Underestimate China at your own peril; they're not as much of a military superpower as they like to pretend, and their military history is particularly underwhelming, but they are working hard and at double speed to rectify that. And a lot of the points you raise, are addressed by the speed and vigor with which China is developing all sorts of military infrastructure along the border.
Not to mention, not all warfare occurs on land or in the skies anymore, warfare is multidimensional and includes realms like cyberwarfare too - where China appears to be quite strong.
If you're looking for excuses to not go out there and secure our interests, I'm sure you'll find many.
First of all, what ground is there for China to intervene in PoK in a military capacity? Do they own or administer that territory? No. Would we be attacking any declared Chinese presence by going into PoK? No, whatever presence they might already have is covert & deniable. Do they even lay claim to that territory? No.
There is no way China can sell an intervention in PoK at the international stage. China isn't that stupid. Pakistan has no legal claim to the region and China knows that. Which is the reason they've been pressurizing the Pak government to push for recognition of the people of this region as Pak citizens (that's right, before this, citizens of Gilgit-Baltistan were never recognized as citizens of Pakistan or given any rights) and sooner than later, they will push Pak to the negotiation table with India and they will try to legitimize the LoC as the new permanent IB, to get India to relinquish any claim on G-B, and in turn they will make Pakistan hand over the sliver of land that is called Azad Kashmir to India.
That's the Chinese end-game here.
And I'm afraid if a future leader of India would be stupid enough to agree to these terms and relinquish claim on G-B.
The exact same thing would then happen from Afghanistan (Taliban) & Pakistani Punjab even if India takes PoK.
Not even close. Why? Because as I said, fighting across the IB is not the same as fighting across a porous LoC. And even if Pakistan is fool enough to use its own sovereign territory to launch terrorist infiltrators, let them. That'll only get them into deeper trouble at the international stage, the dynamics of fighting the insurgency won't change for us...but the strategic objectives of cutting off the link between Pak and China will be met. We would have destroyed CPEC and crippled a very important portion of BRI/OBOR.
To me, that is enough reason to take PoK.
As of Afghan Taliban, they are not even a threat worth being afraid of. The reasons why we're unable to escalate the fighting across LoC at will won't stay true when fighting Taliban presence at border. We will be free to bring airpower to bear, free to bring high-calibre artillery to bear, free to conduct cross-border raids at will (Afghan govt and ANA will support us). Taliban or similar force are a threat to reckon when fighting a long, drawn-out Guerrilla war when they can choose the time & place to strike. As of a force for frontal combat (which is what they'll be forced into if they try to infiltrate across border), they are fish in a barrel.
If you are fearful of doing what's necessary for securing our national interest because of a bunch of tribesmen with AKs, congratulations, Pakistan has already won.
Because taking PoK would be a very recent, and blatant act of aggression against a Muslim country, which is the patron of the Taliban, that would serve to strongly unify Muslim forces, including and especially the Taliban, by providing a new enemy, challenge, objective and conflict for recruiting and rallying fighters. And with the US pulling back, Afghan Gvt losing control and Russia & Iran trying to strike a deal with the Taliban, India would basically be the one remaining enemy in the region, with the only geographical buffer of sorts being removed. A lot of conflict is avoided simply by not being neighbors, and whenever Pakistan has tried harboring terrorists to target India, they have also suffered the harmful after-effects. If India becomes neighbors with the Taliban, Pakistani purposes will be served without Pakistan suffering the usual fallout.
Dear, you don't have to work on giving a reason for radical Islamist forces to hate you.
Breaking news: They hate you already.
I would rather combat the Taliban by changing the demography of J&K to settle that uprising permanently, and capturing favorable positions on the Pakistani side of PoK to handle any Pakistani infiltrators, possible Taliban fighters, and to also use crucial heights to put the squeeze on any Pakistani & Chinese pressure points.
And what would be your end-game?
