Scores dead in Mumbai train bombs

[Awesome]

That big talk alone was enough to send Musharaff running to the TV station to hurriedly announce his ban on the terrorists he was so long in bed with.India just needs to do the the huffin and puffin.That seems enough to frighten those in brown attire.

Great! Do the huffin n puffin, we'd gladly ban SIMI this time too.

Yes, Lack of communal disharmony greatly hinders the agenda of seperatists and hence these blasts to incite violence thereby bringing communal disharmony.

Did it raise any communal disharmony? India on the other hand attempted to create sectarian strife by killing the Shia dude today. Wasted no time eh?

The Indian media has been clever enough to know that the masters are controlling the dolls through various proxies.The media is showing great maturity and foresight this time.

Yes by saying SIMI did it! And presenting all sorts of links of SIMI related incidents, similar in nature. And then adding "Oh btw, SIMI is linked with Pakistan". What about the fact that they get funding from Saudi Arabia and are controlled by the WAMY organization of Riyadh?

Actually, they wont reveal the evidence because if they do it now the adversaries are going to wake up and start their desperate damage control.We're not giving our enemy the chance to do another full of fuss speech this time.

If only all prosecutors could convict defendants this way!

Thats exactly what makes me wonder about the power of the Indian government and its ability to bring unprecedented pressure upon our enemies.Keeping quiet all the while and a little press conference by our Army Chief made Musharaff hurry to the TV in full military uniform and make a pleading speech, cleverly making it a point to appease and somehow prevent a attack from his enemy.All that the very next day! Impressive show of might.Clearly demonstrates who's scared of whom in the region.

Hey we'd ban a few more groups if thats all you want? Indians were at it for TEN MONTHS! So don't give me the BS that, they were banned for you guys. Musharraf had banned groups in such addresses twice before that.

Once in 1999 after taking power and once in Feb 2001. For example the interview you posted before that talks about Jaysh-e-Muhammad being banned.

Anyway India huffed and puffed for 10 months... And then blinked.

 

[Jay_]

Great! Do the huffin n puffin, we'd gladly ban SIMI this time too.

yes, although, when we huff and buff, a part of Pakistan will also do the same.

Did it raise any communal disharmony? India on the other hand attempted to create sectarian strife by killing the Shia dude today. Wasted no time eh?

Which Shia dude?

Yes by saying SIMI did it! And presenting all sorts of links of SIMI related incidents, similar in nature. And then adding "Oh btw, SIMI is linked with Pakistan". What about the fact that they get funding from Saudi Arabia and are controlled by the WAMY organization of Riyadh?

I asked you before and I ask you now, did you read the links which talks about SIMI getting from Pakistan.

Hey we'd ban a few more groups if thats all you want? Indians were at it for TEN MONTHS! So don't give me the BS that, they were banned for you guys. Musharraf had banned groups in such addresses twice before that.

And you still here the same from MEA, Pakistan is not doing enough to combat terrorism, and we will say the same in every international arena.

Once in 1999 after taking power and once in Feb 2001. For example the interview you posted before that talks about Jaysh-e-Muhammad being banned.

And that Maulana is still in Pakistan, which just shows your forked tongue. Remember, we dont automatically believe in what Pakistan says.

Anyway India huffed and puffed for 10 months... And then blinked.

Its not all white and black, you know there are lots of ways for us to get back even, and I assure you that this will get even, if we find out the links :bat:

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Full scale war is not an option between the two rivals, even the hawks realise that.

I've seen too many wars to believe that.

India is mighty but does not have the capacity nor the capability to launch sucessfull pre emptive srtikes and take out Pak nuclear arsenal.

If that were true, we would not have come close to nuclear war 9 times with the N5.

Even if they opt to do so what is the calculated risk and aftermath?

What is the calculated risk of not doing so? Would India simply cow just because Pakistan rattle the nuclear sabber? Would Pakistan?

Pakistan only needs four succesfull hits at Delhi, Bombay, Ahmedabad and Bengalore to criple India.

India can recover ... although quite badly. Can Pakistan?

For sure Pakistan would be gone but is India willing to take that risk?

Pray you never find out because I can tell you from personal experience that though the guys in the trenches don't get a say in when and where to toss nukes, they were more than ready to face it head on.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Do you seriously think their Generals would be telling the PM it would be a walk in the park to attack Pakistan?

