Pakistan has only 72 hours worth of fighting strength

Only 72 hours after which it may use the nuclear option. That’s scary !!!

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DE21Df03.html

War scenario beyond conventional wisdom
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - In the wake of another deadly attack on an Indian army camp in Indian-administered Kashmir on the weekend, the Indian government is being pushed against a wall by militant groups, so much so that some form of military response seems an inevitability despite international pressure for restraint.

Pakistani diplomatic sources indicate that Islamabad has invoked all diplomatic channels to prevent war - despite the expulsion of its high commissioner from New Delhi - but if push comes to shove, it will obviously have no alternative but to respond.

On the weekend suspected Pakistani-based Islamic militants attacked an army camp in Indian-controlled Kashmir, killing four soldiers and wounding 12 others. This was only five days after a major assault on another army camp in Kashmir that left more than 30 civilians dead and which triggered a new crisis in relations between India and Pakistan. India accuses Pakistani-backed militants of carrying out the attack.

The two countries have massed hundreds of thousands of troops along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir, which in recent days has seen renewed heavy shelling.Pakistani Information Minister Nisar Memon said Islamabad had no plans to retaliate on the diplomatic front, and hoped that the current crisis could be resolved peacefully.

Military observers say that more than 150 places have been identified where Pakistani and Indian forces have exchange fire along their border, with especially heavy mobility and exchanges around Kartah, Rajori, Aknore, Sialkot, Gujarat, Narowal and Jhamp Choriah.

Asia Times Online reported recently (Kashmir just the beginning in jihadis’ vision of war) that a third force was operating in the Kashmir conflict - dissidents within the jihadi groups who have become disenchanted with the policies of their own groups and those of the government. Their goal is to provoke friction between India and Pakistan to such a point that war becomes inevitable.

On paper, such as conflict would be no contest, as in straight numerical terms of population, economic might, military manpower and equipment it is almost meaningless to speak of an India-Pakistan balance. “Imbalance” would be a more appropriate term since India dominates in every respect.

India has a standing army of 1.1 million, with defense spending of US$13.94 billion, 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), compared with Pakistan’s standing army of 550,000 and defense spending of $3.3 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP. The Indian air force is the world’s fourth largest, best equipped and professionally trained. The overall difference between the Indian and Pakistani air forces is a ratio of about 2:1 in terms of planes - India has about 800, of which 715 are combat-ready, to Pakistan’s present strength of 450.

Pakistani strategic sources believe that Pakistan has only 72 hours worth of fighting strength, after which it would have to consider the nuclear option. These sources add that Pakistan has mounted its Shaheen missiles (which can carry nuclear warheads with a range of 750 kilometers) at various positions and will “make optimum use of them in the case of war”.

Neither country has a stable nuclear-deterrent equation, nor transparency in their nuclear doctrines, that is, under what circumstances they might use such weapons to deter “unacceptable” damage, or even what “unacceptable” is. India has not yet officially spelled out its doctrine, beyond saying it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Pakistan refuses no-first-use. It has indicated that it will “defend” itself in a nuclear way in the event of a conventional attack overrunning it.

The two states have enough fissile material for 25 (Pakistan) to 100 (India) nuclear bombs/warheads, each of which can kill up to 800,000 civilians at one go in a large city. Both are creating nuclear command structures. Both are developing new missiles. India test-flew a new Agni medium-range missile in January. Pakistan is expected to conduct a test-flight within the coming weeks.

In simple arithmetic, therefore, India is far ahead of Pakistan. However, the Islamic militant groups, and especially those who have ruled out calls for restraint from President General Pervez Musharraf, pose the greatest threat to India. These militant groups are fully integrated into Indian society and have the potential to wage a proxy war all over India should the countries actually begin a war.

About two dozen armed militant groups claim to operate inside Indian-administered Kashmir. Apart from a couple of prominent groups, most of them are part of an alliance known as the United Jihad Council. These groups are separate from those affiliated to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, such as Dawood Ibrahim, which do not operate under a specific group name.

this is not true..

if pakistan can engage with india for 17days in 1965 war. then the situation is much more better now...


.::. ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ .::.

wohoo I'm already congratulating india for their victory have fun witth the "survival" after the war. Pakistan will use Nuke even if it means zero existence to them

We will go down but also take india too even though India has better chance of "survival" so what if it takes another century to bring back everything close to normal..trust me even a victory will be a big regret and a mistake, abhi to shor machoun..we are this and that but the consequence wont be pretty.

