What's new

What happened between Zia and Rajiv Gandhi

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Bregs];4692120 said:
Bro what i wish to say is more powerful conventional weapon act as strong deterrent for a war, that's why my emphasis always is on militarily strong and stable Pakistan although many of my Indian friends do not agree with this. Nuclear weapons are up to a point act as deterrent because they are to be used as last resort

Oh yeah absolutely, you are correct. Emphasizing more on the nuclear deterrent would be stupid. Due to these very same reasons, we've been seeing this tango between Pakistan and India, where India devises a method to fight a war while staying under the so called nuclear threshold and in turn Pakistan further lowers the threshold; Cold Start from India and then tactical nukes from Pakistan. This reduces the leeway for both the forces resulting in a very nervous situation in case of even minor hostilities. Of course a far better option would be mutually deterrent conventional forces. But I think the chances of war might increase a little, due to the higher nuke threshold, lesser pressure and more room to maneuver for both the forces, but the chances of mutually assured destruction would surely be lowered many folds. In my view, a balance needs to be found between the two.
 
.
Pakistani's are biggest gappe-baaz lol, when time comes 'tusi mok maar jaane o'. Pakistan had perfect opportunity in 1983 to re-partition India and separate fertile land of Punjab from Enemy.
 
.
You soaring moron. I was talking about Pentagon's own reports and statements from the former heads of states and ministers of both America and India. There are tonnes of books out there, pick one. Go read them instead of wasting my time. You are too obtuse to even realize you just claimed that Pakistan didn't have nukes even a year after it had exploded 6 devices in 1998. Half knowledge?.....pffftt you have none.



Who has ever claimed that we are a conventional 'match', on paper that is? Btw try running the same chain of logic on the dozens of Indian initiated stand offs, threats, then whimpers and scurries. So, maybe Zia wanted the Indians to know there place and not get ahead of themselves? Maybe he knew that war in any case was not good for his country? Maybe he just wanted a chuckle at an Indian PM's expense? I don't know, he never told anyone.



If there were then the most probable delivery system would have been old school; through aircraft as dumb bombs. The bombs might not even have been completely weaponized, might just have been dirty nukes. The Americans at that time were thinking that we had modified their F-16s for the purpose. Then it was reported that the Mirages had been assigned that role. The F-16 bit has never been confirmed, don't know about the Mirages.



Well the Cold War pretty much worked that way. Had there been no nukes the US and the USSR would have been at each other's throats, which they were itching for. The Cuban missile crysis makes for a good case study. And the only arena after that when two active adversaries have had nukes is the time since 98 between Pakistan and India. Seems to have been working, seeing the many very determined mobilizations only resulting in stand offs, etc.

North's missiles tied to Musharraf blunder | The Japan Times


In his autobiography, published in 2006, Musharraf called it a “myth” that the two sides had come to the brink of nuclear war during the conflict and dismissed as “preposterous” speculation that Pakistan was preparing for a possible nuclear strike on India then.

[red]“I can also say with authority that in 1999 our nuclear capability was not yet operational. Merely exploding a bomb does not mean that you are operationally capable of deploying nuclear force in the field and delivering a bomb across the border over a selected target,” he wrote.[/red]


so how can u have it in rajiv gandhi time?

I told you dont mess with me... you will end up insulting yourself and you ego and your histroy n and their writer generalz.
 
. .
Its an unwise man who passes off his failings as his learnings :D
Well thank you for the words of wisdom, unfortunately I have lost my appetite to troll any further since we last talked. :)

Lets just get back to the topic.
 
.
Well thank you for the words of wisdom, unfortunately I have lost my appetite to troll any further since we last talked. :)

Lets just get back to the topic.

:) Did someone post a link to the above conversation yet ?
 
.
North's missiles tied to Musharraf blunder | The Japan Times


In his autobiography, published in 2006, Musharraf called it a “myth” that the two sides had come to the brink of nuclear war during the conflict and dismissed as “preposterous” speculation that Pakistan was preparing for a possible nuclear strike on India then.

