Lack of aggression from Pakistan?

[Pakistani Fighter]

now INDIA HAS mobilsed for WAR and killed chinease soldiers.

When did you killed? Your statement states recently

 

[Samurai_assassin]

We used to be an active ambitious brave nation but only till 1988 when Gen. Zia died in the plane crash, his legacy continued for few years after his death but later on sometimes around early to middle 90s Pakistan got occupied by the khassi regimes that we have ever since. Then Musharraf the khassi rat destroyed any aggression left in the nation when he consolidated his dictatorship around the year 2000. So yes since Musharraf's times Pakistan has indeed turned into a totally non-aggressive khassi nation, that is a reality, I have seen this transformation in front of my own eyes.

Can't argue with your statement there just does not seem to be that preparedness or will by the people to take on either neighbours. We seem to want to welcome foreign invaders.

 

[RedHulk]

Get ready guys packup your stuff. Its time to head towards border. India can't take with China so under pressure Modi going to do something nasty. Its your chance to fight now. Happy?

 

[The Maverick]

When did you killed? Your statement states recently

https://www.republicworld.com/world...aceoff-at-galwan-valley-intel-casualties.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/deat...-significantly-higher-than-initially-reported

 

[Aspen]

Great, looks like the Mods decided to lock my thread about ballistic missiles in Kashmir

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/should-pakistan-supply-kashmiris-with-ballistic-missiles.672656/

This attitude from Pakistanis perfectly sums up the timidness of Pakistanis in general who are afraid to take any real actions to change the equation in Kashmir. When somebody gives the idea of real action to take to shift Kashmir in our favor, dozens of Pakistanis jump in to say its to scary, or too risky, or what will India do etc.

It is not just Bajwa who has a lack of aggression. A lot of Pakistanis should be blamed for endorsing this weak and timid approach as the "safe option."

A lot of people wonder how Iran got so powerful, while Pakistan is still stuck in Kashmir. Short answer is that Iran had the balls to take decisions like supplying Yemenis with missiles which Pakistan will never have the balls to do. Dozens of people on PDF accuse me of being a Shia sympathizer or whatever, no. The only reason I have for looking at Iranian strategy is that it is a model of aggression that actually works, just like back in the old days of Pakistan when we also had fearless leaders who were not afraid to take big risks. But those leaders are gone, and Pakistan will be worse because of it now that Pakistanis are openly endorsing a policy of tacit acceptance and submission to India in Kashmir.

To win big, you have to take big risks. I'm surprised how few people in Pakistan understand this. Nobody ever won by playing it safe. Nothing worth having can be had without taking big risks. If Pakistan didn't get into 1947 war, we wouldn't have any part of Kashmir today. Our leaders in 1947 had balls and were fearless, and that is why we what we have today. They took a big risk and it paid off. You don't always win but you have to try. Aggression in Pakistan is needed today to take the next leap in Kashmir.

With that said, here is my response to @313ghazi before my thread about ballistic missiles in Kashmir got locked.

No.

I'll tell you why that's a dumb idea (no offence intended).

1. Missiles are large, they're difficult to transport and difficult to hide. The Nasr has a 60-70km range but is 6 metres long. It's transported on a 8 wheeled 11metre long truck. Imagine trying to move that in Kashmir, on mountain roads that you can't get buses on in some parts. Let alone trying to move it secretly, it's impossible.

2. The Kashmiri freedom fighters have no idea how to operate these missiles.

3. You fire a missile at a base, you destroy a building it costs $50K-100K? Maybe twice that, i don't know. What does an IED cost, or a car bomb? Much less in comparison.

4. The war in Kashmir is being fought within 100 metres of each other. nobody needs missiles. People need guns, they need grenades, rocket launchers, anti tank missiles, sniper rifles, explosives to make IED's and car bombs etc. These are the weapons geurilla warfare is fought with. They're cheap, small, effective.

5. Hizbollah fires it's rockets at Israeli civilian populations, most of the time they don't kill anyone or cause any significant damage. They create a sense of fear and internationally help with the labeling of Hizbollah as terrorists. Kashmiri freedom fighters have no targeted Indian civilians, the use of rockets for this purpose would have next to no military value but would wipe out the political gains of the struggle.

