India cannot defeat Pakistan militarily

[Joe Shearer]

We saw how in 2019, without too many significant miltary exchanges, the skirmish was at the brink of missile exchanges. And when missiles are to be exchanged, I can not predict the play of nuclear warheads in the conflict especially given Pakistan's full spectrum deterrence.

That is precisely the point.

There was no exchange; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there was no use by Pakistan of nuclear devices, so there was never any question of missile exchanges.

It is also instructive that India never thought of using nuclear devices, even under the most severe pressure.

When Rawat said that we would call Pakistan's bluff, this is what he was referring to. Action taken without nuclear reaction.

 

[Signalian]

Investment in high-level R+D would be the best root for Pakistan to follow in the long run, quite similar to that of Turkiye. This is due to the fact that the natural resources possessed by the country are in fact very low, so technological advancements should be our main strength, marking our dominance in the region.

I think it's pretty much a matter of a dying breed.
As meritocracy begins to fizzle out and nepotism takes place (as seen with Bajwa), the quality of the COAS will only drop further.

Heating up the ongoing war with India is definitely an iffy topic, especially when taking into account the economic situation. Afghanistan's slow advance will begin to render them more of an enemy as time goes on, due to the need to perform ops on their sovereign soil.

As for the PN and PAF advancement, I greatly agree.
The usage of superior technology within warfare should be focused on, rather than the usage of superior manpower, as seen in the WOT which was fought a bit too conventionally, with outdated styles of troop advancements.

This is actually quite annoying, seeing that he launched a large op within a week of his appointment to the position of COA

The main issue is that pretty much all internal ops have been offloaded to PA. WOT and the like barely had any usage of PN's tech

I think the generic idea is that combined arms are not being used in the project to eradicate the BLA, and adequate technology is not being used either, whilst it is possessed.

Surely this is an escalation that isn't really necessary?
And wouldn't maintaining this level of warfare be unfeasible, especially when taking into account the economic situation and the sourcing of aircraft parts?

For the first part of R&D, think about it. what actually happened ?

Whenever a Pakistani becomes an expat and goes abroad to earn money, what does he invest in back in Pakistan ? The real estate. He will buy a plot, or plots or land or house, just something to do with property. Now you could say that Thanks to DHA (which unofficially regulates the real estate market of Pakistan), the investment in property always brings good dividends so it is/was a considered a safe investment.

The drawback was everybody went after "safe" investment, the risky investment was "R&D", which even engineers, IT specialists, coders, programmers, developers etc could have done but no one did. Everybody bought property. A bummer.

Second part, the members on PDF want to make everything political, so they run after CJCSC that he should be from PAF and PN, but look at the force itself. What it can offer and what it offers ? PAF and PN offers more technological advancements than Army in few domains of electronics like surveillance, intelligence, information warfare, electronic warfare etc. PAF has specialized aircraft while PN has specialized aircrafts and vessels. PA puts those goodies on a UAV and there you go.

Still, PAF and PN have ground elements in terms of Specialized and infantry Ops in the form of SSW, SSG(N) and Marines. The coastline has become the responsibility of Marines, maybe in a few years time they will get complimented with amphibious assault capability on a company level (100 troops). Pakistan Navy has a n airfield in Turbat (Naval Air Station PNS Siddiq in Baluchistan) and PAF has Shamsi airbase, apart from Samungli in Quetta.


