India's conventional military superiority over Pakistan is exaggerated.

[litman]

@HAKIKAT, From a Turkish friend, it reminds me of the famous orders of Mustafa Kemal in the battle of Gallipoli in the first world war.

Men, I am not ordering you to attack. I am ordering you to die. In the time that it takes us to die, other forces and commanders can come and take our place.

• Orders to the 57th Infantry Regiment, at the Battle of Gallipoli (25 April 1915)

They say that Turkish Army still does not have a 57th regiment in honor of the soldiers who died bravely.

why mustafa kamal didn't die there himself?
never ask from your men what you yourself can't do.

 

[barbarosa]

Pakistan has always face to the un announced sanctions from the west particularly USA against India.Pakistan has decided to promote our nuke assets. Now we have no need of F16 SU35 MIRAGE 2000 OR EUROFIGHTERS

 

[The SC]

@The SC

The note was outstanding, although it carries baggage (which note does not?) My response to it, a first, not very well articulated one, was to respond stating what the Indian Army needs to do, not what it has done, and is continuing to do, in order to establish sufficient superiority both of potential and of practical implementation capability.

Do you think that would be useful?

Disclaimer: I am going through a fairly disruptive stage personally and professionally, and might take a while to assemble my thoughts into a coherent narrative.

As I have stated before, Idian modernization of its armed forces in general is a good thing and called for, Who can do that and isn't doing it?
The main thing to conclude from the article is that a balance of forces will always be there somehow, and I really think it is a good thing; as it goes for MAD it goes for conventional warfare too because it assures peace, although with milatary means, otherwise who knows? Humans still have a lot of animal instincts!

 

[Hellfire]

lol..offcourse, you'd say that. Because you think the disruption caused by super power's entrance in the region (US in Afghanistan) is somehow "you" doing it

Now when did I say that? Read my post again until and unless the English is too highly complicated to understand. I posted another option to the two you had written. A total of three options .... I merely contributed to your options.

And please do listen to GoP and your fellow nationals here place responsibility of aforementioned actions on India ... maybe take up the case with them.

Your conventional options of fighting war against us have been neutralized effectively by your own admission. Hence the assymetric war under the luck umbrella of world's sole super power.

Fair enough. Agreed. So you do concede the third option as a valid one which you had overlooked and I drew your attention to? Thanks.

God, was merely pointing out another option .. you didn't have to react as if instead of your country apparently doing what you have said to us, ended up doing it to you without the salve!!!!

War is about achieving the goals and The question of who won the Vietnam War is a contentious and emotional one, because opinions in the United States were so divided while the war was happening. However, North Vietnam ultimately achieved all of its strategic goals while the United States did not. Most historians would agree that North Vietnam won the war.

Thanks for clarifying. Your post was not clearly spelled out as militarily US didn't loose.

point 2 : Agreed that India have paramilitary forces of 1.2 million personnel on the other hand Pakistan also have 450,000 paramilitary personnel which is sufficient to to take care any situation. i was expecting you to come up with data and facts but sorry to say every time i have to put forwawrd the data .. .its not fair really

Cant keep repeating stuff I have typed elsewhere in the forum ... so merely pointed out no troops deployed along the aforementioned borders ... instead CAPFs there. That's all
What data and facts are you looking for?

No, that wasn't the point.

The point was that indians couldn't do jack sh!t UNTIL the superpower disturbed the balance of forces in the region. In a sense, indians got "lucky" when it comes to launching an assymetric war against your enemy. We had been doing it to india for decade or so quite successfully while indians barely had any response.

Anyways, enemies fight. You hit, you get hit.

As long as there is balance of power between Pakistan and India--we are happy.

And only fanboys or downright idiots would deny the existence of such balance when it comes to the overall military prowess of both countries (even if the balance is titled in india's favor due to obvious advantages in size and manpower).

We don't have to do anything .. you are adept at screwing yourself up .... take a view of your economy and the diplomatic standing of your nation in the world.... no one did that to you, you managed it single handedly

Like I told the dear ol first line of nonsense the other day ... you have the unique history of being the only nation of the modern world to surrender its political objectives in every war unilaterally.

No one forced you into that either - your achievement!

 

[OrionHunter]

and we will not strike indian dams, power stations, ports, oil refineries etc??
secondly once our assets will be made non functional by indian strikes we will never strike india with a nuke???

Firstly, seeing the number of these we have in India, you'd need a million missiles to take them out of action! In contrast, I can count the number of dams power stations and industries you have, on my fingers, of which I have ten!!

Secondly, you do know the consequences of what would happen to you if you strike India with a nuke, don't you? Annihilation!

And then we have a land mass of 2,973,193 sq km! You'd need a gazillion nukes to cover it! How many functional ones do you possess?

 

[AhsanAmin]

compare that with what the good general Patton said " No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

There is no comparison. Soldiers were asked to fight bravely till death and the soldiers who were already there were the ones who had to fight as this was his strategy to thwart the enemy's advance as longer as Turkish soldiers could and by that time fortifications would be sent. There was no choice whether I would like to die or somebody else would like to die. Soldiers on the spot where the enemy was advancing had to prolong the fight and keep the enemy engaged with very limited resources as long as they could.