I suppose that depends on how India plans to use the S-400, a question that I've had for a very long time, thsat still hasn't received a satisfactory, definitive answer. But from what I've read about the S-400 as an anti-aircraft system, it has the potential to basically remove the PAF from any conflict equation altogether, handing the IAF instant air superiority. You can't laugh that off as inconsequential.
China has also acquired S-400...how long do you think it will be before they make copies of it and sell it to Pakistan? They already made copies of S-300 and Pakistan is intent on acquiring them.
The point about MIRV's isn't really relevant because BMD isn't what I'm counting on the S-400 for, and anyways you already said we're discussing a short, small war where there's never any question of MIRV's.
It will because our leaders will believe that the if they launch a massed invasion force into PoK, Pakistan will fire nukes on us.
Since when do leaders need to know all the technical details of every weapons system? That's what military leaders and service chiefs are for, and they, along with Government officials like the NSA & Def Min can be consulted by the top political leadership on anything they don't know. When Modi asks a service chief about the preparedness of his respective Service, and their ability to attain certain objectives, would that Service Chief's response/advice (which would impact the political leadership's decision making) not be informed by in depth knowledge and cognizance of the newly purchased equipment?
Leaders don't know technicalities and they don't need to. But the thing is, the decisions they need to make do not shape the tactical battlefield, but the strategic level. The fact that Pak has a second-strike capability will debilitate any decision-maker's ability to make the call for launching hostilities.
Tactical advantages be damned.
They will ask the top brass a simple question: is there a chance that their missiles will get through? And unless we allow the brass to lie to their face, they will have to say yes. Kaam hogaya. They will think taking PoK is not worth the risk, and roll back.
That's exactly what's happening now and exactly what will happen in mid-2020s or 2030s.
Based off of the facts available, 2022 seems to be the year by which most of these key items will be completely, or almost completely delivered. As for your other points, I retain my faith in this Government. People were talking the same way after Pathankot and Uri, especially after Modi's deceptive speech on fighting a joint 1,000 year war against poverty, hunger etc. just a couple days before commandos entered PoK. I am confident that other than the late Vajpayee (who fought back at Kargil, and nearly did so after the Parliament Attack until he was failed by the Army's tragicomically slow mobilization), Modi is the one leader who'll dare to hit back against a nuclear armed Pakistan.
I've read variations of your comment(s) on the Surgical Strikes from other people before, and the common theme seems to be that those Strikes are viewed in isolation and evaluated for how effective they were in singlehandedly dealing with 30+ years of Pakistani terrorism and 70+ years of varied Pakistani meddling in Kashmir & instigation of hostilities at the border; at which point they can be declared a failure or ineffective because obviously they weren't going to solve/end everything.
What seems to consistently be missed is that an entirely new precedent has been set - one where India will retaliate to terror attacks, where nuclear blackmail and bluster will be called for the bluff that it is and disregarded, and where instead of allowing Pakistan's possession of Nukes/TNW's and imaginary red lines for usage to preclude any sort of conflict at all, innovative new strategies will be formulated to either fight below that threshold & punish Pak or to wipe out its nukes altogether before clobbering it. But the old, ineffective, overly defensive & pathetically under-reactive approach finally seems to be out under this Government, and I expect them to get exceedingly tough on Pakistan over the next few years as things shape up more and more favorably.
1) Surgical strikes changed the civilian thinking, not the strategic level's thought-process.
2) Nukes/TNWs were always a bluff. Surgical strikes was not the first time Special Forces were used in a cross-LoC capacity. In fact they do that routinely to avenge killings/beheadings.
3) None of the ground realities have changed. The launch pads are back up, the cross-LoC infiltration hasn't stopped, nor has Pak's attitude toward us.
So again I ask, other than being effective propaganda to feed to the public (and I'm not saying that's unimportant, in fact that is crucial), what was the strategic consequence of the Surgical strikes? Don't get me wrong, I commend Modi for doing what he did (and ensuring what was done was made known to the public), but I'm saying that things like these are too little & too late.