Coming to the COAS, he has started an ops against TTP in KPK, which was kind of expected. When I was in Pakistan, I had a talk with a few people and was told that Intel was on ground pre-march and that Ops started in march, I think I mentioned that at many places on the forum. ISPR confirmed Ops in April. This is one active front with Intel, SF and FC involved along with few regular battalions. The parallel step is widening intel circle inside Afghanistan, which is working effectively already especially in taking out TTP elements (mostly without Taliban help, some sympathizers of Pakistan in the form of few tribal leaders still exist). Third is the Ops against BLA, which is covered somewhat on the border with Afghanistan and inside Baluchistan at some points only. Now comes the front against India. There are three fronts already opened like I mentioned, which require most of ISI resources engaged in these ops. The fourth front would be LOC and then extended Kashmir, this has gone cold at the moment. Logically so, since that would be jumping from COIN war to conventional war. That means stretching SSG and LCBs since regular infantry battalions and NG battalions are on defensive on LOC. For an effective Ops, ISI resources will need to be allocated for Kashmir ops who are deployed in KPK, Baluchistan, Afghanistan and other sensitive locations inside Pakistan. So logically, COAS is progressing correctly. Its still debatable though but then Pakistan Army is not US Army that many salient can be opened simultaneously - on the offensive.

The issue is that CAS and CNS have to take the initiative based on the capabilities of their own forces. This is possible but its not about military training and so called "mediocrity" (which is over-used BS term). It has been seen continuously that command and leadership method of all COASs are different, same goes for CAS and CNS. This is reflected in the expansion of the forces also, e.g look how PAF expanded and how PN expanded in comparison with Army, the equipment they bought, the training their officers and troops went through etc. While PAF's role is to support Army and Navy, as well as defend the skies, the Navy's role has been limited to the coast and the seas however that AB in Turbat though brings redundancy away from Indian missile strikes from land or sea, still provides a launching pad for COIN Ops or ops on the border against Afghanistan and Iran. PN has been expanding Marines side by side along with modernizing its vessels and buying new subs, just like PAF has been inducting JFT, UAVs and J-10. The numbers are swelling up, their role needs to be expanded now.

If PAF is taken for example, a new squadron was raised for Mirages (50th Squadron), similarly for JF-17 new squadrons were raised. Probably, its time to raise 4 x squadrons for UCAV which would enhance PAF's strike capability instead of relying on Mirages and F-16 for strike roles which was seen in previous Ops. This frees up all aircrafts for AD duties also in case of a conventional war with India. It also brings down the fuel, maintenance and other operational overheads since for some drones different kinds of fuel is required for flying. Then the safety of pilots is also another factor.

IMHO, PAF's and PN's role will be expanded in coming years, but its the PN which should take the lead as it has more ground component than PAF while its air component can be enhanced through seconded PAF's older JFTs, if not Mirages as its naval vessels steadily grow in numbers side by side. The ground reality is that there are so many LEAs on the ground already that even Army is not required for full deployment in troubled places.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Rumors of blackout in Karachi were viral Post 2019 events with threat of Brahmos and Pakistan also deploying Shaheen IIs.

How on earth do those rumours have any bearing on Indian no-first-use doctrine?

 

[Signalian]

Everyone knows Pakistan's establishment has done its best to destroy Kashmiri militant groups.

Sure, you live in Utopia. Everyone means the ones fed by Anti-Army media.

Keep living in denial.

If Pakistan's establishment had twitched even a muscle to restrain Kashmiri militant groups, there would be no violence today. Even today, the leaders of those groups walk about freely, address public meetings (not in Kashmir), and when they are detained, they seem to enjoy every facility within prison that they might have wanted out of it.

ISI has shifted its Ops from Kashmir theater to the western front, however not completely restrained. PA's interest in the region is evergreen.

 

[PDF]

I am perplexed.

We have a no-first-use policy. I hope that is not in doubt.

We have a democratic system, and everything including much of our constitution (the same one that we gave ourselves in 1950) is constantly being questioned. Our laws are also questioned. Our banking policies are questioned, economic policies are questioned, the quality of supervision of our institutions is questioned.

So what?

Why should everybody and her husband start jumping about like startled chickens because the no-first-use policy is questioned? Why are we forbidden from talking about it, debating the salient points and expressing opinions about these?

Perhaps because the banking, internal laws etc do not have the same risks which weapons of mass destruction pose not to only India, but the region and world at large?

Internal debates and policies are always discussed as to form the doctrines of state. However, Public signaling through one of the highest positions such as COAS, Defence Minister etc have wider implications.