1. Yes you can smuggle it across the border in parts and reassemble it. Pakistan might have to use new methods to smuggle missile components such as coordinated airdropping, meaning that a covert Pakistani operative in IOK can be given a secret coordinate to intercept an airdrop from a Pakistani drone. The obvious implication here is that Pakistan needs to significantly increase both the payload capacity and stealthiness of our drones so that they can carry large missile components to airdrop into Kashmir without being detected and shot down. Most of these airdrops will probably have to be done at night and at low altitude.

2. This is the least of our problems. Training Kashmiris is not an issue.

3. IED's will not drive Indian security forces out of Kashmir. Ballistic missiles will drive them out or at the minimum result in greatly increased leverage for Pakistan.

4. Pakistan has been supplying Kashmiris with small weapons for decades, where has it gotten us? India has imposed Article 370 with impunity because they have absolutely no fear of any kind of retaliation from Kashmir which is the problem. Ballistic missiles is a good way to address that.

5. Kashmir will not be taken seriously unless Indians die. Until Kashmiris get ballistic missiles, Indian gov't will keep brutalizing Kashmir fearing no consequences. India already openly labels Kashmiris as terrorists so there is absolutely no difference between Kashmiris and Hezbollah in that regard. If anything, ballistic missiles would increase the gain of military and political leverage for Kashmiris, as is the case for anyone that uses ballistic missiles against their enemies.

 

[Enigma SIG]

1. Yes you can smuggle it across the border in parts and reassemble it. Pakistan might have to use new methods to smuggle missile components such as coordinated airdropping, meaning that a covert Pakistani operative in IOK can be given a secret coordinate to intercept an airdrop from a Pakistani drone. The obvious implication here is that Pakistan needs to significantly increase both the payload capacity and stealthiness of our drones so that they can carry large missile components to airdrop into Kashmir without being detected and shot down. Most of these airdrops will probably have to be done at night and at low altitude.

Bummer the thread got closed, I was gonna have fun with it. How are you going to airdrop ballistic missile components using aircraft in occupied airspace?

 

[Aspen]

Bummer the thread got closed, I was gonna have fun with it. How are you going to airdrop ballistic missile components using aircraft in occupied airspace?

Short answer is that Pakistan needs to make drones that are 100x better than the shitboxes that we have flying around right now. These drone cargo missions will have to be done at night and at low altitude.

Pakistan needs to eventually build drones that:

1. Have a large payload capacity to fit missile components
2. Are stealthy enough to not be shot down every week

Everyone should read this report

http://missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Missile-War-in-Yemen_June-2020.pdf

It is a good strategy for Pakistan to follow with ballistic missiles in Kashmir

 

[313ghazi]

Great, looks like the Mods decided to lock my thread about ballistic missiles in Kashmir

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/should-pakistan-supply-kashmiris-with-ballistic-missiles.672656/

This attitude from Pakistanis perfectly sums up the timidness of Pakistanis in general who are afraid to take any real actions to change the equation in Kashmir. When somebody gives the idea of real action to take to shift Kashmir in our favor, dozens of Pakistanis jump in to say its to scary, or too risky, or what will India do etc.

It is not just Bajwa who has a lack of aggression. A lot of Pakistanis should be blamed for endorsing this weak and timid approach as the "safe option."

To win big, you have to take big risks. Nobody ever won by playing it safe. Nothing worth having can be had without taking big risks. If Pakistan didn't get into 1947 war, we wouldn't have any part of Kashmir today. Our leaders in 1947 had balls and were fearless, and that is why we what we have today. They took a big risk and it paid off. You don't always win but you have to try. Aggression in Pakistan is needed today to take the next leap in Kashmir.

With that said, here is my response to @313ghazi before my thread about ballistic missiles in Kashmir got locked.



1. Yes you can smuggle it across the border in parts and reassemble it. Pakistan might have to use new methods to smuggle missile components such as coordinated airdropping, meaning that a covert Pakistani operative in IOK can be given a secret coordinate to intercept an airdrop from a Pakistani drone. The obvious implication here is that Pakistan needs to significantly increase both the payload capacity and stealthiness of our drones so that they can carry large missile components to airdrop into Kashmir without being detected and shot down. Most of these airdrops will probably have to be done at night and at low altitude.

