ling gone in 1965 itself .When you had superiority over indian armed forces and weak leadership in indian ruling xlass . That too after 1962 heavy loss of morale .
Well its really a news to many indians as pakistan calling and celebrating 1965 as victory . Victory in what sense ?

Did you achieved your task of cutting of punjab ? NO

Did you achieved in occupying J and K under operation named some thing like big bang or some storm (pardon me I don't know its name of the operation?) ? NO

Infact india took your leader by surprise as we did something very special in the history of war . You throwed all your best US technology from jets to superior tanks . You had advantage of surprise . And you managed to shatter our defence . But the way india replied was marvelous . In fact we ended up in Lahore just miles away . But due to pressure from both Americans and soviet india agreed to give away your land back and walked out of Pakistan after signing peace agreement . You call it a Victory ?

!965 war was started by India to takeover Lahore and part of Pakistan, you failed that sounds victory to me.

Obviously. Otherwise, there'd be no framework to resolve anything.

On the other hand, Pak doesn't honour Simla agreement - no third party involvement.

There is no framework, Simla agreement is contradiction of UN resolution.

 

[Nicky G]

Yes and No. Mumbai attacks called for a limited strike. Govt of the day didn't go through with it due to immense US pressure and veiled threats of financial isolation.

They did a cost/benefit analysis situation and decided that bettering the lives of millions of Indians dependent on US and western markets is more important than inflicting limited and ultimately inconsequential damage to terrorist infrastructure.

The other option was too go for a full - scale war like what US did in Afganishtan but neither had the means nor the overwhelming superiority required to take such an action without destroying ourselves in the process.

I'd not term limited strikes inconsequential in the long run, however that's a separate debate. The cost/benefit analysis there was flawed but that's a separate thread.

Pakistan state and populace are not a terrorist, their are certain elements within them which are. I wish more people would understand this fact. As have been stated many times by senior posters from Pakistan like @Oscar that there were certain elements within Pakistan's establishment who advocated use of terrorism to achieve their objectives back in the days . This was a foolish strategy and for which Pakistan has paid a heavy price.

Pak people are inconsequential to the equation here as they don't have a say. Besdies that, I see no difference from the point I made concerning similarity to a terrorist as far as 'no first use' is concerned.

'Was' a strategy, what makes you believe it has stopped?

I believe such elements will slowly fade away now that they are no longer appreciated and relevant

I'd like to see evidence to back this up please.

This does not mean we should let our guards down. The change is always volatile and there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered man so expect many more such acts in times to come. Also due to nature of our dispute and interests involved, terrorism from Pakistan will never die out but it will become manageable and non state-sponsored. Of-course certain elements within establishment will still hold sympathy for terrorist actors and support them in their endeavors but they will be far and few.

Effectively, it makes little difference to us whether Pak sponsors terrorists who attack us or not, unless they are wiped out. If Pak shelters them, that's virtually the same.

To hope for anything other than a relative peace is most we can hope for and seeing the ground realities that is the best we will get until a settlement is reached on Kashmir.

Your call.

Hardly my call, but a resolution on Kashmir is certainly a wild hope, as is any lasting peace.

You can't have meaningful peace with a stalking suicide bomber.

There is no framework, Simla agreement is contradiction of UN resolution.

What? So why did your government sign it? Were they high on weed?

 

[Humble Analyst]

You guys have been trying to liberate Kashmir since '48. You have only moved backwards in that regard. In the interim, you lost East-Pak.

East Pakistan was going to go away from day one, that is why defense of East from West doctrine was adopted, we had one Air base, one Squadron of fighters and 3 divisions, in fact the 3rd division was lightly armed and sent as back up. We forgot this all because of political situation. What was a political blunder became a military defeat. One thing it confirms you never wanted to live peacefully with Pakistan so go on and see where it takes us

 

[GreenFalcon]

a short and swift "CIVIL WAR" maybe........

 

[Nicky G]

East Pakistan was going to go away from day one, that is why defense of East from West doctrine was adopted, we had one Air base, one Squadron of fighters and 3 divisions, in fact the 3rd division was lightly armed and sent as back up. We forgot this all because of political situation. What was a political blunder became a military defeat. One thing it confirms you never wanted to live peacefully with Pakistan so go on and see where it takes us

Yes, yes, I've heard that hundreds of times. You also should not have had 90K soldiers to be part of the worst post WWII surrender. India could have extracted a lot more form those PoW, our silly leaders did not. That's a separate story.

As for wanting to live peacefully, I want nothing to do with Pak, at all. However, we can't wish away the reality of pending conflicts and Pak sponsored terrorism as well as your usage by China, US etc. to irk India.

 

[Humble Analyst]

I'd not term limited strikes inconsequential in the long run, however that's a separate debate. The cost/benefit analysis there was flawed but that's a separate thread.



Pak people are inconsequential to the equation here as they don't have a say. Besdies that, I see no difference from the point I made concerning similarity to a terrorist as far as 'no first use' is concerned.

'Was' a strategy, what makes you believe it has stopped?



I'd like to see evidence to back this up please.



