IAF "whats cooking"

[blain2]

For as long as the IAF's largest Air Command (WAC) is postured to cater to the threat from the west, Pakistan is a major threat. Exercises are a common thing. They do it and we do it. As an example, PAF just carried out a massive one last year in which 7000 sorties were generated by various aircraft (that is more than the 65 war effort and equal to the 71 war effort by the PAF).

 

[bhangra12345]

bhangra you have a much realistic approach, i have been reading your post for quite some time now. The point is India sees pakistan a threat, ok fine, in your exercises india trains her arm forces against pakistan. Fine too. The problem arrises when i often hear indians saying a strong properous pakistan is infavour of india. This line, i never actually got to understand the meaninig of it according to indian terms. What do they mean by a properous pakistan. Well from the above standpoint india takes and considers pakistan a threat major or not major that is another issue but a threat even though the bhai chara crap is also going on these days,confidence building measures are being taken also, defence procuments are also based on pakistan centric, so a country which is considered a threat, why to see it properous, why not to see it destabilize, destroyed? Or by meaning a strong pakistan we should take the oppoiste of it let me phrase it this way" a destroyed, destabilize and economy ripped pakistan is in favour of india"
I might go out of topic here since its about IAF's exercise, but i do wana hear your comments on it because to me it is not more then just a hypocrasy as they have or atleast we dont see india having any intension about solving the disputes, and we have heard often on different indian forums regarding a military conflict with pakistan. Your views please

Look you do not see the problem. If India was not next to Pakistan and we had the same "enemy" scenario as we are right now facing, I would not care if Pakistan goes kaboom or what not, I bloody hell dont care. But unfortunately or fortunately, we are neighbours. So any major event on pakistan has a repurcussion on India. In 1971, east Pakistan had a problem initially mostly internal with Bhutto,army and mujib, when it went sour, we had more than 5 million refugees in india and we had to feed them. Also Pakistan can talk about india as anti-islam and as such, but India cant talk of Pakistan as anti-hindu, because we have more than 150 million muslims in india. Our propoganda like yours cant be over the board, it has to be subtle yet threatening. So you see, we do have our disadvantages and limits to what we talk against Pakistan and if Pakistan gets destabilized, we will have the problem of refugees as well. So that we dont want to do much in getting Pakistan destabilized is in our own self interest.

If we have to get Pakistan destabilized, we want to do it in a quick, close and open eyelids sort of thing and after that with no repurcussions on us. Observe our 1971 war, we didnt do an iraq or vietnam there. we left as soon as it was possible. The 1971 war was one where we could easily have destroyed Pakistan, not half destroy as we had done. Even observe the shimla treaty, it was very very tilted for you. It treats west Pakistan as an almost equal with india. For a completely defeated enemy, giving that much leeway!! The first thing in that treaty was not returning of occupied lands or such, but returning of 93000 east pakistan's POW. The first thing we did was to return our trump card!!! So you see, our interest was never in destabilizing pakistan.

Observe the "cold start" strategy of indian army. was it any different in 1965 or 1971? Nope. We will make a show as if we are going for your main artilleries, but not actually take them.

We obviously wish our neighbours to be prosperous- more business oppurtunities.
Strong- enough to resist coming of other powers into the region, no china/ usa/ ussr .

So you see even the above is in our self interest. But to be more realistic, it will be only beneficial to us, if you lose the "anti-india/india bullying" syndrome. Till then we wouldnt want you to destabilize, but on the corner of destabilization? well let me just say that is a good enough compromise. But it brings its own baggage of problem, you are not strong enough to resist outside powers and using you as a pawn. Actually Pakistan itselves invites them to do so because it feels more threat from india. So now we have America and china both in our neighbourhood.

Also Pakistan uses this always, its location. Pakistan is our direct gateway to central asia, russia and oil, we cant use them unless there is peace in the region. Unfortunately, Pakistan is allowing others to use that location, but it is not taking advantage for itself and india- which again requires, you to be strong, prosperous AND with no enmity feeling towards us.

Also there are lot more peaceniks in our country- the gandhian heritage, who dont see that the enemy might have other intentions and you can get 1962ed with all the bhai-bhai talk.

It is a mixture of everything - our own self interest, the peaceniks of gandhian heritage.