2. This is the least of our problems. Training Kashmiris is not an issue.

3. IED's will not drive Indian security forces out of Kashmir. Ballistic missiles will drive them out or at the minimum result in greatly increased leverage for Pakistan.

4. Pakistan has been supplying Kashmiris with small weapons for decades, where has it gotten us? India has imposed Article 370 with impunity because they have absolutely no fear of any kind of retaliation from Kashmir which is the problem. Ballistic missiles is a good way to address that.

5. Kashmir will not be taken seriously unless Indians die. Until Kashmiris get ballistic missiles, Indian gov't will keep brutalizing Kashmir fearing no consequences. India already openly labels Kashmiris as terrorists so there is absolutely no difference between Kashmiris and Hezbollah in that regard. If anything, ballistic missiles would increase the gain of military and political leverage for Kashmiris, as is the case for anyone that uses ballistic missiles against their enemies.

It was locked because it was daft. Dozens of people have told you that - maybe you're not a military visionary?

1. Loads wrong with this;

• What do you think the 900,000 Indian security forces deployed in Kashmir do all day? The LoC is one of the most militarised areas on the world, all eyes are on the other side as well from ground up into the sky. We're shooting down tiny little quadcopters, do you think you'll manage to fly over 1200kg worth of missile (assuming we fly over the smallest one) on drones that have about 50-100kg payload?!
  
• The transport of such missiles is illegal under international law, especially to non state entities.
• How do you propose getting the fuel over? Most of the weight will probably be fuel. They don't run on diesel.
• Where would they re-assemble them? How would they re-assemble them? Who is trained and equipped to do so?

2. Really? We dont have access to people across the border. These guys are fighting with limited ammo and guns they've snatched off the enemy. How do you propose training them to fire ballistic missiles?

3. IED's drove America out of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. They drove the USSR out of Afghanistan, they drove Israel out of Lebanon. Those rockets did absolutely nothing. They might as well catapulted rocks at them. What damage did Iranian missiles do against 1 Iraqi base? It was operational the next day.

4. No we haven't. We haven't done for nearly 20 years - that's why the militancy is nearly dead. That's why these young boys are fighting with pistols and snatching weapons off Indian security forces. Musharraf put an end to that nearly 20 years ago. When we were doing whole swathes of the valley were considered too dangerous to patrol. We've successfully implemented this model in Afghanistan TWICE now.

5. Indians die in India every day. Indian government doesn't care, Indian awam doesn't care. Right now internationally Kashmiri freedom resistance is seen as just that, people are no longer buying the Indian BS of terrorism. Start blowing up buses and shops in India and you become terrorists. It makes no impact on the Indian government - they don't value the life of Indians, dead Indians don't lose elections. The Chinese just clubbed 20 to death and the retards across the border are clapping them as martyred rambo superheroes.

Short answer is that Pakistan needs to make drones that are 100x better than the shitboxes that we have flying around right now. These drone cargo missions will have to be done at night and at low altitude.

Pakistan needs to eventually build drones that:

1. Have a large payload capacity to fit missile components
2. Are stealthy enough to not be shot down every week

Everyone should read this report

http://missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Missile-War-in-Yemen_June-2020.pdf

It is a good strategy for Pakistan to follow with ballistic missiles in Kashmir

Do you not see the difference between Yemen, Lebanon and Kashmir? In both Yemen and Lebanon the rebels hold territory where the enemy cannot access them. This is not the case in Indian occupied Kashmir. Iran has an open land route across Iraq/Syria into Lebanon. They have easy sea access to Yemen. On LoC every single movement is watched. It's fenced, mined, well lit, full of IR and thermal sensors, radar watching the skies. Like i said we're even shooting down tiny quadcopters.

You can stealthily cargo a missile over such space.

@Aspen read this for a reality check on the limited resources of Kashmiri freedom fighters.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacif...bent-on-stopping-demographic-change-/1886655#

 

[Aspen]

It was locked because it was daft. Dozens of people have told you that - maybe you're not a military visionary?

