Indian army chief says military ready for short, swift war

[That Guy]

Personal insults - the final refuge of one out of arguments.

Nothing you've said has any truth to it, simple as that.

You want specific ways? Plenty - sharing intel on your nukes locations, even joint action to prevent this madness. Who controls the guiding system your missiles use? Who can disable them?

Delusion of grandeur, what makes you think Pakistan is incapable of defending it's nuclear assets? Or that India (or the world) would be fast enough to stop Pakistan?

The fact that other Indian members actually agree with me, that's proof enough of your ridiculous comments.

Disclosure of other sensitive secrets. He*k, if your establishment is crazy enough to kill themselves, they would have children abroad, they could be targeted. You are a think tank, are your seriously asserting world powers have no leverage over your establishment that can be exploited even in extreme situations?

Again, delusion of grandeur, nothing more. They're called extreme situations for a reason, don't be ridiculous.

As recently declassified documents reveal, Israel offered to bomb your sites back in '84. Plenty of others would join if you guys wish to take down the region and world economy with you.

Pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons back then, only test and production sites. The moment Pakistan's nukes are targeted, so are India's. Don't think for one second that India would get off Scott free.

Also, as I recall, Israel was forced to back off, when Pakistan threatened India with retaliation on it's nuclear sites.

As for change, provide evidence for the change that demonstrates willingness to commit mass suicide, by your establishment that lives cushy lives. No one is going to take your words at face value, history is the only guide we have.

Simple, Pakistan cannot afford a limited or long war, as it would essentially destroy Pakistan. If that happens, there is no reason for Pakistani generals to hold back. Nuclear weapons aren't made to show off, it's called a deterrent capability for a reason. Not to mention that Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy.

Like I said, its all about who's the aggressor and who has more card to play at a given time.

I don't even know what your film industry is called to return that last jibe about your nuclear delusions.

Regardless of aggression, no one at the UNSC would tolerate a conflict between the two, simple as that. Even a 1% chance threat of nuclear war will get them to act, as it would have global implications if they don't. Don't for one second believe that India is some how a super power immune to international pressure.

 

[SQ8]

So do u want full scale war with India ? Country which is literally miles ahead of u ? Reality is India is a large country with tiny western bordered enemy ???

Exactly, a tiny country which has much less to lose in a nuclear exchange as compared to the much larger country. Pakistan will end, but what survives of India will be worse than death.

So do u want full scale war with India ? Country which is literally miles ahead of u ? Reality is India is a large country with tiny western bordered enemy ???

Exactly, a tiny country which has much less to lose in a nuclear exchange as compared to the much larger country. Pakistan will end, but what survives of India will be in worse shape than what the Pakistanis will already have gone through.

 

[Nicky G]

Nothing you've said has any truth to it, simple as that.

Assertion with nothing to back it up. Should just skip this.

Delusion of grandeur, what makes you think Pakistan is incapable of defending it's nuclear assets? Or that India (or the world) would be fast enough to stop Pakistan?

Simple - no demonstrated capability to do any of what you claim. You have to establish that you are capable, no one needs to establish that you are not.

What are the guiding systems in your missiles? Who controls them and much more importantly who can screw with them?

The fact that other Indian members actually agree with me, that's proof enough of your ridiculous comments.

That's worse than appeal to authority.

Again, delusion of grandeur, nothing more. They're called extreme situations for a reason, don't be ridiculous.

Your country getting chopped in half was not extreme? What did your soldiers do then? Oh wait - surrender.

Self preservation wins over digesting humiliation every time.

Pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons back then, only test and production sites. The moment Pakistan's nukes are targeted, so are India's. Don't think for one second that India would get off Scott free.

So you'll target both Israel and India? Who'll target India's? China or you?

Simple, Pakistan cannot afford a limited or long war, as it would essentially destroy Pakistan. If that happens, there is no reason for Pakistani generals to hold back. Nuclear weapons aren't made to show off, it's called a deterrent capability for a reason. Not to mention that Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy.

There is - their lives, the lives of their family etc. etc.

Again - difference between claiming you'll commit suicide and actually doing it. As history establishes, easy to claim we'll do this, we'll do that, virtually impossible to carry through.

Regardless of aggression, no one at the UNSC would tolerate a conflict between the two, simple as that. Even a 1% chance threat of nuclear war will get them to act, as it would have global implications if they don't. Don't for one second believe that India is some how a super power immune to international pressure.

You keep making that assertion with nothing to back it up - after all that's what your entire doctrine is based on. Obviously India is not immune to pressure, thus, the point that one needs to not be seen as the aggressor and have more cards to play.

If your establishment had any real confidence in your nuclear deterrence, you'd not need to shout it out at every little hiccup at the LoC or your Aziz fellow running away.

By the way, what happened in Kargil? Is it true that Musharraf wanted to deploy a battery of missiles at the border but they didn't work?

 

[Spectre]

Delusion of grandeur, what makes you think Pakistan is incapable of defending it's nuclear assets? The fact that other Indian members actually agree with me, that's proof enough of your ridiculous comments.

Well, that there is constant monitoring of suspected nuclear silos is a well known fact which Pakistan is quite aware of.

It is a logical assumption to make that Pakistan would have taken steps to have few covert sites in addition to sites monitored. This way west remains happy that they have control over Pakistan's site "mostly" while at the same time there is wariness that they might not have mapped all such sites. Pakistan is quite happy to let uncertainty persist while at the same time giving US agencies a bone to take back to their political establishment and justify their own funding.

I don't think that even for a moment any country whether it is US, Israel or India can be 100% sure that they will destroy all the nuclear weapons at their first and last try. If it was possible then it would have been done.

Simple, Pakistan cannot afford a limited or long war, as it would essentially destroy Pakistan. If that happens, there is no reason for Pakistani generals to hold back. Nuclear weapons aren't made to show off, it's called a deterrent capability for a reason. Not to mention that Pakistan does not have a "no first use" policy.

Essentially destroy Pakistan is a bit of strong statement to make there. Loosing a war is not complete destruction as 1971 displayed. It all depends on the objectives - A strike on Terrorist hide-outs of LeT and other Anti-India militant wings will not destroy Pakistan. A limited offensive on your side of Kashmir to take out training camps will not destroy Pakistan. What it will do is embarrass Pakistan and your defense establishment will loose face.

Thus you are overstating things when you say any limited war will essentially destroy Pakistan.

Regardless of aggression, no one at the UNSC would tolerate a conflict between the two, simple as that. Even a 1% chance threat of nuclear war will get them to act, as it would have global implications if they don't. Don't for one second believe that India is some how a super power immune to international pressure.

Quite true but then it all depends on the degree of provocation which would make India adopt such an aggressive stance which it has not adopted even after Mumbai and Parliament attacks. If the provocation is grave enough and the evidence of Pakistan's collusion solid (and internationally acceptable after immense scrutiny) then the domestic pressure will compel action.

I see something like APS tragedy (pray to God it never happens) leaving India with not option but to attack as you Pakistan very commendably did against TTP.

Regards

Exactly, a tiny country which has much less to lose in a nuclear exchange as compared to the much larger country. Pakistan will end, but what survives of India will be worse than death.

Why entertain the fools, your majesty? Some few may survive in some rat-hole but life would end as we know it in both countries.

The deterrent is an act of faith it works if you believe it works

 

[sathya]

it is true, that with our current growth and development , we are set to lose much.

ideally we should avoid nuke at all cost..

We should start developing conventional WMD, so that we can avoid nuclear retaliation and gain international support.

 

[SQ8]

Why entertain the fools, your majesty? Some few may survive in some rat-hole but life would end as we know it in both countries.

The deterrent is an act of faith it works if you believe it works

Because the fools are a stain on what is the rest of the Indian public.

 

[Nicky G]

Why entertain the fools, your majesty? Some few may survive in some rat-hole but life would end as we know it in both countries.

The deterrent is an act of faith it works if you believe it works

The impact of a nuclear war would hardly be limited to India and Pak - this is key. The entire region would be wrecked. Yet more reason that nuke bluff is precisely that - a bluff.

You and our hosts here are welcome to their faith in it though.

By the way, you do understand that Pak's nuke stance is akin to that of a suicide bomber warning to blow up the place if its irked?

 

[ice_man]

it is true, that with our current growth and development , we are set to lose much.

ideally we should avoid nuke at all cost..

We should start developing conventional WMD, so that we can avoid nuclear retaliation and gain international support.

and we would retalite with PERMANU FOR KETANUS

if you try to cross the border you would start the war we shall end it

The impact of a nuclear war would hardly be limited to India and Pak - this is key. The entire region would be wrecked. yet more reason that nuke bluff is precisely that - a bluff.

You and our hosts here are welcome to their faith in it though.

s bluff you say? well for Nukes to be used you need 2 things:

1) Enemy happy to die like the Kamikazes

2) An enemy who rather lose everything the let you have what is his.

some people call it madness. we consider it normal

We just feel that Spartans were considered mad too. So were the great Prussian Armies of Fredrick. so were the Kamkazies

 

[Spectre]

The impact of a nuclear war would hardly be limited to India and Pak - this is key. The entire region would be wrecked. Yet more reason that nuke bluff is precisely that - a bluff.

You and our hosts here are welcome to their faith in it though.

Thank you, I would rather have Indian establishment have sleepless nights due to Pakistan's nukes than have some idiotic idea of starting a war "without justified provocation" to show who is the boss in the region.

I have no wish to see countless lives laid to waste. US attacked Iraq without justified provocation because they could and US/the whole world is a more dangerous and poorer place due to it.

