Vikramditya & the IAC Vikrant Threat To Pakistan Waters

[Basel]

There were a soviet camp and the US camp in those days. If Pakistan had fallen it would have been a major victory for the Soviet camp. There was no particular consideration for the US or chinese action other than that. The rule was that if US had interfered then the soviets wouldhave interfered as well. The chinese were scared sh!tless of the soviet retaliation if they had intefered, because the soviets had moved their missile batteries towards china. China though being in the US camp and their pet puddle at that moment did not dare to interfere because of this. The US were worried that after the fall of E Pakistan, India would go after W.Pakistan - this would have been a bad result for the cold war. Indira Gandhi though didnt pursue it.

You are right in first part in your post but what Indians on defense forums spread is its Indra Gandhi who don't go after west Pakistan after creation of Bangladesh due to respect of International Community which is wrong its self she had more guts than any other Indian leader till date, it was US's threat to USSR of a war between super powers which made USSR stop Indra Gandhi, because they know it would have destroyed whole world.

 

[acid rain]

You are right in first part in your post but what Indians on defense forums spread is its Indra Gandhi who don't go after west Pakistan after creation of Bangladesh due to respect of International Community which is wrong its self she had more guts than any other Indian leader till date, it was US's threat to USSR of a war between super powers which made USSR stop Indra Gandhi, because they know it would have destroyed whole world.

Destruction of west Pakistan wasnt the motive of anyone to begin - it is not the motive even now, if that had been the motive we have already done something about that. India believe or not is non violent nation. It mostly reacts to agression. Situation on the Eastern front had gone out of hand. Yahya was hell bent to wipe out any opposition to Pakistan from there. PA was tasked to purge the revolution with an iron hand. People were getting killed and fleeing in large numbers. Indira time and again kept requesting the international community to do something about it. Though an invasion and liberation of bangladesh had been planned and mapped out, it was only after PAF started its bombing runs on IAF that the actual invasion happened. In most likelyhood if PA had stopped its brutal actions in E Pakistan and if PAF had not attacked, Indira wouldnt have ordered the IA ahead and would have let the seperation of bangladesh happen by a natural process. Bangladesh would have formed one way or the other. IA action just made it happen faster and in turn also saved a lot of Bangladeshi lives.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You are right in first part in your post but what Indians on defense forums spread is its Indra Gandhi who don't go after west Pakistan after creation of Bangladesh due to respect of International Community which is wrong its self she had more guts than any other Indian leader till date, it was US's threat to USSR of a war between super powers which made USSR stop Indra Gandhi, because they know it would have destroyed whole world.

You are wrong in your ***-umptions there. There was no threat of going to War between the Major Powers, USSR was then at the zenith of its powers. USA was badly bogged down in Viet Nam in 1971 and no hope in hell of unleashing a new War somewhere else.
China did not count for anything, and was just not interested in getting involved in other people's wars; hence did not respond to Yahya Khan's desperate entreaties to do something in the Himalayas. Plus it was Winter in the Himalayas. Nothing was possible.

Indira Gandhi herself had no interest in West Pakistan, because it was not worth it. So there was no question of USSR stopping anything in W.Pakistan. The only thing that was thought of was to re-adjust the LOC in Kashmir, specifically in the Kargil Area towards G-B. But Winter made that Ops not possible. In any case that was achieved later mainly in 1984 in Siachen.
The Main Objective in Bangla Desh had been achieved.

 

[Basel]

Destruction of west Pakistan wasnt the motive of anyone to begin - it is not the motive even now, if that had been the motive we have already done something about that. India believe or not is non violent nation. It mostly reacts to agression. Situation on the Eastern front had gone out of hand. Yahya was hell bent to wipe out any opposition to Pakistan from there. PA was tasked to purge the revolution with an iron hand. People were getting killed and fleeing in large numbers. Indira time and again kept requesting the international community to do something about it. Though an invasion and liberation of bangladesh had been planned and mapped out, it was only after PAF started its bombing runs on IAF that the actual invasion happened. In most likelyhood if PA had stopped its brutal actions in E Pakistan and if PAF had not attacked, Indira wouldnt have ordered the IA ahead and would have let the seperation of bangladesh happen by a natural process. Bangladesh would have formed one way or the other. IA action just made it happen faster and in turn also saved a lot of Bangladeshi lives.
36 minutes ago #489
Report Bookmark
Reply

Well India have done every thing it could to harm Pakistan and its neighbors, India is not a peace loving country but till now it don't have guts to take on Pakistan due to the reason that the damage it will cause to India even if Pakistan is wiped out of the map there will be very less India left for ppl to die in misery, in 1971 India took advantage of our internal situation and Indians have accepted that they created mukti bahni and their soldiers fought as mukti bahni and they were the ones who spread hatred against PA there which were increased due to stupid actions by Pakistani leadership, India is always after land and resources of other countries, it is violating Sind water treaty, it don't want to leave Siachen area where both countries are fighting useless war with weather and list goes on and on.

 

[acid rain]

Well India have done every thing it could to harm Pakistan and its neighbors, India is not a peace loving country but till now it don't have guts to take on Pakistan due to the reason that the damage it will cause to India even if Pakistan is wiped out of the map there will be very less India left for ppl to die in misery, in 1971 India took advantage of our internal situation and Indians have accepted that they created mukti bahni and their soldiers fought as mukti bahni and they were the ones who spread hatred against PA there which were increased due to stupid actions by Pakistani leadership, India is always after land and resources of other countries, it is violating Sind water treaty, it don't want to leave Siachen area where both countries are fighting useless war with weather and list goes on and on.

Here's a misconception that most Pakistanis have - 71, if we desired we could have driven home the advantage. But instead of that we got a treaty of surrender signed and escorted the whole Pakistani army and its civilians out of Bangladesh - if it was harm that we had meant we would have left the 1 lakh or so Pakistanis in Bangladesh to be killedat the hands of the Bengalis. Also immediately after the surrender Indian forces backed out of West Pakistani areas as well. If the ulterior motive was destruction of Pakistan then (I am not boasting) it would have happened already. As capt.popeye said it isnt worth it.

Second misconception is about wiping out each other - wars are faught for a reason - at least we do it for a reason. During wars we normally avoid civilian areas and civilian casualties (other than in the fog of war) and fight only with the military or in the air or sea. So attacking any major civilian city is out of question. This is most likely followed by both the forces.

When the criteria is winning the war and achieving the objectives then where is the question of killing civilians? and if PaK head honchos attacks a civilian city against a military confrontation then that would be suicidal.

@Basel, if land was the criteria then we would have annexed bangladesh immediately after winning. If land was the criteria we wouldnt have gone for a ceasefire in 65 or 48 or agreed to the tashkent or shimla treaty. siachen move was to negate pakistani move who were planning to capture it. We wouldnt have given you 80% water under IWT if we desired.

 

[Basel]

Here's a misconception that most Pakistanis have - 71, if we desired we could have driven home the advantage. But instead of that we got a treaty of surrender signed and escorted the whole Pakistani army and its civilians out of Bangladesh - if it was harm that we had meant we would have left the 1 lakh or so Pakistanis in Bangladesh to be killedat the hands of the Bengalis. Also immediately after the surrender Indian forces backed out of West Pakistani areas as well. If the ulterior motive was destruction of Pakistan then (I am not boasting) it would have happened already. As capt.popeye said it isnt worth it.
Second misconception is about wiping out each other - wars are faught for a reason - at least we do it for a reason. During wars we normally avoid civilian areas and civilian casualties (other than in the fog of war) and fight only with the military or in the air or sea. So attacking any major civilian city is out of question. This is most likely followed by both the forces.
When the criteria is winning the war and achieving the objectives then where is the question of killing civilians? and if PaK head honchos attacks a civilian city against a military confrontation then that would be suicidal.
4 minutes ago #492

There is no misconception in Pakistanis about role of India in creating Bangladesh and next war which I see coming due to water issue created by India and it was predicted by World bank study in late 90s will be MAD which India is trying to avoid by destabilizing Pakistan from within, building Missile defense shield and implementing CSD type doctrine.

@acid rain due to international pressure and UN charter India was not able to absorb Bangladesh.

 

[acid rain]

There is no misconception in Pakistanis about role of India in creating Bangladesh and next war which I see coming due to water issue created by India and it was predicted by World bank study in late 90s will be MAD which India is trying to avoid by destabilizing Pakistan from within, building Missile defense shield and implementing CSD type doctrine.

@acid rain due to international pressure and UN charter India was not able to absorb Bangladesh.

If we could withstand the international pressure to free bangladesh, we could have done it if we wanted to annex it as well. That wasnt the objective at all - we are in the process of granting 10000 acres of our own land to the bangladeshis. We have given them a few enclaves before as well. So where is the greed for the land? dont bring in kashmir here because as it is the our discussion has gone offtopic and it will only get messier.

dont go by world bank or any other western propaganda because their ulterior motive is our nukes and create a fear pychosis.

We have sane leaders on both ends who would not press the nuclear trigger for small conflicts.

IWT is very favourable to pakistan but still India has diligently followed it even during our wars...ever wondered why? compared to china who outrightly refuses to get into any agreements with lower reparian states in water sharing. We prefer taking our disputes to international courts because we do not want Pakistan to feel cheated out of its water. Any decision by international courts are followed by India to the tee. So where is the question of war over water? if Pakistan desires war over it then it should first cancel the IWT and then we can go to war.

