Why India will never go to war with Pakistan

[Great Sachin]

James Bond says ..never say never again....specially when PM is Modi

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

13:07

hmm......3 hours difference....I get it.....Happy day, buddy.

 

[EastPunjab]

Why should you be happy with only half of the pie when you can have all of it? It reminds me of the sour grapes.

The cost of getting the second half is too high, it would screw the economy over and get a lot of people killed. It's not worth it, that was the point of Pakistan's nuclear tests. Doesn't mean we can't do it though.

 

[ManavKalia]

Then what was Kargil?

Kargil was not a full blown war, just a localized skirmish. And that was more than 17 years ago. Today no side can even afford a Kargil type operation. Cost of war has increased. Inflation of 17 years. The game is cross border raids, terrorist attacks, and propaganda warfare now. Economic costs don't allow anything bigger.

 

[T-Rex]

The cost of getting the second half is too high, it would screw the economy over and get a lot of people killed. It's not worth it, that was the point of Pakistan's nuclear tests. Doesn't mean we can't do it though.

You say the cost is too high and I say it is impossible, it is like saying the same thing but in a different way.

 

[ManavKalia]

Can you post some pictures or videos of what you've just claimed? Chinese soldiers running away like their indian counter parts sounds like fairy tale!

Just Google sikkim and arunachal pradesh, you'll be mighty impressed with the fairy tale.. Oh wait I just remembered, Google's banned for you guys right? LOL

 

[T-Rex]

Just Google sikkim and arunachal pradesh, you'll be mighty impressed with the fairy tale.. Oh wait I just remembered, Google's banned for you guys right? LOL

Since you know that we're banned from using google why don't you oblige us by doing it for us or is google banned in india as well?

 

[ManavKalia]

Why should you be happy with only half of the pie when you can have all of it? It reminds me of the sour grapes.

The part of Kashmir we have is enough for us. The part with Pakistan is the most inhospitable part, specially of GB. Would be a logistical nightmare to govern it. Plus not resource rich enough. Hostile populace. Low strategic value. No local leadership to support India. That's why India didn't press further in 1948. That's why India didn't press for more territory in 1971 when it was choosing areas to take from Pakistan. Remember we took areas around Kargil in Kashmir from Pakistan as part of the surrender terms, the other areas were not lucrative for us for the above mentioned reasons. Finally India has been advocating conversion of LoC to international border openly, for this very reason. We have the best part of Kashmir, we don't want the hassle of less lucrative parts.

Since you know that we're banned from using google why don't you oblige us by doing it for us or is google banned in india as well?

Which search engine is available to you?

 

[EastPunjab]

Kargil was not a full blown war, just a localized skirmish. And that was more than 17 years ago. Today no side can even afford a Kargil type operation. Cost of war has increased. Inflation of 17 years. The game is cross border raids, terrorist attacks, and propaganda warfare now. Economic costs don't allow anything bigger.

How is a war defined then? In America, we were taught in school that all Indian Pakistan wars were skirmishes. Well, getting semantics out of the way, I was calling it a war.

Alright, so I did the math. Kargil cost 5000 crore INR in 1999 and in today's dollars assuming 10% inflation it works out to about 75 billion USD. At India's GDP of 1.877 trillion it works out to about 4% of the GDP. Assuming it costs both countries the same, it will cost Pakistan 28% of the GDP. My conclusion is that India can afford it but Pakistan's economy would be destroyed. Do you agree?

You say the cost is too high and I say it is impossible, it is like saying the same thing but in a different way.

No it's not. For some people the cost of buying a BMW is too high but they do it anyway. Why do you think its impossible? Overwhelming conventional military supremacy and the ability to take a nuclear strike because of a much bigger land mass and second strike capability means that on paper its possible. That said, no sane government would kill millions of its people in order to get the barren land of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir back as @ManavKalia pointed out just now. In life everything is a cost/benefit analysis and the costs outweigh the benefits for us.

