Primary threat to Pak is from within, not India

[Spitfighter]

If India take away its thousands of tanks from Pakistani boarder then Pakistan will have space to move more of its troops too check the internal threats.

What action has Pakistan taken against India specific terrorist organizations?

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

No one's saying India isn't a threat, sure we are. All that's being said is that Pakistan's primary threat comes from 'non state actors' lol who could end up sparking a large conflagration with India. In other words, Pakistani inaction against such groups could end up biting it in the back.

There problem here is the Pakistani mindset. Despite all that is happening around you, the debate rages on as to who constitutes the larger threat. Your bias prevents you from seeing that the inherent unpredictability of such groups poses the greatest danger to your nation. Don't you find it a little simplistic and disingenuous to assert that the country responding to such provocations is in fact the larger threat?

About the modernization process, India already has the capability to soundly crush Pakistan in a conventional war. Our enhanced military capability is in line with our strategic ambition of dominating the IOR and deterring China. You really think the F-18's (or whatever else we buy) are meant for Pakistan? The reason most of our assets face Pakistan is precisely because of your government's policy of confrontation. Why don't you give me your perspective on Kargil for a change? In short, those strike forces are only meant to deter your establishment from supporting 'charities' like JuD

We're increasing our presence on the Chinese side as well, nuclear submarines aren't meant for Pakistan either. As a larger country we're bound to have different threat perceptions and objectives.

The Greater India and inferior Pakistan.
The history tells us that Indians are not good warriors but good business man. The availability of good jobs is creating shortage of Army officers in India.

 

[Spitfighter]

The Greater India and inferior Pakistan.
The history tells us that Indians are not good warriors but good business man. The availability of good jobs is creating shortage of Army officers in India.

Well you were clearly asleep in history class.

Relax, here's something you might find a little less taxing...

Black Knight - Hot Games at Miniclip.com - Play Free Online Games

 

[muse]

Your bias prevents you from seeing that the inherent unpredictability of such groups poses the greatest danger to your nation.

OK, that's always possible, bias is a constant.

No one's saying India isn't a threat, sure we are. All that's being said is that Pakistan's primary threat comes from 'non state actors'

Lets examine this proposition -- while the insurrectionists are armed with assault rifles and RPG and such, and they number possibly up to 15,0000 on the other hand the Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan border include more than 3000 tanks, thousands of artillery pieces, hundreds of fighter bombers and more than half a million soldiers -- so when threat is evaluated, professionals look at the capability - the insurrectionists use terrorism targeting civilians, security personnel and infrastructure - the capability the Indian forces bring include the ability to deny Pakistan it's very existence as a sovereign free nation state.

Given the above it's clear that the suggestion that the primary threat to Pakistan are insurrectionist Terrorists and not hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers, tanks and fighter bombers positioned such that they can strike in short notice, is one that does not hold water, does not compute.

India can change this by re-positioning this capability away from the Pakistan border.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Well you were clearly asleep in history class.

Relax, here's something you might find a little less taxing...

Black Knight - Hot Games at Miniclip.com - Play Free Online Games

Haha

No Country in the world is ruled more by outsiders then India.

That's what history tells us . As current Pakistan which was also part of that India accepted Muslim invaders as their own so histrionically they are less ruled by outsiders ,like the British rule only.

 

[Spitfighter]

OK, that's always possible, bias is a constant.

Lets examine this proposition -- while the insurrectionists are armed with assault rifles and RPG and such, and they number possibly up to 15,0000 on the other hand the Indian forces arrayed against Pakistan border include more than 3000 tanks, thousands of artillery pieces, hundreds of fighter bombers and more than half a million soldiers -- so when threat is evaluated, professionals look at the capability - the insurrectionists use terrorism targeting civilians, security personnel and infrastructure - the capability the Indian forces bring include the ability to deny Pakistan it's very existence as a sovereign free nation state.

Given the above it's clear that the suggestion that the primary threat to Pakistan are insurrectionist Terrorists and not hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers, tanks and fighter bombers positioned such that they can strike in short notice, is one that does not hold water, does not compute.

India can change this by re-positioning this capability away from the Pakistan border.

What can't you compute? By your logic America is the greatest threat to world peace that has ever existed. Not too long ago Bush threatened to 'bomb Pakistan back to the stone ages' did he not? Somehow you completely fail to see how Pakistan's policies are detrimental not only to regional stability but to global peace as well. Clearly a nation state will bring more firepower, but think about why one would exercise such an option in the first place? Prevention is better than cure sir, where does the threat lie now?

The 'threat' you speak of isn't so much of a threat as it is a scapegoat your military has force fed your populace from the 1980's to continue arming and training proxies like the Taliban and the LeT.

Repositioning our strike forces serves absolutely no purpose other than yet another lengthy mobilization. You assume far too much of your government/military. The ground situation simply won't change until there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's Kashmir-India strategy. Those strike corps are about the only deterrence we have against Pakistani proxies.

 

[muse]

Thank you spitfire - My point stands vindicated by Indian themselves, that the primary threat to Pakistan is from Indian forces arrayed against the Pakistan border.

 

[Spitfighter]

Haha

No Country in the world is ruled more by outsiders then India.