The doubt is not on the current formal position, but rather if it holds, true in practice and how credible is the stated position.
Just as India's formal position on J & K despite UN and otherwise internationally recognized dispute status, or India being a secular nation formally yet in practice, it is biased and inclined in favor of Hinduism or Sanatani faith (which ever word you prefer).

I am also perplexed as to how come you do not actually see any concerns of not only Pakistan or China, but also other people who closely follow such topics.

ISI has shifted its Ops from Kashmir theater to the western front, however not completely restrained. PA's interest in the region is evergreen.

From what I know, separate departments within ISI and MI deal with different fronts and do not overlap in their roles generally. So, it is not so much of shifting but rather inhibiting Ops from Kashmir Front which actually signal a policy change and is quite visible by the diminished struggle efforts within Kashmir.

PA interest is with any military is never completely terminated, however, the interest in the region is shifted within and not so evergreen in terms of practice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What I actually see is that Pakistan has been very restraint despite historically being the aggressive one. It's almost like reverse role-playing.

Again, difficult to handle, or to parse.

More.

 

[PDF]

That is precisely the point.

There was no exchange; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there was no use by Pakistan of nuclear devices, so there was never any question of missile exchanges.

It is also instructive that India never thought of using nuclear devices, even under the most severe pressure.

When Rawat said that we would call Pakistan's bluff, this is what he was referring to. Action taken without nuclear reaction.

My inference was that missile with conventional warheads was very much of possibility and what I wanted to convey was that once, conventional load starts flying through cruise or ballistic missiles between two nuclear armed nations, it is not far stretched to picture a scenario in practice of non-conventional nuclear warhead to be exchanged within full spectrum as Pakistan has explicitly opted for.

There was no exchange; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there was no use by Pakistan of nuclear devices, so there was never any question of missile exchanges.

And you believe it will always play out like this in future? Pakistan promptly returning prisoner of war within 60 Hrs at the threat of missile threat and also not responding to misfire of Missile to Pakistan militarily?

I think it would be quite naive to have such understanding of Indo-Pak relations.

 

[PDF]

How on earth do those rumours have any bearing on Indian no-first-use doctrine?

With a state willing to exchange missiles without an major military escalation playing out simply to get back a prisoner of war, I think it has much more implications than Indian posture and operational policy of no first-use.

India, Pakistan came close to firing missiles at each other on February 27

Hindustan Times spoke to a key CCS member, Indian and Pakistani diplomats, office of the US NSA, and intelligence officials to piece together some of the events on the day the fragile and uneasy relationship between the two neighbours almost reached breaking point.

www.hindustantimes.com

A cabinet that is willing to exchange missiles over a single prisoner of war is nothing short of madness and stupidity. And any threat analysis would not rule out any abnormal actions from such a state, even if it were to be their nuclear doctrine.

India, Pakistan Came 'Close' to Nuclear War After 2019 Pulwama Attack: Mike Pompeo

'It took us a few hours – and remarkably good work by our teams on the ground in New Delhi and Islamabad – to convince each side that the other was not preparing for nuclear war,' the former US secretary of state wrote.

thewire.in

 

[Signalian]

From what I know, separate departments within ISI and MI deal with different fronts and do not overlap in their roles generally. So, it is not so much of shifting but rather inhibiting Ops from Kashmir Front which actually signal a policy change and is quite visible by the diminished struggle efforts within Kashmir.

PA interest is with any military is never completely terminated, however, the interest in the region is shifted within and not so evergreen in terms of practice.

Budget for Ops, resources for Ops - shifts Ops.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My inference was that missile with conventional warheads was very much of possibility and what I wanted to convey was that once, conventional load starts flying through cruise or ballistic missiles between two nuclear armed nations, it is not far stretched to picture a scenario in practice of non-conventional nuclear warhead to be exchanged within full spectrum as Pakistan has explicitly opted for.