1. Loads wrong with this;

• What do you think the 900,000 Indian security forces deployed in Kashmir do all day? The LoC is one of the most militarised areas on the world, all eyes are on the other side as well from ground up into the sky. We're shooting down tiny little quadcopters, do you think you'll manage to fly over 1200kg worth of missile (assuming we fly over the smallest one) on drones that have about 50-100kg payload?!
  
• The transport of such missiles is illegal under international law, especially to non state entities.
• How do you propose getting the fuel over? Most of the weight will probably be fuel. They don't run on diesel.
• Where would they re-assemble them? How would they re-assemble them? Who is trained and equipped to do so?

2. Really? We dont have access to people across the border. These guys are fighting with limited ammo and guns they've snatched off the enemy. How do you propose training them to fire ballistic missiles?

3. IED's drove America out of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. They drove the USSR out of Afghanistan, they drove Israel out of Lebanon. Those rockets did absolutely nothing. They might as well catapulted rocks at them. What damage did Iranian missiles do against 1 Iraqi base? It was operational the next day.

4. No we haven't. We haven't done for nearly 20 years - that's why the militancy is nearly dead. That's why these young boys are fighting with pistols and snatching weapons off Indian security forces. Musharraf put an end to that nearly 20 years ago. When we were doing whole swathes of the valley were considered too dangerous to patrol. We've successfully implemented this model in Afghanistan TWICE now.

5. Indians die in India every day. Indian government doesn't care, Indian awam doesn't care. Right now internationally Kashmiri freedom resistance is seen as just that, people are no longer buying the Indian BS of terrorism. Start blowing up buses and shops in India and you become terrorists. It makes no impact on the Indian government - they don't value the life of Indians, dead Indians don't lose elections. The Chinese just clubbed 20 to death and the retards across the border are clapping them as martyred rambo superheroes.

1. 900K troops are in Kashmir to harass Kashmiris. A fraction of that number is directed towards Pakistan. Yes transport of missiles is illegal but Pakistan has done far more illegal stuff than this in the past. Fuel, assembly, and training are logistical challenges but not impossible to overcome. Assembly and training will take time but they will not be doing it themselves, Pakistan will have to send some form of a covert team to assist in this process.

2. It's not incumbent upon the occupied to have weapons lying around. Limited ammo and weapons shortages in Kashmir reflects more on weak supply from Pakistan than on Kashmiris who have no alternative.

3. If IED's are so effective, why doesn't it work in Kashmir? The parts of the Iraqi base that were hit by missiles were not operational for weeks and in some cases months. There were other parts of the base that were operational the next day, mainly because they weren't hit.

4. If militancy is dead, its time to try a new strategy involving direct force projection in order to gain leverage over India in Kashmir. You need large scale action for this, far more sophisticated than what is going on right now.

5. Indians don't care because its Indians killing Kashmiris, not the other way around. When Kashmiris start hammering India, then India will feel the pressure.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Bombs without balls is useless.

lol.. they need to change their design.

 

[Signalian]

Lack of aggression from Pakistan?

Sun Tzu in his famous Art of War says, “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” The scope of this article is to examine as to why Pakistan’s responses to chaos within and around Hindutva led India - particularly concerning the purely self-defensive measures of China in Ladakh - seem listless and vapid and various opportunities, apparently, have been allowed to slip through.

Many fellow Pakistanis would disagree and quite rightly point out reasonable factors prohibiting Pakistan to take a more vigorous military approach. Some might even suggest a clandestine operation is already underway. Furthermore, a section might also argue that Pakistani involvement could portray India as a victim.

It is immaterial whether you agree with the title of this article or disagree with it. The question is hasn’t India done the same in the past against Pakistan? Why should anything obstruct Pakistan to simply return the favour? Just a reminder, at every point of time, India has used every opportunity to erase Pakistan’s existence. After failing to stop Pakistan’s creation and even failing to strangle it in infancy, India invaded, Junagarh while Pakistan was having problems with Khan of Kalat. It again invaded Kashmir when Pakistan was overwhelmed with countless refugees from Jammu fleeing massacre. Hyderabad’s invasion, days after Mr. Jinnah’s death, is a prime example. Again India in 1950 set out to “Liquidate” the young Pakistan as Afghanistan was conducting military raids inside Pakistani territory. 1950-54 was possibly the most dangerous period of Pakistani history. Consequently, Pakistan had no choice, but to go for SEATO and CENTO. (A reply to absolute vacuous minded imbeciles who vociferously criticize Pakistan of being a US lackey).

