India gearing up for a two-front war against China & Pakistan.

[itachiii]

Indians were running away when we came inside India and you expect them to fight us? Riiiiiight.
India knows its got a death wish messing with the PLA after the thumpings it received in 1962, 1967 and 1987. That's why they didn't touch us. Our soldiers could have invaded New Delhi and Indian military would have done nothing. Indian generals and soldiers told the Indian regime that they prefer diplomacy because they want to live. That's why the Indian soldiers were running away like cowards. That's why we got strategic victory when we got concessions out of India that India had to retreat from their territory. We came, we saw, we conquered. We like messing with India......it's fun abusing a country we know is utterly powerless to do anything about it. That's why we always look down on India and treat them like dirt, because India is a defeated country in our eyes. I'm just being brutally honest about it.

it was u r pla army who were afraid to fight us during 1967 and 87 or else we would hav ealready taken revenge for 1962..

 

[dabong1]

India have no first use policy.
Only Pakistan has that, and we can manage to denote our attention to that.

Myth of Indian ‘nuclear no first use’

The Indian policymakers finally, on 11 May 1998, lifted the veil from the true face of the Buddha which had apparently smiled “peacefully” on 18 may 1974 in Pokhran. Pakistan was quick to display its tit for tat reaction a few days later. Although the 1998 testing did give India the status of de facto nuclear weapon status, yet it also neutralized Indian conventional edge over Pakistan as prospects of any future conflict between these South Asian rivals could not be conceived without bringing the nuclear equation into the calculus. Subsequently, Indians hurriedly came up with a draft nuclear doctrine which provides fuzzy guidelines for the employment of nuclear weapons.
While Pakistan has never kept it hidden that its nuclear deterrent is premised on the core belief of “first use but last resort”,.
The Indian so-called “no first use” clause has three conditions attached to it which actually makes it redundant. The first condition says that, “any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat” which doesn’t rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Second, in the clause 2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Like should there be a formal defence pact or a treaty between a nuclear weapon states or mere maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties could also be considered as an alliance.
Finally, clause 2.3a, revised in 2003 states that, “however, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Under such conditions, actually believing in the myth of Indian no first nuclear posture and doctrine is a self-alluded fallacy which practically makes no sense at all. Rather, it is primarily meant to maintain ambiguity with regards to first strike option if a situation is deemed necessary.
Myth of Indian

 

[Yogi]

I am talking about the dumb comment made by General Deepak Kapoor you Fool

India Prepares To Wage War against China and Pakistan - English pravda.ru

No you Idiot, I am talking about a similar comment made by your idiotic General Kapoor.

Read post above (#28)









Again you moron read the comment made by General Kapoor in Post #28

Calling other people Fool n Idiot while posting an article from 2010(couldn't come up with something better or u posted the first article u saw on google ) of a Retired Army Chief in respect of an opinion of Chinese Thinktank report of 2013 without even giving any reference definitely shows ur level of intellect Mr. Genius....

Anyways nowdays its common to see baseless posts from trollers like u on PDF so happy trolling mr....

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Myth of Indian ‘nuclear no first use’

The Indian policymakers finally, on 11 May 1998, lifted the veil from the true face of the Buddha which had apparently smiled “peacefully” on 18 may 1974 in Pokhran. Pakistan was quick to display its tit for tat reaction a few days later. Although the 1998 testing did give India the status of de facto nuclear weapon status, yet it also neutralized Indian conventional edge over Pakistan as prospects of any future conflict between these South Asian rivals could not be conceived without bringing the nuclear equation into the calculus. Subsequently, Indians hurriedly came up with a draft nuclear doctrine which provides fuzzy guidelines for the employment of nuclear weapons.
While Pakistan has never kept it hidden that its nuclear deterrent is premised on the core belief of “first use but last resort”,.
The Indian so-called “no first use” clause has three conditions attached to it which actually makes it redundant. The first condition says that, “any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat” which doesn’t rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Second, in the clause 2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Like should there be a formal defence pact or a treaty between a nuclear weapon states or mere maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties could also be considered as an alliance.
Finally, clause 2.3a, revised in 2003 states that, “however, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Under such conditions, actually believing in the myth of Indian no first nuclear posture and doctrine is a self-alluded fallacy which practically makes no sense at all. Rather, it is primarily meant to maintain ambiguity with regards to first strike option if a situation is deemed necessary.
Myth of Indian

Biological attack , Chemical attack and Nuclear attack on Indian forces elsewere, anywhere qualifies under Nuclear retaliation. If u notice, every country have the same set of rules. Do u think, If we attack P.O,K with Nuk weapons, where China have its soldiers, China will keep quiet?
Chemican n Biological weapons are banned by UN laws. So We do not have such weapons. If in case, we are attacked with such weapons, we cannot retaliate with Chemical or Biological. We have no way, but to retaliate with Nuclear weapons.

 

[dabong1]

Biological attack , Chemical attack and Nuclear attack on Indian forces elsewere, anywhere qualifies under Nuclear retaliation.
If u notice, every country have the same set of rules. Do u think, If we attack P.O,K with Nuk weapons, where China have its soldiers, China will keep quiet?
Chemican n Biological weapons are banned by UN laws. So We do not have such weapons. If in case, we are attacked with such weapons, we cannot retaliate with Chemical or Biological. We have no way, but to retaliate with Nuclear weapons.

2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran can be considered as allies of Pakistan with regards to certain issues. Likewise, Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea also forms and alliance with the US and thus qualifies for a nuclear first strike.

