Couple of things...Don't assume that i cannot understand what your post is all about...I think i am better than that...What i am trying to say is that an all out war is not going to be easy for Pak...They can reply back in the same token as India would i.e. limited strikes but taking the war on to India is not going to be easy for Pak...If you read my post i am not saying that don't have the courage to do so...but sustaining an enemy as big as India and that too in her den is no child work...You can definitely give us a bloody nose but in defensive position...and honestly it would be dream come true for IA if pak choose to open different fronts to attack...If you go by doctorine the idea is to destroy as much capabilities of PA as possible without reaching the nuclear threshold(now only time will tell if they would be though i wish it never come)...and if you attack there is no way nuclear threshold can reach..if you know what i mean....
If you think that then seriously you need to read more about Kargil conflict...Your argument would have made sense had Tiger Hill not as strategically important as it was for that limited war...Anyways lets not derail by talking about Kargil further
If that makes you sleep better at night then please feel free to agree with that viewpoint. I on the other hand don't, why
Pakistan always has been in a defensive role, however, it is only now begining to develop weaponry of an offensive role, like babur/raad/gauri/shaheen etc etc etc. And with warhead capacities changin, you will not just get a bloody nose, that superiority complex I was talking about earlier, may well be your downfall.
Nonetheless, India loses a hell of alot more economically which is why India itself cannot afford these so called surgical strikes.
And again, I have read Kargil conflict, but like you from my own side, hence don't agree with you Sir, but for another thread