pak troops cross LoC, kill 2 Indian jawans brutally (decapitated)

[KeyboardWarrior]

In recent memory' date=' twice, one in Eng 2011, and one in Aus 2012, both times it was the same receiptant who got nuked. Though a few survivors still carry on fighting.[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

And you live in India despite pakistani terrorists killing mumbaikars you were happy for pakistan to tour india for a cricket series of course indian issues matters to me because in the end they still call us indians and we are proud of our roots and ethnicity.

I too support Pakistan touring India. Yes, Pakistan is the enemy. And yes, i totally support them touring us. Why, you may ask ? The answer is simple- if Pakistan tours India, 99% of the revenue generated goes to BCCI, Indian players, Indian economy. So bottomline of Pak touring India = using your enemy to make bazillions of dollars while they get virtually zero from it. I don't have a problem with that. If i can use my enemy to make money and none for him, i will take that option every single time.

[CG]

clearly u dnt know what a tactical nuke means or what it's purpose is. Read first' date=' make a fool of urself later :--D[/quote'] I thnk u should get some more information about tactical nukes,You quoted smaller nukes .There yield may be less but damage is still very high.

[Muloghonto]

I thnk u should get some more information about tactical nukes' date='You quoted smaller nukes .There yield may be less but damage is still very high.[/quote'] NVM about swing-n-speed, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Tactical nukes were designed to target massive armor formations- such as the soviets had in the 70s/80s in Warsaw pact countries (Where the USSR had stockpiled over 25,000 tanks). The use for tactical nukes is to deal with the 'tank wave' that the soviet doctrine was based on. Our tactics are not at all similar, neither do we have such a huge tank stockpile anyways. An indian attack on Pak scenrio ( going for the total kill) would be Indian navy taking out Karachi and Gwadar simultaneous to the IAF establishing air superiority, leading to seveal small tank columns streaming in along the 1200 km border with Pakistan, while paradropping the infantry (ie, meatshield). Tactical nukes will do marginal damage unless Pakis are fully willing to nuke Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, etc. because that is all it will take to break Pakistan. They are fully capable of doing so, but even then we come out ahead- for Pakistan nuking their own country at a cost we can bear is a bloody good deal ( our army would be hurt badly but not annihilated- India will never throw 100% Pakistan's way as a) we dont need to, we already are ahead in numbers hugely and b) India will leave atleast 50% of its forces to counter any Chinese thrust to relieve pressure on their ally). The problem isn't tactical nukes on the battlefield, the problem is nukage of delhi, mumbai and almost all of North,Central and Western India as pakistan will not go down without doing max damage to India.

[Swing_n_Speed]

^^^ Your right about Indian formations being smaller and highly dispersed. And it's true Pakistan will hurt 'Punjab' a lo more than the Indian army. But you are making a complete assumption about the Indian navy attacking Karachi. What is a bit more realistic is that our army engages theirs over the international boundary. And to counter that Pakistan has fitted nuclear warheads on short a short range missiles called "Nasr". This missile has a range of 60kms. That seems long range to you? This is a quick response missile, which will be held at the level of a corp. Why would Pakistan fit a quick response system with a nuclear warhead? Pakistan is falling behind in terms of conventional military spending. They will only continue to emphasize more and more on tactical nukes. Flowing from this, then, is the obvious question. Would India really destroy Lahore and Karachi if two of its divisions that had invaded Pakistan were subjected to tactical nuclear weapon strikes? Something tells me that we would not. Restraint is a much more enduring feature of the Indian strategic culture than our nuclear doctrine assumes - Shashank Joshi The point is that for Pakistan using nuclear arsenal albeit of low yield is not exactly going to lead Pakistan to the point of no return as cric.god stated or maybe it is, I don't know.