A walk in the park? If they're good Generals, they will tell them upfront that they will win but expect 30-40,000 casualties - but they will win. If you start tossing nukes, it will be 10 million on both sides but they still win.

They are the very things stopping them. Man on Man, we're at a ratio of 2:3 or 1:1.5 (with Indias and Pakistan's reserves added) however you may like to look at it. Our Armor is a tad bit better than their's as well. Do you seriously think its just going to be a speed bump? India's looking at a prolonged war. Pak didn't back off from the conflict in 2002 when our resources were damn low (reserves at $650Mn) and people guessed we'd run out of gas in 11 days of war.

1) You didn't goto war in 2002.
2) You're on defence, they're on offence meaning they choose the field of battle; meaning that they have a head start to deliver local superiority.
3) Once they establish air supremacy (and the numbers more than suggest that they will), they would have cut the Lines of Communications
4) It takes a minimum 30 days to ready reserves from scratch, 60 if they're couch potatoes. The war is half over by then.
5) If their last exercise is any indication, they massed over 100 guns in less than 48 hours.

Yeah, speed bumps.

India's military or economy hasn't significantly changed, but Pak's at a whole other level. Whatever spooked India out of conflict back then should be scarier by now.

Ain't military.

Did you ever stop to consider, a speed bump is something that India doesn't want either?

That ain't my job. My job is to evaluate the defence and the offence and the numbers committed to both ain't exactly in Pakistan's favour.

The military option for India is a bloody war.

Anyone expecting anything less is a damned fool. It will be a bloody war and it will even be a bloodier occupation. As I stated, it's not that the InA fears losing the war, it fears winning it.

Whenever there's talk of war people assume it would be a limited war, but I think even you'd not argue that it's not going to be anything like it.

Limited? I expect you guys to start tossing nukes but in the end, it will still be an Indian flag over Islamabad (or what's left of it).

 

[sigatoka]

A walk in the park? If they're good Generals, they will tell them upfront that they will win but expect 30-40,000 casualties - but they will win. If you start tossing nukes, it will be 10 million on both sides but they still win.



2) You're on defence, they're on offence meaning they choose the field of battle; meaning that they have a head start to deliver local superiority.
3) Once they establish air supremacy (and the numbers more than suggest that they will), they would have cut the Lines of Communications
4) It takes a minimum 30 days to ready reserves from scratch, 60 if they're couch potatoes.

That ain't my job. My job is to evaluate the defence and the offence and the numbers committed to both ain't exactly in Pakistan's favour.

Why will the Pak. army break with after only 40,000 dead? It has 400,000 soldiers, 40,000 represents only 10% of the force. In addition it has tens of thousands more of reserves and easily raisable civilian militia who could easily serve as cannon fodder. In a war of survival Pak. will not break until at least 100,000 military casualties are suffered.

Nuclear strikes on Bombay, Delhi, New Delhi will be CRIPPLING. It will destroy India's capacity to feed its people let alone prosecute a war. Hopefully its not people like u in India's high command, otherwise they mite even believe they can win a nuclear war.

Traditionally it was suggested that the the attacking side needed 3:1 advantage to achieve victory. when has attacking become easier than defending?

Pak. has a well developed anti air missile and gun defence. Planes numbers alone dont suggest how the war will pan out.

Of course the odds are against Pak. but not to the degree you suggest when it is fighting a war of survival.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Why will the Pak. army break with after only 40,000 dead? It has 400,000 soldiers, 40,000 represents only 10% of the force. In addition it has tens of thousands more of reserves and easily raisable civilian militia who could easily serve as cannon fodder. In a war of survival Pak. will not break until at least 100,000 military casualties are suffered.

You know, son, you may be an economics major but you suck at military studies. The obvious answer to your scenario is that the MAJORITY of the Pak Forces would become irrevelent if the InA can achive their plans.

Nuclear strikes on Bombay, Delhi, New Delhi will be CRIPPLING. It will destroy India's capacity to feed its people let alone prosecute a war. Hopefully its not people like u in India's high command, otherwise they mite even believe they can win a nuclear war.

