Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What are the chances? How many would support it? 

 

Pak is heavily invested in the nuclear and asymmetric warfare categories. They have tactical nukes, which cover a relatively small area. However, any use of tactical nukes is an invitation to Ind to nuke pakistan. It could be worthwhile to test Pak in a limited war ....  In a conventional war, Pak may not have the resources to last for more than a week. 

 

While India did a preemptive strike on terrorist groups. Pak attacked / tried to attack Ind's military installations 

 

Latest on this

 

Posted

Britain, France, US ask UN to backlist JeM chief Masood Azhar

The United States, Britain and France have asked the 15-member Security Council sanctions committee to subject Azhar to an arms embargo, global travel ban and asset freeze. The committee operates by consensus and members have until March 13 to raise objections. However, the move is likely to be opposed by China, which previously prevented the Security Council's Islamic State and al-Qaida sanctions committee from sanctioning JeM leader Masood Azhar in 2016 and 2017. China's UN mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new proposal.

 

Source: TOI 

Posted
1 minute ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

What objective will a limited war achieve. Cross the line or don't do anything are the only two options I see. Tough but one cant be swimming always. You got to get to the shore

Of course we have to cross LoC in a war in Kashmir 

Posted
Just now, zen said:

Of course we have to cross LoC in a war in Kashmir 

That is not what I meant but yes we have to. I meant either achieve your objective fully, which is to re -occupy POK or kill all terrorist camps across. No point doing piece meal stuff. More like binary, either 0 or 1. Right now we are in between, which is like constantly swimming with no shore in sight.

Posted
Just now, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

That is not what I meant but yes we have to. I meant either achieve your objective fully, which is to re -occupy POK or kill all terrorist camps across. No point doing piece meal stuff. More like binary, either 0 or 1. Right now we are in between, which is like constantly swimming with no shore in sight.

Once we cross LoC, we have to occupy PoK step by step 

Posted
4 minutes ago, zen said:

Once we cross LoC, we have to occupy PoK step by step 

so then this is the time and we have a reason. We go for it once and for all. If we succeed. Awesome. If we dont, we resort to dialogue to resolve

Posted
3 minutes ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

so then this is the time and we have a reason. We go for it once and for all. If we succeed. Awesome. If we dont, we resort to dialogue to resolve

Exactly! It is up to us to solve this and make things better for future generations 

Posted
Just now, zen said:

Exactly! It is up to us to solve this and make things better for future generations 

why has it been a quiet night. No news. No attacks. If we have to make this a full blown war, attacks have to continue 

Posted
Just now, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

And if full blown it is not a limited war. 

Limited in Kashmir while we pretend to respect IB unless Pak wants to stretch its resources to open other fronts 

Posted
Just now, zen said:

Limited in Kashmir while we pretend to respect IB unless Pak wants to stretch its resources to open other fronts 

That is what I dont find fruitful. It has to be full blown to capture POK or eliminate all terrorists camps across or split Pakistan. We have to sort the issue, not keep swimming in it

Posted
Just now, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

That is what I dont find fruitful. It has to be full blown to capture POK or eliminate all terrorists camps across or split Pakistan. We have to sort the issue, not keep swimming in it

It is a conventional war limited to Kashmir .... by full blown, do you mean on all fronts including IB? 

Posted
1 minute ago, zen said:

It is a conventional war limited to Kashmir .... by full blown, do you mean on all fronts including IB? 

Yes. How else will we sort the issue. We arent wining this by strikes or limited war. It will keep lingering. I am saying go for it now. There will be losses but we will sort it out once and for all.  How long do we want this issue to continue. Now or Never

Posted
5 minutes ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

Yes. How else will we sort the issue. We arent wining this by strikes or limited war. It will keep lingering. I am saying go for it now. There will be losses but we will sort it out once and for all.  How long do we want this issue to continue. Now or Never

In a limited war, we can still use our full force .... for it to extend to other areas, Pak will have to initiate it .... In either case, it is advantage Ind 

 

We have 500k troops in Kashmir for e.g., which are  suppported by Air Force  .... In a war involving IB, we can involve our Navy as well 

Posted
4 minutes ago, zen said:

In a limited war, we can still use our full force .... for it to extend to other areas, Pak will have to initiate it .... In either case, it is advantage Ind 

 

We have 500k troops in Kashmir for e.g., which are  suppported by Air Force  .... In a war involving IB, we can involve our Navy as well 

I am also saying use full force to max capacity. call it any war, limited or full ,  but give our best and close this out once and for all. 

Posted (edited)

Biggest snake China on one hand is   strengthening their own country, Infrastructure 

on the other hand giving money to Jihadis in Kashmir to continue fighting India

tohina wants India-Pak fight each other while  China enjoys the show while no loss to its economy

Edited by Texy
×
×
  • Create New...