"Balaji Dutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't agree with the argument of lowered military spending or > generally lower chances of military buildup. There is a simpler > geographical reality to consider - as the Capital city of a country > with enemies on both sides, Delhi is vulnerable - located as it is > at the "neck" of India with hostile states only a few hours away by > road on both sides. This is not a pleasant though for most of Indian > military strategists.
Well, this is an entirely new argument, and not an unreasonable one. Your claim, summarized, is that the reason to hold on to Kashmir is not based in any sort of abstraction but merely in the concrete strategic importance of the territory as a buffer zone with a hostile power. I would still question this. First, in a situation where both powers are nuclear armed, is there any realistic possibility that the Pakistani government would believe it could invade and conquer Delhi without large sections of the country becoming radioactive wastelands? Further, given the significant disparity in per capita income, population and consequent military strength, would it be reasonable of the Pakistani government to believe that India would lose such a war even in the unlikely event that it remained conventional rather than nuclear? In short, wouldn't the impossibility of winning deter a war? Second, is not a major reason to fear a war, in itself, the possession of the buffer zone in question? It would seem to be somewhat unreasonable to try to prevent a war by maintaining a situation that has been the cause of major conflict. > The above is admittedly a doomsday scenario, but isn't that what all > military establishments survive on? The real doomsday scenario is likely not an army marching on Delhi in the face of massive resistance, but a nuclear missile sailing unimpeded through space. The fact that both sides are nuclear powers changes everything. > IMO, it's why no expense was spared in fighting Khalistan but the > Naxalites are ignored, and why Aksai Chin doesn't matter but Kashmir > does. I thought that the fact that Aksai Chin was almost uninhabited and utterly desolate also had some bearing on the matter... Perry
