The next Indo-Pak war: Opportunity for opportunists

[H!TchHiker]

Cold start or what ever the name is does not threaten the existence of Pakistan, where as nuclear weapons does.
The maximum that cold start can do is to cause damage to the Pakistan military nothing more.

You can't decide the extent of damage you can inflict to other nation..Its not your free will..You can start a war but to decide how it will finish other side will decide.Damage to our military is simply a threat to our existence..Threat to existence will be decided by Pakistan not by INVADING force..

Cold start doctrine is not aganist Pak people or your army. It is aganist terrorists.

Whatever crossing the border of a sovereign nation is an act of war ..You can't simply cross the border and say we are here for terrorist..War is war then

 

[Jugger]

Every time you find yourself writing "Pakistan will", or "Pakistan won't", get away from the computer and reflect on your Pakistani obsession.

Yes I am obsessed with many topics mainly defence, space, religion/atheism, culture so you are right Pakistan military does fall into my obsession list.
On topic: I still stand by my quote that Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons in a limited skirmish with India, it has not done it in the past and it will not do it in the future.

 

[ito]

You can't decide the extent of damage you can inflict to other nation..Its not your free will..You can start a war but to decide how it will finish other side will decide.Damage to our military is simply a threat to our existence


Whatever crossing the border of a sovereign nation is an act of war ..You can't simply cross the border and say we are here for terrorist..War is war then

That is a good point, I too am aganist violating sovereignty of a country, but when the country doesn't have the will or capacity to take on the terror menace, the world community should take on that responsibility.

 

[CriticalThought]

Yes I am obsessed with many topics mainly defence, space, religion/atheism, culture so you are right Pakistan military does fall into my obsession list.
On topic: I still stand by my quote that Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons in a limited skirmish with India, it has not done it in the past and it will not do it in the future.

What matters is how the Indian military onboards this in their war planning, or fails to do so completely. We are happy in both cases.

 

[saaju]

Cold start doctrine is not aganist Pak people or your army. It is aganist terrorists.

OK ..then start this doctrine by eliminating Mr Modi and Ajit dovel because they are biggest and most powerfull terrorist in south Asia ..

 

[H!TchHiker]

That is a good point, I too am aganist violating sovereignty of a country, but when the country doesn't have the will or capacity to take on the terror menace, the world community should take on that responsibility.

No case justify to cross the border.. You need to understand the psyche..I will prefer all PA leave the other front and fight against India should they decide to cross the border on any presumption..No one in world sacrifice more then us so the world community is in no position to teach us ethics ..These same terrorist we are fighting will love to blow there self in India 1000 times more then they do in Pakistan.. We are fighting them so your assumption is not valid.
Pakistan position is simple and straight if not we then neither you..INDIA is our real/eternal enemy that will always try to break us

 

[CriticalThought]

That is a good point, I too am aganist violating sovereignty of a country, but when the country doesn't have the will or capacity to take on the terror menace, the world community should take on that responsibility.

We would love to invade Kashmir and help you contain the terrorists you haven't been able to quash in 70 years.

 

[Jugger]

What matters is how the Indian military onboards this in their war planning, or fails to do so completely. We are happy in both cases.

Indian military is very clear about it's response,
If there are terrorist elements trying to cause damage from the other side of the border then the Indian military will take punitive actions to neutralize the threat. It can be termed as surgical strikers ( fake or real or whatever you wish to believe)

 

[ito]

No case justify to cross the border.. You need to understand the psyche..I will prefer all PA leave the other front and fight against India should they decide to cross the border on any presumption..No one in world sacrifice more then us so the world community is in no position to teach us ethics ..These same terrorist we are fighting will love to blow there self in India 1000 times more then they do in Pakistan.. We are fighting them so your assumption is not valid.
Pakistan position is simple and straight if not we then neither you..

If US would have followed sovereignty principle, Osama, Mullah Omar and Mullah would have been alive making the world a more dangerous place to live. Al Qaeda still would have been there, and ISIS would have been flourishing

 

[Soumitra]

The actual doctrine will be formulated by the establishment, based on many insights available to them. Here, we propose a single update to the existing Pakistani doctrine: the use of nuclear weapons MUST be immediate and full-force at the very onset of hostilities. Given the multiple threats faced by Pakistan, the luxury to wait till conventional armaments run low is simply not available to us. Only through such rigid, apocalyptic posture can we guarantee peace and stability in South Asia. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

India will not start a Nuclear War. India's policy is No First use and massive second strike

First make up your minds. Will you use tactical nukes first or use all of your nukes at once. Either way it will result in massive second strike. Using all nukes at once (technically not possible) will be a foolish exercise as it will give you nothing for the second strike

Lets say that Lahore is in danger of being overrun will you try to save Lahore first or say to hell with Lahore we will nuke Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad

Now to those who say we have less nukes than Pakistan the answer is simple. We have less nukes as we require less nukes to target a country with lesser area and population

Just see this Population density map

No need to target yellow areas. Just see the red areas and you can see how a large number of people are concentrated in a relatively smaller area. You can see how many nukes are required to target the red areas

Now the similar map of India

We have a larger population and spread over a larger area. To target this you will need larger number of nukes

Now lets talk numbers

Last pakistan census in 1998 (shows how efficient your govt is that you cant conduct a census for almost 20 years) has just 8 cities with population over a million and if we consider cities with over 500,000 it is 10 cities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_Pakistan

To target these 10 cities nukes needed

Karachi 3-4 Nukes
Lahore 2-3 Nukes
Faisalabad 2-3 Nukes
Rawalpindi 1-2 Nukes
Multan 1-2 Nukes
Hyderabad 1-2 Nukes
Gurjanawala 1 Nuke
Peshawar 1 Nuke
Quetta (No need to target. We need friendly govt in Baluchistan )
Islamabad 1 Nuke

