Pakistan's defence budget cut - retracted. Increased by 7.

[Energon]

As an example from the Indian side - a nuclear deterrent did little to prevent the Kargil incursion by Pakistan.

Had India not been able to fight back conventionally, would it have "nuked" Pakistan?

Probably not, and the result would have been a loss of territory for India, despite its "nuclear deterrent".

The argument is moot. India has a no first use policy. The Pakistan army took its inspiration for Kargil from their counterpart's prior success in Operation Meghdoot. However the difference here is that India has more resources at its hand giving them the upper hand.

 

[fatman17]

Why does India need to follow suite when we have no need to divert defence budget to tackle other economic problems, when we already have enough fund in or coffers?

SO U GO UR MERRY WAYS AS USUAL



Fatman, your country had already achieved minimum ditterance and had ensured its survivability by testing a nuke, what makes you think a few odd planes or subs will make a difference in an allout war?

AND INDIA? HOW MANY MORE NUKES DOES INDIA NEED

we need some common sense in this dialague

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

AND INDIA? HOW MANY MORE NUKES DOES INDIA NEED

we need some common sense in this dialague

Fatman , can you kindly be more clear..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My comments were to clarify that along with nuclear detterant Pakistans conventional detterant is intact for next two decades. I had mentioned this since you had mention that nuclear detterant is not enough to deal with India

I am not arguing about Pakistan's conventional deterrent being intact or not.

When did I question that?

I was responding specifically to the point you raised that the nuclear deterrent should be enough.

So I will assume then that you misspoke, and that you do not believe a nuclear deterrent is enough, and there is a need for a conventional deterrent as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What parts of Pakistani territory has India tried to "absorb"? In any conflict that has occurred to date all of the captured Pakistani territory has been returned with the exception of Bangladesh; and even in this case no foreign land was occupied or retained. I have as yet to see any Indian government sanctioned plans (the military does not operate independently) of cutting off supplies or roadways in order to capture a Pakistani valley in order to force the international community to "redraw the map" or any such thing. The point being that as long as the Pakistan Army leaves Indian Kashmir alone they do not face a threat from the Indian army. If this position is clarified, the nuclear status quo is a great deterrent.

The argument was a hypothetical one. But so long as India continues to claim all of JK as its territory, capturing/absorbing (take your pick) that territory, it remains a threat.

Beyond absorbing/capturing- Indian intervention and aggression in East Pakistan in 1971 also show that weakening and dismembering Pakistan would be a policy that India could pursue and has pursued. Add to this a quote by Indira Gandhi posted by MBI Munshi sahib:

As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist".

First, there was no incursion during operation Parakram. It was a reactionary mobilization on account of Pakistani orchestrated terrorism. The support of terrorism has since this event precipitously dropped on account of international pressure; and as long as these efforts are continued earnestly there should be no problems. Also, the conflict was avoided on account of US pressure through its private sector and not by the prowess of the Pakistan army. There is no way the latter can hold out against a full onslaught from the Indian army in a conventional war. Having said that India is not in a position to go to war of choice at this point in time since its priorities seem to be on the economic front.

First, I did not say there was an incursion in Operation Parakaram - I am arguing that the threat was there and effectively neutralized because of the conventional deterrent.


On Pakistan deterring India militarily:

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are considered to be absolutely essential to deter India from undertaking a wide range of coercive political-military behavior that could undermine Pakistan’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty. However, it is important to recognize that Pakistani defense planners still consider their conventional armed forces to be the first line of defense against Indian conventional military attack and the backbone of the country’s overall deterrence posture. It could be said that 95 percent of Pakistan’s strategic deterrent relies on a robust conventional military capability and deliberate and repeated demonstrations of the Pakistan leadership’s readiness to employ it decisively if attacked—or even seriously threatened with military attack.