 

[Photon]

Then what is stopping india from invading if not entire Pakistan at least the Azad kasmir? Actions speak louder than words. The world in general can afford to believe your claim but not india. BTW, even an A-bomb is a nuclear weapon.

From 1974, ( when India did its first nuclear test) to 1987, (when Pakistan had it first nuclear weapon ready but not tested), what stopped India from invading Pakistan and capturing Kashmir?

India is not a hegemonic power, we do not attack, unless we are forced too.

All atom bombs are nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapons are not atom bombs.. It is important to know the difference between the two. Pakistan has only tested fission devices.

 

[ManavKalia]

Alright, so I did the math. Kargil cost 5000 crore INR in 1999 and in today's dollars assuming 10% inflation it works out to about 75 billion USD. At India's GDP of 1.877 trillion it works out to about 4% of the GDP. Assuming it costs both countries the same, it will cost Pakistan 28% of the GDP. My conclusion is that India can afford it but Pakistan's economy would be destroyed. Do you agree?

In the ballpark I would say. I read that cost of war just inflation adjusted would be about a billion USD a day for Kargil type ops. Factor in the technology upgrades from 17 years ago, you would be using more expensive tech today, so let's add another billion USD per day.

Total cost would mean that India's GDP growth turn to negative. Will take at least a decade to recover. For Pakistan might take half a century to recover. So I'm afraid for all the keyboard warriors itching for war, it just ain't happening, unless someone goes total loco on either side.

 

[EastPunjab]

Total cost would mean that India's GDP growth turn to negative. Will take at least a decade to recover.

If I'm reading correctly, there would be a one year recession followed by making up for lost growth over a decade. India's GDP is diverse so it would recover. If India could target CPEC projects during the war, good luck to Pakistan for recovering. Your post basically reaffirms my point - war sucks for both sides but India can absorb the cost while Pakistan would be devastated.

 

[Anish]

Let him boast about it 1971 is the only war india ever won that too with bengali help

All wars with Pakistan was regarding Kashmir.. Wonder how many inches Pakistan has acquired after 1947 Indian innervation although they claim to win all wars against India..lol

 

[ManavKalia]

That said, no sane government would kill millions of its people in order to get the barren land of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir back as @ManavKalia pointed out just now. In life everything is a cost/benefit analysis and the costs outweigh the benefits for us.

Actually even if it was economically feasible for us, we still wouldn't want Pakistan's part of Kashmir. Hint: we didn't press further in 1948. We had Abdullah for the valley as a popular leader, we didn't in other areas. Same with 1971, we took some areas of strategic value around Kargil, but for same reasons didn't want the other areas.

I hear some idiots in India blame Nehru and Indira for not taking whole of Kashmir in the two opportunities. They have no sense of on the ground realities involved and are swayed more by misplaced hyper nationalism than by common sense. Taking other parts of Kashmir would have meant having 3 Kashmir valley insurgencies, instead of the one we have today. Today India is very comfortably placed with regard to the valley. Other areas would have stretched our army uncomfortably.

 

[EastPunjab]

Actually even if it was economically feasible for us, we still wouldn't want Pakistan's part of Kashmir. Hint: we didn't press further in 1948. We had Abdullah for the valley as a popular leader, we didn't in other areas. Same with 1971, we took some areas of strategic value around Kargil, but for same reasons didn't want the other areas.

I hear some idiots in India blame Nehru and Indira for not taking whole of Kashmir in the two opportunities. They have no sense of on the ground realities involved and are swayed more by misplaced hyper nationalism than by common sense. Taking other parts of Kashmir would have meant having 3 Kashmir valley insurgencies, instead of the one we have today. Today India is very comfortably placed with regard to the valley. Other areas would have stretched our army uncomfortably.

Oh totally agree, I think we should give an opportunity to the hostile population to migrate to Pakistan who can then make their Kashmir independent if they want. If Sikhs and Hindus had to migrate over in 1947, Kashmiris aren't a special snowflake, land stays with India.