[red]“I can also say with authority that in 1999 our nuclear capability was not yet operational. Merely exploding a bomb does not mean that you are operationally capable of deploying nuclear force in the field and delivering a bomb across the border over a selected target,” he wrote.[/red]


so how can u have it in rajiv gandhi time?

I told you dont mess with me... you will end up insulting yourself and you ego and your histroy n and their writer generalz.


It is Musharaf you are taking about, I wont disregard his comments completely, but one also have to keep in mind his uninterrupted hate for Ganja.
 
. . . .
North's missiles tied to Musharraf blunder | The Japan Times


In his autobiography, published in 2006, Musharraf called it a “myth” that the two sides had come to the brink of nuclear war during the conflict and dismissed as “preposterous” speculation that Pakistan was preparing for a possible nuclear strike on India then.

[red]“I can also say with authority that in 1999 our nuclear capability was not yet operational. Merely exploding a bomb does not mean that you are operationally capable of deploying nuclear force in the field and delivering a bomb across the border over a selected target,” he wrote.[/red]


so how can u have it in rajiv gandhi time?

I told you dont mess with me... you will end up insulting yourself and you ego and your histroy n and their writer generalz.

....... You're still too thick to read and understand anything that I have written, aren't you? Did I say that we had a bomb flying towards Dehli in the 80s? I said that the Indians and Americans both were confused, if not sure, that we had nukes as far back as the mid 80s. What did that enable Pakistan to do? We played bluffs over and over again, such as the claimed statement by Zia. And you never mustered up to call them. Obviously who would? The Kargil conflict too is a very good example of that. This is how geopolitical games are played child. Ronald Reagan (I believe) once said that to make him (the Soviet premier) respect me I first need to make him believe that I am mad.

Furthermore, Musharraf was pointing towards the nuclear missile deployment systems in that quoted para. He went on to explain how Ghauri was still not operational contrary to popular fears. The less effective deployment through aircraft is a different issue. I'll leave the part that Musharraf is a politician, after all. You might want to read the rest of his book on other issues regarding India. Then you'll believe him to be the lying son of Satan. Regardless, like I said, at that time even the Americans went as far as believing that we had modified their birds for carrying our nukes.
 
.
Zia islamization is now a bigger problem to Pakistan than India......He has done more harm to Pakistan than to India...



It was a joint operation of RAW and CIA..



Who cares ? As an Indian I must care bout India... Zia Islamization have made Indian Muslim crazy as well..
 
. .
[Bregs];4692120 said:
Bro what i wish to say is more powerful conventional weapon act as strong deterrent for a war, that's why my emphasis always is on militarily strong and stable Pakistan although many of my Indian friends do not agree with this. Nuclear weapons are up to a point act as deterrent because they are to be used as last resort

India as superiority viz a viz conventional war still it has NOT dared to attack Pakistan though Hindu extremists and Indian war mongering Media wants an attack on Pakistan.

US has far greater weapons as well as technology to even fight a war away from its soil/water and still badly buried in Afghanistan and Iraq (though some of their goals) might had been achieved in terms of running these regions. However, conventional or unconventional war is NOT the option.

And after decades of Zia'a cricket visit , India too had learned and understood that. Otherwise operation Brasstacks was aimed at initiating another war against Pakistan though according to your own Indian Army officials, the then Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi was unaware of such plans of Indian Army so we can now understand perspiration on his forehead which is mentioned in the opening post.
 
.
i will not comment on whether we had nukes back then or not or if this conversation actually happened, but what i can confirm is that it was during this visit that we ourselves 'informed' india, who was all set to attack us (Ref: Brasstacks) that we have 'lost' our armoured division somewhere in Pakistan and if the indians can help us find it?! i.e. india was ready to attck us in the garb of Exercise Brasstacks by assuming that we would be fooled by the cover exercise, but instead we moved our entire aroumred division and hid it 'somewhere', from where we were enjoying superior strategic orientation over india, and hence the indian offensive was out of steam even before it unfolded.

It was after we hinted on our indian friends the missing offensive division that they started looking for it like sinffers, but once they found out its location, it was already in such a state/location from where it could fall heavy on the indians, and hence the 'ulta phir' and 'doray chal' by the indians.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom