What logic does war follow to talk of it ? All the assumptions of logic are pre-war , not really after it starts . That goes both ways. Pakistan's logic and assumptions about India are also pre-war, as is this entire thread. Maybe , because its illogical and madness to risk the whole population for some invading IBG's / Corps ?And from Pak's POV, it is illogical to risk the whole country just for a few square kms taken by an IBG. If I were to put myself there , I would ask first . Why am I crossing the border ? What is to be gained by the whole operation ?Punitive strike, to deter Pakistan from another misadventure like the Mumbai massacre. To send the message that actions have consequences, and then leave the ball in Pakistan's court whether to risk nuclear holocaust. What is the guarantee that it will not escalate beyond what I have been calculated ?No guarantees, but India will roll in only after the risk is accepted. If IBGs role in, that means that India has prepared to take the risk of nuclear holocaust, but is still leaving it to Pakistan whether to go that route or not. How far am I pushing the other side and what does it mean for me ? Am I losing more than what I am gaining ? Whatever it is that I am looking for , is there another possible way to get it ? Precisely. Only if there is no other way would India use its military. That has always been true with India, we have not rolled into Pakistan at every excuse, that was always true before the region went nuclear. The No First Use policy is a part of deterrence concept , now the resulting response can be massive or flexible . For some reason , it is always assumed to be the first . Understandable , the official nuclear doctrine says so . But each strike after the first , takes us one step further in the escalation ladder . What possible way lies there to avoid it ? It shouldn't be India alone that asks that question. Still the question is " How can someone factor in the nuclear response by the adversary ? " as you said . How to be certain of the whole thing . This simple thing keeps nations at bay . Yes, but for how long? Do you think that India's patience is infinite? Doesn't India have a threshold as well? Its your decision always to maintain the moral high ground , it doesn't make any difference to your rivals . At the end of the day , India cant defeat Pakistan by whatever means imaginable . The stakes are just too high and there is more to be lost than gained .
You can always wage war , when am I denying that ? I am only saying that the result of war - all out or limited between two nuclear powers isn't going to be ' victory ' for anyone . I have seen members from the other side of the border debating with me , how they would get in fast , punish Pakistan without crossing the nuclear threshold and then get out . Mission completed , somehow India always comes out on top in those scenarios . What we usually miss is that we are talking about the seventh largest army in the world , does one seriously think they do not have significant capability to deter an invasion or hold their ground in the sort of limited conflict that you envision ?Which is why I said earlier that the CSD as popularly envisaged cannot be India's grand strategy. In a very limited conflict, the two countries are evenly matched, and India's conventional superiority cannot come into play. I said so myself earlier. I never said anything about using nuclear weapons when the first Indians cross the border , you just assumed it on my behalf , based on the common misconception . The army will counter the enemy and reserve the tactical weapon when its no longer in control of the situation . The only reason that can prompt Pakistan's " nuclear " response is the crossing of a red-line or a threshold , the thing being that whatever you call CSD will always require to cross a threshold - significantly denting the country's conventional capability , which would mean next the existence and integrity is threatened . Even then , a tactical nuclear weapon is the final warning to look for some " sanity " before the measure of the last resort kicks in . For one thing, will your tactical nuke selectively kill Indian armyen? What if our tactics are to be always close to enemy formations? The thing about Nasr is , it adds a whole new level of uncertainty to counter , because Islamabad indicates that it wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon on invading troops if things go out of hand . Now I know that expecting India to back down if such a thing happens wouldn't be acceptable to the Indian political leadership but the same " bluff " will work to keep armies in the barracks , because now there's a possibility of inviting a nuclear response even in a limited conflict . Its a worse dilemma , so the enemy will think again before trying to implement the whole thing . You couldn't factor in the nuclear response for the last four timesLast four times? and today the thresholds have gone further low , so if nothing has changed in that regard . Who's to say that Pakistani deterrent has failed ? Nuclear weapons do prevent wars , after all .
Not this again . Should I simply accept that Pakistan is a bad guy here and you are the good guy ? If we have adopted a policy of thousand cuts , then you have reciprocated in kind all the time . Where's the Indian angel coming from ? Of all the things , this one bores me the most . The thought pattern that somehow New Delhi doesn't interfere or funds terrorism/ proxy wars in this country is false , there are historical facts and the evidences to prove it wrong . So , if attacks take place in your country , the same happens here too . Where's the boiling point scenario coming from ? No side is innocent to take that stance . Either stop it altogether and look to resolve the issues or continue with the limited conflict suicide plan . Otherwise , there's no reason to complain because it has been going on for decades from both sides .
Actually , this in indeed what CSD is , this isn't old , not at least in its " modern " form . The concept has been there , it just haven't given much thought as today . Now you might want to tell me , what do you understand by the Cold Start thing if not this new form of warfare ?
Now , when I said that Pakistan's thresholds are naturally low , what did you understand by it ? Our thresholds aren't low because we are " according to the popular Indian thinking " are a suicidal and irrational bunch . Thresholds aren't defined at will and set up anywhere , because then it wouldn't mean anything , the sole reason for this thresholds being such is the conventional massive disparity , geostrategic thing and geographical vulnerability . We are more likely to pull the trigger first because we are easily threatened because of the things I mentioned , hence the stance and the nuclear doctrine . I assume only this much rationality on the behalf of the Indians to not make the mistake of crossing the borderIs it too much to expect some sanity from Pakistanis as to not make the mistake of provoking India into crossing the border, with another parliament attack or 26/11? Now you see why everybody including you expect sanity from Indians, but not from yourself. and starting the chain reaction in the first place , not afterwards actually , which means that people expect India to value its own citizens and existence , not the supposed love for humanity and civilization . You are free to start the mutual annihilation sequence , It won't be we who start it - we have a NFU policy, remember? If Pakistan caries another ajor terror attack, and India responds by conventional means, and then Pak starts nulear war, don't lay the blame at India's feet. If we simply invade Pakistan out of the blue, then you could say we started it - that never happened before, and won't happen in future.who's ready for it is the real question .
