i skimmed quickly through the article, for whatever it was worth
no need for outsiders to worry about our nuclear safety....lose sleep and bite your fingernails till your heart's content
aint nothing you can do about either our strategic assets nor are you in position to reach 'conclusions' regarding safety of said strategic assets
pop a chill pill or go smoke a joint
the will is there, but only as a last resort
on will: it was Pakistan's WILL to keep South Asia nuclear free; we only reacted to indian belligerence. They thought they'd possess the 'keys' to be a bully of South Asia. Unfortunately for them, a sound response came.
As far as I've read, India made nukes in 1974, and made 5 huge tests in 1998, then threatened Pakistan. Pakistan reacted and detonated 6 nukes, 20 days after that. I know you guys consider yourselves geniuses, but noone can make nukes from scratch in 20 days. This proves that Pakistan has had a nuke program looooong before Chagai and Pokhran tests.
RAW provided intel about these nukes, India threatened Pakistan, and you guys played right into our hands and exposed your nukes to the world. Pity, thanks to Moraji Desai, pakistan plugged the leak, we can;t get more info now.
LOL. Every one has different views and ideas. This writer was not there when the war took place in 1965. He probably read some indian writer's version of the war and made the statement.
Below I have quotes from foreign journalists who were reporting about the war AT THAT TIME:
The 1965 presented a true picture of Napoleons famous saying that there are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. During the war foreign journalists observations given below are also a proof of this awesome combination of sword and spirit of the Pakistani nation.
On September 15, 1965 American broadcasting Corporations Roy Malone reported that I have been a journalist now for twenty years and want to go on record that I have never seen a more confident and victorious group of soldiers than those fighting for Pakistan, right now.
On September 17, Time Magazine reported that, Pakistans small highly trained army is more than a match for the Indians.
According to the London Daily Mirror of September 1965 India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces.
Two are American sources and one is British source. It shows how the world felt who won the 1965 war. LOL.
Now read what the Indians were trying to hide but couldnt about the war.
The Times of India has acquired a copy of the official history of the 1965 war, finalized by Indian Defence Ministry in 1992 after years of research, but suppressed ever since. Contemporary accounts, generated by a jingoistic press, saw the war as a spectacular victory on almost every front. But the truth that could not be hidden despite the best efforts of the official historians is that the war was, in the words of one of its most distinguished commanders, Lt. Gen Harbakhsh Singh, A catalogue of lost victories
So these were the views of the people who were there at that time. It is their views.
So you go on to believe the fantasy that you won all the wars LOL with us. But the truth is different.
LOL. Even in 1948, we took one-third of Kashmir from you guys and call it proudly, 'AZAD KASHMIR'.
LOL. So much for your so-called fantasy victories.
Pakistan Zindabad.
According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[77]
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavyon the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[78] The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[79]
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.
In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[80] Gertjan Dijkink writes
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.
An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[81] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.
In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[8]
India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.
Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[82]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.
BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[83]
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.
"A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[9]
India's strategic aims were modest it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.
An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[84]
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.
English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[85]
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.
There. other's who were alive back then.
) , the threat and your hegemonic designs for the region , not before ... So , to ensure the balance of power in the region , we did what needed to be done ... Cry me a river if Islamabad's possessing nukes is a bad idea , the reality wont change on ground ...
