What's new

What If India Attacks Pakistan?

“Our travel advice to [HASHTAG]#Modi[/HASHTAG] is to send his soldiers to invade [HASHTAG]#Pakistan[/HASHTAG] with their bodybags, they’ll need them" Old chasm between India and Pakistan again echoes with warnings and fears - The Washington Post

An Indian military operation along its eastern border with Burma has Pakistani leaders rattled, resulting in threats of swift retaliation should India ever try similar maneuvers along its western border with Pakistan.

The Pakistani statements — which include provocative reminders that India is not the only subcontinent power with nuclear arms — are once again exposing the deep-rooted suspicions and lingering potential for conflict between the long-standing rivals despite groundbreaking outreach to ease tensions.

It has been worse. The two countries have fought three major wars since 1947, engaged in a nuclear arms race in the 1980s and clashed in the 1990s.
----------
Both the Indian army and Burma’s government have denied that Indian troops crossed the border. In a newspaper interview, however, India’s information minister, Rajyavardhan Rathore, said Indian forces had pushed deep into Burma. He called the operation a “message” to countries such as Pakistan that it will not hesitate to pursue threats outside of its borders.

“We will strike when we want to,” Rathore, a retired army officer, told the Indian Express newspaper.

The reaction from Pakistani leaders has been swift and severe — touching off a wildfire of social media comments on both sides of the border.

In a statement issued late Wednesday, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan warned Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to think twice before threatening Pakistan. “Those who are contemplating any kind of adventure in Pakistan must know that they will get a bloody face in the process,” Khan said. “Those who have evil designs against us – listen carefully, Pakistan is not” Burma.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Asif, even brought up the possibility of nuclear war should India ever launch a similar incursion into Pakistan. He urged the international community to intervene, telling Geo News the latest tension could prove a “harbinger of disaster” for South Asia.

[Floods link the countries in disaster]

Pakistan’s army chief, Raheel Sharif, chaired a meeting of his top commanders on Wednesday to discuss Pakistan’s worsening relationship with India. Over the past month, Pakistani leaders have repeatedly accused India’s intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), of sponsoring several recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

--------

Meanwhile, social media on both sides reflected support of their leaders and militaries. Indians showed support for Modi through the Twitter hashtag of [HASHTAG]#56inchrocks[/HASHTAG], a reference to a past claim by Modi about his chest size. (Modi’s longtime tailor later said Modi has a 44-inch chest.)

In Pakistan, the most popular Twitter hashtag is [HASHTAG]#atankWadiIndia[/HASHTAG], which is a slur that refers to India as being a terrorist.

“Our travel advice to Modi is to send his soldiers to invade Pakistan with their bodybags, they’ll need them, and we don’t have any,” the group @defencepk, which tracks the Pakistani military, tweeted to its 69,000 followers.

Old chasm between India and Pakistan again echoes with warnings and fears - The Washington Post
 
NY Times Editorial: #India has more to lose in war with #Pakistan. #Modi #Kashmir http://nyti.ms/1E4j2wE

More than 50 years after India and Pakistan were created in the partition of the British colonial empire, the disputed region of Kashmir remains a dangerous flash point. Cross-border violence has surged in recent months, raising new fears that the attacks could spiral out of control and set off another war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

In the last week alone, India and Pakistan have traded heavy gunfire and mortars almost daily across the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir into regions controlled by each side. Many civilians have been killed or wounded in the violence, including eight killed and 14 wounded on Sunday, according to officials.

Each side blames the other. Experts say Pakistan has been testing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, in a break with his predecessor, has vowed not to ignore attacks by Pakistan-backed militants on Indian targets. On July 27, gunmen dressed in military fatigues attacked an Indian police station near the border with Pakistan and at least nine people were killed.

The incident came after Mr. Modi met Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, during a regional meeting in Russia. Pakistan’s army, which draws its power from a constant state of tension with India, has often interfered when political leaders have tried to improve relations between the two countries.

Mr. Modi’s wish to strike back is understandable after many years of Indian restraint. But India, which is considerably stronger and more successful than Pakistan, has the most to lose if another war erupts. Mr. Modi recently became the first Indian prime minister in 34 years to visit the United Arab Emirates, which had been one of Pakistan’s biggest supporters but now sees the value in closer ties with India. In a joint statement, India and the emirates condemned the use of religion to justify terrorism and agreed to cooperate in counterterrorism operations.