Regards

 

[ice_man]

Thank you, I would rather have Indian establishment have sleepless nights due to Pakistan's nukes than have some idiotic idea of starting a war "without justified provocation" to show who is the boss in the region.

I have no wish to see countless lives laid to waste. US attacked Iraq without justified provocation because they could and US/the whole world is a more dangerous and poorer place due to it.

Regards

trolling aside spectre but to be honest a "WAR" between india and Pakistan had its swan song the day both nations went nuclear.

Now all we SHOULD SEE is proxy war. because anything beyond that from either side would be catastrophic for the entire world.

 

[Nicky G]

s bluff you say? well for Nukes to be used you need 2 things:

1) Enemy happy to die like the Kamikazes

2) An enemy who rather lose everything the let you have what is his.

some people call it madness. we consider it normal

We just feel that Spartans were considered mad too. So were the great Prussian Armies of Fredrick. so were the Kamkazies

So you are Spartan wannabe? Different time, different situation. They didn't have the power to wreck a whole region and render it uninhabitable or stall the global economy.

Thank you, I would rather have Indian establishment have sleepless nights due to Pakistan's nukes than have some idiotic idea of starting a war "without justified provocation" to show who is the boss in the region.

I have no wish to see countless lives laid to waste. US attacked Iraq without justified provocation because they could and US/the whole world is a more dangerous and poorer place due to it.

Regards

You believe we do not already have "justified provocation" based on past terror attacks?

By your logic, why not have terrorists have nukes? They too do not have a 'no first use' policy. After all, what's the difference between a nation without 'no use first' policy for nukes and a suicide bomber?

Countless lives are already being laid to waste due to Pak sponsored terror and attempts at infiltrations at the LoC.

As for US and Iraq, dude, get over it. Very different dynamics, hardly applicable here, even without the nukes.

 

[Humble Analyst]

So do u want full scale war with India ? Country which is literally miles ahead of u ? Reality is India is a large country with tiny western bordered enemy ???

Will understand once you tart the war. You will be paying the price. Both sides will pay, World will enjoy and sell stuff for reconstruction and more weapons. Enjoy the thought!

So you are Spartan wannabe? Different time, different situation. They didn't have the power to wreck a whole region and render it uninhabitable or stall the global economy.



You believe we do not already have "justified provocation" based on past terror attacks?

By your logic, why not have terrorists have nukes? They too do not have a 'no first use' policy. After all, what's the difference between a nation without 'no use first' policy for nukes and a suicide bomber?

Countless lives are already being laid to waste due to Pak sponsored terror and attempts at infiltrations at the LoC.

As for US and Iraq, dude, get over it. Very different dynamics, hardly applicable here, even without the nukes.

Why don't you give Kashmir their right to vote, why are you afraid? Then here is no need for this loss of life.

 

[ice_man]

So you are Spartan wannabe? Different time, different situation. They didn't have the power to wreck a whole region and render it uninhabitable or stall the global economy.



You believe we do not already have "justified provocation" based on past terror attacks?

By your logic, why not have terrorists have nukes? They too do not have a 'no first use' policy. After all, what's the difference between a nation without 'no use first' policy for nukes and a suicide bomber?

As for US and Iraq, dude, get over it.

thank god indian military is not as naive as you.

its not about being spartan wannabe i was giving you an example. We just rather blow us up in a MAD situation then lose to you.

As for your so called "justified provocation & retaliation"

this is the problem you might start the war WISHING for it to be limited but then the first time you engage the enemy the plan goes down the drain.

We will retaliate as we see fit not as you would wish.

 

[Nicky G]

Why don't you give Kashmir their right to vote, why are you afraid? Then here is no need for this loss of life.

Indian Kashmiris already have the right to vote. If you mean referendum, go read UN resolutions and what steps are required. Your country has refused to meet the very first of them.

thank god indian military is not as naive as you.

its not about being spartan wannabe i was giving you an example. We just rather blow us up in a MAD situation then lose to you.

As for your so called "justified provocation & retaliation"

this is the problem you might start the war WISHING for it to be limited but then the first time you engage the enemy the plan goes down the drain.

We will retaliate as we see fit not as you would wish.

I am sure the Indian military is not as naive as me, and neither is the Pak one as silly as you.

You can claim what you want - what you have the courage to carry out is entirely different. You lost half your country in '71 and your establishment accepted defeat and ordered your troops to surrender. Why didn't you continue fighting?

As for limited war - Kargil - post Pak acquiring nukes. Entirely possible and likely in the future.

 

[Humble Analyst]

Indian Kashmiris already have the right to vote. If you mean referendum, go read UN resolutions and what steps are required. Your country has refused to meet the very first of them.

India has been refusing plebiscite, why would Pakistan refuse referendum as per UN resolutions. Pakistan has been asking for it for decades. You tell this story so much that you believe in it too.