strategist can plan to fight a war on their terms but can they guarantee that no variable will effect their strategy and the expected out come and there will be effective controls available to not let the situation go ugly ....
Pakistan declare nuclear threshold is based 3 thing
1- Lose of major chunk of Territory (indicating the resolute towards Territorial Integrity)
2- Major lose to its defence forces (Indicating the resolute to keep the minimum force to defend the country)
3- Wide Scale foreign sponsored unrest (to avoid Bangladesh Situation which again Territorial Integrity)
in other words these are the red lines which as per some Indians (your officials have given the statement about this) India will not cross but will fight a [limited] war, If this is the case than it will be another indecisive war like 1948, 1965, 1999, but as far as we know through Indian media and international publications about limited war doctrine of India have objectives of capturing the multiple chunks of Pakistan's territory by shallow incursions at multiple sectors then hold those areas for desirable period and inflict maximum damage possible to Pakistan's defence forces and its infrastructure.
Now these objectives are directly confronting the red lines of Pakistan's nuclear threshold of Territorial Integrity and minimum force to defend territorial integrity.
In those two to three days what will be the war objectives of India, if India is not going to cross the red lines as indicated above ...??
IMO the red lines for using nukes are just for optics. The actual red lines are for a much higher threshold. Just some shallow thrusts taking a little amount of territory does not threaten Pakistan's existence in any way. Yes it is always a prestige issue if any party looses territory, and either party would like to have it back - but this loss poses no threat.
So that is what i believe the objective of India. Now it is upto real military professionals to say if this capture of territory by India can be limited only to the shallow thrusts or has India no option but to try to capture more territory to keep challenging Pak military and keep them off balance - this military aspect i do not know.
Is it also possible for India to do more than shallow thrusts into Pak territory in the first 2-3 days?
This term "DECENT" is quite vague to define quantitative or even qualitative terms I mean what would be termed decent by Indian perspective if Pakistan's offensive capability remains intact or receive just sustainable damage in 2-3 days war ....??
BTW If we try to look in past to find some similarities we find an example in 1971 during the last days of war in which Indian had similar objectives of limited war at western front and Indian PM Indra Gandhi had define those objectives as
1- Liberation of southern part of Azad Kashmir
2- Destruction of Pakistan offensive force (Air force and Armoured forces)
If India achieve to destroy Pakistan's offensive capability like offensive divisions, a big chunk of Air force and missiles infrastructure .... then the India has crossed the red line, so how would you avoid the nuclear retaliation ....???
Just cause sustainable damage is what i think is India's plan. Then ask world powers to stop the war.
If that [limited]war will be initiated without the objectives of destroying Pakistan's offensive capability and capturing and holing some of its territory to bargain after the intervention of International community then what will be the objective of that war ...?? and more Importantly who will be the beneficiary of that [limited] war ....???
because in this scenario it seems to me this type [limited] war would be initiated to facilitate some political actors of India rather meaningful objective related to defence.
Objective is to ask Pakistan to take verifiable actions such as leaving its claims on Kashmir or accept LoC as the actual border and stop terrorists (your freedom fighters) coming to our Kashmir.
You are assuming that BJP will initiate war for political reasons. I disagree, because at the moment we are not strong enough to damage Pakistan (within nuke threshold) without hurting ourselves to an acceptable in this 24X7 media world.
And I am saying MAD will come into action if India would cross the red line of
1- Territorial Integrity of Pakistan
2- Destruction of Offensive capabilities of Pakistan
As i said, i don't think that the first point will not be made be strong enough for nukes to fly.
In this case the only option remains is the some thing like "Surgical Strike" [this time a real one] in this case what would be Indian response when Pakistan retaliate at their place of choice ... this would not initiate a CHAIN REACTION ...?? and what would be the outcome of this chain reaction ....???
I was told by a couple of army guys that a large scale surgical strike took place (and this was not the only large-scale one). I also believe that your SSG can do the same thing to us but is not allowed by PA due to the repercussions. It will be far more difficult for you to justify your actions than for us as the world is more weary of Pakistan. Plus we targeted some terrorist camps and not and army installations.
I would not like to discuss this further and only did so since you brought the surgical strike up.
I disagree with the kind of optics and politicization the BJP is doing with the surgical strike.
If Indian are thinking to involve the international community at this stage as you said in one of your previous post (posted below as reference) my friend mark my word International community would side with that country which will be more 'ACCOMMODATING' to them in that situation.
I could not understand what you mean by 'ACCOMMODATING'.
If by political system you means politicians and political parties only then you are wrong but by term political system you are including Administration and Judiciary then you are right the actual CG of India lies with its administration and Judiciary who are the real unsung heroes of Indian state your political class is the weakest link to the Indian political system (this is my assessment as an outside and I know many Indians would disagree)
You are correct - i do not share your view simply because i think that out political system, however bad, is absolutely necessary - in the sense that had the political system not been as strong as it is today, then the administration and judiciary would have also been pretty much worse that it is now.
Actually CG in India has start shifting from political class to economic class it will still take at least 1 or 2 decades to fully replace the political influence which will be a good sign for the region because vibrant economies don't go to war (America is an exception)
Vibrant economies can go to war if they think that war will help the economy while causing hardly any damage to the country.
For a vibrant economy decision to go to war is more dependent on the current thinking that exists - right now such countries go to way if they can ensure that the lives and sustainability of people are no harmed; previously the lives of the common man was not as important as it is today, hence loss of lives was no such a consideration and vibrant economies went to war. Now US goes to war since it can ensure that its citizens are unharmed.
Tomorrow if the social conditions are such that no death is acceptable, even of soldiers, then there will not be conventional war at all - just economic war.
A better world will see mutual cooperation and friendly competition - we are not there as yet.
Except when India feels assured it can take out our nuclear capability in a first saturation strike. And it will keep working towards that aim, all the while harping about impossibility of MAD. And it will be helped in this aim by America and Israel.
I do not think that India has any dreams of taking out Pak nuclear capability. It is not possible. We can only try to make it more difficult for you.
MAD is ingrained in the psyche of many in Pakistan, we'd like to avoid it and try to evolve doctrines accordingly.
