INDO PAK WAR NO VICTORY FOR BOTH

[Army research]

So a scenario of Indo pak war , both countries launch armored columns tactical nukes or conventional missles take em out. Air Force bases destroyed with missles and those in air shot by anti air. Navy if both destroyed by cruise missle eg brahmos and if all fails and full nuke war then no more ind or pak and then China, Iran ,Afghans and Indian neighbors will just grab both the country's lands. Please discuss if all this is possible and correct whether I'm wrong and please I'm a **** but no biased in the post so please no idiotic rhetoric and patriotism thanks
The only thing is secret military units and secret air bases stealth planes and subs but do both of them have these and if the rest of the armed forces kaput will they be of any use

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

So a scenario of Indo pak war , both countries launch armored columns tactical nukes or conventional missles take em out. Air Force bases destroyed with missles and those in air shot by anti air. Navy if both destroyed by cruise missle eg brahmos and if all fails and full nuke war then no more ind or pak and then China, Iran ,Afghans and Indian neighbors will just grab both the country's lands. Please discuss if all this is possible and correct whether I'm wrong and please I'm a **** but no biased in the post so please no idiotic rhetoric and patriotism thanks
The only thing is secret military units and secret air bases stealth planes and subs but do both of them have these and if the rest of the armed forces kaput will they be of any use

true but no one will capture land which had been nuked. you know radiations.

 

[third eye]

There never are winners in a war. Wars always leave losers on both sides.

The innocents who die , the families of those who do not return.

What is worse Wars have never solved a problem. The roots of WW II lay in the treaty of versallies after WW I.

 

[Hamza913]

What is worse Wars have never solved a problem.

I disagree, sometimes war is necessary for survival.

 

[third eye]

I disagree, sometimes war is necessary for survival.

Like when ?

 

[dani958]

of caurse india win

 

[Hamza913]

As for what would happen in an Indo Pak war, yes we will nuke each other and both our @sses would be gone. I'm just hoping this keeps India deterred.

od caurse india win

No they won't, we will both be destroyed so nobody wins.

 

[dani958]

ther are anti missle that distroy nuk

i mean in no nuclear weapon

 

[Hamza913]

Like when ?

When the Russians attacked Chechnya, they had to fight otherwise the Russians were going to continue to oppress them with an iron fist. Even if they are still part of Russia, they have more self governance then they did before and Russia treats them much better now, without that war the Russians would just destroy the place and continue to mistreat Chechens.

When NATO attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, it was necessary for locals to expel the invaders, otherwise they would continue to destroy the country and butcher the local populace, and get away with it too.

When the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel, the Israelis didn't have much of a choice other than to fight (still don't agree with Israels existence though).

When India took all of Kashmir against the populations will in 1947, Pakistan had to interveven and end the oppression.

When Pakistan oppressed Bangladesh in 1971, India had to intervene stop the oppression.

When Iraq invaded Iran, the Iranians could not just sit idly by and let their country collapse, they had to take a stand.

I can list many more.

 

[third eye]

When the Russians attacked Chechnya, they had to fight otherwise the Russians were going to continue to oppress them with an iron fist. Even if they are still part of Russia, they have more self governance then they did before and Russia treats them much better now, without that war the Russians would just destroy the place and continue to mistreat Chechens.

When NATO attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, it was necessary for locals to expel the invaders, otherwise they would continue to destroy the country and butcher the local populace, and get away with it too.

When the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel, the Israelis didn't have much of a choice other than to fight (still don't agree with Israels existence though).

When India took all of Kashmir against the populations will in 1947, Pakistan had to interveven and end the oppression.

When Pakistan oppressed Bangladesh in 1971, India had to intervene stop the oppression.

When Iraq invaded Iran, the Iranians could not just sit idly by and let their country collapse, they had to take a stand.

I can list many more.

With the exception of BD , which problem was solved by war ?

 

[Hamza913]

ther are anti missle that distroy nuk

i mean in no nuclear weapon

Anti missiles that destroy nukes aren't even deployed that much in India, not to mention the actual effectiveness of these systems can be questioned and that they will at most only shoot down a few nukes even if they are as effective as they say.