Another misconception is that India is scared of a war with Pakistan. That is not the case, and we do not have any objectives to achieve against Pakistan anymore to get into a Pak induced war...thats it.

CSD is a more logistical based doctrine to ensure faster mobilization of troops.

 

[Basel]

If we could withstand the international pressure to free bangladesh, we could have done it if we wanted to annex it as well. That wasnt the objective at all - we are in the process of granting 10000 acres of our own land to the bangladeshis. We have given them a few enclaves before as well. So where is the greed for the land? dont bring in kashmir here because as it is the our discussion has gone offtopic and it will only get messier.
dont go by world bank or any other western propaganda because their ulterior motive is our nukes and create a fear pychosis.
We have sane leaders on both ends who would not press the nuclear trigger for small conflicts.
IWT is very favourable to pakistan but still India has diligently followed it even during our wars...ever wondered why? compared to china who outrightly refuses to get into any agreements with lower reparian states in water sharing. We prefer taking our disputes to international courts because we do not want Pakistan to feel cheated out of its water. Any decision by international courts are followed by India to the tee. So where is the question of war over water? if Pakistan desires war over it then it should first cancel the IWT and then we can go to war.
Another misconception is that India is scared of a war with Pakistan. That is not the case, and we do not have any objectives to achieve against Pakistan anymore to get into a Pak induced war...thats it.
CSD is a more logistical based doctrine to ensure faster mobilization of troops.

Do you know since creation of UN no country can adsorb captured territory without the will of ppl of that land, and I have heard from Bangladeshis that when they realized that Mujeeb will merge them with India they went against him and that was the reason he was killed.

IWT was from start in favor of India and Pakistan had no other choice to accept it, India is harming us from our creation, India put more debt on us then resources were allocated at time of independence, India delayed transfer of assets and man power so Pakistan could suffer, what not India have done since Independence to put Pakistan in trouble and you think we are fools to understand situation.

A person like M.A. Jinnah who never wanted partition of India had to change his thinking after doing whatever he could to convince Congress (Hindus majority) leadership to give rights / autonomy to Muslims in their majority parts within one India, they decline it why?? have you studied how and why Pakistan was created?? what really went wrong which lead to creation of Pakistan?? its the mentality of Majority of united India and its leadership which lead to it, animosity of India only grows after the creation of Pakistan which Indian leadership never accepted from heart.

Sorry for being off topic of thread.

 

[JayAtl]

NOPE, this is 2013; but a phallic symbol does not become a much-hyped "Carrier Killer" because of that.
As I said earlier; take a look at the explanation offered by @Oscar; if the questions that I raised are unable to provoke you to think further. 


Another simple-minded Farmer John appears.
ASBM--------indeed?

One thing missing from this entire equation is when ( timing) will the A/c be deployed. geographically speaking , PN 's assets are very close to India and as such India will destroy much of PN's capability before an A/C is anywhere near that theater.

i.e. at first the attacks from the Indian side will be to destroy radar and missile sites and Naval installation sites, then will have complete control over the sky some miles into the country from shore. A counter attack on an A/c will be impossible, even w/ a carrier killer fantasy.

Pakistan cannot have every asset in every place and what they have to protect their PN, is far too less to avoid being overwhelmed. Their Frigates and ships more than 50% will be destroyed while being at or near their naval ports. All this is because of the proximity and air power the indians posses. the submarines are sitting ducks with P8I and other anti submarine assets.

This is why PAK military doctrine calls for no substantial investments in PN. They know it is a losing proposition and one that will take enormous losses - next to impossible to protect. in fact if you read a real analysis of a full out" conventional" war with paksitan. It has just enough assets to hold off indian side for 8 days before being over run.

 

[acid rain]

Do you know since creation of UN no country can adsorb captured territory without the will of ppl of that land, and I have heard from Bangladeshis that when they realized that Mujeeb will merge them with India they went against him and that was the reason he was killed.

IWT was from start in favor of India and Pakistan had no other choice to accept it, India is harming us from our creation, India put more debt on us then resources were allocated at time of independence, India delayed transfer of assets and man power so Pakistan could suffer, what not India have done since Independence to put Pakistan in trouble and you think we are fools to understand situation.

A person like M.A. Jinnah who never wanted partition of India had to change his thinking after doing whatever he could to convince Congress (Hindus majority) leadership to give rights / autonomy to Muslims in their majority parts within one India, they decline it why?? have you studied how and why Pakistan was created?? what really went wrong which lead to creation of Pakistan?? its the mentality of Majority of united India and its leadership which lead to it, animosity of India only grows after the creation of Pakistan which Indian leadership never accepted from heart.

