Heavy artillery fire is being exchanged between India and Pakistan

[Ultima Thule]

Exactly.

And the Hindu has heard you.

Cheers, Doc

And if we hard it india at FEB 27, then it would give India reasons to hit hard us again and situation could went into limited conventional war @padamchen

Actually we also understand that we are not sane either....But who cares...as long as people in our region feels religion is more important than humanity, then we are destined with such fate to fight with each other..

And Islam always respect humanity unlike Hindu religion @Kaniska

 

[Cookie Monster]

What happened on the 27th was that India lowered the nuclear threshold.

And Pakistan complied.

Things will never go back to what they were pre 27th.

Cheers, Doc

Not sound reasoning. With or without Feb 27 events it was ALWAYS clear that using the nuclear option wasn't going to be the first response by Pak...bcuz it would destroy Pak too. U r telling me that Pak was gonna reply to India's airstrike(even if it managed to hit the intended target) with the nuclear option? Of course if Pakistan can reply a tit for tat in a conventional way then it will before it exercises something that would result in MAD. The nuclear option is there so that if Pak is going to lose conventionally it will take India down with it(MAD) bcuz at that point there's nothing left to lose anyway. So tell me how was this any different prior to Feb 27 events? All Feb 27 showed the world(and not Indians bcuz they live in their own make believe world) is that India isnt the superpower it hypes itself to be. Pak came in...carried out strikes...shot down one of the Indian jets that responded...captured the pilot and went about its merry way. India didn't dare to strike back and only parroted made up stuff about downing an F16 in a face saving attempt.

 

[padamchen]

Not sound reasoning. With or without Feb 27 events it was ALWAYS clear that using the nuclear option wasn't going to be the first response by Pak...bcuz it would destroy Pak too. U r telling me that Pak was gonna reply to India's airstrike(even if it managed to hit the intended target) with the nuclear option? Of course if Pakistan can reply a tit for tat in a conventional way then it will before it exercises something that would result in MAD. The nuclear option is there so that if Pak is going to lose conventionally it will take India down with it(MAD) bcuz at that point there's nothing left to lose anyway. So tell me how was this any different prior to Feb 27 events? All Feb 27 showed the world(and not Indians bcuz they live in their own make believe world) is that India isnt the superpower it hypes itself to be.

Do you understand that most nations consider an airstrike to be a declaration of war?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Cookie Monster]

Do you understand that most nations consider an airstrike to be a declaration of war?

Cheers, Doc

Do u know most nations don't go to nuclear option as the first thing in a war...actually sorry my mistake...not most but ALL nations don't do that.

Also if an airstrike is a declaration of war...why did India not respond with that WAR u speak of when Pak carried out airstrikes and downed ur plane? Pak responded to Indian airstrike by its own airstrike...India remained silent...why is that?

 

[Cookie Monster]

It was a feeler ....

The Hindu is a patient beast.

He withstood near a millennium of foreign rule but kept his faith and soul alive.

Dig deep and find the Hindu in you. You'll get it.

Cheers, Doc

A post without substance that adds no value to ur argument...ur original argument.

Answer me this in a simple yes or no.

Prior to Feb 27 events did u expect Pakistan to default to a MAD scenario as the very FIRST response to any Indian conventional attack(whether from land, air, or sea)?

If ur answer is yes then I'm sorry I engaged u in the first place bcuz I try not to engage trolls.

If ur answer is no then ur original argument falls flat on its face and nothing has changed regarding nuclear threshold.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

RAW trolls are back after a 3 month hiatus. Another jet and they might juat leave us in peace for a year.

 

[I.R.A]

Here is what it actually is ....

indian military was available for modi's election campaign. Lalu, parsad, yadev, who cares about them, they only cost a coffin.

Now its available to Pakistani friends of modi to help them put pressure on Pakistani state.

I am sure if Pakistan Army was able to offer them more than what modi and his Pakistani friends are offering, that military on rent won't hesitate to bombard Dehli.

 

[omegalamba7XL9]

I suggest shut down airspace again. Hit where it hurts those prestigious Indians ie their pocket. Every time even bullet comes from India Pakistan should shit down airspace. 1 month for each bullet and 6 months for Each artillery round. Hurt those Brahmins and business elite. That's the head of snake we just saw what it did to Indian Airlines.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I cannot educate you about nuclear doctrine.

But unlike Kargil, we crossed the border and hit you inside.

Our nukes (yours, ours, the Chinese) are in component form.

We know you did not mobilise then (Kargil) and we know you did not mobilise now.

You reacted.

And then you did not press on.

You can choose to spin it your way.

What I'm telling you is what the Indian side got out of this mission.

Cheers, Doc

I see u r avoiding answering a simple question I asked...u dodging the subject gives me my answer.

I know plenty about nuclear doctrines...unlike u I've read up on that. Based on this I'm telling u that NO NATION on Earth resorts to nuclear weapons as the FIRST thing at the start of the conflict. Can u give me any example from history? U can't bcuz that's how the world works.

The nuclear weapons are ALWAYS sort of an insurance. Any nation that acquires them basically means that if that nation is to go down it will take down its enemy with it...as a LAST RESORT. I don't know if u know this but MAD stands for MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. The reason why Pakistan didn't use it's nuclear weapons so far in conventional conflicts with India is bcuz it was more than capable of taking India on in those battles. Again for the nth time, Pak's nuclear doctrine has ALWAYS been to act as a hedge against Indian conventional superiority just based on its sheer size.

In a prolonged war...eventually India would gain an upper hand conventionally just by throwing more numbers at Pak until Pak can no longer sustain the war effort. If Pak never acquired nuclear weapons then that means an eventual defeat in a conventional war. THIS was the very reason to acquire nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent. If the scenario ever emerges where Pak is unable to sustain a prolonged conventional conflict and all seems lost then in a last ditch effort it will destroy India(while also get destroyed in doing so) with nuclear weapons. This has changed the equation from where India could hope to win at some point eventually to both India and Pak losing horribly.

^This has always been the gist of nuclear doctrines around the world. It is to make sure that ur enemy will go down with u if u ever go down. This then branches off into two types...
Declaration of No First Use policy and the absence of any such declaration (or deliberately announcing a first use policy).

Usually only big nations with huge budgets that have a solid second strike capability with boomers carrying nuclear tipped ballistic(or cruise) missiles in enough quantity to decimate their enemy in addition to a decent conventional war fighting capability(as compared to their enemies) choose this option bcuz they can safely exist without it.

Nations with a not yet complete second strike capability and who face enemies with numerical/conventional superiority don't go for No First Use policy bcuz their very survival depends on letting the enemy know that in the event of a conventional defeat, what awaits u isn't victory but utter destruction.

Now if u have anything of substance to support ur initial argument then post it here for ALL to read so that we may be enlightened by this "new knowledge" u have stumbled upon that was previously unheard of. Otherwise don't bother quoting me.

 

[Republic]

It was a feeler ....

The Hindu is a patient beast.

He withstood near a millennium of foreign rule but kept his faith and soul alive.

Dig deep and find the Hindu in you. You'll get it.

Cheers, Doc

I am not a religious person at all. The thank I given for your such a fine sense of humour and ability to put it in the most intelligent way.
Regards.

 

[padamchen]

I see u r avoiding answering a simple question I asked...u dodging the subject gives me my answer.

I know plenty about nuclear doctrines...unlike u I've read up on that. Based on this I'm telling u that NO NATION on Earth resorts to nuclear weapons as the FIRST thing at the start of the conflict. Can u give me any example from history? U can't bcuz that's how the world works.

The nuclear weapons are ALWAYS sort of an insurance. Any nation that acquires them basically means that if that nation is to go down it will take down its enemy with it...as a LAST RESORT. I don't know if u know this but MAD stands for MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. The reason why Pakistan didn't use it's nuclear weapons so far in conventional conflicts with India is bcuz it was more than capable of taking India on in those battles. Again for the nth time, Pak's nuclear doctrine has ALWAYS been to act as a hedge against Indian conventional superiority just based on its sheer size.

In a prolonged war...eventually India would gain an upper hand conventionally just by throwing more numbers at Pak until Pak can no longer sustain the war effort. If Pak never acquired nuclear weapons then that means an eventual defeat in a conventional war. THIS was the very reason to acquire nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent. If the scenario ever emerges where Pak is unable to sustain a prolonged conventional conflict and all seems lost then in a last ditch effort it will destroy India(while also get destroyed in doing so) with nuclear weapons. This has changed the equation from where India could hope to win at some point eventually to both India and Pak losing horribly.

^This has always been the gist of nuclear doctrines around the world. It is to make sure that ur enemy will go down with u if u ever go down. This then branches off into two types...
Declaration of No First Use policy and the absence of any such declaration (or deliberately announcing a first use policy).

Usually only big nations with huge budgets that have a solid second strike capability with boomers carrying nuclear tipped ballistic(or cruise) missiles in enough quantity to decimate their enemy in addition to a decent conventional war fighting capability(as compared to their enemies) choose this option bcuz they can safely exist without it.

Nations with a not yet complete second strike capability and who face enemies with numerical/conventional superiority don't go for No First Use policy bcuz their very survival depends on letting the enemy know that in the event of a conventional defeat, what awaits u isn't victory but utter destruction.

Now if u have anything of substance to support ur initial argument then post it here for ALL to read so that we may be enlightened by this "new knowledge" u have stumbled upon that was previously unheard of. Otherwise don't bother quoting me.

Sigh ....

You joined in 2016.

Three years before you joined, I spent 2+ years on a board of US and NATO and Russian veterans.

Guys who have grown up and trained for nuclear warfighting. As opposed to deterrence.

They have forgotten more about nuclear doctrines and wargaming than all such "defense" think-tanks know collectively.

Over there you read and learn and question.

Not spout schoolboy textbook 101 in an effort to sound intelligent and well read as you just did.

This is the sum total of my response to a guy who does not realise that nuclear deterrence entails levels of escalation.

And Pakistan never got off the ground!

Cheers, Doc

 

[Cookie Monster]

No I am not saying that.