[CG]

^^^ Your right about Indian formations being smaller and highly dispersed. And it's true Pakistan will hurt 'Punjab' a lo more than the Indian army. But you are making a complete assumption about the Indian navy attacking Karachi. What is a bit more realistic is that our army engages theirs over the international boundary. And to counter that Pakistan has fitted nuclear warheads on short a short range missiles called "Nasr". This missile has a range of 60kms. That seems long range to you? This is a quick response missile, which will be held at the level of a corp. Why would Pakistan fit a quick response system with a nuclear warhead? Pakistan is falling behind in terms of conventional military spending. They will only continue to emphasize more and more on tactical nukes. Flowing from this, then, is the obvious question. Would India really destroy Lahore and Karachi if two of its divisions that had invaded Pakistan were subjected to tactical nuclear weapon strikes? Something tells me that we would not. Restraint is a much more enduring feature of the Indian strategic culture than our nuclear doctrine assumes - Shashank Joshi The point is that for Pakistan using nuclear arsenal albeit of low yield is not exactly going to lead Pakistan to the point of no return as cric.god stated or maybe it is, I don't know.

First of all using it will lead to retaliation from opp side and it will lead to full scale nuclear war.

[Muloghonto]

^^^ Your right about Indian formations being smaller and highly dispersed. And it's true Pakistan will hurt 'Punjab' a lo more than the Indian army. But you are making a complete assumption about the Indian navy attacking Karachi.

Any major battle plans for India, nevermind a 'total victory one' against Pakistan will include a total destruction of the port facilities in Karachi and Gwadar because: a) Pakistan does not produce enough oil b) Pakistan does not stockpile enough oil and supplies c) Naval blockade of Pakistan is the quickest and easiest way to starve their military of fuel, resources and ability to keep fighting.

What is a bit more realistic is that our army engages theirs over the international boundary. And to counter that Pakistan has fitted nuclear warheads on short a short range missiles called "Nasr". This missile has a range of 60kms. That seems long range to you? This is a quick response missile, which will be held at the level of a corp. Why would Pakistan fit a quick response system with a nuclear warhead? Pakistan is falling behind in terms of conventional military spending. They will only continue to emphasize more and more on tactical nukes.

Indeed, but as i said, tactical nukes will not make or break the deal, it only makes it slightly more annoying for us to attack them. India has never attacked Pakistan with the explicit aim to capture and hold territorry ( all our objectives have been to hold the frontier or advance in the hope of exchanging territorry at peace talks) and IMO, Indian attack on Pakistan with the stated objective to hold territorry *must* include a combination of: a) neutralizing Pakistani navy b) neutralizing Pakistani airforce c) para-dropping in Punjab to establish ground presence and d)engage major conventional formations. Its the 'd' where tactical nukes become a viability and even such, it is not all in their favour, as we too will tactically nuke them after a formation or two gets nuked. But it is a),b) and c) IMO that wins the war against Pakistan, not just d).

Flowing from this, then, is the obvious question. Would India really destroy Lahore and Karachi if two of its divisions that had invaded Pakistan were subjected to tactical nuclear weapon strikes? Something tells me that we would not. Restraint is a much more enduring feature of the Indian strategic culture than our nuclear doctrine assumes - Shashank Joshi The point is that for Pakistan using nuclear arsenal albeit of low yield is not exactly going to lead Pakistan to the point of no return as cric.god stated or maybe it is, I don't know.

Err, i have no opinion on this, what you said could be totally true, but fact remains, nobody has used nukes in the opening stages of war- tactical or civillian targeted, against another nuclear nation and seen how it went. India could easily use it as an excuse to nuke entire Pakistan, back off or any such thing. It would depend on who our leaders were and how desperate we were to win but something tells me that India as well as America and others might use Pakistan' 'first use' to signal the 'all bets are off, total and utter nukage of Pakis' as the most obvious followup.

[straighttalk]

I thnk u should get some more information about tactical nukes' date='You quoted smaller nukes .There yield may be less but damage is still very high.[/quote'] using tactical nukes is a very stupid idea... for one even if you use it in your own country against indian troops and kill many...you cross the nuclear threshold....do you think another nuclear weapon capable country will sit quiet..no it will use not so tactical weapons on you... nuclear weapons act as a detterent..no more no less...unless the very existence of the country is at stake...as long as india limits war to the border regions of pakistan and limits itself to destroying their military infrastructure...pakistan won't be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons.....because even though it is MAD..they are smaller in size.. they are happy being looked upon as lunatic fundamentalists..becuase we in india think they are MAD enough to use those weapons at the slightest provocation...truth is they are not..they fear about their existence...

