Kashmir A Nuclear Flash Point

[Neutron]

Sir, you may want to forget the SImla Agreement, but the UN or any other party cannot ignore this part of the text:

"(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations."



It is perhaps more important for India to realize that it cannot realize its potential without settling matters with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan.

Title of the article Kashmir A nuclear Flash point is the answer. You must realize that valuing time is an essentiality, as it is running away

 

[dadeechi]

Nuclear war in South Asian theatre (for that matter in South East Asia) is not a possibility.

Asians may be emotional but they are neither dumb nor cruel.

All the rest that we hear and read is just grandstanding and noise....

Nuclear war would only happen here ONLY when an western power is involved which might shoot from the hip of an Asian nation...

 

[Neutron]

Nuclear war in South Asian theatre (for that matter in South East Asia) is not a possibility.

Asians may be emotional but they are neither dumb nor cruel.

All the rest that we hear and read is just grandstanding and noise....

Nuclear war would only happen here ONLY when an western power is involved which might shoot from the hip of an Asian nation...

Ask from your military think tanks, why word Pakistan is nightmare for them? Leave kashmir or be ready for internal disaster.

 

[dadeechi]

Ask from your military think tanks, why word Pakistan is nightmare for them? Leave kashmir or be ready for internal disaster.

As I have already said Posturing is Real while the Usage of the same is NOT.

 

[me_itsme]

Ask from your military think tanks, why word Pakistan is nightmare for them? Leave kashmir or be ready for internal disaster.

Word Pakistan is no ones nightmare. Over estimation cost you guys so much. Anyways the word Terrorism is a nightmare and rightly so.

Internal disaster? Lol Are you saying Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism? If yes, you had 70 yrs time and what did you achieve this long regarding to Kashmir? You guys lost EP in the process.

 

[VCheng]

Title of the article Kashmir A nuclear Flash point is the answer. You must realize that valuing time is an essentiality, as it is running away

What is the rush? The status of the LoC is substantially unchanged for nearly half a century, save for a few minor changes. For anything to change in any meaningful way would require a seismic shift, one that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Neutron]

Word Pakistan is no ones nightmare. Over estimation cost you guys so much. Anyways the word Terrorism is a nightmare and rightly so.

Internal disaster? Lol Are you saying Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism? If yes, you had 70 yrs time and what did you achieve this long regarding to Kashmir? You guys lost EP in the process.

As a matter of fact Pakistan is fighting war against terrorism.
Internal disaster means internal disaster.
You cannot oppress people of kashmir anymore. They want freedom.

 

[ito]

As a matter of fact Pakistan is fighting war against terrorism.
Internal disaster means internal disaster.
You cannot oppress people of kashmir anymore. They want freedom.

You cannot solve problem appealing to emotional side of the other party. "They want freedom" type of slogans have no legal sanctity. Dispute resolution happens on strong legal base and on logic.

 

[Neutron]

What is the rush? The status of the LoC is substantially unchanged for nearly half a century, save for a few minor changes. For anything to change in any meaningful way would require a seismic shift, one that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

It is an open invitation for nuclear conflict

@WebMaster Thank You

 

[VCheng]

It is an open invitation for nuclear conflict

@WebMaster Thank You

You are correct that Kashmir remains a potential nuclear flashpoint, but I am sure that both sides will exercise the utmost restraint given the horrific consequences of a nuclear conflict, with the support of the international community.

 

[Neutron]

You are correct that Kashmir remains a potential nuclear flashpoint, but I am sure that both sides will exercise the utmost restraint given the horrific consequences of a nuclear conflict, with the support of the international community.