Why risking the lives of millions of civilians, is it realy wort it to put their lives at stake just because of some militants which india failed to stop thanks to their useless 700,000 troops.

I hope there is no war !I'm sure nobody will use nukes but anyone can make hasty decision during a depserate and intense situation

[This message has been edited by sherrybaba (edited May 20, 2002).]

Give Mr. Syed Saleem Shahzad some money man, or maybe some attention that he is craving for.

Its obsecure to even say that any of the two countries Pakistan or India would use Nukes. They might be stupid but not insane.

.

[This message has been edited by sherrybaba (edited May 20, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by sherrybaba:
**wohoo I'm already congratulating india for their victory have fun witth the "survival" after the war. Pakistan will use Nuke even if it means zero existence to them

We will go down but also take india too even though India has better chance of "survival" so what if it takes another century to bring back everything close to normal..trust me even a victory will be a big regret and a mistake, abhi to shor machoun..we are this and that but the consequence wont be pretty.

Why risking the lives of millions of civilians, is it realy wort it to put their lives at stake just because of some militants which india failed to stop thanks to their useless 700,000 troops.

I hope there is no war !I'm sure nobody will use nukes but anyone can make hasty decision during a depserate and intense situation

[This message has been edited by sherrybaba (edited May 20, 2002).]**
[/quote]

Go F... yourself India...

Chinese analysis.

(Kanwa News Jan 10 digest news, 2001) "If just looking at the defense capacity, the Pakistani army has enough strength to make the Indians take a second thought before launching any actual assault. Today's Pakistani army is far different from that of 1971. Its armored forces and ground-to-ground missiles have jointly formed a substantial deterrence against India's possible attacks. Among them, the 320 Ukraine-made T80UD, 500 China-made T85-2AP and 800 HJ8 ATM can all match the Indian army's T72M1 in quality.
In face of India's powerful strategic air force, Pakistan has prepared approximately 1000 "Stinger", QW1 and HY5A shoulder launch SAMs. It has been proved in practical battles that in tackling the older models of MiG21 and MiG27 in the Indian air force, these missiles are very effective. In the 1999 India-Pakistan conflict at Kargil, it was the China-made QW1 SAM that shot down one MiG21 and one MiG27. Pakistan is now being permitted to produce this type of missile, which is named Anza MK2. In the Bosnia war, the Pakistan-made HJ8 ATM destroyed a large number of M84 (T72) tanks of the Yugoslavia army. (Kanwa News for full story, see Kanwa Jan 10 Issue)"

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited May 20, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
**Chinese analysis.

(Kanwa News Jan 10 digest news, 2001) "If just looking at the defense capacity, the Pakistani army has enough strength to make the Indians take a second thought before launching any actual assault. Today's Pakistani army is far different from that of 1971. Its armored forces and ground-to-ground missiles have jointly formed a substantial deterrence against India's possible attacks. Among them, the 320 Ukraine-made T80UD, 500 China-made T85-2AP and 800 HJ8 ATM can all match the Indian army's T72M1 in quality.
In face of India's powerful strategic air force, Pakistan has prepared approximately 1000 "Stinger", QW1 and HY5A shoulder launch SAMs. It has been proved in practical battles that in tackling the older models of MiG21 and MiG27 in the Indian air force, these missiles are very effective. In the 1999 India-Pakistan conflict at Kargil, it was the China-made QW1 SAM that shot down one MiG21 and one MiG27. Pakistan is now being permitted to produce this type of missile, which is named Anza MK2. In the Bosnia war, the Pakistan-made HJ8 ATM destroyed a large number of M84 (T72) tanks of the Yugoslavia army. (Kanwa News for full story, see Kanwa Jan 10 Issue)"

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited May 20, 2002).]**
[/quote]

two thumbs up..
thanks to China..
Long live Pakistan.
Long live Islam..


.::. ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ .::.

Ha Ha.

Chinese give good grades to their Chamchas. Surprise, Surprise

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif

Time has come for America and India tp decisively use American commandos in Pakistan to get all nuclear arms and experts from pakistan and get them to Cuba.

I am sure President Musharraf will accept this action on the besis of "Pakistan first" policy.

[This message has been edited by WhoAmI (edited May 20, 2002).]

yeah, this type of ppl first beg China of their support in battlefield, and when China refuses, they start copy-n-pasting their analysts reports.

China gives a two hoots to see Pakistan down the drain. The ideal scenario for China would be that India and chian would be 100 years back in history.

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
**Chinese analysis.