I strongly doubt if it were not for Mustafa Kemal, we would see Turkey as a country as we see it today.

why mustafa kamal didn't die there himself?
never ask from your men what you yourself can't do.

Though I partly answered your post already but I would say that every human life is equally important. There is no doubt to that. But in military strategy, intelligent commanders who have to work as the brain during the war are far more important resources. You do not expect a General to take a gun and rush towards enemy posts. However if a soldier does that he will certainly be given great respect and morale of every other fighter would touch the sky.

 

[Hellfire]

In you previous comment you replied me that we are not helping them in Yemen because now they are quite capable and now you’re telling me something different.

That boggles me at times .. and the best part is, when I write both India and Pakistan should make an EU type confederation, people get sentimental!! Look at the stupidities existing on either side of border!!

 

[OrionHunter]

how long did usa thought war in afghan and iraq would be but look who is licking his *** so forget about yrself defeating a country that kicked both russia and now usa out

Try kicking them out in a conventional war!! You haven't even been able to defeat the freedom fighters in Balochistan since 1947!! So friend, fighting an insurgency or COIN ops is not the same as a conventional war.

So please don't delude yourselves into thinking that you have defeated the US or USSR!

The one thing I can guarantee is that we will outlast any war with India in terms of military supplies and that any war where India is the aggressor and Pakistan the defender, Pakistan will hold her own and Indian attacks will be repulsed successfully.

Right! We've seen that since 1947!

 

[Hellfire]

Firstly, seeing the number of these we have in India, you'd need a million missiles to take them out of action! In contrast, I can count the number of dams power stations and industries you have, on my fingers, of which I have ten!!

Their DCBs are downwards of their dams and headworks. Probably he is not aware of the impact of our strikes and subsequent effects .....

Right! We've seen that since 1947!

Please do not mock him .... he is right. It is his privilege to belong to a nation (and army) that has simply unilaterally surrendered all the objectives they had in any conflict with India. Can any nation have that consistency? The ones of the Ummah certainly seem to be consistent on that

 

[Joe Shearer]

As I have stated before, Idian modernization of its armed forces in general is a good thing and called for, Who can do that and isn't doing it?
The main thing to conclude from the article is that a balance of forces will always be there somehow, and I really think it is a good thing; as it goes for MAD it goes for conventional warfare too because it assure peace, although with milatary means, otherwise who knows? Humans still have a lot of animal instincts!

My point was slightly different. I believe that this is a major moment of inflection. India should anticipate the shape of things to come, look very hard at the factors presented by the author of this note and arrive at a new solution to the problem.

 

[bloo]

The Internet warriors and fan boys alike can do all the chest thumping and run back to 1971 to boost their tiny egos, but when it comes to level playing fields, be it 2002 or 2008, it was the mighty Indian army, for whatever reasons, that CHICKENED OUT of going to war.

Indian army 'backed out' of Pakistan attack
By Siddharth Srivastava


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KA21Df02.html

You lot can keep mongering for wars but know this, we never start wars, however we do end them, history is a witness to this very fact.
Pakistan has always been the aggressor and we have always ended all wars with Pakistanis bowing out, ALWAYS.
If you want a war so bad you lot can always start it, just remember that we'll end it.

And as for retaliation for terrorist activities, most of the Pakistanis believe that Indians have a hand in various different terrorist activities in Pak. When has Pakistan ever engaged in a battle with India for killing its citizens or even threatened to?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Try kicking them out in a conventional war!! You haven't even been able to defeat the freedom fighters in Balochistan since 1947!! So friend, fighting an insurgency or COIN ops is not the same as a conventional war.

So please don't delude yourselves into thinking that you have defeated the US or USSR!


Right! We've seen that since 1947!

WRONG! JUST got back from Quetta 1 month ago and the bla movement is more dead and buried then the khalistan movement. In fact the Baloch are more patriotic about Pakistan than other communities. Ground reality is different to indian propaganda, delusions & myths.

 

[OrionHunter]

WRONG! JUST got back from Quetta 1 month ago and the bla movement is more dead and buried then the khalistan movement. In fact the Baloch are more patriotic about Pakistan than other communities. Ground reality is different to indian propaganda, delusions & myths.

Spot on! Ground reality is different to your propaganda, delusions & myths!!

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Spot on! Ground reality is different to your propaganda, delusions & myths!!

Which is why you're on PDF. To escape the delusions and myths from indian forums.

 

[Mav3rick]

The only thing that it would accomplish is mass slaughter of Pakistani civilians without Indian army being labelled a genocider, as according to GEneva convention: You could freely slaughter armed combatants.

You do not become soldier just by picking up a gun, and armed militias are regularly slaughtered by trained armies.

Do not respond to childish posts. There would not be any need for civilian intervention as the 620k active and 600k reserve force is more then adequate to not only withstand any Indian adventurism but also to teach the Indian military a lesson with befitting response.

Right! We've seen that since 1947!

Right on you did, time and time again, from the ceasefire that you begged for and signed a day ahead of Pakistan to the point where you amassed almost half your entire military at our border only to look at my military helplessly and backing away unilaterally.