You can Read again important Part of the article


6. Indian Cold Start DoctrineThere have been a number of developments since 1998 which has forced Pakistan to make adjustments in its nuclear doctrine and take a posture deemed more effective to maintain deterrence. There have been talks about India’s Cold Start doctrine which aims at rapid but limited retaliatory incursions into Pakistan by the Indian army to seize and hold narrow slices of territory in response to a terrorism event in India involving Pakistanis. In India’s calculations, Pakistan would not resort to the use of nuclear weapons in response to a limited Indian incursion, thereby offering space for conventional conflict even in a nuclearized environment.Pointing to this Indian war doctrine, Pakistani decision-makers now argue that the deterrent value of their current arsenal operates only at the strategic level. According to this line of reasoning, the gap at the tactical level gives India the freedom to successfully engage in limited Cold Start-style military operations if kept below the Nuclear Threshold, without fear of nuclear escalation.The Indian dilemma is that after the nuclear tests it carried out in 1998 and the Pakistani response in kind, a balance of terror has been established between the two countries which virtually rules out a full-scale conventional conflict between them. As a consequence, Delhi has lost much of its ability to threaten Pakistan with India superiority in the conventional field. The Cold Start doctrine and the latest threat by India to respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by escalating the conflict to the strategic level are nothing but desperate and highly dangerous attempts by India to regain its former ability to threaten Pakistan.7. Full spectrum Deterrence What is Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) and why Pakistan was forced to travel from minimum credible deterrence, its initial nuclear doctrine, to FSD?Pakistan had to become a nuclear state not by choice but by compulsion of circumstances due to growing conventional asymmetry and its threat perception vis-à-vis India who, by its own admission, fueled, manned, funded and actively supported an engineered insurgency for country’s break up in 1971. A country many times bigger in size and conventional military might which spends ten times more on its Pakistan-specific military initiatives persistently gives threatening messages and works closely with its internal and external enemies for destabilization, if not another break up.Pakistan, developed low-yield, short-range, tactical battlefield nuclear weapon, the Nasr missile which provides “flexible deterrence options” for an appropriate response to Cold Start, rather than massive nuclear retaliation against India. Nasr is a war horse in the eventualities like Cold Start and will deter India from carrying out its plan.Pakistan’s Full Spectrum Deterrence thus gives it a flexibility to deal with conventional threats through tactical nuclear weapons like Nasr. It is a ‘qualitative’ response to new war fighting concepts of ‘Cold Start’ and Pro Active Operations (PAO), introduced by India. Full spectrum offers a range of options to the decision-makers. According to Pakistan’s narrative, tactical nuclear weapons are to balance the conventional advantage of India. On the other hand India perceives it differently. India perceives it to be a destabilizing factor in the region. In response India has announced its policy of massive retaliation according to which no matter what the nature of nuclear threat is (tactical or strategic) it would come under strategic realm and would be countered by massive retaliation.Full Spectrum Doctrine effectively changes Pakistan’s Nuclear Policy; it no longer waits for nuclear attack to counter with nuclear weapons; it will deter conventional force by employing nuclear deterrence. The greater the conventional threat, lower would be the threshold to employ nuclear deterrence. Development of tactical nuclear weapons gives more flexibility to Pakistani strategists as it would not be forced to use strategic nuclear weapon as a first response to India’s overwhelming conventional force in the eventuality of a major aggression against it.Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA), the apex forum on nuclear matters, has delivered an unequivocal message to India; Pakistan will maintain the capability for a Full Spectrum Deterrence at all costs in order to meet the eventuality of any aggression from India’s hawkish posture it has developed in the recent past.8. Nuclear Flash PointThere is a danger of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan but the resolution of the nuclear issue lies in the resolution of the Kashmir issue, I think Kashmir is the flash point. Its vulnerability and a threat for the whole humanity has been acknowledged by many leaders of the world, especially US President Bill Clinton, who named Kashmir as a nuclear flash point between two nuclear powers.Source: Kashmir A Nuclear Flash Point

You cannot solve problem appealing to emotional side of the other party. "They want freedom" type of slogans have no legal sanctity. Dispute resolution happens on strong legal base and on logic.

Kashmir freedom movement is legal and logical.
Get third person point of view as well.

As I have already said Posturing is Real while the Usage of the same is NOT.

We mean what we say

 

[ito]

Kashmir freedom movement is legal and logical.
Get third person point of view as well.



We mean what we say

If legal and logical, argue using legal and logical facts and not using emotional slogans such as 'They want freedom'

 

[Neutron]

If legal and logical, argue using legal and logical facts and not using emotional slogans such as 'They want freedom'

Very simple

You accepted creation of Pakistan
we accepted india
world universally accepts Pakistan and India as independent countries.
Therefore partition of subcontinent is legally and logically accepted phenomenon
Now
kashmir is unfinished agenda of Partition. Therefore kashmir freedom movement is legal and logical.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

Very simple

You accepted creation of Pakistan
we accepted india
world universally accepts Pakistan and India as independent countries.
Therefore partition of subcontinent is legally and logically accepted phenomenon
Now
kashmir is unfinished agenda of Partition. Therefore kashmir freedom movement is legal and logical.

All logic and legality fails when you claim Jammu and Kashmir only for its demography.
Legally Kashmir belongs to India as per the Instrument of Accession willingly signed by Raja Hari Singh.
Had Pakistan held its nerve and behaved itself without sending in its soldiers Kashmir would have been with Pakistan now.
Always Pakistan was the aggressor without minimum staple patience.

 

[ito]

Very simple

You accepted creation of Pakistan
we accepted india
world universally accepts Pakistan and India as independent countries.
Therefore partition of subcontinent is legally and logically accepted phenomenon
Now
kashmir is unfinished agenda of Partition. Therefore kashmir freedom movement is legal and logical.

I think all things on Kashmir have been debated to death on this forum.

Anyway, all 500 odd princely states have signed the instrument of accession to either dominion: India or Pakistan. The king of Kashmir accessed Kashmir to India, hence legally India has a strong position to argue. India argues that there was never any plebiscite in any of the 500 odd princely states, so why should Kashmir be different. Pakistan argues that as the majority of population of Kashmir is Muslim, hence Kashmir should have been the part of Pakistan. India counter argues that as India is secular country so it doesn't recognize states accession based on religion.

As on creation of Pakistan, there is a portion of population of India that is yet to accept the formation of Pakistan, anyway that is for another thread.