India - Pakistan Standoff 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Very Fact that MODI could Secure Abhinandan's Release in 24 hours ,
After Shooting down the F 16 was a Great Victory For Indian people

MODI also drove the POINT that Congressi goons are Anti National because they opposed RAFALE
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
A large Scale Conflict would Involve Two Things

1 Many More Casualties on our Side

2 Financial Constraints for the Government
And consequently more Taxes

Being a Democracy , we Cannot overlook
The Economic Angle
Click to expand...


Even when economy was growing at 8% we did not have balls to open fronts. And India will not do anything either. Because we all know that there is no concencus nor any narrative in India what they want to do with Pakistan.
Unless until a party makes it count in their manifesto India will not do jack sh*t in POK or anywhere. The current Indian mind set is such that if today India goes to war and there are some financial hiccups in the aftermath, the same 1 billion Indian will blame government for going to war with Pakistan.

Before anything happen there has to be narrative why you want to go to war with Pakistan and educate the folks. And make them clear that it's for the territory and not some stupid terrorism or revenge or whatsoever.

Pakkistanis are clear that they are fighting for the territory, only we are not clear.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BlackOpsIndia, fyodor, Deathstar and 3 others
Falcon said:
I spoke to a former AWACS Officer, who said there was no AWACS on station. :)

Then I introduced him to his junior who was the pilot of AWACS that day .... :D

All the best if you think you will get the correct news from them. Recall the Heli shootdown? Ask @nair what I told him on 27th Feb evening ... confirmed to him that we downed it :D

But till as such time GoI did not come out with official leaks and statement, I requested him to keep a lid on it.
Click to expand...
Even my post was deleted on 29th February by @nair about friendly fire downing our chopper....
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Hellfire and Sathya
I would request members and professionals here to work on the narrative to educate the folks, what is the conflict about with respect to Pakistan. Is it the territory, is it the terrorism, or is it the separatism, or is it a politics. Once this narrative is set the minds will be clear in resolving this conflict.
 
screambowl said:
I would request members and professionals here to work on the narrative to educate the folks, what is the conflict about with respect to Pakistan. Is it the territory, is it the terrorism, or is it the separatism, or is it a politics. Once this narrative is set the minds will be clear in resolving this conflict.
Click to expand...
Conflict can be for any reason but at the root of it is always the difference in perception. In ancient times it was for territory only. After Islam this greed for territory acquired a religious angle and in modern times it is about the way of Life from communism to democracy to capitalism etc. But the root has always been territory or control of territory thru whatever means.
In case of Pakistan the root cause is again the territory of Kashmir and it has been given a religious angle. But the religious angle is far more deep rooted and even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, the war will not end. Because the conflict is between two religions, hindus and muslims. Islamic Pakistan is not willing to accept a Hindu India and for them Hindus are fit to be either converted to Islam or killed. Indian population will always be targeted by Islamic Pakistan. In such a case we have no other option but to destroy the war fighting capability of Pakistan by dismembering it into small states which will struggle to survive and become dependent on India.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: suryakiran, Tsunami, fyodor and 5 others
vstol Jockey said:
Conflict can be for any reason but at the root of it is always the difference in perception. In ancient times it was for territory only. After Islam this greed for territory acquired a religious angle and in modern times it is about the way of Life from communism to democracy to capitalism etc. But the root has always been territory or control of territory thru whatever means.
In case of Pakistan the root cause is again the territory of Kashmir and it has been given a religious angle. But the religious angle is far more deep rooted and even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, the war will not end. Because the conflict is between two religions, hindus and muslims. Islamic Pakistan is not willing to accept a Hindu India and for them Hindus are fit to be either converted to Islam or killed. Indian population will always be targeted by Islamic Pakistan. In such a case we have no other option but to destroy the war fighting capability of Pakistan by dismembering it into small states which will struggle to survive and become dependent on India.
Click to expand...

Sir , Everybody knows and Understands
This Ghazwa E Hind Mentality

But the Differnces in India are Regarding
How and When To Tackle it.

Because our DNA is different than Pakistanis

So Right Now the Best Option is Maximum Preparation and Accumulation of Weapons

Even the Retired Military Officials on TV
Speak About " Imposing Costs On Pakistan"

Nobody calls for All out War
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Sir , Everybody knows and Understands
This Ghazwa E Hind Mentality

But the Differnces in India are Regarding
How and When To Tackle it.

Because our DNA is different than Pakistanis

So Right Now the Best Option is Maximum Preparation and Accumulation of Weapons

Even the Retired Military Officials on TV
Speak About " Imposing Costs On Pakistan"

