Mumbai II could lead to a full blown Indo-Pak war

[Patriot]

WHF India Can't plan surgical strikes inside Pakistan - IAF Jets will be intercepted by PAF and shot down( Now don't tell me your mighty su 30 will not be shot down. and that the whole paf wont be able to shot it down..Surgical Strikes = Open War.You see all your options you presented here work against weak state like Afghanistan not a state like Pakistan.

 

[NWO]

God Bless Them!I hope more and more idiotic indians become delusional that they can win nuclear war.

Seriously? Do you want more people running around like that anywhere in the Indian sub-continent.

 

[WHF]

And what will Pakistan do if India stop the water? The better question here is why would you want India to attack Pakistan. And stopping water is exactly that, an attack to deprive the enemy. The Romans used in siege warfare.

If India stops the water and causes a nuclear war, don't think the international community will let the remaining parts of India survive.

India is perfectly capable of launching surgical strikes within Pakistan, and Pakistan is perfectly capable of striking back. Problem with surgical strikes is that can very well escalate into a nuclear war. And stopping water is no different then surgical strikes, as I have stated above.

I have already stated that stopping water is the same as starting war. It won't be Pakistan who'll go to war, but Pakistan who counter-attacks.

International community wiping remaining out????by the way which international community??

and plzz dont be in a myth that india will strike with nuke weapons..No no we have no first use policy..

Per say we stop water and u strike with conventional weapons we will also strike back conventionally and its a know fact we are far far ahead of pak in conventional weapons and the last option for pak will be nuclear and if pak uses the nuke option will be the nuclear agressor and hence india will not have any international pressure and can retaliate with nukes..

Equal amount or land and ppl will be destroyed on both sides but india being 6 times larger can survive easier.

i always wondered even after having nukes why are we buying so much conventional weapons but then i understood nations spend billions to be diplomatically correct.

 

[WHF]

And India will risk herself for a 100-200 suspected militants?

last time when 10 of these dogs broke in the killed 200 so it means 100-200 in dia means 2000-4000 civilians lifes lost.

so sadly but yes india will have to take a risk rather than sit back and bleed continiously..

 

[NWO]

Per say we stop water and u strike with conventional weapons we will also strike back conventionally and its a know fact we are far far ahead of pak in conventional weapons and the last option for pak will be nuclear and if pak uses the nuke option will be the nuclear agressor and hence india will not have any international pressure and can retaliate with nukes..

Do you really think the international community will side with India? All India would have done is force Pakistan to use nuclear weapons as a last resort to protect itself.

 

[WHF]

WHF India Can't plan surgical strikes inside Pakistan - IAF Jets will be intercepted by PAF and shot down( Now don't tell me your mighty su 30 will not be shot down. and that the whole paf wont be able to shot it down..Surgical Strikes = Open War.You see all your options you presented here work against weak state like Afghanistan not a state like Pakistan.

i agree 100% with u india and pakistan have passed the threshold of war no matter what henious crimes we do to each other.
we cannot go to war if pak uses terriorism similarly pak cannot go to war if india stops water.

 

[NWO]

so sadly but yes india will have to take a risk rather than sit back and bleed continiously..

Do you truly believe that surgical is the only, or even the best, option?

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

we cannot go to war if pak uses terriorism similarly pak cannot go to war if india stops water.

And isn't stopping water the same as going to war?

 

[WHF]

Do you really think the international community will side with India? All India would have done is force Pakistan to use nuclear weapons as a last resort to protect itself.

So do you really think the international community will side with pak ??After all u guys are forcing us to think /Go for surgical strikes by supporting terrorism in our country..

And the last time i heard the American president said india reserves the right to attack militant hideouts.
World doesnot come to u on a platter dear u canot have everything u wish to have.
we want kashmir, we are paying with terrorist attacks.
U want kashmir struggle to continue then be ready to pay for it...

 

[WHF]

Do you truly believe that surgical is the only, or even the best, option?

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

And isn't stopping water the same as going to war?

According to me its not.
If u guys can allow terrorist camps to opetare on ur land which bleeds india and still consider it no act of war then how our stopping pak's water be considered as a act of war.

Remember every body fights a war on his rules not his/her enemy's rules and in the end one one wins, his/her rules will be termed correct.

 

[NWO]

So do you really think the international community will side with pak ??After all u guys are forcing us to think /Go for surgical strikes by supporting terrorism in our country.

Well, the last time I checked, terrorism in India virtually non-existent when compared to Pakistan. We have the Mumbai bombings every week or so.

Kashmir, though, is another matter. But even then, Indian armed forces aren't facing the same thing as to what Pakistani armed forces are facing in the tribal regions.

And the last time i heard the American president said india reserves the right to attack militant hideouts.

So, when you will launch attacks in Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, etc?

You can't just take a single quote without context. I highly doubt that was meant to mean that India should launch attacks without considering the consequence.

 

[WHF]

Well, the last time I checked, terrorism in India virtually non-existent when compared to Pakistan. We have the Mumbai bombings every week or so.

Kashmir, though, is another matter. But even then, Indian armed forces aren't facing the same thing as to what Pakistani armed forces are facing in the tribal regions.

So, when you will launch attacks in Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, etc?

You can't just take a single quote without context. I highly doubt that was meant to mean that India should launch attacks without considering the consequence.

Look wat ever happened/happening in pak is very sad.
But the hard fact is why should we be bothered with wat is going in pak??terrorists dont go to pak from india neighter they have a training camp here..
or are we allies??why should we bother.
There are bombings in north east we dont blame pak for it,infact our frndly neighbours are helping us by dismantling terror camps on their soil which are directed as us.

But pak says i wont act and wont let you act...this aint possible rite??

yes i understand u will have to consider consequences and that is why we tried to solve Mumbai 1 diplomatically but it yeilded no results..So how long Pak can keep blackmailing india of using nuke weapons..Highly impossible in future..

 

[NWO]

yes i understand u will have to consider consequences and that is why we tried to solve Mumbai 1 diplomatically but it yeilded no results..So how long Pak can keep blackmailing india of using nuke weapons..Highly impossible in future..

Mumbai is a discussion in itself.

Plus, this thread isn't about Mumbai. It's about whether India can break the Indus Water Treaty. As well, how can stopping water from going into Pakistan help with the Mumbai case?

 

[Gazzi]

Another Indian drama fantasy...............

Lets say, India goes to War, then what............

You attack and guess what.........WE ATTACK YOU..........

DO YOU KNOW WHY?

I'll let you in on a little secret...........Pakistan is not Palestine...thats why. Israeli tanks are not going to park outside yasser Arafats Headquarters.

India crosses the LoC and as well as Pakistan being destroyed, we also destroy India, not just its Military capacity, but your infrastructure.........something which your business persons had warned your ruling party during the 1999 Kargil conflict about that then also...............

Let me outline that into some sort of perspective to clarify what that actually means..........No bridges, roads, airports, gas stations, fuel stations/depots, no electricity, no gas, no mobiles communications, no Indian dramas on Star plus, no hospitals, no schools/niversity, no clean unpoisonous water, to mention a few........

So you know all that boost in your economy............you wouldn't even get the Australian aborigines investin in you for decades to come, thats if nukes haven't been deployed by then............

Have a think about it first...........then we'll talk guys..............

ACTIONS have RE-ACTIONS and Pakistan will decide its RE-ACTION. So please..........no wet dreams by Indian armchair hero's here please......

 

[WHF]

Mumbai is a discussion in itself.

Plus, this thread isn't about Mumbai. It's about whether India can break the Indus Water Treaty.

Hey i guess u havnt gone with the thread title it says"Mumbai II could lead to a full blown Indo-Pak war"

As well, how can stopping water from going into Pakistan help with the Mumbai case?

Pressure tactics u know..U harm me ill harm u.U guys want to destroy india's economy by striking business capitals of india and we will do the same by attacking ur agri based economy..Playin it square u know..

 

[WHF]

Another Indian drama fantasy...............

Lets say, India goes to War, then what............

You attack and guess what.........WE ATTACK YOU..........

DO YOU KNOW WHY?

I'll let you in on a little secret...........Pakistan is not Palestine...thats why. Israeli tanks are not going to park outside yasser Arafats Headquarters.

India crosses the LoC and as well as Pakistan being destroyed, we also destroy India, not just its Military capacity, but your infrastructure.........something which your business persons had warned your ruling party during the 1999 Kargil conflict about that then also...............

Let me outline that into some sort of perspective to clarify what that actually means..........No bridges, roads, airports, gas stations, fuel stations/depots, no electricity, no gas, no mobiles communications, no Indian dramas on Star plus, no hospitals, no schools/niversity, no clean unpoisonous water, to mention a few........

So you know all that boost in your economy............you wouldn't even get the Australian aborigines investin in you for decades to come, thats if nukes haven't been deployed by then............

Have a think about it first...........then we'll talk guys..............

ACTIONS have RE-ACTIONS and Pakistan will decide its RE-ACTION. So please..........no wet dreams by Indian armchair hero's here please......

Oh please ur scaring me...But what will happen on the pakistani side after the war??the point is india can survive a nuclear war but pakistan cannot survive a all out nuclear war with india.
As most of pakistani armchair heros claim of nuclear button, in real its not sooooooooo eazy baby...