[Tiger80]

I don't know if the jawans were actually martyrs or victims of Indo-Pak politics: Raj Thackeray Raj Thackeray has alleged that the recent escalation of tension between India and Pakistan may have been orchestrated to divert the attention of people from real Govt wants Pak to investigate killing of jawans on LoC: Salman Khurshid issues. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/raj-thackeray-killing-of-indian-jawans-loc-pakistan-army-ceasefire/1/242432.html

[ExpressPace]

All these dumb asses talking about Pakistan being nuked or india paralyzing Pakistan in few days are out of their mind. Pakistan has nothing to lose but on the other hand India has way too much on stake here. India is a booming economy and is getting a lot of foreign investment flowing in so they wouldn't wanna disturb the cash flow. On the other hand Pakistan is already in a state of war and its mind boggling why would they wana start something with India? Good relationship with india is more beneficial to Pakistan than to india so I think there is definitely a third party involve here that dont wana see the two neighbors get along well. Just when things were getting better we start having issues at the border. Why? Why all of a sudden things turned worse when all was going well? Divide and rule policy of West is still in motion. Too much garam masala keeps our head hot so we get blind in hate of each other.

[CG]

Pakistan is in turmoil and govt is cornered.These Border escalation may just be to take off attention from the internal turmoil of pakistan.

[bangladeshifan]

Pakistan is in turmoil and govt is cornered.These Border escalation may just be to take off attention from the internal turmoil of pakistan and india.

fixed :damini: :cough: :protest:

[CG]

fixed :damini: :cough: :protest:

Indian protest as always has run out of steam.

[bangladeshifan]

Indian protest as always has run out of steam.

or media attention was diverted?

[Nova]

Stick to the topic please. No insults.

[nballa]

so is india going to cancel the next test/odi series with them? that should teach them a lesson. i mean that is clearly the no 1 strategy we employ durin times of conflict with our hairier counterparts.

[Muloghonto]

so is india going to cancel the next test/odi series with them? that should teach them a lesson. i mean that is clearly the no 1 strategy we employ durin times of conflict with our hairier counterparts.

I understand there is quite a bit of support in Indian community to boycott Pakistan in cricket. However, can someone please explain the logic of it to me ? If i understand currently, Pakistan is being boycotted by all nations as far as visiting them goes & as such, they are starved of cricket. Therefore, if we play Pakistan, we must play them at home or neutral venues. In such a scenario, its BCCI holding the lion's share of the revenue rights, our networks boosting their ratings, our players getting lakhs and lakhs fo money & what is PCB employees getting out of the deal ? a 25% cut of the money, player salaries that are 1/5th ours, etc ? So then, the bottomline of India vs Pakistan in India/Neutral venue = India, BCCI, Indian cricketers getting rich, Pakistan hardly making a dime. So, if we were to interact with our enemy in such a fashion, we make money, they do not. So i don't get it- why should be shun them, again ?! Think of it this way- if someone comes to you and tells you ' yaar, we have a plan. it involves you and your arch enemy. However, both of you will do the same job, i will pay you 100 bucks, i will pay him 10 bucks. Deal?'. What would your answer be ?

[surajmal]

^^^ There is more to life than money. Here is a quote from the movie Debt Why did you think it was so easy to exterminate your people? Your weakness. I saw it. Everyday I saw it. Everyone of them thinking only of how to avoid being flogged or kicked or killed. Everyone thinking only of themselves. Why do you think it only took four soldiers to lead a thousand people to the gas chambers? Because not one out of thousands had the courage to resist. Not one would sacrifice himself! Not even when we took their children away! So I knew then, that you people had no right to live! You had no right... In similar vein Lj46lfpBUlY

[Muloghonto]

Look, the bottomline is, as much as we'd like to beat Pakistan into a pulp or make a new 'Gulf of Pakistan', it is simply not a possibility, they are a nuclear nation and we cannot afford to fight a nuclear nation straight up. Nobody can, nobody has. As such, when your options to explore total nuclear holocaust are non-existant, i see no problem whatsoever in profiting from interacting with your enemy. So if I cannot blow my enemy away, my next best option, is to exploit him. That is precisely what I am suggesting.

[surajmal]

There are plenty of options between total capitulation and full blown nuclear war. But if we are gonna totally surrender, I would like to give Pakis our PSLV technology. Why you ask? So that they can build ICBMs of their own. And then Pakistan becomes the world's problem and not just India's. Hopefully, then Amreekis and its poodles will stop funding that shithole.