Oh give me a break. India is still an agricultural society. You will not kill India's Rice Belt. Most Indians will still eat. Those in the cities would suffer and the Indian High Command would most certainly survive any exchange since your nukes ain't anywhere close enough to being counter-force. And after a nuclear exchange, I will guarrantee you that they would have no other choice but to finish the war on their terms.

Traditionally it was suggested that the the attacking side needed 3:1 advantage to achieve victory. when has attacking become easier than defending?

I told you to get off that 3-1 horse puckey. Here are clues. Local superiority and force multipliers.

When has attacking become easier than defending? Since the dawn of man. It's a hell of alot easier fighting in somebody's else home than smashing my own just to kick the bad guy out.

Pak. has a well developed anti air missile and gun defence. Planes numbers alone dont suggest how the war will pan out.

You're damned well better believe plane numbers hold the edge if for nothing else, they can see you but you can't see them.

Of course the odds are against Pak. but not to the degree you suggest when it is fighting a war of survival.

And they're fighting to kill you and they got the numbers to do it.

 

[sigatoka]

You know, son, you may be an economics major but you suck at military studies.

You will not kill India's Rice Belt. Most Indians will still eat. Those in the cities would suffer and the Indian High Command would most certainly survive any exchange since your nukes ain't anywhere close enough to being counter-force.

I told you to get off that 3-1 horse puckey.

When has attacking become easier than defending? Since the dawn of man.

The subject is different, the analysis is the same.....

Farmers grow rice not out of the goodness of their heart but because there are city people who purchase it.......with a shattered economy people will be unable to purchase and will starve.........the economy is interconnected, destroying the major cities sets off a tsunami within the economy that reverberates to the remotest corners.....

I didnt start the 3:1 puckey, every military historian since the time of Alexander refers to it.........and the Indian military doesnt have the technological edge over Pak. like a nation such as U.S. or britian.....

 

[Bull]

The subject is different, the analysis is the same.....

Farmers grow rice not out of the goodness of their heart but because there are city people who purchase it.......w

ith a shattered economy people will be unable to purchase and will starve..............

Sig dont bullshit pls,Indian economy is not dependant on metros for christsake. Indias majority are dependant on agri for life and they also need to eat right. So if they can cultivate and eat too then our majority of the popluation will be sustained. And who told you that rice and wheat is cultivated for these three metros. You are way off mark.Even your economics masters is at stake here.

I didnt start the 3:1 puckey, every military historian since the time of Alexander refers to it.....

Exactly the point sig, alexander had referred to it..and its so old.Wars are fought differently now.Thats what OOE is trying to say.

and the Indian military doesnt have the technological edge over Pak. like a nation such as U.S. or britian.....

I know a bt the BVR advantage we have,isnt that itself a big advantage in the airfight.

 

[Awesome]

A walk in the park? If they're good Generals, they will tell them upfront that they will win but expect 30-40,000 casualties - but they will win. If you start tossing nukes, it will be 10 million on both sides but they still win.

First of all those are optimistic figures, the casualties are probably going to be higher if India attempts to cross the International Border...

Second, you think even if India loses 40K soldiers it's going to be ok with it? You do know that in the 1965 war both sides combined lost about 7000 people?

Everyone hurried for ceasefire once they had lost about 3500, Tashkent agreement, was brokered by Indian allies the Soviet Union, btw. In 1948 when the total casualties were under 5k, again it was INDIA that called for a ceasefire.

So excuse me, when I say with CERTAINTY that 40k (though I'm guessing 100K), is just a number no side is willing to lose.

As I was explaining to Sam and Bull, Pak would go forth and try to defuse the situation by attacking/dismantling or at least halting those militants. But if India decides to cancel that as an option and wants war, it's war that it will get.

1) You didn't goto war in 2002.

But we sure as hell didn't blink first.

2) You're on defence, they're on offence meaning they choose the field of battle; meaning that they have a head start to deliver local superiority.

Actually just like in 2002, Pak mobilization would we be a lot more quicker. The only thing that'll take time is to withdraw our overseas forces back to Pakistan. Which are about 10k.

3) Once they establish air supremacy (and the numbers more than suggest that they will), they would have cut the Lines of Communications

Err, yeah you're on the dot with this one. Need to fix this. And quick. China gave us 200 F-7PGs in 2002, but need something modern to take on that Su-30.

