It is a very good think that you are pondering over strategy and defence. Here is an answer to counter it. I would extol you to please try to be rational rather than emotional about it, though.
That depends on the aim of the war for Pakistan. If it is to deny India occupation of Pakistani lands, maintain structural integrity or status quo and is able to do that then it has succeeded. At present, no official policy of Pakistan wishes to see a territorial change, nor force reduction i.e. reduce Indian armed forces strenght. Therefore, it depends on what you mean by conventional war.
Again, the answer is what does it aim to do? You aren't clarifying that.
A hearty disagreement here, sir, even at its worst point the USSR's economic output was half of that of the USA. As per the population, the USSR had ample manpower to fight in AFG but it had not come into the war to stay on for so long. The USSR had completely miscalculated. You should see a wonderful book about it, The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan: Lester W. Grau, David M. Glantz.
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt (SOURCE)
I think what you're thinking in terms of is total war, that would most likely never take place. If anything, then your first point the nuclear deterrents ensure that.
Not entirely, for one thing, the Pakistani military has active war experience since the last decade of the most difficult type of warfare: LIC. This means that the war machine is more attuned simply by running. As I stated first, warfare isn't simply to just take over something, it has well worked objectives. In that matter, this makes a lot of difference. Secondly, the most decisive factor in warfare is the quality of men, not their valour but training and availabilty and in those too their that of the officers as they are the 'brains' of the operation. In that scenario the Indian military is already facing a crisis. Read it here:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856401.2010.520653?journalCode=csas20