(Kanwa News Jan 10 digest news, 2001) "If just looking at the defense capacity, the Pakistani army has enough strength to make the Indians take a second thought before launching any actual assault. Today's Pakistani army is far different from that of 1971. Its armored forces and ground-to-ground missiles have jointly formed a substantial deterrence against India's possible attacks. Among them, the 320 Ukraine-made T80UD, 500 China-made T85-2AP and 800 HJ8 ATM can all match the Indian army's T72M1 in quality.
In face of India's powerful strategic air force, Pakistan has prepared approximately 1000 "Stinger", QW1 and HY5A shoulder launch SAMs. It has been proved in practical battles that in tackling the older models of MiG21 and MiG27 in the Indian air force, these missiles are very effective. In the 1999 India-Pakistan conflict at Kargil, it was the China-made QW1 SAM that shot down one MiG21 and one MiG27. Pakistan is now being permitted to produce this type of missile, which is named Anza MK2. In the Bosnia war, the Pakistan-made HJ8 ATM destroyed a large number of M84 (T72) tanks of the Yugoslavia army. (Kanwa News for full story, see Kanwa Jan 10 Issue)"

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited May 20, 2002).]**
[/quote]

Abdali bhai there is one more thing and that is GUTS which bindian don't have. If they had the GUTS they would have attacked by now instead of blowing themselves in those mines along the PAK border.

First you want US commandos to attack their ally Pakistan, then you say Pakistans greatest ally, and one that rushed dozens of new fighter planes in December to Pak because of the Indain threat ‘doesn’t give a crap’?!!

I’m not going to bother with this cow piss drinker!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Atleast better than those failed equipments that bindian get by licking russian ass

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

RealDeal,
Don’t reply to this sucker coz he is filth he was banned once for calling Quaid-a-Azam a mother-fu**er and second time for calling our prophet a child molester…

He is shameless after getting kicked out so many time he comes back for more.

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** RealDeal,
Don't reply to this sucker coz he is filth he was banned once for calling Quaid-a-Azam a mother-fu**er and second time for calling our prophet a child molester....

He is shameless after getting kicked out so many time he comes back for more.**
[/quote]

He's a typical 'Internet tough guy'!
What a coward!

Wait a minute

Is'nt this the same so called indian super power wannabe who could'nt handle a militia in kargil! and had to get Clinton to call sharif to intervene to save an embarrassing defeat!

Yeah 72 hours really belive that one!

An interesting article from Balochistan Post.
http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=1926

By Mushahid Hussain

The regional scenario has once again swung back into a crisis mode. India dangling the threat of an imposed war on the eastern front, the Americans carrying their ‘war on terrorism’ well inside Pakistan’s western border and leaks from the Kargil conflict evoking fears of a military willingness to press the nuclear button in the ‘hour of need’.

These separate but related developments are indicative of different priorities and perspectives of the three main players in the emerging crisis - the United States, India and Pakistan.

After the failure to locate or nab Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the US has carried its ‘war on terrorism’ into Pakistani territory, seeking a greater degree of Pakistani military involvement particularly in the sensitive tribal areas. The battle for Kabul is apparently far from over. But for Pakistan, the concerns are clear. On the one hand, India has amassed over half a million troops in battle-ready formation, and on the other, Pakistan fears the danger of becoming the Cambodia to America’s Vietnam.

Indian hopes for a peaceful poll in September in Occupied Kashmir as a substitute for the promised plebiscite remain elusive given the insurgency that it has failed to quell. Last Tuesday’s bombing in Jammu provided a tailor-made pretext for the hawks in New Delhi to flex their military muscle by trying to ‘teach a lesson to Pakistan’.

Pakistan’s nuclear complex, located close to Islamabad at Kahuta, is again in the news with the first detailed American authoritative account of “American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit” by a Clinton aide, who was present during the meeting in Washington on July 4, 1999, between Muhammed Nawaz Sharif and Bill Clinton. That meeting had produced the Washington Declaration, which defused the India-Pakistan conflict over Kargil.

While the account by Clinton’s National Security aide, Bruce Riedel, carries interesting insights, the operative part that has contemporary relevance is his depiction of the Kargil conflict moving to an “advanced threat of nuclear war”.

Riedel refers to undisclosed sources of American intelligence cited by the American President to the Pakistani Prime Minister that the Pakistani “military was preparing their nuclear tipped missiles”. A ‘taken aback’ Nawaz Sharif is said to have responded that “India was probably doing the same”.