The National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon signaled a significant shift from "No first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of National Defence College in New Delhi on 21 October 2010

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran can be considered as allies of Pakistan with regards to certain issues. Likewise, Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea also forms and alliance with the US and thus qualifies for a nuclear first strike.

The National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon signaled a significant shift from "No first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of National Defence College in New Delhi on 21 October 2010

It depends. The allies u mention , do not have any problem with India. I have never seen Saudi and Iran coming to Pakistanis help whever necessary.
Alignment can also be based on the protection given to a state by a Nuclear state. U see, USA provides Nuclear cover to Japan, Korea, and some other countries. If their countries are attacked nuclearly, USA responds for them .
Same can also be applied for it. India have promised Nuclear cover to Tajiks (or Uzbeks, just don remember). THeir Nuclear security is in India's hand.
So it might means, if Pakistanis have promised cover to somebody, it becomes a open ally. And if that ally attacks us, with banned weapons, We might respond

 

[dabong1]

It depends. The allies u mention , do not have any problem with India. I have never seen Saudi and Iran coming to Pakistanis help whever necessary.
Alignment can also be based on the protection given to a state by a Nuclear state. U see, USA provides Nuclear cover to Japan, Korea, and some other countries. If their countries are attacked nuclearly, USA responds for them .
Same can also be applied for it. India have promised Nuclear cover to Tajiks (or Uzbeks, just don remember). THeir Nuclear security is in India's hand.
So it might means, if Pakistanis have promised cover to somebody, it becomes a open ally. And if that ally attacks us, with banned weapons, We might respond

So basically india has a "No first use" in name only

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

So basically india has a "No first use" in name only

So does every nation? But why do u want to use chemical or biological weapons against India? There is a threat of Nuclear war only if u use those "banned" weapons. And if Pakistanis enter our territory, in war, we wont use it.
But banned weapons, plus a nuclear strike on Indian soldiers "anywhere" . It does define our Nuclear Policy very clearly.
Fight conventional war, and the war will remain conventional. Is it too much to ask buddy?

 

[dabong1]

So does every nation? But why do u want to use chemical or biological weapons against India? There is a threat of Nuclear war only if u use those "banned" weapons. And if Pakistanis enter our territory, in war, we wont use it.
But banned weapons, plus a nuclear strike on Indian soldiers "anywhere" . It does define our Nuclear Policy very clearly.
Fight conventional war, and the war will remain conventional. Is it too much to ask buddy?

I agree with your assessment......its just that a lot of indians keep bringing up this "No first use" as if its some badge of sensibility that the indian army has and pakistan does not share when it facts its a false and misleading statement that india has not a "No first use" policy.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I agree with your assessment......its just that a lot of indians keep bringing up this "No first use" as if its some badge of sensibility that the indian army has and pakistan does not share when it facts its a false and misleading statement that india has not a "No first use" policy.

But Pakistan have a policy of using Nuk weapons, even if we Invade the territory right/>?

 

[dabong1]

But Pakistan have a policy of using Nuk weapons, even if we Invade the territory right/>?

No not really.....its a bit like your "no first use" policy........pakistans is “first use but last resort”,
Let me guess?...if pakistan went to war against india and was about to win without the use of nukes,would you use nukes paskistan to stop its victory over india....off course you would just like any other nation would.

 

[IND151]

Beijing: India continues to view Pakistan as the "real threat" even though it is adjusting its military strategy to include the possibility of a limited two-front war with both Pakistan and China, the first Blue Book on India published by a Chinese think tank said.

Pakistan is India's main "real threat" to maintain a high degree of vigilance and preparedness, the summary of the Blue Book released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, (CASS) said.

The report says Indian military deployment on land is mainly fixated against Pakistan but in recent times, it is also being adjusted for both China and Pakistan.

The book in Chinese language, the first ever on India, said, New Delhi is focusing to deal with limited war with China and Pakistan at the same time.

It spoke of large increase in troops at the borders and up gradation of border forces with new weapons and equipment.

The report spoke about India's maritime military deployment in recent years, the prime cause of China's worry as it regards India's fast expanding blue water navy as a major threat.


The book, which speaks of India's efforts in the past to strengthen its maritime military strength in the East, specially mentioned Indian Navy's Eastern Naval Command and its bases in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

It also spoke of increase in Indian defence budget with the rapid growth of the Indian economy making it the biggest buyer of the international arms.

About India's policy towards neighbors, it said New Delhi continued to pursue the "Gujral Doctrine" on neighbouring countries to provide unilateral assistance, enhancing mutual trust and cooperation with the neighbouring countries of South Asia, while continuing to push forward the peace process with Pakistan.

India also established a strategic partnership with Afghanistan while developing relations with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, it said.

`India preparing for a possible two-front war with Pak, China`

 

[super nova]

No one will use nukes unless it is a total war. Unless either nation is trying to take over and completely destroy the other nukes will never be an option. A limited war over border issues is more likely and it would never really be a 2 front war.

india also have nuck.s will usa help india ???

 

[IND151]

The question is: Does India hope to "win" its objectives by taking on two nuclear powers at once. I'd like to meet the general who has a plan to win such a battle.

India wants itself to be prepared for such scenario and such ability will deter aggression, when both our "perceived threats" know that India is cable of fighting a two front war and inflicting heavy damage to both of them.

The question is: Does India hope to "win" its objectives by taking on two nuclear powers at once.

The real question is will they use nukes, when both know that in retaliation we can pose them damage worth in trillions of dollars?

 

[ChinaToday]

Not good enough india should be gearing up for 6 front war atleast