Total 13- 16 nukes lets round it up to 20 nukes

Now compare the same with India

there are 46 cities with a million + population and approx 100 cities if you take population of over 500,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_India_by_population

It should be obvious to you that you do not have numbers to cover all these cities

Lets talk numbers. Lets say you target only Big Important Cities

Mumbai 6-7 Nukes
Delhi 12-14 Nukes Delhi area is double that of Mumbai
Bangalore 7-8 Nukes
Hyderabad 6-7 Nukes
Ahemdabad 4-5 Nukes
Chennai 4-5 Nukes
Kolkata 4-5 Nukes
Surat 2-3 Nukes
Pune 2-3 Nukes
Jaipur 1-2 Nukes
Lucknow 1-2 Nukes

49-61 Nukes lets round it to 65 nukes

You will be using almost 60% of your arsenal in just trying to target 10-11 Indian cities

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/india-to...der-with-pakistan.473558/page-5#ixzz4WNa8wnph

 

[ito]

We would love to invade Kashmir and help you contain the terrorists you haven't been able to quash in 70 years.

Good luck...

 

[H!TchHiker]

If US would have followed sovereignty principle, Osama, Mullah Omar and Mullah would have been alive making the world a more dangerous place to live. Al Qaeda still would have been there, and ISIS would have been flourishing

INDIA is not US neither in capability nor in technology ..We are not IRAQ and Syria also..Response and tolerance level for INDIA will always be different from Pakistan then to any other country

 

[Sugarcane]

Cold start or what ever the name is does not threaten the existence of Pakistan, where as nuclear weapons does.
The maximum that cold start can do is to cause damage to the Pakistan military nothing more.

Nasar is also a gangajal for Hindustani military in Pakistani territory to purify them for Pakistan's soil, it will not do anything to common Hindustani.

 

[خره مينه لګته وي]

Everyone fears Pak nukes.

Pakistan never threatened anyone except India.. Threatening Indian of nuclear weapons in case of a war is not a bad idea considering indian leaders who issue threats 24/7 on media of breaking Pakistan in several parts so it's natural that some leaders on this side of the border will repeat the same manthra of nuclear weapons... Everyone knows that Pakistan will use its weapons if in case Indian cold start or hot start goes out of hand...
• Pakistan never threatened India it's Indian leaders who don't have anything better to do except debating on media how to break Pakistan or how to defeat it or how to conquer the land...When indians stop Threatening Pakistan then you will see no response from here..

 

[CriticalThought]

Indian military is very clear about it's response,
If there are terrorist elements trying to cause damage from the other side of the border then the Indian military will take punitive actions to neutralize the threat. It can be termed as surgical strikers ( fake or real or whatever you wish to believe)

No one can stop you from seeking the thrill of misadventure.

If US would have followed sovereignty principle, Osama, Mullah Omar and Mullah would have been alive making the world a more dangerous place to live. Al Qaeda still would have been there, and ISIS would have been flourishing

In many of the cases you listed, Pakistani government played the role of enabler.

For other cases, you need to realize you are not America, you are India sitting right next door from our reach.

India will not start a Nuclear War. India's policy is No First use and massive second strike

First make up your minds. Will you use tactical nukes first or use all of your nukes at once. Either way it will result in massive second strike. Using all nukes at once (technically not possible) will be a foolish exercise as it will give you nothing for the second strike

Lets say that Lahore is in danger of being overrun will you try to save Lahore first or say to hell with Lahore we will nuke Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad

Now to those who say we have less nukes than Pakistan the answer is simple. We have less nukes as we require less nukes to target a country with lesser area and population

Just see this Population density map

No need to target yellow areas. Just see the red areas and you can see how a large number of people are concentrated in a relatively smaller area. You can see how many nukes are required to target the red areas

Now the similar map of India

We have a larger population and spread over a larger area. To target this you will need larger number of nukes

Now lets talk numbers

Last pakistan census in 1998 (shows how efficient your govt is that you cant conduct a census for almost 20 years) has just 8 cities with population over a million and if we consider cities with over 500,000 it is 10 cities,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_Pakistan

To target these 10 cities nukes needed

Karachi 3-4 Nukes
Lahore 2-3 Nukes
Faisalabad 2-3 Nukes
Rawalpindi 1-2 Nukes
Multan 1-2 Nukes
Hyderabad 1-2 Nukes
Gurjanawala 1 Nuke
Peshawar 1 Nuke
Quetta (No need to target. We need friendly govt in Baluchistan )
Islamabad 1 Nuke

Total 13- 16 nukes lets round it up to 20 nukes

Now compare the same with India

there are 46 cities with a million + population and approx 100 cities if you take population of over 500,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_India_by_population

It should be obvious to you that you do not have numbers to cover all these cities

Lets talk numbers. Lets say you target only Big Important Cities

Mumbai 6-7 Nukes
Delhi 12-14 Nukes Delhi area is double that of Mumbai
Bangalore 7-8 Nukes
Hyderabad 6-7 Nukes
Ahemdabad 4-5 Nukes
Chennai 4-5 Nukes
Kolkata 4-5 Nukes
Surat 2-3 Nukes
Pune 2-3 Nukes
Jaipur 1-2 Nukes
Lucknow 1-2 Nukes

49-61 Nukes lets round it to 65 nukes

You will be using almost 60% of your arsenal in just trying to target 10-11 Indian cities

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/india-to...der-with-pakistan.473558/page-5#ixzz4WNa8wnph

The words, 'immediate, and full-force' leave a lot of room for actually implementing the doctrine. It is up to you to perform your calculus that informs your decisions. Just make sure you understand the cost of mis-calculation.