Pakistan’s military conduct during the 2001-2002 crisis with India revealed this orientation. When India mobilized its armed forces for attack shortly after the 13 December 2001 terrorist strike against the Indian Parliament, Pakistan responded by immediately putting its own armed forces on a war footing. Pakistani military leaders were very satisfied that their ground forces were able to reach their designated strike positions more quickly than their opposite numbers, thus eliminating the element of surprise and nullifying any advantage that India might have by striking across the border first. It is widely speculated that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee decided against a military attack when his troops had moved into their strike positions by the middle of January because Pakistani troop deployments indicated that Islamabad was well prepared to counter-strike at locations of its choosing, thus eliminating any advantage India would have gained by attacking first.

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

(Note: The link for the entire paper on the NPEC website is not working)

There was no "Pakistani Orchestrated Terrorism", if you are referring to the attack on parliament. What you had was the Indian government using that attack by terrorists (the accusations repetitively similar to the nonsense churned out hours or minutes after most terrorist attacks in India - a tradition thankfully being broken now, after the recent bombings) to initiate aggression against Pakistan, similar to its bogus pretexts in 1971.

It is true however that Pakistan did clamp down on supporting cross LoC infiltration by militants.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Found a working link to the paper above:

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

So I will assume then that you misspoke, and that you do not believe a nuclear deterrent is enough, and there is a need for a conventional deterrent as well.

Agno , what I am trying to convey is that the days of fear of India cutting Pakistan into two, destroying Pakistan or decimating its armed forces to submission are over primarily due to nuclear deterrance and not due to conventional deterrance. Pakistan had conventional parity with India and yet could not settle Kashmir or avoid BD from being born. When I mention that there is conventinal deterrance I meant it for small scale wars especially pertaining to India's cold start doctrine.

In short,
1.Nuclear deterrance and not conventional detarrance ensures Pakistans survivability.
2.Conventional capability ensures deterrance in small scale wars like Kargil and the ones envisaged by India in the cold start doctrine.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

2.Conventional capability ensures detterance in small scale wars like Kargil and the ones envisaged by India in the cold start doctrine.

And my point is that a conventional deterrent is required to ensure that no "small scale" wars are undertaken, and if they are then the threat is countered, and not even a small amount of territory is lost.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

And my point is that a conventional deterrent is required to ensure that no "small scale" wars are undertaken, and not even a small amount of territory is lost.

Agreed, I guess we both are in the same plane

 

[fatman17]

Fatman , can you kindly be more clear..

u want india-pak friendship but all the dirty work of reducing our deterrence has to be done by pakistan. its a non-starter. if u blink, then we blink and vice-versa. this craziness will not end. we buy 3 subs, u buy 6, we think of ordering 3 more, u quickly retort with another 6 including a nuclear sub.

u say u have enough money in your coffers, but what about the 400m indians living on less than a dollar a day, 30% of our population lives below the poverty line and we say we have enough.

 

[Flintlock]

u want india-pak friendship but all the dirty work of reducing our deterrence has to be done by pakistan. its a non-starter. if u blink, then we blink and vice-versa. this craziness will not end. we buy 3 subs, u buy 6, we think of ordering 3 more, u quickly retort with another 6 including a nuclear sub.

u say u have enough money in your coffers, but what about the 400m indians living on less than a dollar a day, 30% of our population lives below the poverty line and we say we have enough.

India is building up its defenses with the Chinese threat in mind.

Now its entirely up to Pakistan to buy that argument.

 

[fatman17]

Agreed, I guess we both are in the same plane

the only plane i would like to be on is the disarmament plane.

 

[fatman17]

India is building up its defenses with the Chinese threat in mind.

Now its entirely up to Pakistan to buy that argument.

stealth- china just wants taiwan in its ambit. thats is all. its already got HK and Macau. taiwan is the last piece in their puzzle.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India is building up its defenses with the Chinese threat in mind.

Now its entirely up to Pakistan to buy that argument.

Of course, there is nothing stationed on the Western border by India is there?

However, I am not discounting that India has to keep in mind the Chinese threat.

 

[Flintlock]

stealth- china just wants taiwan in its ambit. thats is all. its already got HK and Macau. taiwan is the last piece in their puzzle.

China also wants Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.