Thank You Joe Saab, Capt Popeye and Krait for your posts
I want to expand on the claim made by vsdoc, that the disbanding of PA is the ultimate aim of India on which work has already began. The question is, how does India achieve this? Does it achieve this through a military strike, a prolonge diplomatic campaign or a mix of both.
I agree with with Joe Saab that looking at the balance of power between both the Armies, a Drawn War is the most likely outcome. Pakistan instead of matching India bullet for bullet, has taken the smart route and is buying weapons needed to pin down Indian Armed Forces. These weapons cannot win the war for PA but are enough to halt IA advance for long enough and make victory a very expensive proposition.
But coming back to the topic, the question is how much losses is IA willing to take and what is going to be done about the N scenario? For India to effectively disband PA, she will need to fight it out with PA and a skirmish won't do. She will have to engage PA in battles of annihiliation and effectively destroy its Command and Control along with her Armour. Proxy War just won't do, its good to harass the enemy but not enough to destroy the enemy. What happened in Libya does not apply here due to different circumstances. As far as diplomatic campaign goes, lets be honest here. At best sanctions can slow down the modernization process of PA but not destroy it. So the conclusion that i arrive at is, IA will need to engage PA to disband it and make it a Paramilitary Force.
Eliminating a force that is fighting on the defensive is the most painfully drawn out and underrated of tasks. Unless an army is outflanked and cut off from it's supply lines and essentially engaged before it can organize (in a sort of blitzkrieg), only then can an adversary hope to eliminate a fully functional force. To partake in a rapid attack that catches the PA off guard and then to drive home the advantage of confusion and fear, requires the kind of resources the Indian military machine does not have. In reality, no one other than the American juggernaut can pull such an adventure off, or at least someone who has the blessing and unyielding support of the said power, as is the case with Israel.
Now, even if the Indian military can't necessarily eliminate the PA; any war fought on the defensive can and will cause irreparable damage to the land and people that will leave scars far greater than any bullet wound ever could. So while we can find solace in our ability to survive an Indian onslaught, it would be at a cost that would massively set us back as a nation. Since we are assuming worst case scenarios, and that is the only way the Indo-Pak theater goes hot again on that scale, then mere survival is paramount and can be deemed a success.
Consequently, I don't expect anyone in the Indian leadership expects to succeed, in the near future, in completely obliterating the Pakistani military into oblivion. But I think that realization is more dangerous to us than anything. An India that endlessly pours funds into conventional military projects that would have only a marginal affect in relation to Pakistan, is far less dangerous than one that supports internal strife. I agree that proxy wars can never really cause the downfall of a nation, but have the capability to help provide the spark that lights a room full of gas.
In conventional terms, we have reached a status quo that is unlikely to change anytime soon. The Indian military is strong, but not strong enough to eliminate the Pakistani threat once and for all; while the Pakistani military is formidable enough to use its limited resources of land and material to hold off an Indian invasion. This scenario does not account for the factor of time, for that is very crucial in any real conflict. A longer war of attrition generally favors India, while a quick and intense conflict provides Pakistan the greatest opportunity to blunt the Indian attack literally and, most importantly, psychologically.
The nuclear option will most likely prevent either side from engaging in a full scale conflict. While, it is easy enough for us to think that using such a destructive weapon would be unimaginable; for those who have their fingers on the trigger, it is a genuine war time weapon that has operational guidelines. Nuclear weapons have been used before and until they remain under the control of humanity which is a victim to emotions, they will always be a very real threat...remember, it takes only one man to start a chain reaction. For that reason alone, I'd like to think warmongers from both sides of the border will be drowned out by more rational voices.
hahaha by the way there is no such word as 'Rhetoricim' or 'Rhetoricism'. Thought you would like to know
