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.
In any armed conflict, there is always an escalation laddar from small fire arms to larger caliber and so on. And there is some rationality behind that thus most respected militaries follow that. Skipping the steps have serious implications to which I was trying to bring the attention towards and reasoned that.
The first bullet is not the tipping point but can be initialization of a large conflict. Of course in any war, missiles and other weapons system have a place, but certainly they are not to be utilized as was India using in the most recent conflict.
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.
Attacking LEAs of an enemy state within an INTERNATIONALLY recognized disputed territory is much less of a substantial complaint over state actor targeting not only Pakistanis but Chinese in terror and other actions in an well established, recognized territory of a nation.
Unless, you too like the Bhakts deny the status of Jammu and Kashmir region; for which case, I don't think any reasonable discussion can be carried forward.
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.
In my understanding, this is a grossly wrong reading if anyone sincerely thinks the govt
wished to concentrate on internal matters of India and by its actions, keeping the situation
stable.
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.
I do not think Pakistan side think they can do anything without any significant retaliation. Even in it's all adventures, there is calculated risk.
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?
That is quite a view to look at things, and perhaps anyone from Indian side is not at fault especially when the Indian state does not even communicate on any issues in recent history; which leads such perception and mis-understanding. I am sure, just as you, Pakistan too has much legitimate concerns and point of view regarding these and also other issues. For any negotiations or any way forward, do you think there can be even serious or proper negotiations without even having the dialogue?
And until both sides start talking, all accusations contribute to nothing meaningful.
A four time aggressive state on DISPUTED territory. Sir, let's not forget that Pakistan for most of the major aggressions you have pointed out acted in disputed territory, while India acted more in non-disputed territory. Let's keep that in mind when putting forward out reservations.
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?
I have also posted pictures of him drinking tea, being treated by military doctors, stated his video statements of good treatment by Pakistan. I hope you also came across them.
And le t's just say I have not been the most responsible member on the platform and do not represent the PDF administration in all postings. I have quite often trolled and my past and recent posts can be evident on al kinds of topics.
However, in any constructive discussion such as one having with you, I have tried to refrain myself from such behavior. I do am guilty as charged but perhaps the intention was to silence the Indian trolls lurking around and not to disappoint esteemed and respectable members such as yourself.
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?
We can debate about the alleged ill-treatment of Kambampati Nachiketa just as of Sepoy
Maqbool Hussain as PoW from 1965s when I dare say, our respective militaries were much more professional regarding PoW. I am not dismissing all your legitimate complaints, but I also hope you are not disregarding that Pakistan too has legitimate complaints and both can blame the other. Thus, I advocate engagement which Pakistan has never shied away from unlike India.
Terrorism is as much a concern for Pakistan as it is for India if not more, and we hope India does not use any excuse to run away from dialogue. Pakistan is open to talking on ALL concerns of India and we hope India also reciprocates that including on terrorism and disputed territories.
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?
I do not think Pakistani state covertly and otherwise ever intended or approved to target civillians in the 2008 Mumbai attacks you mentioned. Do also keep in mind that Pakistan itself was fighting the menace of terrorism almost at it's peak inside Pakistan and had trouble dealing with that at that time. And I am sure Pakistan has a case of Samjohta Express and otherwise which took place a few years before the metropolis attack; and Pakistan is waiting for due Judicial process to occur; I might inform that similar to Indian courts, Pakistan judicial process involves beside papers documents and graphical evidence human witnesses for the court to take the case forward. We hope India can cooperate as both Pakistan and India want to get to the end of it. We also wonder the status of Samjhota Express case where Pakistani Victims were the victims inside India, the incident also occured inside India and the case is also inside India.
I will reply further later.
