DescentBB

Several major signs of a coming Indian-Pakistani war surfaced Dec. 24

Indian troops reportedly have deployed to the Barmer district of southwest Rajasthan state along the Indian-Pakistani border. Furthermore, the state government of Rajasthan has ordered residents of its border villages to be prepared for relocation. The decision reportedly came after a meeting among the state’s director-general of police, home secretary and an official from the central government. Stratfor confirmed the report with an Indian army officer.

According to India’s ZeeNews, the Pakistani army replaced the Pakistan Rangers that regularly patrol the border with India. The Pakistani troop movements were later confirmed by U.K. Bansal, the additional director-general of India’s Border Security Force (BSF) in Barmer, Rajasthan.

As Stratfor reported Dec. 22, there is a high probability of India using military force against Pakistan after Dec. 26, when a deadline expires for Pakistan to deliver on Indian demands to crack down on Islamist militant proxies that threaten India. With low expectations that Pakistan has the will or capability to deliver on these demands, India has spent the past month preparing for military action against Pakistan. Pressure is now ratcheting up on both sides of the border, with Indian Air Marshal P.K. Barbora, air officer commanding-in-chief of the Western Air Command, telling reporters Dec. 24 that as many as 5,000 targets in Pakistan have thus far been identified, while saying that many of the militants hiding out in camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have already fled.
Map: India-Pakistan border, provinces

It should be noted that the area of Rajasthan where Indian troops are deploying and where villagers are preparing to evacuate is a long distance from Kashmir, where conflict between India and Pakistan typically takes place. Barmer district is adjacent to Jaisalmer district, where India’s Southwestern Air Command is located. Any attacks based out of the Barmer district would involve mechanized and armored forces that could threaten the core Karachi-Hyderabad-Islamabad corridor — Pakistan’s only transit corridor that links the Pakistani heartland of Punjab with the coast. Given that cash-strapped Pakistan is a net food and energy importer and is already flirting with bankruptcy, India has a military opportunity at hand to cut off Pakistan’s economic lifeline. Furthermore, a potential cutoff would likely complicate the flow of fuel and supplies to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Any ground troop movement in southwestern Rajasthan is likely to be accompanied by air strikes against militant targets outside of Kashmir and possibly against intelligence facilities in Pakistan’s urban areas.

The timing of Indian military action is still unclear, as it will take some time for India to mobilize its forces and evacuate locals along the border area. But given these recent troop movements, it could be a matter of days before the world witnesses another Indian-Pakistani war.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200812 ... coming_war

If they go to war, how long do you think it will be before someone launches nukes on the other?

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan troops were deployed on Thursday to protect vital points along the Line of Control in Kashmir and the international border with India, defence sources told Daily Times. Reports in Indian media said Pakistan moved its 10th Brigade to Lahore and ordered the 3rd Armoured Brigade to march towards Jhelum, following a heavy concentration of Indian troops on the borders. Pakistan’s 10th and 11th divisions have been put on high alert, Indian media said, and troops had been stationed in Rajouri and Poonch sectors of Kashmir. Sources in the Defence Department declined to give details of any fresh movement but did not deny reports that Pakistan was moving certain brigades towards Lahore. Indian TV channels also reported that Pakistan Air Force continued its state of high alert and started aerial surveillance of the Chashma power plant and other sensitive sites on Thursday amid fears of a ‘surgical strike’ by India. sajjad malik

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2008_pg1_2

tunnelcat wrote:If they go to war, how long do you think it will be before someone launches nukes on the other?

The question should be "who will actually use ground troops instead of nukes?".

I've heard lots on this conflict. The Chinese and the Indians are allied, so any war Pakistan starts, they may have to face the Chinese. As to what everyone else does, Idk...

Thanks to some interesting political doctrines, of course an attack on one of our allies shall be considered an attack on ourselves.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

shaktazuki wrote:Thanks to some interesting political doctrines, of course an attack on one of our allies shall be considered an attack on ourselves.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

We cant get involved. We have two wars going on now where we where attacked or under threat of attack and the cowardly people of this nation will not support. We are not under attack this time or being threatened.

Those two seem to always be at war, I wouldn’t worry about any nukes being thrown around, if it hasn’t happened up till now.

It's about time it's someone other than us.

tunnelcat wrote:If they go to war, how long do you think it will be before someone launches nukes on the other?

Never.

A nuclear attack invites a nuclear reprisal, and so would never be undertaken except by someone who thought they would gain by that excange--that is, someone who had nothing to lose.

