Kashmir A Nuclear Flash Point

[dray]

Accession papers are not acceptable
Simla agreement, a failure of peace process


Your cold start doctrine is a threat to Pakistan

we do have first use policy. Take it as a concern or threat up to you. Greater the conventional threat, greater will be the Nuclear deterrence.

Do we seem to be bothered about what Pakistan might think about accession papers or Simla agreement? These are done deals, your 'thinking' doesn't change anything on the ground. And Pakistan doesn't have any political and/or military might to change that either. Ground realities, you have to live with it whether you like it or not.

And whether the 'cold start doctrine' exists or not, we are enemy countries and mutual threats, but Pakistan is not in a position to make us change our stance with its threat.
And we know you have nukes with first use policy...so what?? How do think it will make us budge to a your demand when we are also a nuclear power?

Kashmir is NOT a nuclear flash-point unless Pakistani leadership completely lose their sanity.
Pakistan is free to fight its lost war or it may come back to its senses, we are prepared for both.

Btw, just to remind you, Simla agreement was not a failure of peace process, it was a failure of your military.

 

[k_arura]

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

Let that be India's problem. You worry about your own country

 

[Kao Boy]

indian look losers in Kashmir issue .

If that makes u happy good but we ain't giving Kashmir dude...take those innocent kashmiris of valley to Pakistan...

 

[Dagger Unit]

Thinkingsoldier good post.

 

[Neutron]

Do we seem to be bothered about what Pakistan might think about accession papers or Simla agreement? These are done deals, your 'thinking' doesn't change anything on the ground. And Pakistan doesn't have any political and/or military might to change that either. Ground realities, you have to live with it whether you like it or not.

And whether the 'cold start doctrine' exists or not, we are enemy countries and mutual threats, but Pakistan is not in a position to make us change our stance with its threat.
And we know you have nukes with first use policy...so what?? How do think it will make us budge to a your demand when we are also a nuclear power?

Kashmir is NOT a nuclear flash-point unless Pakistani leadership completely lose their sanity.
Pakistan is free to fight its lost war or it may come back to its senses, we are prepared for both.

Btw, just to remind you, Simla agreement was not a failure of peace process, it was a failure of your military.

It is your insane claim that there is room of conventional war below nuclear threshold.
We disagree.
Conventional war means nuclear war between nuclear powers.
Rethink and refrain form adventurous so called cold and hot doctrines

 

[dray]

It is your insane claim that there is room of conventional war below nuclear threshold.
We disagree.
Conventional war means nuclear war between nuclear powers.
Rethink and refrain form adventurous so called cold and hot doctrines

There is a possibility of a limited war under two circumstances:

1. Pakistan decides to capture Kashmir by military means, which I think is unlikely.

2. Pakistan repeating a 26/11 like terrorist attack on Indian soil, in that case it might lead to a limited war.

A full scale war is unlikely now, and a nuclear war is very unlikely. The only real risk of nuclear war is Pakistan's tactical nukes.

But the point is, Pakistan cannot blackmail us with a nuclear war, if you want to resolve the conflicts, then you have to leave aside this belligerence and think and act constructively keeping in mind your political, military and economic constraints vis a vis India.

 

[Neutron]

There is a possibility of a limited war under two circumstances:

1. Pakistan decides to capture Kashmir by military means, which I think is unlikely.

2. Pakistan repeating a 26/11 like terrorist attack on Indian soil, in that case it might lead to a limited war.

A full scale war is unlikely now, and a nuclear war is very unlikely. The only real risk of nuclear war is Pakistan's tactical nukes.

But the point is, Pakistan cannot blackmail us with a nuclear war, if you want to resolve the conflicts, then you have to leave aside this belligerence and think and act constructively keeping in mind your political, military and economic constraints vis a vis India.

There is a possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.
It is your perspective
we don't agree to it
we think there is no possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.

You are in state of denial

@balixd

 

[Bang Galore]

There is a possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.
It is your perspective
we don't agree to it
we think there is no possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.

Depends on how you categorize "limited war". There is more chance of a limited war than a nuclear one. Pakistan wants Kashmir, it's no good to them if they are completely destroyed regardless of the damage caused to India.

 

[dray]

There is a possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.
It is your perspective
we don't agree to it
we think there is no possibility of limited war between nuclear rivals below nuclear threshold.

You are in state of denial

Sorry, but you are not making any sense. If Pakistan's objective is to get Kashmir, then it cannot get it by completely destroying itself with a nuclear war. Besides, we are willing to take the risk of a nuclear war (as you are suggesting) considering all the logical options Pakistan has, and we have. Hence, your 'nuclear flashpoint' threat won't work, in fact it is not working as we speak. The so called 'solution' you have provided in your opening post is unrealistic, you need to come back with a solution that will be acceptable to us, otherwise it's not a solution.

 

[Neutron]

Sorry, but you are not making any sense. If Pakistan's objective is to get Kashmir, then it cannot get it by completely destroying itself with a nuclear war. Besides, we are willing to take the risk of a nuclear war (as you are suggesting) considering all the logical options Pakistan has, and we have. Hence, your 'nuclear flashpoint' threat won't work, in fact it is not working as we speak. The so called 'solution' you have provided in your opening post is unrealistic, you need to come back with a solution that will be acceptable to us, otherwise it's not a solution.

My point exactly
lets agree to disagree
Two Nations Pakistan and india cannot resolve kashmir issue bilaterally.
However it is root of many problems such as rise in militancy and coercive posturing.

 

[ito]

My point exactly
lets agree to disagree
Two Nations Pakistan and india cannot resolve kashmir issue bilaterally.
However it is root of many problems such as rise in militancy and coercive posturing.

India doesn't see that way. India doesn't see terrorism and Kashmir linked. Irrespective of Pakistan, India's defense expenditure will grow and will be commensurate its growing global ambitions and economic power. If this is what you call coercive posturing, then so be it.

 

[dray]

My point exactly
lets agree to disagree
Two Nations Pakistan and india cannot resolve kashmir issue bilaterally.
However it is root of many problems such as rise in militancy and coercive posturing.

No, what I said was not your point. We are totally rejecting any third party involvement in it, Pakistan may choose to solve the issue bilaterally, or it may continue on its current path, we are prepared for all options. If you think nuclear weapons change anything in the equation, then you are wrong. It's a stalemate with we too having nuclear weapons. And we are not desperate for an immediate solution, we can wait for decades to wear you down.

I am again suggesting you to think differently and look for a realistic solution that may be acceptable to us, otherwise it's a 'no deal'.

 

[dadeechi]

We mean what we say

There is nothing wrong with your posturing..

 

[dray]

There is nothing wrong with your posturing..

Apart from the fact that it will result into nothing.

 

[Neutron]

No, what I said was not your point. We are totally rejecting any third party involvement in it, Pakistan may choose to solve the issue bilaterally, or it may continue on its current path, we are prepared for all options. If you think nuclear weapons change anything in the equation, then you are wrong. It's a stalemate with we too having nuclear weapons. And we are not desperate for an immediate solution, we can wait for decades to wear you down.

I am again suggesting you to think differently and look for a realistic solution that may be acceptable to us, otherwise it's a 'no deal'.

The next agenda of freemasons is nuclear conflict between Pakistan and india. They are already controlling few influential, well known political and media personalities in both countries. Your belief about possibility of limited war between Pakistan and india below nuclear threshold is insane and stupid.