Your inference is correct but partial. Once there is an exchange of fire, even an exchange of fire by rifles, what prevents an exchange of fire by machine guns? What prevents an escalation to exchange of fire between artillery? At what point will multi-barrel rocket launchers, effectively artillery without gun barrels, be legitimised?

Once missiles are exchanged, irrespective of their respective payloads, there is a thin wall, even no wall, between conventional and nuclear war.

The situation therefore is that the tipping point is not at the moment when conventional-load bearing missiles are fired by both sides at each other, but at the moment when there is an exchange of fire, through whatever weapons, down to a pistol or a revolver.

This will be inevitable, when one administration is irresponsible and keeps encouraging brain-washed irregular armed men to infiltrate the LOC and start attacking the administrative and LEOs of the other side.

What Pakistan is doing today is not setting a match to gunpowder only because of the natural disinclination of a belligerent, bigoted administration to escalate matters, wishing to concentrate on internal affairs within India, and confining itself to token gestures not amounting to an irrevocable progression by either side. Only the unstable BJP is keeping the situation stable.

And you believe it will always play out like this in future? Pakistan promptly returning prisoner of war within 60 Hrs at the threat of missile threat and also not responding to misfire of Missile to Pakistan militarily?

As I have just pointed out, the restraint is not by Pakistan, it is by a most unlikely party to the conflict, to an unstable and unpredictable ruling party that has hitherto put domestic affairs first, and has thoroughly neglected external affairs, thereby leading the country to an extremely dangerous situation.

The danger lies in the belief on the Pakistani side that they can do anything at all, and the only retaliation will be cosmetic and tightly bound to visibly limited goals.

There is NO difference between this and Russian roulette.

All the concessions so far have been made, explicitly sometimes, implicitly always, by India. The no-first-use policy is an example. If it is taken as unstable and subject to change, that would normally be a signal for the opposed state to bring things to a screeching halt, and for deep introspection, perhaps even to serious and permanent negotiations to ensure a permanent peace. Do we see that? Or do we see that it is not taken as an unstable situation, but as a stable situation, licensing a four times aggressor state to continue aggressive moves?

 

[Joe Shearer]

With a state willing to exchange missiles without an major military escalation playing out simply to get back a prisoner of war, I think it has much more implications than Indian posture and operational policy of no first-use.

Have you read in this very forum the triumphalism of ordinary members with no military experience or background on the subject of the prisoner of war in question?

Have you, as a member of the staff, stopped the posting of pictures of that same prisoner of war bloodied by assault by civilians who captured him?

Has anyone commented unfavourably on the treatment of Kambampati Nachiketa, and his report that his captivity was difficult to describe in words, and that death would have been preferable to that captivity?

What was expected from the Indian side, considering the past history of treatment of Indian prisoners of war, in sharp contrast to the treatment of Pakistani prisoners of war?

When we hear that India was posturing, it is difficult to understand. What must be done to convince Pakistan that these are serious positions, that can be shaken, but only by egregious ill-treatment of prisoners and by sustained assault on one nation by another, using all means available, including suicide squads being landed in one country's metropolis to kill over a hundred civilians?

It cannot be one-sided restraint in perpetuity, Sir.

Quite clearly, every Pakistani in possession of the facts, and able to sift those and come to rational judgement of the outcomes, realises that today's firm position by India is under relentless attack by Pakistan, and sometime, somewhere, that position might be eroded.

A cabinet that is willing to exchange missiles over a single prisoner of war is nothing short of madness and stupidity. And any threat analysis would not rule out any abnormal actions from such a state, even if it were to be their nuclear doctrine.

That would be true only on assuming that every fresh provocation is preceded by a vacuum. It would need an assumption that each time, whatever happened in the past should be disregarded and the incident considered in isolation.

From the Indian point of view, it has always, invariably, been the Pakistani standard operating procedure to use clandestine force to achieve goals not achievable otherwise, and to use terror, including the maltreatment of prisoners and the mass murder of civilians, to subdue opposition.

How should this be addressed? Do suggest what you believe ought to have been an appropriate response to these issues.

