They arent likely to use anything other than their smaller tac nukes, not
when there's every chance that the fallout from even a successful first
strike will reach them very quickly indeed .. not to mention that any
retaliation would leave them, as well, converted into glowing rubble.
[e&oe sensible military strategists rather than religious fanatics, on both
sides]
All previous wars India and Pakistan have fought have been conventional wars
- troops, tanks, ships .. and a substantial component of any future war is
likely to be the same
srs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Perry E. Metzger
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [silk] Vir Sanghvi on Kashmir
>
>
> "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