Nobody calls for All out War
Click to expand...
I wish to take you back to the period of 1972-1979. Pakistan did not fire even a single shot across the border as they were rendered incapable of fighting a war with India. In 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan and USA joined the insurgency using Pakistan as a proxy. The same time Indira played the sikh card and created Bhindenwaley. We know what happened after that in Punjab till 1993. Pakistan mastered the art of low intensity conflict during this time and shifted focus to Kashmir. In 1990 it started with the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits followed by full scale insurgency. The trigger was the rigging of elections by Congress party. between 1971-1979, Pakistan was not as divided as it is today. We have to take it out militarily. Just the soft kill option will not work. Using USSR as an example will not work because USSR collapsed for many other reasons and financial crisis was just one of them and not the main reason.
Regarding imposing costs, Let me tell you, Pakistan will sell itself to China but will continue to do what it has been doing. Do we want China on both our sides? It is a choice which we have to make. We must destroy this two front war scenerio and for that we must take out Pakistan. The day we do it, China will behave like a goat.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Tsunami, phndrt, Golden_Rule and 3 others
vstol Jockey said:
I wish to take you back to the period of 1972-1979. Pakistan did not fire even a single shot across the border as they were rendered incapable of fighting a war with India. In 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan and USA joined the insurgency using Pakistan as a proxy. The same time Indira played the sikh card and created Bhindenwaley. We know what happened after that in Punjab till 1993. Pakistan mastered the art of low intensity conflict during this time and shifted focus to Kashmir. In 1990 it started with the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits followed by full scale insurgency. The trigger was the rigging of elections by Congress party. between 1971-1979, Pakistan was not as divided as it is today. We have to take it out militarily. Just the soft kill option will not work. Using USSR as an example will not work because USSR collapsed for many other reasons and financial crisis was just one of them and not the main reason.
Regarding imposing costs, Let me tell you, Pakistan will sell itself to China but will continue to do what it has been doing. Do we want China on both our sides? It is a choice which we have to make. We must destroy this two front war scenerio and for that we must take out Pakistan. The day we do it, China will behave like a goat.
Click to expand...

All I will say is that there are N number of Factors and Variables to be considered

However we are Imposing Costs on them

They are spending More on Defence than ever before , thereby Ensuring their Downfall

" Casus Belli " is a Reality of this world

Right now we have No Justification

We can Continue with the Un Official and Un declared attacks , including Bombing their targets in POK or elsewhere
 
vstol Jockey said:
Conflict can be for any reason but at the root of it is always the difference in perception. In ancient times it was for territory only. After Islam this greed for territory acquired a religious angle and in modern times it is about the way of Life from communism to democracy to capitalism etc. But the root has always been territory or control of territory thru whatever means.
In case of Pakistan the root cause is again the territory of Kashmir and it has been given a religious angle. But the religious angle is far more deep rooted and even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, the war will not end. Because the conflict is between two religions, hindus and muslims. Islamic Pakistan is not willing to accept a Hindu India and for them Hindus are fit to be either converted to Islam or killed. Indian population will always be targeted by Islamic Pakistan. In such a case we have no other option but to destroy the war fighting capability of Pakistan by dismembering it into small states which will struggle to survive and become dependent on India.
Click to expand...

No, not territory as such. Wars were for resources; and yes, this could be territory. Roman and Persian empires went to war for, among other things, control of local trade routes. But resources could be more immaterial as well: leader's reputation, empire's reputation, diplomatic influence and so on. Many Roman-Persian wars were nothing but localized spats waged for precisely such goals: winning empire would gain reputation, which would then translate into trade concessions, but also into diplomatic and ideological influence among neighbouring countries.

So what I am saying, there is lot less difference between people and their reasoning in antiquity, middle ages and modernity than most people today like to think. We did not really advance much past apes.

RE: Pakistan, I agree with that, nothing to add.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: suryakiran, randomradio, BlackOpsIndia and 4 others
Picard578 said:
No, not territory as such. Wars were for resources; and yes, this could be territory. Roman and Persian empires went to war for, among other things, control of local trade routes. But resources could be more immaterial as well: leader's reputation, empire's reputation, diplomatic influence and so on. Many Roman-Persian wars were nothing but localized spats waged for precisely such goals: winning empire would gain reputation, which would then translate into trade concessions, but also into diplomatic and ideological influence among neighbouring countries.

So what I am saying, there is lot less difference between people and their reasoning in antiquity, middle ages and modernity than most people today like to think. We did not really advance much past apes.

RE: Pakistan, I agree with that, nothing to add.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you here after a long long time.
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Some IDIOT has drafted this Tweet

This Gun Firing capability of 2500 Rounds per minute is the Last Thing that you look in
A Fighter plane :ROFLMAO:

No mention of Payload Capacity and Hard points or SPECTRA AND RBE2 AESA RADAR
Click to expand...

Its just aimed at sticking it to political rivals. PR cell drafted it to look good for the general population.
 
Jaymax said:
Its just aimed at sticking it to political rivals. PR cell drafted it to look good for the general population.
Click to expand...

Probably they should have written 2500 missiles or bombs instead of 2500 rounds. This one sounds more like bullets being fired from a machine gun
 
Jaymax said:
In all fairness they are talking about the plane's internal cannon. Funny thing is - it would at best carry 150-200 rounds
Click to expand...
Normally, the number of rounds carried internally for the internal cannon are based on 4-5 bursts on .5 to 1 second. A gun firing 1200 rounds a minute will fire 20 shots in one second and a one second burst is too long for us to shoot down an aircraft. We do not spray bullets on target. we aim and fire only when we are sure of a hit.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: rockstarIN, BlackOpsIndia, Sathya and 3 others
Sunnylol said:
Guys, I believe the D day for Pakistan is going to be mid-2022 to 2024, coz then we will be armed to the TEETH!
Click to expand...

I think it might be earlier, because government is also working on other non military, political and diplomatic means of choking the Paxtan economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom