Indira Gandhi planned a mass invasion of Pakistan | CIA Records

[Patriot]

Our Armed Forces might be smaller then India but we have the capability to take the India down with us.I can assure you that that will happen before Pakistan goes under..all in good time of course.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The whole idea behind nuclear weapons is 'gun to ones head - we die you die' - so if anyone needs to be blamed for this, blame those that invented the idea of 'Mutually Assured Destruction', and that certainly was not Pakistan.

Stick to the topic.

 

[karan.1970]

The whole idea behind nuclear weapons is 'gun to ones head - we die you die' - so if anyone needs to be blamed for this, blame those that invented the idea of 'Mutually Assured Destruction', and that certainly was not Pakistan.

Stick to the topic.

Buddy, your brethren are not talking MAD here.. MAD refers to balancing out nuclear arsenal of 2 enemies to ensure the Assured destruction never happens.. Not whipping out the nuclear silver bullet to solve every thing from domestic violence to full scale war..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Buddy, your brethren are not talking MAD here.. MAD refers to balancing out nuclear arsenal of 2 enemies to ensure the Assured destruction never happens.. Not whipping out the nuclear silver bullet to solve every thing from domestic violence to full scale war..

MAD is precisely what they are talking about:

Our Armed Forces might be smaller then India but we have the capability to take the India down with us.I can assure you that that will happen before Pakistan goes under..all in good time of course.

And MAD never actually occurred because both sides were willing to 'put a gun to their heads and threaten the destruction of themselves and their enemy', that is precisely what Patriot referred to here. He is certainly not arguing about trying to destroy India, and therefore invite similar destruction, unprovoked.

His statement, and those of many others, are meant in response to Indian aggression of some kind, and therefore act as a 'deterrent' through the threat of 'MAD'.

 

[karan.1970]

hmmmm, wasn't one of the charges against the kasab guy "waging war against hindoostan" ?

as for my credentials, you dont need to worry about them, kid. You can just discuss the subject.

So by that logic you consider TTP folks also as soldiers who are waging war against Pakistan.. ?

And I have no intentions to worry about your credentials or lack there of.. Its just that I believed that people who are linked to armed forces have a general respect towards men in uniform (irrespective of their flag), but hey, most Pakistani members in past have never failed to disappoint, why exepct any different now ..

cheers uncle...

 

[karan.1970]

MAD is precisely what they are talking about:

Our Armed Forces might be smaller then India but we have the capability to take the India down with us.I can assure you that that will happen before Pakistan goes under..all in good time of course.

And MAD never actually occurred because both sides were willing to 'put a gun to their heads and threaten the destruction of themselves and their enemy', that is precisely what Patriot referred to here. He is certainly not arguing about trying to destroy India, and therefore invite similar destruction, unprovoked.

His statement, and those of many others, are meant in response to Indian aggression of some kind, and therefore act as a 'deterrent' through the threat of 'MAD'.

MAD without a credible threshold is pretty useless in preventing the famed mutual destruction...

btw, this is also what your friend patriot said a couple days back.. So the mindset is pretty apparent. Taimi got 1 of these and deleted it but missed the one below. Given the trend of his posts, I will stick to my position about Patriot's post being on the lines of Pakistan blackmailing the world by putting a gun to its head.. You may chose to differ but unless you make a case on how making Indian cities a nuclear graveyard helps Pakistani in its tango with USA, your opinion wont carry much weight.

Nope We will not use nukes against US America however I won't mind seeing couple dozen Indian cities as nuclear graveyard ( A very much real possibility) and according to General Aslam Beg (Retired Pakistan Army Chief) Pakistan will nuke the sh!t of India if our survival is in danger (From any country)India will be the collateral damage.

 

[desiman]

We need more leaders like Indra Gandhi, she was someone who took action rather than just sit there just like our current PM. If she was alive and remained in power, the regional mess that Pakistan has created would not have existed in the first place. She was the Iron lady of India and im sure if she remained in power for some more years she would have also executed her invasion plans as well, again which would have benefited India so much in the long run. If we had taken action then, we would not have been handicapped by the nuclear shadow that protects all the problem creators in Pakistan today. Now we are helpless in the face of an enemy that uses the ""N" word as a means to protect terrorist that it claims to be fighting in the first place.

 

[Storm Force]

Have to agree with desiman.

I THINK PAKISTAN has been very fortunate that the CURRENT and recent previous leaders of INDIA have been virtual pacifists to put it mildly.

INDIA OF 2011 or the 21ST CENTURY is far more powerful far more influential country than that of 1971. On the verge of $2 trillion GDP and a very large powerful military GANDHI would have been a TRUE IRON LADY HAD SHE BEEN AROUND TODAY.

no way would have mumbai gone unanwered and certainly KARGIL would have been stretched ALOT FURTHER by the indiri gandhi regime.

INDIA DOES NOT FLEX ITS MUSCLE ENOUGH FOR ME

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

MAD without a credible threshold is pretty useless in preventing the famed mutual destruction...