 

[arjunk]

Exactly.

Now figure out how many we need to intimidate the PRC.

How many would the PRC need to intimidate you and the US + allies? Greater than the Soviets, 10s of thousands of missiles in silos and individual Subs with enough firepower to wipe out a country?

Doesn't that seem strange even to you? Since we have now clearly established that in 48, 65 and 99, Pakistan attacked India.

We haven't established that - but did Pakistan posses nukes then?

So how does Pakistan possessing nuclear devices deter Pakistan's aggression?

Pakistan didn't posess nuclear devices in any of the wars you mentioned. Kargil wasn't a war, it was a unilaterally aborted attempt at a total proxy war against Indian forces similar to the one against the Soviets.

The Mukti Bahini, as you will find out if you ask Bangladeshis, were entirely Bangladeshi.

Trained and armed by India. The Khalistanis were entirely Punjabi, the Kashmiris were entirely Kashmiri, etc etc.

The infiltrators into Kashmir are rarely Kashmiri; the majority are from parts of Pakistan. This is something that you can determine for yourself if you check where they are mourned.

They are buried in Kashmir with Pakistan flags draping their graves and pro Kashmiri slogans. Wani, for example, was from a wealthy Kashmiri family.

Denying that local discontent exists is not going to be productive.

Let's just drop this topic, you've already stated you're unwilling to say anything that your government won't agree with.

Nothing has been proved in an open judicial trial against Jadhav,

He confessed on video.

who, if you remember, was kidnapped from Iran and taken into Pakistan.

That is, according to India. Pakistan says he was caught in Balochistan, Pakistan.

As for your armed resistance against an occupying power, repeating your version of events will convince nobody else other than the Pakistani establishment.

Repeating your version of events will only lead you to buying your own propaganda. Not a single country in the world recognizes India's sovereignty over Kashmir, and Kashmiri discontent will not disappear regardless of how much India demonizes the locals and calls them Pakistani terrorists.

 

[brational]

Take "GB and AJK" eh? First train your pilots to get back in one piece. Last time your Air Force tried to cross, 2 jets, a Mig 21 and an SU-30 were shot down, one pilot taken in Pak Army's custody and an Indian MI-17 helicopter crashed killing 7 on board due to PAF's electronic warfare capabilities.

If you think a military option is the only option we have then you are living in denial.
That Jet question and arguments are never ending. The loss of an F16 is too big a national embarrassment isn't it? Was the F16 pilot Killed in action termed as "Doosra Banda?" SU 30 lost is consoling element for people living in the fantasy world. Don't forget that Tea was fantastic followed by Taangein Kaanmp rahe thei. These are not Indian words.

You need to concern yourself with Assam, West Bengal, Nagaland, Telangana and Khalistan. Every now and then your armed forces personnel get killed and all this is happening internally. Kashmiri movement will live as long as it takes to get independence with or without Pakistan's support. If the Pakistani military establishment doesn't interfere in our domestic politics and decides to do its job, they need only one bomb to destroy a road in the Valley that carry's supplies to Indian army

FYI, I am from Assam and I am not at all concerned about Assam, Nagaland and West Bengal because there is nothing in these places to be concerned about. Telangana what Owaisi brothers? Are you serious? Khalistanis aka Pakistani abomination? Ask yourself why you guys are in such a miserable condition? Obviously, Kashmir movement will live till whole of Kashmir comes under India (Dont wirry I won't show you mirror in the form of Balochistan, KP, Sindh and even Azad Kashmir) . The funniest part of Pakistani military and People is that they are the masters of making excuses. Military politics karega tou bomb nahi maar paya. Saazish ho gayi. Paisa nahi mila. Andhera bahut tha. Moreover I like your confidence that tum bomb marogey to hum popcorn khatey rahengey. I appreciate it.

We Pakistanis don't care what happens in Bhutan and Nepal. Pakistan's only interference in South Asia was in Sri Lanka and this was upon Sri Lankan government's request that Pakistani military provide them with weapons to crush the Tamil movement which it did embarrassing India who were arming and providing safe havens to terrorists.