That's what history tells us . As current Pakistan which was also part of that India accepted Muslim invaders as their own so histrionically they are less ruled by outsiders ,like the British rule only.

Dude, I seriously 'lol'd right there.

You 'accepted' the invaders as your 'own'. Yeah. You wanna think about that one for a second or should I respond to it already?

I'm going to bookmark your comment. Pakistanis must really be a hospitable lot. That might even explain your role in the WoT .

 

[Spitfighter]

Thank you spitfire - My point stands vindicated by Indian themselves, that the primary threat to Pakistan is from Indian forces arrayed against the Pakistan border.

What about the Americans? Chances are the next 9/11 will originate from your tribal regions.

 

[muse]

Or really from any part of the world, even captive Kashmir, or new York - The Americans are irrelevant. Their policies have been very emotionally satisfying to them, but have created even more problems for them - which they are welcome to sort out for themselves - it, this problem of US policy, begins and ends with the policies the US devises for herself.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

How is that relevant?

Very much relevant. In your earlier comment you had insinuated that these strike corps and armoured divisions have been positioned only in pursuant to ‘cold war doctrine’. Your exact words were:

‘Indian army’s Corps XV, IX, XVI, X, XI, II and I plus the 3rd Armoured Division, 4th Rapid Division and 2nd Armoured Brigade plus air force stations at Jaisalmer, Utarlai and Bhuj, are arrayed against Pakistan border under the "cold start" doctrine…’

You then went on to say:

‘…Indian friends say this doctrine is not operational - well, why not put substance into this stance by withdrawing and repositioning these offensive forces ???’

This gives the impression that Pakistan’s threat perception of India is of recent origin and began only when this deadly Peter Pan came into ‘existence’, trying to not-so-cleverly shift the onus to India, because that is the only way you, and likes of you can justify and, perhaps, hide the irrationality of your psyche.

My statement was meant to convey the massage that Pakistan’s threat perception of India doesn’t depend on any Indian war doctrine – cold start or hot end – or location of strike crops. These are excuses, not reasons.

After all, India was hostile to Pakistan, the very idea of Pakistan, since before Pakistan was an independent sovereign country, right?

And India has made war against Pakistan, at least 4 times, right?

Now, if Indian would like to influence the thinking of Pakistanis to the effect that India mean them no harm and want normal relations, the Indian should reposition these offensive elements arrayed against the Pakistan border - this would signal that Pakistanis do not have to "trust" Indian "intentions", rather India have demonstrated their intentions by dismantling the capability "Cold Start" relies on -- this would go along way towards Pakistanis thinking the Indian assertion that India are no longer a threat to Pakistan.

This is giant non-sequitur and strawman rolled into one. I will let you figure out how.

Personally I wish it was true that India are no longer a threat to Pakistan, but selling "peace" and hanging on to the capability that "Cold Start" relies on, well, really, that's a non-starter.

The mythical ‘cold start’ doctrine is, in a sense, a reactive doctrine and not preemptive one. You should worry about the incidents that might awaken this mythical beast, not the mythical beast itself when it is in slumber. That’s where the USP of ‘peace’ comes in.

 

[muse]

Indian friends are all over the map with this "Cold Start" doctrine, some say it's to prevent, other say that these strike corps are non-state actors and then there is your assertion that these strike corp and "Cold Start" should be seen as reaction - really it's immaterial, fact is these strike corp are arrayed under the "cold start" doctrine against the Pakistan border, isn't that so? Indeed, it is fact.

And these strike corp and "cold start" are the substance of the threat against the Pakistani nation and state- it's doesn't really matter, whether preventative, or reaction or whatever, the reality is that they are there and they have a unique capability.

If India really wanted Pakistanis to perceive India as a non-threat, it must dismantle or reposition this capability away from the Pakistan border, anything less gives a lie to the assertion that Indian are not the primary threat to Pakistan.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Instead of snarky sarcasm try discussing why India places most of its forces on the Pakistani border.

1948, 1965, 1971, 1984, 1989, 1999, 2001, 2008....and counting.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Indian friends are all over the map with this "Cold Start" doctrine, some say it's to prevent, other say that these strike corps are non-state actors and then there is your assertion that these strike corp and "Cold Start" should be seen as reaction - really it's immaterial, fact is these strike corp are arrayed under the "cold start" doctrine against the Pakistan border, isn't that so? Indeed, it is fact.

And these strike corp and "cold start" are the substance of the threat against the Pakistani nation and state- it's doesn't really matter, whether preventative, or reaction or whatever, the reality is that they are there and they have a unique capability.

If India really wanted Pakistanis to perceive India as a non-threat, it must dismantle or reposition this capability away from the Pakistan border, anything less gives a lie to the assertion that Indian are not the primary threat to Pakistan.

So which strike corp was it that led to 1948 or 1965?

 

[LaBong]

1. Let's assume, Cold Start makes India a primary threat to Pakistan.

2. So does that mean before the inception of Cold Start India wasn't a primary threat to Pakistan.

If the second statement is not true, ie. India always been a primary threat to Pakistan, then there's no change in Pakistan's threat perception with respect to India, pre and post Cold Start doctrine.

Hence proved, Cold Start doctrine is irrelevant when discussing Pakistan's threat perception w.r.t. India, thus the first statement is proved wrong.