A 'vague' threshold keeps the other side on their toes and potentially prevents escalation and aggression that normally would fall below any 'overt and clearly stated threshold'.

btw, this is also what your friend patriot said a couple days back.. So the mindset is pretty apparent. Taimi got 1 of these and deleted it but missed the one below. Given the trend of his posts, I will stick to my position about Patriot's post being on the lines of Pakistan blackmailing the world by putting a gun to its head.. You may chose to differ but unless you make a case on how making Indian cities a nuclear graveyard helps Pakistani in its tango with USA, your opinion wont carry much weight.

And the caveat/qualifier in his statement is clear: "if our survival is in danger ..."

I don't see how his comment that you quoted negates the argument of using nuclear weapons as a deterrent by invoking MAD, or, in the case of the West, invoking the possibility of nuclear holocaust and enormous economic damage to the global, and therefore Western, economies.

As I said, complain to those who created the concept of 'deterrence and MAD', instead of cherry picking Pakistan's adoption of the same for critique.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We need more leaders like Indra Gandhi, she was someone who took action rather than just sit there just like our current PM. If she was alive and remained in power, the regional mess that Pakistan has created would not have existed in the first place. She was the Iron lady of India and im sure if she remained in power for some more years she would have also executed her invasion plans as well, again which would have benefited India so much in the long run. If we had taken action then, we would not have been handicapped by the nuclear shadow that protects all the problem creators in Pakistan today. Now we are helpless in the face of an enemy that uses the ""N" word as a means to protect terrorist that it claims to be fighting in the first place.

Alternately one could argue that Indira Gandhi, through her support for terrorists/rebels in East Pakistan, her role in pouring fuel on the fire of civil conflict in East Pakistan and therefore playing a significant role in the breakup of formerly United Pakistan, set the stage for the subsequent decades of Pakistani distrust of Indian intentions, and contributed to the current impasse.

Alternately, if Nehru had implemented a UN conducted plebiscite, with both sides retaining control of the territory they controlled during the plebiscite, rather than resorting to legalistic semantics as excuses to avoid a plebiscite (since the very same legal semantics did not prevent Nehru/India from invading, occupying and annexing Junagadh), J&K would not still be a festering dispute and the history of relations between the two nations could be very different.

 

[Agni5000]

Alternately one could argue that Indira Gandhi, through her support for terrorists/rebels in East Pakistan, her role in pouring fuel on the fire of civil conflict in East Pakistan and therefore playing a significant role in the breakup of formerly United Pakistan, set the stage for the subsequent decades of Pakistani distrust of Indian intentions, and contributed to the current impasse.

Alternately, if Nehru had implemented a UN conducted plebiscite, with both sides retaining control of the territory they controlled during the plebiscite, rather than resorting to legalistic semantics as excuses to avoid a plebiscite (since the very same legal semantics did not prevent Nehru/India from invading, occupying and annexing Junagadh), J&K would not still be a festering dispute and the history of relations between the two nations could be very different.

I think countless times you got the reply for plebiscite and UN resolution.

1. Why don't pakistan does the plebiscite for pakistan kashmir?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think countless times you got the reply for plebiscite and UN resolution.

Did not get any reasonable or good replies.

1. Why don't pakistan does the plebiscite for pakistan kashmir?

And will India then commit to allowing the UN to hold a plebiscite in IAK?

 

[Agni5000]

Did not get any reasonable or good replies.

And will India then commit to allowing the UN to hold a plebiscite in IAK?

Pakistan should hold a plebiscite first in pakistan kashmir. After that you can tell the world that it is India's time to do.

 

[KS]

Did not get any reasonable or good replies.

And will India then commit to allowing the UN to hold a plebiscite in IAK?

India will commit after 65 years of Article 370 free Jammu and Kashmir, whenever that happens

Pakistan should hold a plebiscite first in pakistan kashmir. After that you can tell the world that it is India's time to do.

Dont worry that will not happen.

Not only that they also need to 'retrieve' the gift they had given to their goody buddies - Shaksgam Valley.

So plebiscite, not happening.

Moreover a form of Plebiscite was already conducted in 1952 when Sheik Abdullah , who was elected by the Kashmiri people, ratified the Instrument of Accession in the J&K State Assembly.It is as best as a democratic Govt can reflect the will of the people.

 

[tamygu]

Indira would not have invaded west Pakistan even if she wanted to.She knew like any seasoned politician that it is one thing invading far away cut off land east pakistan defended only by some 90k soldiers against full might of indian army than invading west pakistan which was defended by 5 million army + the hostile population.So in a way she was more realistic and modest about her goals than what Indians on PDF and other indian commentators made out to be.

She very well knew the result of fighting on western front so her only goal on western front was to be on defensive but not to be offensive.

And moreover it was the red-line usa to have warned about to both USSR and India thats why USSR was asking her to hurry up with her offensive on eastern front than declare ceasefire.