There are more than 15 factories dedicated to producing CM's and Long Range Smart Bombs, i will let you do the calculations. If you want the exact numbers than you won't find them anywhere because its a State Secret, but the next best thing you can do is calculate how many storage depots are present there and whats their capacity size. Your Planners are confident that Pakistan has enough Missiles to cause some serious damage to India, just look at their posturing.
Again as i said, wishful thinking. Your Strategic Planners do not seem to be under any illusion that Pakistan cannot spare CM's for civilian infrastructure strikes. I suggest you do some research on the Annual Threat Analysis that is conducted by Pakistan's Armed Force, both military and civilian infrastructure targets are discussed quite extensively.
What you are offering in lieu of numbers are vague statements on 15 factories (barely 1 or two of which will actually be involved in churning out CM's) and talking about posturing.
That does not really cut it. You look at Pakistan's budget and its expenditure and the picture becomes clearer of how many CM's it would be producing.
If a threat needs to be neutralized, there is no barring what Pakistan will use in its arsenal to take out that target. India is huge, we cannot cover every inch but you can be damn sure that Pakistan can guide a Missile right inside Delhi's Sewerage Plant.
No arguments there, no Pakistani is under the illusion that Pakistan will come out unscathed unlike my Indian friends here who think that India will come out unscathed in a war against Pakistan.
Sure, Pakistan will be able to spare CM's to strike Delhi. But would it have enough to target crucial infrastructure of India ranging from Dams in North to North East India to crucial factories and labs in South India.
No. You simply donot have the numbers for that.
On the other hand simply by virtue of sheer size, distributed population, much more industrial and civilian infrastructure, and multiple times the military infrastructure present in India will ensure that Pakistan
prioritizes on its limited inventory of CM's and focuses on military targets rather than infra.
Pakistan's efforts would amount to
less than a drop in the ocean.
Pakistani's while not under the illusion that they will come out unscathed, do seem to harbour the illusion that they will be able to damage India as much as India will be able to damage them. That is not true by any stretch of imagination. As I mentioned before, any major infrastructure in Pakistan will be largely gone whereas Pakistan would not even be able to achieve this in Western India, let alone all of India.
True but at what cost? If Pakistan's Red Lines are threatened, Pakistan has made it clear it will switch to Nuclear Strikes. Its obvious that India is not willing to pay the price for attacking Pakistan's civil infrastructure. Despite bravado of punishing Pakistan, India has not dared target Pakistan's Infrastructure and largely kept its guns aimed at Pakistan's Military Formations.
India has largely kept its guns aimed at Pakistan's military formations because they are the first to be targeted if and when a war breaks out.
Once the war does break out, Pakistan's civilian infrastructure is as sure to be destroyed as the sun is sure to rise in the east. You are confusing a desire of 'punishing Pakistan' without follow up action on India's part to India's inability to spare resources to target Pakistani infrastructure. Whereas the cause is simply that there are more pressing priorities and bigger fish to fry than get dragged into a war with Pakistan at this stage of our economic development.
The same reason why even China can defeat Taiwan or Vietnam militarily and take it but donot do so, because in the grand scheme of things, it would be a mistake to stop their growth and rise at this point of time.
In 1947, tensions were already high as India had invaded Junagedh and Hyderabad without any provocation. India is the only nation in South Asia to use force to alter political course in other countries. India created the concept of supporting armed insurgencies in other South Asian Nations. This is the Age of Information my old friend, you can't B.S your way out of this.
Funny how you forget a little something called an Op. Gibraltar
Operation Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If tribal invasion of 1947 and an Op. Gibraltar in 1965 do not count as aggression, then I am not sure what does. I hope you wont be one of those who say Pakistan was suffered 'unprovoked attack on Lahore'
Or that Kargil was not an aggression but 'revenge' because last time I checked taking an unoccupied no mans land is different from taking occupied areas.
And the reason this change has happened is because India's resources have increased faster than Pakistan's resources over the decades.
Also a tangential point that I was making. That lack of resources does not allow PA the flexibility to target Indian infrastructure in any significant manner. It would have to prioritize and focus on military targets or only militarily relevant civilian targets. India on the other hand does not suffer from this constraint vis-a-vis Pakistan.
India's Population: 1.2 billion
Pakistan's Population: 180 million
Looks like your Math is getting rusty old friend, time to do some brain teaser exercises.
Notorious, when we compare nations, we principally use their Size ie Area. Because other factors such as population, weapons, etc keep changing. Otherwise when we say Pakistan fought against Soviet's we say Pakistan fought a 'giant' even though by your token it was a far more even fight based on population figures.
India is 4 times Pakistans size even if you include the entire Azad Kashmir including Gilgit and all in India.
Otherwise the
practical number is 3.x Pakistan's size.
However if you want a feel good number, you can also start comparing how many cows and bulls India has vis-a-vis Pakistan to make it a 30 times larger figure.
Though even when we use population figures India has 6.6 times Pakistan's population.
I am not sure how you came up with 'fighting an enemy 10 times your size'
I understand that this nothing but rhetoric to keep the morale up amongst Pakistani's who like to worsen the odds to feel better about their Army's lack of territorial wins on the ground , it is nonetheless poignant to point it out.
Now..might I recommend to you some of those brain teasers!!
For most people here you are all the same.
, i know its a touchy subject for Indians of how despite being a super power and having such massive resources it still has not been able to tame Pakistan. Indian efforts of intimidating Pakistan or trying to declare Pakistan a Terrorist State have failed miserably. But ah well, i don't blame you guys because after all you have to keep up your morale.