Thats why you mentioned Nepal in your previous comment?
Terrorism and begging are the only interference of pakistan in anywhere in the world. FATF colours are the proof.

China could not end its poverty entirely despite communism and achieving 7%+ growth rate consistently for decades. India on the other hand has poverty that is more than entire African continent and a disparity between rich and poor that is worst than Pakistan and you are here telling me you will be a developed country by 2047 lol.

You don't need to worry about our economy. The day there is a government that completes its tenure without Military and Supreme Court interferences which btw will happen one day for sure, that is the day you will see the real us. Just to give you an Idea what we are capable of, a government in Pakistan that lasted between 2013-2017 that dealt with 128 days of street politics, military operations against the Taliban and RAW in 3 provinces fetched $50 billion of investments, ended energy load shedding in the country from 12h to 0h and economic growth rate that hovered around 6% making it an emerging market. If anything, it's easier to pull a 240 million population out of poverty compared to a country like India that has a population of 1.4 billion which also happens to rank below Pakistan in Global Hunger Index.

The only comment I found interesting is the boldened part. One day! After 75 years, the only aspiration of the Falied state is "Your govt to complete it's tenure" surely it is indeed an aspiration! Once the govt completes it's tenure then we will see the real pakistan. Big claps for you and all pakistanis. Tumlogoney mulk ko tabah kar diya firbhi nahi sudhrogey. Bhai kuch kaam kar ley nahito hunger index dekhkar hi peit bharna padega. Haha, we want to remain hungry than to topple Pakistan in Global hunger index. Many many congratulations for your certificate of Hunger Index.

Tuchiye, we aspire to be a developed country and we are working to achieve this. Tumko samajhne me bhi problem hai yeh mujhe abhi abhi pata chala.

It is incredible that you have written paragraph after paragraph of Hawabazi but you could not write about any of your achievements in last 75 years.

 

[Joe Shearer]

How many would the PRC need to intimidate you and the US + allies? Greater than the Soviets, 10s of thousands of missiles in silos and individual Subs with enough firepower to wipe out a country?

To intimidate us? about 3.

To intimidate the US and allies? One. None of those countries is willing to consider even a single bomb dropping on their soil.

We haven't established that - but did Pakistan posses nukes then?

How long do you think India will wait for Pakistan to acknowledge the list of aggressive actions it has undertaken? You still refuse to acknowledge that the Bombay mass murders were totally a Pakistani establishment job. Do you think Indian decision-making mirrors my patience in responding to frothy concoctions intended to ward off retribution for irresponsible behaviour?

What difference would it have made if Pakistan possessed nukes then? None. She would have attacked, and she would have been repelled.

Pakistan didn't posess nuclear devices in any of the wars you mentioned. Kargil wasn't a war, it was a unilaterally aborted attempt at a total proxy war against Indian forces similar to the one against the Soviets.

Please look up your records. There were no proxies. These were regulars, with army paybooks.

 

[arjunk]

including suicide squads being landed in one country's metropolis to kill over a hundred civilians?

That is, according to your government. Let's not touch upon our dossier about India's support to TTP, which murdered 143 school children in one day.

From the Indian point of view, it has always, invariably, been the Pakistani standard operating procedure to use clandestine force to achieve goals not achievable otherwise, and to use terror, including the maltreatment of prisoners and the mass murder of civilians, to subdue opposition.

This excuse is becoming increasingly tiresome.

"The Modi government's public mischaracterizations of the February 2019 Balakot airstrike and subsequent air skirmishes, including subsequently debunked claims of a destroyed terrorist camp inside Pakistan and India's downing of a Pakistani F-16 jet, have already raised questions in the United States about New Delhi's credibility and communications strategy in the midst of an exceptionally dangerous regional context"

Project MUSE - The Strategic Implications of India's Illiberalism and Democratic Erosion