Conflict scales. War is not a senseless act of brutality, nor is it a series of 'proportional' vengences. War is about achieving a political objective: in short, forcing the other guy to do what you want him to. That can be anything from 'change this minor diplomatic policy' to 'die as a country and join our empire'. The point is that war has a payoff and a cost. Waging war is expensive, in more ways than one. Violence comes at a political, moral, and simple economic cost, and it only occurs when the payoff outweighs the cost. Not all war is existential; when the objectives are minor to both sides, the force used is proportionally small.

So to expect any minor conflict to 'blow up' is to misunderstand how war works. In theory, everyone ought to practice total war: use maximum force to ensure you win. In practice, nobody does. The cost is too high. You use the minimum force necessary to ensure you achieve your objective. Wars last only until one party decides it isn't worth it anymore. They they give the other guy what he was asking for, and peace happens.

Nuclear warfare is incredibly, intolerably expensive for everyone involved. Nuclear powers have guns pointed at each others heads, but can't kill each other instantly. If one guy takes that shot, the other guy might die eventually, but in the mean time, he still has his gun, and now has nothing to lose. Everybody knows that. So nobody goes there unless they already think they have nothing to lose.

So do a little arithmetic. War is just a continuation of conflict from other spheres; nuclear powers can fight diplomatically, politically, economically, and even conventionally, without ever really thinking about using nukes. It's all a question of what's at stake. If you want to fight a nuclear power, just make sure that you are one yourself, and whatever you're asking of them isn't worth their whole civilization. The cost will get high enough for them, and they'll concede before they start a nuclear fight. And you know what? So will you.

You'll know when nuclear warfare is on the horizion. The stakes will be the entire free world. The political pretensions will seem silly, the 'laws of war' will be long-forgotten. It'll seem like the world is ending. It'll seem like everyone on your side dying is better than the other guy winning. Heck, we met a lot of those conditions during the Cold War, and it still didn't happen.

What, by comparison, is this little spat between India and Pakistan? Some dispute over terrorists and law enforcement? Please. It sucks to have terrorists hit you and kill civilians, and it sucks to have a foreign army hunting them on your soil without your permission. But those stakes are nothin'. I guarantee you'll see capitulation (from either side!) looooooooooong before you see nukes.

And I guarantee both sides are betting on that.

Could somebody miscalculate? Could the stakes be higher than they look, WW1 style? Could, say national pride, be worth a suicidal cost to one side? Maybe. But I sure wouldn't bet on it, and the folks involved are betting that that isn't the case.

Has anyone checked the weather patterns and jet stream to see which way the clouds will drift if Drakona's wrong?
I wouldn't want to be living downwind of that event.

How close do you live to Nevada, Will? I live in Montana, we're a-ok.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has almost nothing to lose now. The country is practically a failed state- the civilian government has almost no control over most of its military- the military almost an autonomous power and decision maker within its borders. Pakistan is economically on life support and its fractious population has almost nothing to unify it other than their hatred of India.

What makes things worse is that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. A failed islamic state with a nuclear arsenal is one of the worst nightmares people in governments around the world have- and it keeps them up at night.

Pakistan is threatening war because it is the last card it can play. Its trying to blackmail its way out of retaliation for attacks carried out in Mumbai by terrorists nurtured and supported by Pakistan's ISI (Pakistan's \"CIA.\")

If Pakistan were forced to take real action against its own ISI supported organizations or factions- Pakistan would be thrown into civil war- and the civilian government realizes this.

Destruction by civil war or by nuclear war with India. Pakistan is betting that India will back down as India has alot more to lose than Pakistan.

Hate makes a lot more sense than sense does when you're hating. Especially when you're backed into a corner, or even feel as if you are even though you really aren't. I know that if I was in possession of nuclear armmament I wouldn't be able to hold onto it as long as said powers have. The biggest facet in this situation is un-predictability. Pakistan might be hinging on India backing down because they have more to lose, but they also might launch the ★■◆● off just to take as many Indians down as they can while their own ship is sinking. If there even was a ground war and India managed to conquor Pakistan, I can almost guarentee you that either way, with defeat right in front of them, whatever semblance of Pakastani \"government\" there is would rather lob off as much of their arsenal as possible than turn it over to their captors un-detinated.

It's too soon to predict there will even be a war...

There is a good chance the blackmail will work and keep India from retaliation for the Mumbai attacks- but Pakistan shouldn't engage in brinksmanship without realizing that India may call its bluff.

So in short the Mumbai terrorist won. Not only are India and Pakistan now confronting each other along their boarders, more importantly, Pakistan has had to pull troops from the western tribal areas. The Islamnoterrorist must be jumping up and down with glee.
Does anyone here see a game plan here where the AQ types wind up controlling Pakistan? Oh wait...Alfred E Obama will take care of that problem.