In the 60s, constant raids in Azad Kashmir and East Pakistan continued while Pakistan was once again engaged by militants from Afghanistan in KP and Balochistan with complete support from the Afghan govt. It’s futile to mention the 70s. In the 80s the same trend continued, while Pakistani ruler was needlessly busy in internal affairs, Siachen was invaded. In the 90s, the sectarian monster was fully used by India again. Pakistan did reply in its very limited capacity. From 2000s, when Pakistan became involved in another Afghan war, despite President Musharaff’s peace overtures, ethnic and religious extremist insurgencies were fanned directly by India and its continuing. Even today, India has made its belligerent intentions abundantly clear.

The point of this reasoning which some enthusiasts might find boring, is simple. Pakistan has never responded proportionally to India’s interferences. Even today, when Pakistan boasts a large and formidable military machine, its passivity is glaring to many. Why hasn’t the establishment in Islamabad, taken complete advantage of the recent Ladakh crisis by engaging India’s border troops or at least supporting armed struggle in Occupied Kashmir? Why is that, even today dissidents from North Eastern Indian states who are more closely related to China, not being hosted or even contacted by Pakistan such as in Manipur, Tripura and Nagaland? This is the time to bring out the dissident and oppressed voices as India’s nuclear as well as conventional deterrence has been cracked wide open by China.

India’s perceived pre-eminence in South Asia is shattered which gives way to smaller powers to open up. Has Pakistan made any effort to let us say arm the Nepalese establishment?

The reasons of this inhibition to engage India seem more out of a cautious approach. It could be that Pakistan establishment fears destabilization and its unintended consequences. Perhaps, in their calculus, India could setup a two front war with the help of Afghanistan and owing to a debilitated economic situation, this could have negative ramifications for Pakistan. Another plausible reason could be the backlash feared from the international power players and its effects on the FATF saga.

These factors have their genuine supporters and carry weight; however, the gravity of the situation in the region demands a more aggressive approach against India. It is paramount that Pakistan roils up India’s federation. North East is one of the prime candidates. If Kashmir’s support is viewed as abetting terrorism by international players –who care nothing about Pakistan’s interests- Indian occupied North East could be an alternative target. North Easterners practically live in a highly discriminating colonial Indian polity. China’s victory can prove to be the impetus they need to acquire freedom. Similarly, Naxalites must also be provided complete assistance. Their exploits in central eastern India warrant attention and help. Pakistan must view the entire India as a battle space. At this point of time. Pakistani establishment do not need to be even creative, they just to need emulate the Indian template of war philosophy which the Hindutva establishment has followed against Pakistan since the beginning. Even now there is a reasonable chance of an Indian misadventure.

For Pakistanis it is imperative to understand, this is India’s 2011 moment. Pakistan faced a similar demoralizing effect after US raid on Abbottabad. India took complete advantage and the subsequent terror attacks are proof. Hence, in one’s opinion it is incumbent on Pakistan’s establishment to avenge the blood of Pakistan’s innocent people who were and are being directly attacked by Hindutva led India. Power matrix in South Asia is undergoing change as the fascist Hindu empire is vulnerable, it is up to Pakistan if they want to keep it this way

You gave a thorough history lesson and a lot of enthusiasm to members here with your post but with a ZERO plan. Wheres the plan ? wheres the military plan to be discussed ? wheres the economic back fall ? wheres the strategy to soften International relations with West and other countries during an event of war ?

On top of it all, can you explain that in current times, How should Pakistan fight 5th gen warfare w.r.t your post if it invades IOK ?

In your historic explanation, you forgot some key points too, Iran shah factor in 60's and 70's for helping Pakistan, is it the same Iran today ? Has geo-politics changed since 50's, 70's, 90's of is it still the same ?

There is a turmoil next door in Afghanistan, can you give solid reasons why Pakistan should enter IOK now and ignore Afghanistan especially when USA withdrawal and Afghan solution is being talked about ?

