Reason why Pakistan has no chance of winning these particular types of war

[LadyFinger]

You were so keen. Thought you'd like it! No need to runaway, get slow.

An afterthought, maybe?

Anyway, I was just horsing around a bit. I better be going. Time for my milk and cookies. Good day.

 

[amused_burger]

You were so keen. Thought you'd like it! No need to runaway, get slow.

Well, you're right. My wits are no match for your crudity. Auf wiedersehen.

 

[I S I]

An afterthought, maybe?

Anyway, I was just horsing around a bit. I better be going. Time for my milk and cookies. Good day.

Humble brag.

That was not directed at you.

I know sis.

 

[LadyFinger]

No no no. You asked for it, now don't back off. You must touch all the 'contours' and your milk and cookies won't turn you into a poodle time and again.

Well, you're right. My wits are no match for your crudity. Auf wiedersehen.

 

[untitled]

Yes, the ups and downs of the contours really challenge my fingers ....

Try touching the contours of this

This should take your skills to the next level.

 

[jaibi]

It is a very good think that you are pondering over strategy and defence. Here is an answer to counter it. I would extol you to please try to be rational rather than emotional about it, though.

Pakistan may win nuclear war with India but what's the reason it has no chance of winning conventional war,

That depends on the aim of the war for Pakistan. If it is to deny India occupation of Pakistani lands, maintain structural integrity or status quo and is able to do that then it has succeeded. At present, no official policy of Pakistan wishes to see a territorial change, nor force reduction i.e. reduce Indian armed forces strenght. Therefore, it depends on what you mean by conventional war.

insurgency-on-enemy war (supporting insurgency on enemy territory) and economic espionage and sabotage war, diplomatic war with India?

Again, the answer is what does it aim to do? You aren't clarifying that.

Answer is size – population size, geographic area and material resources. Soviet Nation was a great country and produced great individuals but Afghanistan shattered and vanquished Soviet Union because Soviet Union's population was tiny and it's material resources were scarce – most of Russia is nothing but cold desert.

A hearty disagreement here, sir, even at its worst point the USSR's economic output was half of that of the USA. As per the population, the USSR had ample manpower to fight in AFG but it had not come into the war to stay on for so long. The USSR had completely miscalculated. You should see a wonderful book about it, The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan: Lester W. Grau, David M. Glantz.

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt (SOURCE)

India is not Soviet Union. India has a dense population and is rich in material resources. It is said that a single state of Uttar Pradesh has a population bigger than the entire population of Pakistan.

I think what you're thinking in terms of is total war, that would most likely never take place. If anything, then your first point the nuclear deterrents ensure that.

A common refrain of 1965 war is that it was a war of quality versus quantity. But quality has a limitation. One Pakistani soldier may kill dozen Indian soldiers but he has no chance against two dozen Indians. Probably this pattern holds in most walks of life except in contests like sports where only equal number of individuals can represent their respective countries.

Not entirely, for one thing, the Pakistani military has active war experience since the last decade of the most difficult type of warfare: LIC. This means that the war machine is more attuned simply by running. As I stated first, warfare isn't simply to just take over something, it has well worked objectives. In that matter, this makes a lot of difference. Secondly, the most decisive factor in warfare is the quality of men, not their valour but training and availabilty and in those too their that of the officers as they are the 'brains' of the operation. In that scenario the Indian military is already facing a crisis. Read it here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856401.2010.520653?journalCode=csas20

 

[Zarvan]

It is a very good think that you are pondering over strategy and defence. Here is an answer to counter it. I would extol you to please try to be rational rather than emotional about it, though.


That depends on the aim of the war for Pakistan. If it is to deny India occupation of Pakistani lands, maintain structural integrity or status quo and is able to do that then it has succeeded. At present, no official policy of Pakistan wishes to see a territorial change, nor force reduction i.e. reduce Indian armed forces strenght. Therefore, it depends on what you mean by conventional war.



Again, the answer is what does it aim to do? You aren't clarifying that.



A hearty disagreement here, sir, even at its worst point the USSR's economic output was half of that of the USA. As per the population, the USSR had ample manpower to fight in AFG but it had not come into the war to stay on for so long. The USSR had completely miscalculated. You should see a wonderful book about it, The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan: Lester W. Grau, David M. Glantz.

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt (SOURCE)



I think what you're thinking in terms of is total war, that would most likely never take place. If anything, then your first point the nuclear deterrents ensure that.



Not entirely, for one thing, the Pakistani military has active war experience since the last decade of the most difficult type of warfare: LIC. This means that the war machine is more attuned simply by running. As I stated first, warfare isn't simply to just take over something, it has well worked objectives. In that matter, this makes a lot of difference. Secondly, the most decisive factor in warfare is the quality of men, not their valour but training and availabilty and in those too their that of the officers as they are the 'brains' of the operation. In that scenario the Indian military is already facing a crisis. Read it here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856401.2010.520653?journalCode=csas20

Welcome back Sir and I hope you now stay here as a regular member on this forum

 

[dadeechi]

Nuclear War - Tie

Conventional War - India has slight edge

Unconventional War - Pakistan is the clear winner

Diplomatic War - Pakistan is the winner

Economic War - Pakistan has an edge

 

[X-2.]

Pakistan may win nuclear war with India but what's the reason it has no chance of winning conventional war, insurgency-on-enemy war (supporting insurgency on enemy territory) and economic espionage and sabotage war, diplomatic war with India? Answer is size – population size, geographic area and material resources. Soviet Nation was a great country and produced great individuals but Afghanistan shattered and vanquished Soviet Union because Soviet Union's population was tiny and it's material resources were scarce – most of Russia is nothing but cold desert. India is not Soviet Union. India has a dense population and is rich in material resources. It is said that a single state of Uttar Pradesh has a population bigger than the entire population of Pakistan. A common refrain of 1965 war is that it was a war of quality versus quantity. But quality has a limitation. One Pakistani soldier may kill dozen Indian soldiers but he has no chance against two dozen Indians. Probably this pattern holds in most walks of life except in contests like sports where only equal number of individuals can represent their respective countries.

Haha hahaha

a country is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick” welcome in pak u will not hv disappointment
Pakistan is nation of lions not crowded with sheeps

 

[Joe Shearer]

Haha hahaha

a country is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick” welcome in pak u will not hv disappointment
Pakistan is nation of lions not crowded with sheeps

Oh, so that's what happened in 1965! I was wondering why we found ourselves in a well. Thanks for clearing things up so, umm, clearly.

 

[somebozo]

Indian insurgencies in Kashmir and north east are much larger, organised and lethal..and over 70 years of Indian independence..they have only grown..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Lol.. you think pakistan can win nuclear war with India. That's laughable.
Pakistan can't win any war, conventional or nuclear. India can defeat pakistan in any format in less than 7 days.
If there is a war in which pakistan has shown some winning spirit is export of terrorism across the borders, but now India has started to stand up this too, so, pakistan is bound to fail in this exercise also.

This is what I said to you earlier, that you don't have the guts or the brains to engage the Pakistanis on facts, but keep using LOL and witty little quips like 'that's laughable' instead of logic.Or brag, like India can defeat Pakistan in any format in less than 7 days. Did you read about the Battle of Hilli, for instance? And then with this ammunition, you feel astonished when you get laughed at, and finally get a negative rating. Why don't you do your homework instead, and put forth arguments with the true story used as a foundation? It's never too late to learn.

Nuclear war could cause major consequences for the world let alone destroy india

However Pakistan has enough conventional strength to burn through many millions of indian's

This is the old "One Pakistani soldier is equal to Ten Indian soldiers" axiom?

 

[X-2.]

Oh, so that's what happened in 1965! I was wondering why we found ourselves in a well. Thanks for clearing things up so, umm, clearly.

Nuclear War - Tie

Conventional War - India has slight edge

Unconventional War - Pakistan is the clear winner

Diplomatic War - Pakistan is the winner

Economic War - Pakistan has an edge

Pak is beyond in the race of warheads

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pak is beyond in the race of warheads

Fooled us again. Damn!

All this time, I thought Pakistan wanted to be ahead.

I need a brain transplant. Think you can help me find another Indian, this time, one with a brain?

 

[dadeechi]

Pak is beyond in the race of warheads

True. Pakistan has more nuclear war heads than India. I gave it a Tie only because truly there are no winners in a nuclear war where both parties are capable of using them.