Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.
Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.
By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.
Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.
That is very wrong way of looking at it...Of course one should listen to the Army however the final authority should be in the hands of Civilian govt.
If we go by what Armed forces say then US will not pull out from AF for another 10 years. Do you think that is right decision???As per news around Kargil, that plan was rejected by then PM Mrs Bhutto but the moment Army got its say a blunder like Kargil was tried.
how much damage it caused the little we talk better it is....In short Army way of dealing with issue is by Iron hand which may or may not be right. Thus final authority should lie with democratic set-up where there are many check and balances
In our case, the government listening to the military when it comes to dealing with India. Unfortunately our political leaders are a bunch of morons when it comes to dealing with India, so as a Pakistani i have 100% faith in my Army and believe they can protect our interests better than any politicians.
And what constitutes winning to you people? Loosing most and holding an insignificant part of land.you lost kargil. what constitutes winning to you people? reclaiming most but not all of your land.
Fact: More bombs were dropped in Vietnam by US than any other wars in history, till then, combined! There. And yet, US lost the war. You are wrong about your assessment.lol, very wrong way.
to some extent but no you are WRONG. if army was in control in vietnam and allowed full force to be used excluding nuclear weapons u.s. would not have have been engaged in decade plus war.
What were the objectives of this conflict? What were Pakistan's objectives and what were India's objectives - that includes both military and political. Which one of the belligerents failed to meet almost all of their objectives and which one managed to meet most of the objectives. The one that managed to meet the objectives won the conflict.you lost kargil. what constitutes winning to you people? reclaiming most but not all of your land.
Wrong again. Military and war are just one of the options to further or achieve political and diplomatic objectives. Without a clear political and military objective, any kind of war is a waste of important resources. That being said, military commanders are trained to fight. What they do on the battlefield is best left to them. However, the political bosses are the ones who know how to use military to achieve whatever objectives they set.lol, what are you talking about? military knows best in times of war. do you not understand the scope of the question and reasoning?
the commanders on the ground know better than anybody else.
Why India don't just publicly, disavow the "Cold Start Doctrine" -- The Indian claims range from there is no such a thing to it does not work - what's clear is the US is not buying this -- and really, if it's a dog, why not just publicly disavow "Cold Start"?
Cold Start? Who dat? He my baby daddy -- kidding aside, I don't think I understand what the block is with disavowing it - what am I missing?
By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.
Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.
Fact: More bombs were dropped in Vietnam by US than any other wars in history, till then, combined! There. And yet, US lost the war. You are wrong about your assessment.
What were the objectives of this conflict? What were Pakistan's objectives and what were India's objectives - that includes both military and political. Which one of the belligerents failed to meet almost all of their objectives and which one managed to meet most of the objectives. The one that managed to meet the objectives won the conflict.
So, you are yet again wrong.
Wrong again. Military and war are just one of the options to further or achieve political and diplomatic objectives. Without a clear political and military objective, any kind of war is a waste of important resources. That being said, military commanders are trained to fight. What they do on the battlefield is best left to them. However, the political bosses are the ones who know how to use military to achieve whatever objectives they set.
You need to educate yourself about many things, my friend.
Do you think any political leader would give orders to a military commander to drop more bombs to win a war?Provide source for this. If you are not lying this is what the non-military leaders thought. Drop more bombs and that will win the war instead of listening to the commanders on the ground.
Are you for real? Pakistan wanted to internationalize Kashmir issue, yet again, but lost the military conflict and subsequently lost face in international diplomatic circles. Clearly, you dont understand the intricacies of war and diplomacy. They are but two sides of a multifaceted polyhedron. One cannot separate one from the other. I rest my case.Yes, you lose part of "your land" but still cosider it a win. How simple minded.
On the field, yes. You are right about that. However, the political bosses dictate when to start or stop a war, based on what objectives need to be met.Military decisions in a time of war need to be left to the commanders on the ground.
On one hand there is an argument that Indian cold start is Frozen DOA (Dead on Arrival) and on the other hand, a contrast argument is given Pakistan feels threatened bcoz of the Indian cold start doctrine and talks of using tactical weapons on Indian IBG's.
Opposite views?
Are you for real? Pakistan wanted to internationalize Kashmir issue, yet again, but lost the military conflict and subsequently lost face in international diplomatic circles. Clearly, you dont understand the intricacies of war and diplomacy. They are but two sides of a multifaceted cube. One cannot separate one from the other. I rest my case.
For Cold start,India need extensive superiority in Air...though IAF looking stronger than PAF,there is no way by which IAF would cripple PAF in less than 20/25 days...and by then,Indian cold-start would be resting in peace..!!
Right now,India is in no position to practice so called cold-start doctrine..!! IAF atleast need 10 more squadrons for implementing cold-start on Pakistan..!!
By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.
Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.