Can you estimate the number of BSF troops increase within 10 years span 1989-1999 in IOK and whats the situation today ? Furthermore on this, how will Pakistan match the number of troops to sustain a fight in IOK, since Pakistan would need 3:1 superiority in that sector ?

In 1971, do you know how many extra troops were added with 23 Inf Div which penetrated a few miles into IOK ? and how can you match those numbers today when an extra IA Mountain Div will be sitting in Pathankot soon. Do factor in BSF troops and armored forces near Akhnur as well, which were not in same numbers in 65 or 71.

If you think that Pakistan could use proxies in kashmir like before and create unrest in IO-Kashmir, they will be decimated quickly and India will increase its participation in Baluchistan and Sindh. Infact India will capture someone from IOK and parade him on TV for an exchange with Yadav. In any case, there arent much proxies to be used by Pakistan in current times.

What about participation of IO-Kashmiris in an event of war? Do check their participation in 65 , 71 and 99 wars.
Also if you say they are heroic people and will stand up to fight, whats the current status now ?
Have IO-Kashmiris taken use of the current situation in Ladakh to stand up against IA and BSF ?
How many attacks have IO-Kashmiris conducted against occupying Indian forces and then have invited Pakistan and China to start pouring their armies from IO-kashmir borders?

What if India threatens to fire nuclear missile on Pakistan if it sees that IOK is getting away from its grip and Pakistan has captured massive chunks of areas in IOK ? Sure Pakistan can fire back a nuke also, but most areas of Pakistan will be decimated too. As soon as nuclear war will threaten the existence of both countries, pressure from the rest of the world will come to stop the war immediately.

and lastly, Pakistan has lost East Pakistan, is Kashmir more important than a lost part ? You gave up on East Pakistan (Bangladesh) but not Kashmir, why ?

 

[Cliftonite]

We should learn something from Nepal

A country 10 times smaller than us in population and look how it's facing India head on. First they claimed Lipulekh, now they claim land in Bihar.

Our establishment has become totally spineless. Kuch nahi tou proxies ko arm karna shuru kardeim bewaqoof log.

 

[Enigma SIG]

1. 900K troops are in Kashmir to harass Kashmiris. A fraction of that number is directed towards Pakistan. Yes transport of missiles is illegal but Pakistan has done far more illegal stuff than this in the past. Fuel, assembly, and training are logistical challenges but not impossible to overcome. Assembly and training will take time but they will not be doing it themselves, Pakistan will have to send some form of a covert team to assist in this process.

2. It's not incumbent upon the occupied to have weapons lying around. Limited ammo and weapons shortages in Kashmir reflects more on weak supply from Pakistan than on Kashmiris who have no alternative.

3. If IED's are so effective, why doesn't it work in Kashmir? The parts of the Iraqi base that were hit by missiles were not operational for weeks and in some cases months. There were other parts of the base that were operational the next day, mainly because they weren't hit.

4. If militancy is dead, its time to try a new strategy involving direct force projection in order to gain leverage over India in Kashmir. You need large scale action for this, far more sophisticated than what is going on right now.

5. Indians don't care because its Indians killing Kashmiris, not the other way around. When Kashmiris start hammering India, then India will feel the pressure.

I don't see this as a coherent answer.

Considering this is ballistic missiles we're talking about; you'd need C130 or similar sized transport aircraft to drop them into position. You'll be dropping them deep into occupied territory so you better have air superiority which means at least non-stop 3 squadrons of differing capabilities engaged for your little maneuver.

Possible military losses at least 15 aircraft.

Then considering you have air superiority, you make sure the immediate area is sanitized before the airdrop occurs? You'd need at least 2 companies to infiltrate, setup perimeter, sanitize all hostiles within a 5mi zone and erect an air defense unit so that the unit isn't wiped out by IAF airstrikes / artillery bombardment (if you think they're not coming, you are naive).

Possible military losses 1 company KIA, 50% machinery destroyed.

Lets say you made it possible for a small company to sneak into IOK and deliver 5 ballistic missiles to the Kashmiri's. Also assuming Bharti's are blind as **** and didn't see you dropping C130 type loads into IOK.
Also assuming you find a safehouse / warehouse which fortunately the 900K IA doesn't detect with your men running around refuelling those missiles and training the locals.

