It's me who first started talking about conventional equilibrium related to Pakistan in the other forum and I have defined it very well there.
And you are ignoring the on ground situation.
Sir.
How is conventional parity and conventional equilibrium denoting the situation on ground? Only in your view does it do so. You are twisting the situation into something that it is not - of trying to mix military 'conventional parity/equilibrium' which is most exclusively calculated by parameters of sizes, structure, equipment and logistical capability of the respective armed forces of the nations, with a
status quo being maintained by the Government of India as a policy directive.
Strange logic.
By the way let me tell you that, had India not liberated Bangladesh, Pakistan was superior to India in terms of conventional war fare. As they already posses a big chunk of Land known as POK. In 65 India had a chance to control much won territory, but was returned. If India was conventionally superior that area would have been under Indian administration.
timely Decision making+ result+ fire power decides the conventional equilibrium.
Read your sentence here. Do instruct us on how having two land masses separated by the expanse of a hostile nation, enabled Pakistan to achieve a conventional superiority? How does this logic come to fore?
Can you provide a reference for these considerations?
With respect to Pakistan it will be always territory gain, not status quo.
So says you!
The two are connected in a manner that,
Pakistanis did a covert operation to place their men on peaks ,
Hardly. It remained a colossal failure of the Indian Intelligence. The chatter of war was there in the messes of the Pakistan Army just before the movement started.
The Commander of the Kargil Brigade failed to get appropriate WASO sorties to undertake 'area domination'.
which was a timely decision which later became overt. As they knew that Indians are conventional more powerful.
And you were saying there is conventional parity? And conventional superiority by Pakistan at an instance too?
India had to push in their best and max fire power concentrated on an objective.
Incorrect, a series of objectives set in High Altitude and Mountain Warfare backdrop. A minimum force structure of 10 is to 1 required, more the better.
Had Pakistan mobilized more troop and it's airforce taking their government in confidence they would have won the Kargil
Had this, had that, speculative. Had Indian Army carried out due reconnaissance, had intelligence picked up, had Gujral not wound up RAW assets, etc etc.
and. And India had to open the fronts in Punjab sector.
No. India would have allowed troops across the LoC, something which the Chief, General Malik asked permission to permit in order reduce the casualties being sustained but was denied. And why was that?
In that particular region Pakistan would have suppressed India with it's fire power and decision making conventionally.
Funny.
Not political but a new mechanism where you appoint a person from security background to handle Pakistan. He must be given absolute authority. He may report to PM.
What are your views on a Military Background being the policy decider in Pakistan?
They will attain their objectives if this skirmish on LC lingers on.
What objective? Of peacefully integrating into China?Just what objective is that?
You re making them realize that India in any case would not cross LC and gain some land in POK where as Pakistan has already tried multiple times and inadequate reponse was given back by Indian government.
Inadequate?
Status quo ante being maintained in every case by India!