 

[IceCold]

All the above said and done i would not comment on that but there is one line i would wana place my thoughts, you mentioned about pakistan being the gateway, well we are no doubt, thanks to our location and yes we would also benefit ourselves too from it unlike you mentioned it, but on the other hand india isnt willing to use pakistan's gateway rather they went all the way to iran and invest there, chawadar i'm not sure is the name of the port, which it could have used pakistan's because this would have saved india the investment she is doing on the iranian port and plus would have also given the two nations the opportunity to come close and enjoy benefit rather remain enemy, but india chose the other way round. I would also give you another example of IPI gas pipeline. This was infavour of both india and pakistan....was it not, instead india went ahead with nuclear deal with the US. So when you say that pakistan only invites other nations to the region, i guess you may wana take another look towards it, since this time its not us but india that has invited US.
Pakistan as you mentioned keeping hositility open towards india, well i would disagree to it the reason is when india blames and blames pakistan for every failure she encounters, Builds up a huge force around her neighbours boders, threats her to decide whether she wana talk about kashmir and take a nuke bomb, isnt this you called hositility, and in such as case what would you expect from pakistan to do?As a result we do the same keeping the hositility open. You being a bigger nation has a much more responsibility on your shoulders then we do, making sure that your neighbours feel secure rather being bullied.

 

[blitz]

Pakistan Navy = no threat
Pakistan Army = no threat
Pakistan Airforce = threat [some warplanes can carry nuclear payload]
Pakistan Missile forces = major threat
Pakistan sponsored proxy war = threat

There you have it. Simple and easy.

 

[bhangra12345]

All the above said and done i would not comment on that but there is one line i would wana place my thoughts, you mentioned about pakistan being the gateway, well we are no doubt, thanks to our location and yes we would also benefit ourselves too from it unlike you mentioned it, but on the other hand india isnt willing to use pakistan's gateway rather they went all the way to iran and invest there, chawadar i'm not sure is the name of the port, which it could have used pakistan's because this would have saved india the investment she is doing on the iranian port and plus would have also given the two nations the opportunity to come close and enjoy benefit rather remain enemy, but india chose the other way round. I would also give you another example of IPI gas pipeline. This was infavour of both india and pakistan....was it not, instead india went ahead with nuclear deal with the US.

See it from india's point of view.
Source-iran, a friend of india's, but unstable and investments in iran will have repurcussions with the only superpower, which controls the all the rest of oil and our whole IT boom is dependent on it. So it would be advantageous on the if we have it as a source. I give 6/10 for this.
transit through Pakistan: a country which has a history of war with us 3 times and the recent one is not even 10 years old(kargil). Now do you want such a country to be holding the lifeline for you when there is a war in future. obvious answer no. alternatives costly ,via sea but this is what we have been doing until now. I give this 4/10.
cost: whole cost of pipeline+not-so-cheap oil. 5/10
so total around 5/10 for the pipeline. Now we have to invest hugely in this, in return for insurance of disruptions and all, we expect the oil to be cheaper. As I have heard it was not very cheap, so we can have all types of disruptions, have a danger of not utilizing it during war and cost is not cheap, if you were a company which is like in the position, would you take up that offer with both hands? You would be guarded in your approach, why do you expect something else from India.

We all know that Pakistan and India do not like each other. Pakistan tries to checkmate India by inviting and colluding with china. You dont expect us to help through that right? We will try to put logjams and pinpricks and the chabar port was started much before gwadar not vice versa, take this into consideration.

So when you say that pakistan only invites other nations to the region, i guess you may wana take another look towards it, since this time its not us but india that has invited US.

Saabji,
India ne kaha pe invite kiya hain? Ek bhi army base kahaan pe diya hain? Our strategic nuclear and missile program is completely our own, apart from economics ,i.e. normal business, where did we allow them to set foot on indian soil(exercises and training being different issues). If you are referring to the words immediately after 9/11, they were calculated words.. India knew it would be waste as a base against afghanistan, our domestic opposition would never allow us to give bases to a different country. Remember even in cold war, USSR didnt get a base in India. USA has just become our friend, do you expect us trust them more than the soviets? Incase you didnot know, during all the exercises with UK, USA, all our radars are completely switched off. That is how much we trust them.

Pakistan as you mentioned keeping hositility open towards india, well i would disagree to it the reason is when india blames and blames pakistan for every failure she encounters, Builds up a huge force around her neighbours boders, threats her to decide whether she wana talk about kashmir and take a nuke bomb, isnt this you called hositility, and in such as case what would you expect from pakistan to do?As a result we do the same keeping the hositility open. You being a bigger nation has a much more responsibility on your shoulders then we do, making sure that your neighbours feel secure rather being bullied.

I tell you one thing. Do you know that immediately after the recent hyderabad bomb blasts, the former chief minister of andhra pradesh(same state), was attacked by a bomb? Did anyone point fingers at Pakistan? It was immediately told was done by maoists. We know on whom should we place what blame on. Also you realize that we had nuclear bomb from 1974 onwards? From that time to around 1990, we knew Pakistan was involved in making a bomb and had not yet made it. We had 15 long years when we could throw those nukes on you and you could do nothing but watch them. Why dont you put it in your perspective?

Do you realize that we have a much much bigger rival than you in the form of china? because a smaller rival becomes tense should we stop preparing for the bigger rival? regarding the bigger rival and more responsibility, I have had an exchange with niaz, you will find my views there. The relevant post
Edit: Next time when anyone talks about magnanimity principle, do they apply it vis-a-vis china and india? let china give us aksaichin back and take back its claim on arunachal pradesh, India shall think of such principle

 

[bhangra12345]

Pakistan Navy = no threat
Pakistan Army = no threat
Pakistan Airforce = threat [some warplanes can carry nuclear payload]
Pakistan Missile forces = major threat
Pakistan sponsored proxy war = threat

There you have it. Simple and easy.

Well let me put it this way, the conventional armed forces(non-nuclear and non-proxy) of pakistan will not be giving sleepless nights to our generals, but it in anyway does not mean that Pakistan armed forces are not a threat. They are a genuine threat which the Indian armed forces take real notice of.

Btw, does anybody know that china even during the summer cannot do much? Its approach has to be through Pakistan. The formidable himalayas are the cause. This thought goes to OOE.

from wab-forum where this was discussed

 

[PakistaniPatriot]

Okay fellas now lets just calm down.It was all just a little misunderstanding . India doesn't consider Pakistan a threat:> Their business. If they once said that Pakistan was a threat and not anymore, then opinions change and opinions don't matter that much. The point of excerise is to look at how good your side is doing and maybe plan against you foe. But this is not where you PLAN so please just relax . Thank You

 

[EagleEyes]

Did i just hear somebody saying Pakistan Army as NOT a threat.

That was a new years laugh.

 

[bhangra12345]

Did i just hear somebody saying Pakistan Army as NOT a threat.

That was a new years laugh.

by the way who said that?

 

[EagleEyes]

by the way who said that?

See what you have quoted above.

 

[bhangra12345]

See what you have quoted above.

sry I read army as the complete armed forces.

 

[EagleEyes]

Well let me put it this way, the conventional armed forces(non-nuclear and non-proxy) of pakistan will not be giving sleepless nights to our generals, but it in anyway does not mean that Pakistan armed forces are not a threat. They are a genuine threat which the Indian armed forces take real notice of.

This is a process which will never end. Every military has to make sure that it is capable of defending its nation, its people. For that matter it may be India, China or Pakistan, but people from both sides need to agree that an arms race is not in an interest for any nation. So please... food for the people.

 

[bhangra12345]

This is a process which will never end. Every military has to make sure that it is capable of defending its nation, its people. For that matter it may be India, China or Pakistan, but people from both sides need to agree that an arms race is not in an interest for any nation. So please... food for the people.

Well when are you going to mars? That is the only place for the next 20 years, which will not see an armed race.
I cant guarantee that after 20 years

 

[Contrarian]

Did i just hear somebody saying Pakistan Army as NOT a threat.

That was a new years laugh.

Webby, not a threat essentially means, that PA or any of Pakistan's armed forces will be pressed to defend their own land, they will not have the punch to try an offensive in India or if they do, they will have very limited resources. As a defending army, it is very credible, not so much for an offensive in India.

 

[IceCold]

Well when are you going to mars? That is the only place for the next 20 years, which will not see an armed race.
I cant guarantee that after 20 years

Thats the point bhangra. India cannot stop from buying arms from all round the world for her some sort of achieving a superpower status,pakistan cannot neglect this and so will buildup her armforces to counter it. This may ultimately result in a conflict between the two countries, it just depends when an extremeist party comes in power on anyside, pakistan is a more moderate country and that is the reason we havent seen any extremist in government uptill now and we sure dont hope to see one again but in case of india we have seen BJP coming into play twice. So lets just wait and watch.