If you are referring to a non nuke war, it cannot end in anything other than a stalemate. Because in order for either side to win, they are going to have to really throw their weight around which would trigger a nuclear war.

With the exception of BD , which problem was solved by war ?

Pakistan got independence from India, Chechnya managed to make the Russians respect them and give them rights, Israel managed to survive, Iran stopped Iraqs aggression, a large portion of Kashmir became free, terrorism was significantly reduced by Zarb E Azb, Nazi Germany was prevented from conquering the world and killing almost everyone who wasn't German, etc.

 

[Sine Nomine]

There never are winners in a war. Wars always leave losers on both sides.

The innocents who die , the families of those who do not return.

What is worse Wars have never solved a problem. The roots of WW II lay in the treaty of versallies after WW I.

War is not solution to any problem it,itself is a problem but,sadly PDF warriors from both sides never got that they don't know yelling,blood,smoke of gunpowder and men falling in battlefield what that really looks likes.I am sure all these keyboard warriors will shit in there pants even a hand grenade is deployed next to them and they just talk about deploying nukes.They have no clue about misery of war and it's effects.

 

[third eye]

Pakistan got independence from India, Chechnya managed to make the Russians respect them and give them rights, Israel managed to survive, Iran stopped Iraqs aggression, a large portion of Kashmir became free, terrorism was significantly reduced by Zarb E Azb, Nazi Germany was prevented from conquering the world and killing almost everyone who wasn't German, etc.

Please do not bother to reply any more.

War is not solution to any problem it,itself is a problem but,sadly PDF warriors from both sides never got that they don't know yelling,blood,smoke of gunpowder and men falling in battlefield what that really looks likes.I am sure all these keyboard warriors will shit in there pants even a hand grenade is deployed next to them and they just talk about deploying nukes.They have no clue about misery of war and it's effects.

You are right.

Its so simple to suggest things , most who do have possibly never heard a round being fired in anger.

 

[Hamza913]

Please do not bother to reply any more.

Why? Because you were proven wrong?

War is not solution to any problem it,itself is a problem but,sadly PDF warriors from both sides never got that they don't know yelling,blood,smoke of gunpowder and men falling in battlefield what that really looks likes.I am sure all these keyboard warriors will shit in there pants even a hand grenade is deployed next to them and they just talk about deploying nukes.They have no clue about misery of war and it's effects.

War sucks, yes, but sometimes it has to be done.

 

[Joe Shearer]

When the Russians attacked Chechnya, they had to fight otherwise the Russians were going to continue to oppress them with an iron fist. Even if they are still part of Russia, they have more self governance then they did before and Russia treats them much better now, without that war the Russians would just destroy the place and continue to mistreat Chechens.

When NATO attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, it was necessary for locals to expel the invaders, otherwise they would continue to destroy the country and butcher the local populace, and get away with it too.

When the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel, the Israelis didn't have much of a choice other than to fight (still don't agree with Israels existence though).

When India took all of Kashmir against the populations will in 1947, Pakistan had to interveven and end the oppression.

When Pakistan oppressed Bangladesh in 1971, India had to intervene stop the oppression.

When Iraq invaded Iran, the Iranians could not just sit idly by and let their country collapse, they had to take a stand.

I can list many more.

Typical dsr478 mis-statement; that is diplomatic language, and in plain English is called a much shorter, three-letter word.

India did not take all of Kashmir against the population's will in 1947.

1. On the 27th of October, Mirpur, so-called Azad Kashmir, had killed all the representatives of the Maharaja and had declared an independent provisional government (located within Pakistan, but that is another matter);
2. Afridis and other tribals who had earlier served in the British Indian Army and who had been demobbed in 1945 and thereabouts were armed by the Pakistan Army and sent to attack the Vale of Kashmir, reaching Baramula on the 26th of October. On that date, the only Indian Army officer nearby was the DMO, Brigadier Manekshaw.
3. Subsequently, after the accession to India of J&K, the Gilgit Scouts mutinied under the leadership of their British Commandant, killed or imprisoned all the Maharaja's representatives, attacked in two columns with the support of the Chitral state forces, captured Skardu, captured Kargil, put artillery pieces on the Zoji La and besieged Leh.

Try to stick to at least the framework, the broad outlines, of the truth, if you cannot bear to tell the truth itself.