In a sign of heightened concern over Kashmir, the United States and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, have urged India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and solve their differences through dialogue. They will have a chance to heed that advice when top Indian and Pakistani national security advisers meet later this month.
 
NY Times Editorial: #India has more to lose in war with #Pakistan. #Modi #Kashmir http://nyti.ms/1E4j2wE

More than 50 years after India and Pakistan were created in the partition of the British colonial empire, the disputed region of Kashmir remains a dangerous flash point. Cross-border violence has surged in recent months, raising new fears that the attacks could spiral out of control and set off another war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

In the last week alone, India and Pakistan have traded heavy gunfire and mortars almost daily across the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir into regions controlled by each side. Many civilians have been killed or wounded in the violence, including eight killed and 14 wounded on Sunday, according to officials.

Each side blames the other. Experts say Pakistan has been testing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, in a break with his predecessor, has vowed not to ignore attacks by Pakistan-backed militants on Indian targets. On July 27, gunmen dressed in military fatigues attacked an Indian police station near the border with Pakistan and at least nine people were killed.

The incident came after Mr. Modi met Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, during a regional meeting in Russia. Pakistan’s army, which draws its power from a constant state of tension with India, has often interfered when political leaders have tried to improve relations between the two countries.

Mr. Modi’s wish to strike back is understandable after many years of Indian restraint. But India, which is considerably stronger and more successful than Pakistan, has the most to lose if another war erupts. Mr. Modi recently became the first Indian prime minister in 34 years to visit the United Arab Emirates, which had been one of Pakistan’s biggest supporters but now sees the value in closer ties with India. In a joint statement, India and the emirates condemned the use of religion to justify terrorism and agreed to cooperate in counterterrorism operations.

In a sign of heightened concern over Kashmir, the United States and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, have urged India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and solve their differences through dialogue. They will have a chance to heed that advice when top Indian and Pakistani national security advisers meet later this month.


Of course that is quite obvious...In a war, a nation which has good economy loose more because, in the war zone, economy does not develop...Unlike Pakistan which is comparatively lesser thing to loose as you are always in war with some front or the other...And your people view winning with India is more important for you than developing economy...while for us, economy matters more than useless issue of who will win a war between India and Pakistan...
 
Of course that is quite obvious...In a war, a nation which has good economy loose more because, in the war zone, economy does not develop...Unlike Pakistan which is comparatively lesser thing to loose as you are always in war with some front or the other...And your people view winning with India is more important for you than developing economy...while for us, economy matters more than useless issue of who will win a war between India and Pakistan...

A Pakistani mindset will remain a Pakistani mindset no matter what age.
 
Quoted for truth. Indians will bury their heads under sand and wont accept it but these are some real facts:

"
Similarly, a US GAO investigation found that India's IT exports to the United States are exaggerated by as much as 20 times. The biggest source of discrepancy that GAO found had to do with India including temporary workers' salaries in the United States. India continuously and cumulatively adds all the earnings of its migrants to US in its software exports. If 50,000 Indians migrate on H1B visas each year, and they each earn $50,000 a year, that's a $2.5 billion addition to their exports each year. Cumulatively over 10 years, this would be $25 billion in exports year after year and growing.

Since the end of the Cold War, the West has been hyping India's economic growth to persuade the developing world that democracy and capitalism offer a superior alternative to rapid development through state guided capitalism under an authoritarian regime---a system that has worked well in Asia for countries like the Asian Tigers and China. This has further fooled Hindu Nationalists into accepting such hype as real. It ignores the basic fact that India is home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterates. It also discounts the reality that Indian kids rank near the bottom on international assessment tests like PISA and TIMSS due to the poor quality of education they receive. The hype has emboldened many Indians, including the BJP leadership, to push neighbors around."

Taken from ur 1st post @RiazHaq
 
Last edited:
There will not be any nation called Pakistan in world map if India really attacks Pakistan to destroy or capture it.The outcome may be brutal but decisive.3 lakh Pakistan army men will surrender and 5 new nations will be created.Punjabistan, Balochistan, Pastunistan, Sindhudesh and Baltistan.Reamining portion will be assimilated in to Iran,Afghanistan and occupied Kashmir will again reunite with India.
 
There will not be any nation called Pakistan in world map if India really attacks Pakistan to destroy or capture it.The outcome may be brutal but decisive.3 lakh Pakistan army men will surrender and 5 new nations will be created.Punjabistan, Balochistan, Pastunistan, Sindhudesh and Baltistan.Reamining portion will be assimilated in to Iran,Afghanistan and occupied Kashmir will again reunite with India.
And what about that big crater in their eastern neighbour !!!!
 
#India’s #Tejas, the single worst fighter jet project ever in the history of aviation. No match for #Pakistan #JF17

A 'Crash Landing': The Slow and Painful Death of India's Air Force | The National Interest Blog


The Obama Administration is gearing up to sell eight new Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon jets to Pakistan, the New York Times reports. Those jets will add to Pakistan’s fleet of seventy-six existing “Vipers” as the type is colloquially known. Meanwhile, its arch-nemesis India’s air force shrinks by the day as planes age out and squadron are disbanded.

Assuming Pakistan completes the sale, the eight F-16s would help boost that country’s fleet of eighteen existing advanced Block 52+ Vipers. The rest of the Pakistani F-16 fleet consists of modified A-model jets that have been upgraded to Block 15 MLU standard, which bring those aircraft nearly up to the same capability as the newest Block 52+ jets.

-------
India is currently negotiating to buy thirty-six Rafales directly from the French government; a deal is allegedly imminent by the end of the year. But given India’s track record—that’s dubious at best. But the Indian air force still needs at least 120 medium combat aircraft with similar capability to the Rafale. Indeed, the Indians still hope to buy more Rafales, but they might have to extend production of the indigenous Tejas to keep their fleet numbers up.

But the problem with India’s HAL Tejas is that it is one of the single worst fighter projects that has ever been conceived of in the history of aviation. Even as it enters service, the aircraft is obsolete and is probably inferior in many respects to the JF-17. The jet has 57 known deficiencies and will probably get a lot of Indian pilots killed if any type of conflict were ever to break out.

------

Meanwhile, the one bright spot for the Indian air force is the Sukhoi Su-30MKI. While the Indians have had some issues with the Russians in supporting the Flanker-H, the 220 Su-30s that are currently in service are that country’s first line of defense. India will ultimately buy 272 Flanker-H fighters, but it should give serious consideration to extending that buy until its air force recovers some of its numerical strength. Basically, India should consider scrapping the Tejas and buying 120 or more additional Flankers.

In the future, the Indians are likely to buy a derivative of Russia’s T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter. But the Indian-Russian co-development effort is a rocky one—and it is unclear how many jets will ultimately be delivered to the Indian air force and when. India is also developing it’s own fifth-generation fighter—but given it’s previous efforts on the Tejas, it’s not likely to fly any time soon.

Declassified US documents reveal #India planned attack on #Pakistan nuclear facilities at #Kahuta in 1985. #nukes In fact: Did India plan a covert military attack on a Pakistani nuclear reactor? | The Indian Express

Last week, the US State department declassified its top-secret documents from 1984-85 which focus on the Pakistani nuclear programme. The CIA analysis, and the talking points for the US Ambassador to Islamabad while handing over President Ronald Reagan’s letter to General Zia-ul Haq, show that the US warned Pakistan about an Indian military attack on the Pakistani nuclear reactor at Kahuta. But the Americans were not alone in anticipating an Indian attack. Prof Rajesh Rajagopalan of JNU recently pointed to The End of the Cold War and the Third World: New Perspectives on Regional Conflict, a book by Sergey Radchenko and Artemy M. Kalinovsky based on the declassified documents of the Eastern Block. Radchenko says that documents in the Hungarian archives show that the Soviets had shared with the Hungarians India’s plans to attack Kahuta. It is not clear though, Rajagopalan says, if the Soviets actually had access to any Indian plans or were only reporting widespread rumours. The rumours were indeed widespread, and The Washington Post had run a front-page story on December 20, 1982 headlined, ‘India said to eye raid on Pakistan’s A-plants’. It said military advisers had proposed an attack to prime minister Indira Gandhi in March 1982 but she had rejected it. In his book, India’s Nuclear Policy —1964-98: A Personal Recollection, K Subrahmanyam recollected that the Indian proposal to Pakistan for non-attack on each other’s nuclear facilities, which he suggested to Rajiv Gandhi, was an outcome of such rumours in the Western media. Although the ‘Agreement on the Non-Attack of Nuclear Facilities between Indian and Pakistan’ was first verbally agreed upon in 1985, it was formally signed in 1988 and ratified in 1991. Since 1992, India and Pakistan have been exchanging the list of their nuclear facilities on January 1 every year. -

But how close was India to attacking Kahuta in the 1980s? The first time India is believed to have considered such an attack is in 1981. The idea obviously originated from the daring Israeli attack of June 7, 1981, that destroyed the under-construction Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Eight F-16s of the Israeli Air Force flew more than 600 miles in the skies of three enemy nations to destroy the target and returned unscathed. In 1996, WPS Sidhu, senior fellow for foreign policy at Brookings India, was the first to state that after the induction of Jaguars, Indian Air Force (IAF) had conducted a brief study in June 1981 on the feasibility of attacking Kahuta. The study concluded that India could “attack and neutralise” Kahuta but feared that such an attack would result in a full-blown war between India and Pakistan. This was besides the concerns that an Indian attack will beget an immediate retaliatory — some say, even pre-emptive
 
#PAF Chief: "Pakistan to get 5th generation fighter jets within 5 yrs" Stealth, Avionics, Air Frame, Integration ‘Pakistan to get fifth generation fighter jets’ - thenews.com.pk

Pakistan will acquire the fifth generation multi-role fighter aircraft from the international market but, for the time being, it will devote its full attention on its state-of-the-art JF-17 Thunder to make it the most effective of its generation.

It has been revealed by Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman while talking exclusively with The News here on Wednesday evening. He said that Pakistan wouldn’t lag behind the countries of the region in obtaining the fifth generation planes and it has opened negotiations with the US manufacturers for exploring options of buying single engine multirole F-35 viewed as the plane of the next decade.

At least three other options are under consideration. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) could be equipped with aircraft of fifth generation within five years. Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman said that Indians were buying 126 French Rafale calling them as fifth generation planes but after discussion of years and hitches, they had decided to buy 36 planes at the end of the day and still the deal was in troubled waters.

“I am not prepared to acknowledge Rafale as a plane of the fifth generation since its features are confined to the fourth generation’s planes,” the CAS maintained.

He said that Indian Air Force (IAF), despite having a numerical edge, doesn’t have superiority over Pakistan since Pakistan has planned its air strength in a way where no aggression could work against it. The PAF’s devotion and skill is second to none and for the reason it is graded one of the best air powers of the world, he said.

“We will never let the nation down in any eventuality or test. People have faith in their armed forces and they are very rightly doing so,” he added. He disclosed that Thunder JF-17 was being sold to four countries without disclosing the buyers and number of the planes. He said that it has become difficult to supply all the ordered aircraft within the stipulated time-frame but we will fulfill our obligations.
 
I dont see any thread from India to Pakistan or vice versa. India is doing well economically . They wouldn't want a war. Pakistan economy is slowly getting back on track. They are busy fighting TTP and insurgents which might take 3-4 more years. But as we are very emotional people on both sides . We will talk tough and chest trumping will go on. But there would be no war
 
Last edited:
Both nations kill each other but india gain massive loss as it is bigger
 
Both nations kill each other but india gain massive loss as it is bigger
relax we have no intention to go to war or punish pakistan the way pakistanies want us to rather we have amny other ideas to prolong there suffering if they try to be over advanturous but if they start it no dought we will have a few effects but there wont be any pakistan on owr east for next 1000 years
 
ever heard of the saying," if im going down, im taking you with me" thats what will happen. pakistan will not exist whilst india will, well whats left of it. the chances of a full scale war is zero. it has been like that since after the tests. both countrys are not stupid enough to go to war.
the key word in this is deterrence.
end of
 
relax we have no intention to go to war or punish pakistan the way pakistanies want us to rather we have amny other ideas to prolong there suffering if they try to be over advanturous but if they start it no dought we will have a few effects but there wont be any pakistan on owr east for next 1000 years
it can be said about both sides.
 
relax we have no intention to go to war or punish pakistan the way pakistanies want us to rather we have amny other ideas to prolong there suffering if they try to be over advanturous but if they start it no dought we will have a few effects but there wont be any pakistan on owr east for next 1000 years
Hum to mar jayein gay sanam sath tum ko bhe lay dobain gay :big_boss:
 
Back
Top Bottom