4) It takes a minimum 30 days to ready reserves from scratch, 60 if they're couch potatoes. The war is half over by then.

Action is still months away. Today MM Singh even had the decency of declaring that peace is far from over with Pakistan.

5) If their last exercise is any indication, they massed over 100 guns in less than 48 hours.

Last Indian mobilization was a joke. They faced severe criticism and kept making bumbling mistakes. Their weapons cache blew up once I remember and during the end of the 10 month standoff, Indian soldiers started killing their own.

Yeah, speed bumps.

Ain't military.

So you gonna explain it or what?

That ain't my job. My job is to evaluate the defence and the offence and the numbers committed to both ain't exactly in Pakistan's favour.

It's a discussion forum, I can ask you any question if I feel you know the answer! Asking questions is OK, OoE. Just learning from you, hardly mean any disrespect. You MUST make that distinction.

Anyone expecting anything less is a damned fool. It will be a bloody war and it will even be a bloodier occupation. As I stated, it's not that the InA fears losing the war, it fears winning it.

Oh yes, when they captured the farmlands on the outskirts of Lahore, they were even attacked by farmers weilding pitchforks. They got in only through a surprise attack and the damn defence minister assuring the president America's gonna keep India at bay on the International Border so focus on Kashmir!

One of the main things that lead to India's withdrawal (and the subsequent capture of Indian territory overlooking Lahore) was how quick and sudden Lahore was able to build up its attack forces once the word of imminent invasion got out.

To capture Lahore India would have to cross the Wagah border. And Wagah area is a forest region and thick network of Canals (heck all of Lahore has many canals, but they're biggest at Wagah).

Limited? I expect you guys to start tossing nukes but in the end, it will still be an Indian flag over Islamabad (or what's left of it).

I don't support the nuke'em mindframe.

 

[Bull]

Actually just like in 2002, Pak mobilization would we be a lot more quicker.

Why?

China gave us 200 F-7PGs in 2002, but need something modern to take on that Su-30..

China wont give a ****, remember kargil. China getting involved will invite much bigger powers to the war.

Last Indian mobilization was a joke. They faced severe criticism and kept making bumbling mistakes. Their weapons cache blew up once I remember and during the end of the 10 month standoff, Indian soldiers started killing their own..

Take ur jabbering elsewhere...

Oh yes, when they captured the farmlands on the outskirts of Lahore, they were even attacked by farmers weilding pitchforks.

So PA was reduced to pitchfork weilding farmers.

 

[Awesome]

Why?

Shorter distances. GT Road, Motorways, coastal highways.

China wont give a ****, remember kargil. China getting involved will invite much bigger powers to the war.

200 F-7s in 2002.

Take ur jabbering elsewhere...

I just merely stated what happened last time. I can get links for it if that's what's your objection to it. But it did happen.

So PA was reduced to pitchfork weilding farmers.

More like pitchforked Lahoris (ok some might have had guns) were enough to keep India busy till the big guns arrived. When it comes to attacking Pakistan you're up against a civillian population that would also fight

 

[genmirajborgza786]

there is a saying if you want to shoot then shoot dont talk, so if india want a war they should put the money where there mouth is attack not gobble, as for pakistan we are ready for it bring it on dont just keep bluffing it on...

 

[Jay_]

More like pitchforked Lahoris (ok some might have had guns) were enough to keep India busy till the big guns arrived. When it comes to attacking Pakistan you're up against a civillian population that would also fight

If it came to pitchforked farmers to save Lagore, they would just be genuine targets for the IAF bombers.

 

[Samudra]

Shorter distances. GT Road, Motorways, coastal highways.

If being able to move men and material quicker alone is key to quicker mobilisation then I suggest you guys build bullet trains.

200 F-7s in 2002.

Actually IAF is thankfull to the Chinese for having equipped the PAF with such planes.Nothing makes our job easier.

When it comes to attacking Pakistan you're up against a civillian population that would also fight

Again, I'm so thankfull that the PA is going to resort(Actually, the PA aint this stupid but lets assume anyway) to such tactics.Again, this only helps us.

 

[sigatoka]

If it came to pitchforked farmers to save Lagore, they would just be genuine targets for the IAF bombers.

Iaf doesnt have enuf planes to both destroy PAF, neutralise ground based AAA and conduct close ground support..........