Effectively, it makes little difference to us whether Pak sponsors terrorists who attack us or not, unless they are wiped out. If Pak shelters them, that's virtually the same.



Hardly my call, but a resolution on Kashmir is certainly a wild hope, as is any lasting peace.

You can't have meaningful peace with a stalking suicide bomber.



What? So why did your government sign it? Were they high on weed?

Because of you were able to push us under the circumstances, you always want to run away from UN solution because you know the answer of Kashmiri people, it is a Muslim majority are and annexing by India was contradiction of the formula of partition. This was Britain's revenge upon subcontinent for asking freedom. You guys fell for it hook, line and sinker, Pakistan has no option but to pursue because of principal and also it location.

Yes, yes, I've heard that hundreds of times. You also should not have had 90K soldiers to be part of the worst post WWII surrender. India could have extracted a lot more form those PoW, our silly leaders did not. That's a separate story.

As for wanting to live peacefully, I want nothing to do with Pak, at all. However, we can't wish away the reality of pending conflicts and Pak sponsored terrorism as well as your usage by China, US etc. to irk India.

We did not have 90K soldiers it was 54K 90K included others as well

 

[Nicky G]

Because of you were able to push us under the circumstances, you always want to run away from UN solution because you know the answer of Kashmiri people, it is a Muslim majority are and annexing by India was contradiction of the formula of partition. This was Britain's revenge upon subcontinent for asking freedom. You guys fell for it hook, line and sinker, Pakistan has no option but to pursue because of principal and also it location.

Sure, take that to UN or whoever listens. As for Muslim majority, we'll see as the Pandits have to brought back. No desire to get into history here.

We did not have 90K soldiers it was 54K 90K included others as well

Ok, if that makes you feel better about the situation. Any bigger surrender post WWII?

 

[Humble Analyst]

Sure, take that to UN or whoever listens. As for Muslim majority, we'll see as the Pandits have to brought back. No desire to get into history here.



Ok, if that makes you feel better about the situation.

Yes

 

[UniverseWatcher]

kabhi ao na khushbu laga k

 

[Spectre]

Pak people are inconsequential to the equation here as they don't have a say. Besdies that, I see no difference from the point I made concerning similarity to a terrorist as far as 'no first use' is concerned.

'Was' a strategy, what makes you believe it has stopped?

Pakistan people ultimately will decide what goes on. No one not army nor the Govt can ignore people in long run otherwise you would have seen dynasty based tyrannical dictatorships lasting for centuries. I can see you quoting N. Korea but that is an exception which will need to analysed somewhere down the line after that regime falls and fall it will.

Yes, i believe I had not addresses two of your points.

1. Difference between terrorist with nuke and Pakistan with no first usage policy: Are you aware US and Russia don't have no first use police explicitly stated and enshrined as a doctrine? Pakistan has put certain pre-condtion to its usage of nukes. It has interests which if violated will result in usage of Nukes. Terrorists will go to town as soon as they get their hands on a nuke, they will not wait but decide the time and place and then use the nukes.

That i believe is the primary difference. There has been no nuclear attack on India for the past 16 years is the proof.

2. US invasion of Iraq and its relevance to our discussion - It is highly relevant, US attacked based on certain presumptions to pre-empt any imaginary offensive action. India shouldn't do the same. That is why I put the just cause point in my argument.

Effectively, it makes little difference to us whether Pak sponsors terrorists who attack us or not, unless they are wiped out. If Pak shelters them, that's virtually the same.

Yes, If Pak shelters them. What is Pak? Is it a few hundred narrow minded people colluding in some dark room? That is the problem with black and white thinking.

Target those responsible. Go for assassinations if you believe you must, fight a covert and proxy war if you should. Things in the dark should be dealt in that way. I don't believe i need to elaborate further.

Regarding Sheltering of such elements by the state: this is a very complicated point, have some patience my friend. I believe they are on the right track.

They are dealing with Anti Pakistan forces like TTP. They are dealing with sectarian forces forces LeJ.

Anti India forces is lower on that list, I remain optimistic they will be given a choice to go hibernate for a while rather than straight out elimination and bought out of cold storage if required. Time will tell.

Hardly my call, but a resolution on Kashmir is certainly a wild hope.

Yes, I don't believe I would live long enough to see it.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Well then try to come across by all means test the threshold. and find out if history repeats itself as you claim

Yes, yes, I've heard that hundreds of times. You also should not have had 90K soldiers to be part of the worst post WWII surrender. India could have extracted a lot more form those PoW, our silly leaders did not. That's a separate story.

As for wanting to live peacefully, I want nothing to do with Pak, at all. However, we can't wish away the reality of pending conflicts and Pak sponsored terrorism as well as your usage by China, US etc. to irk India.

I as a patriotic Pakistani have said a million times that in order for peace to prevail, Pakistan and india should break EVER single communication or any sort of exchanges between the 2. Be it economic, cultural, diplomatic etc. We have nothing in common with the indians and nothing positive to gain from them. A massive iron wall should be erected on the entire Pakistan India border. Anything indian should be completely censored.