I am saying that your response was weak. Incomplete. Suboptimal. Limited. Defensive.

And has put you at future risk.

Cheers, Doc

Our response was a basic tit for tat...in fact it was almost a display of power bcuz it was announced.

A normal tit for tat would be PAF striking India unannounced like IAF did...instead Pak came in announcing before hand that we will respond. Then besides carrying out the strikes, PAF blew IAF plane out of the sky and captured ur pilot. What followed from IAF is what u should call "WEAK, INCOMPLETE, SUBOPTIMAL, LIMITED, DEFENSIVE". It was laughable to see IAF parading around an AMRAAM as their response. That's like if a guy shot u and u took out the bullet and showed it off as some sort of "victory".

 

[I.R.A]

Our response was a basic tit for tat...in fact it was almost a display of power bcuz it was announced.

A normal tit for tat would be PAF striking India unannounced like IAF did...instead Pak came in announcing before hand that we will respond. Then besides carrying out the strikes blew IAF plane out of the sky and captured ur pilot. What followed from IAF is what u should call "WEAK, INCOMPLETE, SUBOPTIMAL, LIMITED, DEFENSIVE". It was laughable to see IAF parading around an AMRAAM as their response. That's like if a guy shot u and u took out the bullet and showed it off as some sort of "victory".

Sunny day, broad day light, full awake and ready ........ and yet humiliation was delivered at their doorstep, have you ever seen that indian military chief turned politician after that?

Let them take refuge in their self produced excuses ........ don't you see their superstitious ignorant souls were given a shock of their life on Feb 27th ....... for some brief period it did make them question all those Veer chakra and manipulated history ....... however, they are slaves to their mentality, no number of valid arguments can ever change that.

Excuses ........ we checked that and we confirmed that ....... Mastan Khan is right they shouldn't have been spared and forgiven on that night.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Our response was a basic tit for tat...in fact it was almost a display of power bcuz it was announced.

A normal tit for tat would be PAF striking India unannounced like IAF did...instead Pak came in announcing before hand that we will respond. Then besides carrying out the strikes blew IAF plane out of the sky and captured ur pilot. What followed from IAF is what u should call "WEAK, INCOMPLETE, SUBOPTIMAL, LIMITED, DEFENSIVE". It was laughable to see IAF parading around an AMRAAM as their response. That's like if a guy shot u and u took out the bullet and showed it off as some sort of "victory".

Don't engage troll like @padamchen bro, he has a ego that he knows better than all of us @Cookie Monster

 

[Cookie Monster]

Sigh ....

You joined in 2016.

Just bcuz I joined in 2016 doesn't mean that I didn't exist before 2016. I didn't just materialize out of thin air on the day I joined this forum...just like how u existed and were able to learn things before u became a member of this forum. So what was the point of bringing this up? Absolutely nothing...like ur last post instead of talking substance u tend to create a lot of strawman arguments as if that will somehow prove u knowledgeable.

Three years before you joined, I spent 2+ years on a board of US and NATO and Russian veterans.

And this somehow implies that u r knowledgeable? I have yet to see this amazing display of ur knowledge regarding nuclear doctrines. So far u have avoided the subject altogether in ur posts.

Guys who have grown up and trained for nuclear warfighting. As opposed to deterrence.

They have forgotten more about nuclear doctrines and wargaming than all such "defense" think-tanks know collectively.

Another strawman argument by u. I'm sure there exist many experts out there...compared to them my knowledge is most definitely miniscule. This still however doesn't add any support to ur original argument. I'm still waiting to hear anything of substance from u.

Over there you read and learn and question.

Then plz do show me...show us all what treasure trove of knowledge u have learned from there. It is a defense forum after all...we would all love to learn about such a topic.

Not spout schoolboy textbook 101 in an effort to sound intelligent and well read as you just did.

I'm not trying to sound intelligent at all. I have clearly stated my argument and stayed on topic instead of going of on unrelated tangents to try and prove my superiority in this regard(everyone can see who is doing that out of the two of us ). What I wrote may very well be textbook 101 but u still haven't been able to counter it.

This is the sum total of my response to a guy who does not realise that nuclear deterrence entails levels of escalation.

And Pakistan never got off the ground!

Cheers, Doc

I do know different levels of threshold that exist...and I told u already. Pak's nuclear weapons have always been a last resort in case there's nothing left to lose. I have clearly stated that Pak will always reply in a conventional manner every time it can. The only time things go nuclear is when Pak is unable to sustain in a conventional manner. An example of this is Pak's development of low yield short range weapons like Nasr. This was a direct response to Indian CSD. Even in case if India is to execute a CSD type of scenario where Pak can respond conventionally that would still be the response...Pak would use Nasr in case where it gets overwhelmed quickly on multiple fronts and conventional options are no longer sufficient.

To sum it all up and repeat myself so maybe u will finally understand and talk substance...even prior to Feb 27 events...Pak's response would always have been a conventional one rather than a nuclear one in any scenario where Pak can respond conventionally in an adequate manner. So what has Feb 27 skirmish changed? Nothing...absolutely nothing.