Sorry for being off topic of thread.

1st misconception: India was not forced to sign the IWT, Pakistan doesnt have the wherewithal to get anything like the IWT signed from India if we do not want to give it in the first place. I cited the example of china, we could have refused outright and nobody could have done anything about it.


2nd miscoception: Mujib wanted to merge with India - pls come up with relevant proof of this claim. India did not have inclination towards annexing bangladesh.

3rd misconception: Indian leaders (othe than Gandhi, Maulana Azad) were against partition. Sardar and Nehru knew that autonomous region concept will not work and cause trouble in the long run - case in point your Northern autonomous regions where you have no writ.

 

[Basel]

@acid rain this discussion will not end we will continue to argue with each other and will derail this thread, for this kind of discussion with sane ppl we may have separate thread.

 

[illusion8]

Didn't attack India in the First Place ever and i think u that know better than me.okay as u say lets not ruin this Thread

Sorry to rain on your picnic :

1. BBC NEWS | India Pakistan | Timeline
India and Pakistan first went to war in October 1947 after Pakistan supported a Muslim insurgency in Kashmir.

2. [url="http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/operation-gibraltar%E2%80%94an-unmitigated-disaster/"]Operation Gibraltar—An Unmitigated Disaster? | Criterion[/URL]
(Operation Gibraltar was the code name given to the clandestine raids carried out in Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK) in July/August 1965, which became the immediate cause of the Pakistan-India War in September.

3. Operation Grand Slam: The Story of Pakistan's Failure to Capture Kashmir in 1965.
'Operation Grand slam’ is synonymous with the Pakistan plan to invade Kashmir in 1965. At that time the Pakistan army with its newly inducted Patton tanks was confident of victory. The plan was hatched at GHQ in Rawalpindi and the Pak top brass had honed the plan to minute detail.

4. Operation Chengiz Khan - Military:
Operation Chengiz Khan was the code name assigned to the pre-emptive strikes carried out by the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) on the forward airbases and radarinstallations of the Indian Air Force (IAF) on the evening of 3 December 1971, and marked the formal initiation of hostilities of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

5. 1999 Kargil Conflict
The 1999 Kargil War took place between May 8, when Pakistani forces and Kashmiri militants were detected atop the Kargil ridges and July 14 when both sides had essentially ceased their military operations. It is believed that the planning for the operation, by Pakistan, may have occurred about as early as the autumn of 1998.

Doesn't look like we initiated any wars.

 

[Khaqan Humayun]

ARREY MIYAN; TUM KEHNA KYA CHAHTEY HO ?

This is an answer to a loyal Indian from a Loyal Muslim of Pakistan. He said Hindustan is not only a Hindu country so some lines are the answer of that and He was talking about Navy some line are answer About Navy what you read is Mixture of my 2answers.

 

[Xracer]

Sorry to rain on your picnic :

1. BBC NEWS | India Pakistan | Timeline
India and Pakistan first went to war in October 1947 after Pakistan supported a Muslim insurgency in Kashmir.

2. Operation Gibraltar—An Unmitigated Disaster? | Criterion
(Operation Gibraltar was the code name given to the clandestine raids carried out in Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK) in July/August 1965, which became the immediate cause of the Pakistan-India War in September.

3. Operation Grand Slam: The Story of Pakistan's Failure to Capture Kashmir in 1965.
'Operation Grand slam’ is synonymous with the Pakistan plan to invade Kashmir in 1965. At that time the Pakistan army with its newly inducted Patton tanks was confident of victory. The plan was hatched at GHQ in Rawalpindi and the Pak top brass had honed the plan to minute detail.

4. Operation Chengiz Khan - Military:
Operation Chengiz Khan was the code name assigned to the pre-emptive strikes carried out by the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) on the forward airbases and radarinstallations of the Indian Air Force (IAF) on the evening of 3 December 1971, and marked the formal initiation of hostilities of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

5. 1999 Kargil Conflict
The 1999 Kargil War took place between May 8, when Pakistani forces and Kashmiri militants were detected atop the Kargil ridges and July 14 when both sides had essentially ceased their military operations. It is believed that the planning for the operation, by Pakistan, may have occurred about as early as the autumn of 1998.

Doesn't look like we initiated any wars.

nahhhhhhh i dont need these links i know cause i am a Pakistani you started first with Kashmir. i dont trust these Links and those shitttty crrrrappy aaasssss anti pakistani authors and there baseless Articles we all know Your Media and Western Propaganda.
and as far as kashmir issue remain i dont think we can sit in peace

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

This threat I mean thread should be delete it appears to be in wrong section perhaps it should be moved to Indian side of forum