After all this you finally get those 5 missiles ready for launch (assuming the satellites India has are dud's and can't see shit). Now these bitches better be nuclear otherwise how would 5 missiles possibly damage India enough so that they force Modi to come crying to Lahore to surrender Kashmir (i've read the missile assesment you linked and the missiles had zilch effect in forcing Saudi's hand.)

I can't believe I wrote all this just to reply to a fantasy.

 

[313ghazi]

You gave a thorough history lesson and a lot of enthusiasm to members here with your post but with a ZERO plan. Wheres the plan ? wheres the military plan to be discussed ? wheres the economic back fall ? wheres the strategy to soften International relations with West and other countries during an event of war ?

On top of it all, can you explain that in current times, How should Pakistan fight 5th gen warfare w.r.t your post if it invades IOK ?

In your historic explanation, you forgot some key points too, Iran shah factor in 60's and 70's for helping Pakistan, is it the same Iran today ? Has geo-politics changed since 50's, 70's, 90's of is it still the same ?

There is a turmoil next door in Afghanistan, can you give solid reasons why Pakistan should enter IOK now and ignore Afghanistan especially when USA withdrawal and Afghan solution is being talked about ?

Can you estimate the number of BSF troops increase within 10 years span 1989-1999 in IOK and whats the situation today ? Furthermore on this, how will Pakistan match the number of troops to sustain a fight in IOK, since Pakistan would need 3:1 superiority in that sector ?

In 1971, do you know how many extra troops were added with 23 Inf Div which penetrated a few miles into IOK ? and how can you match those numbers today when an extra IA Mountain Div will be sitting in Pathankot soon. Do factor in BSF troops and armored forces near Akhnur as well, which were not in same numbers in 65 or 71.

If you think that Pakistan could use proxies in kashmir like before and create unrest in IO-Kashmir, they will be decimated quickly and India will increase its participation in Baluchistan and Sindh. Infact India will capture someone from IOK and parade him on TV for an exchange with Yadav. In any case, there arent much proxies to be used by Pakistan in current times.

What about participation of IO-Kashmiris in an event of war? Do check their participation in 65 , 71 and 99 wars.
Also if you say they are heroic people and will stand up to fight, whats the current status now ?
Have IO-Kashmiris taken use of the current situation in Ladakh to stand up against IA and BSF ?
How many attacks have IO-Kashmiris conducted against occupying Indian forces and then have invited Pakistan and China to start pouring their armies from IO-kashmir borders?

What if India threatens to fire nuclear missile on Pakistan if it sees that IOK is getting away from its grip and Pakistan has captured massive chunks of areas in IOK ? Sure Pakistan can fire back a nuke also, but most areas of Pakistan will be decimated too. As soon as nuclear war will threaten the existence of both countries, pressure from the rest of the world will come to stop the war immediately.

and lastly, Pakistan has lost East Pakistan, is Kashmir more important than a lost part ? You gave up on East Pakistan (Bangladesh) but not Kashmir, why ?

You make some very valid points. We aren't really in a position to take advantage of this opportunity to it's fullest extent. Why? Partly because we've lacked aggression for far too long. Post 911 Musharraf rolled over and let America tickle his belly. He wound up all support for resistance operations in Kashmir, gave them full access to Afghanistan, let them bomb our territory and Kiyani and Co did the same. In exchange we got the Indians funding terrorism across our country and even more drone strikes for good measure.

There will be excuses for that too. The US was after blood, we weren't in a position to do this or that or the other. All very very true. Why? Because we don't plan beyond the end of our nose. The last time a Pakistani government played on the front foot was Zia Ul Haq.

The economy, the military, the internal political situation, the foreign policy - it all goes hand in hand.

At least right now I am seeing borders being fenced, relationships being mended, a Pakistan centric agenda being put forwards. If we can couple this with economic growth and political stability internally (even if it's artificial), then maybe we can be on the front foot in the near future.

 

[Vapnope]

Somebody said give Kashmiris ballistic missiles? I say we give them submarines which can be hid in Dal lake. How about giving them F16s as well?