Although the backdrop is the Kargil conflict, the United States is sending a message of concern regarding what it views as the military’s control over Pakistan’s nuclear assets and their perceived proclivity to deploy these during a crisis.

India has upped the ante in what is the biggest crisis over Kashmir since the insurgency erupted in 1989. Pakistan has been accused of fomenting the Jammu attack and the Pakistani High Commissioner has been virtually expelled from New Delhi. There is talk of ‘punishing’ Pakistan by imposing a ‘limited war’. An erroneous assumption, as if wars, once started, can be confined and contained like some ‘limited’ 50 over game of cricket!

What could be stopping India from going to war against a country almost a tenth its size and over which India has a clear 3 to 1 advantage of numbers and conventional weaponry? After all, India’s intentions have been clear from day one of the ‘war on terrorism’ when it had hoped to club Pakistan with the Taliban and jointly clobber them with American support. But General Musharraf outsmarted the Indians by swiftly ditching the Taliban and siding with the Americans.

The Indian capabilities are evident from the state of battle-readiness of their troops all along the border with Pakistan. Now armed with a unanimous resolution from the Indian parliament, the government can even claim a ‘national consensus’ notwithstanding the cleavages within the Indian polity in the aftermath of the carnage in Gujarat.

Or, perhaps, the question can be put the other way around. Can the Indians go to war without an American nod? Given the current clout of Washington in New Delhi, Indo-American military intimacy and the high stakes of the US in Pakistan, with one third of Pakistani airspace and 4 bases in Pakistan being under American military control, this is highly improbable. The Indians would be unwilling to put at risk lives of American servicemen located in Pakistan and undermine the US-led ‘war on terrorism’ in nextdoor Afghanistan.

If a full-fledged attack is ruled out, then could a ‘limited war’ be ruled in? Indian military chiefs, particularly the last Chief of Army Staff General V.P. Malik and the present incumbent, General Padmanabhan, have propounded this ‘limited war’ doctrine although they have also been vocal in calling for a ‘political solution’ in Kashmir.

Pakistan and India have had an experience of fighting limited wars in the past. The 1965 Rann of Kutch engagement was a limited conflict, confined to the desert, while Kargil too in 1999 was confined to high peaks on the Line of Control in Kashmir.

India is aware that no government worth its salt can survive in Islamabad if it does not retaliate against any aggression, least of all a government of the military, which prides on its role as the defenders of the nation. Apart from the American military presence in Pakistan and the ongoing ‘war on terrorism’, the other factor inhibiting an Indian invasion is the fear that any conflict could escalate and develop a nuclear dimension. If India were convinced that there would be no Pakistani retaliation, it would have struck by now.

However, Pakistani policymakers should not discount the propensity for adventurism of weakened governments to shore up their domestic base and credibility, more so at a time when there is apparent overwhelming popular sentiment within India for such a move. Even harsh critics of the BJP like Sonia Gandhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav have lined up to give a thumbs up to the government. Additionally, while America does not want a war, it does empathize with Indian goals to contain the Kashmir insurgency and freeze the status quo along the LoC.

Although not imminent, if any Indian military operation does take place, it would be short and swift with US acquiescence, having dual objectives: give a ‘bloody nose’ to Pakistan and provide a ‘final solution’ to Kashmir.

Before the situation reaches a point of no return, Pakistan must act in a pro-active manner, rather than suffering from political paralysis. Two initiatives should be in order.

First, Pakistan should immediately launch a high-pitched diplomatic blitzkrieg making the United Nations as the centrepiece of its efforts. While the European Union External Relations Chief is arriving in Pakistan, the OIC too can be mobilized, since countries like Egypt, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran and the United Arab Emirates have political and economic clout with India.

Pakistan could invoke resolution 1172 of the UN Security Council passed on June 6, 1998, that unanimously viewed an inextricable linkage between Kashmir and peace and security in South Asia. Pakistan should also unilaterally offer placement of UN observers on its side of the LoC to monitor cross-border movement, which would meet the internationally expressed concern for ‘infiltration’.

Second, in the current crisis, the Achilles heel for Pakistan is the domestic divide, which has been aggravated by the Referendum. The government should forge consensus through consultations with political and opinion leaders and even consider formation of a government of national unity. The twin tasks of such a government in this emergency should be to cope with the crisis by reviving national unity and morale, and steer the country towards a democratic transition through a transparent, fair and free party-based election by October 2002.

A key question that remains shrouded in ambiguity if not secrecy is the kind of commitments made by General Musharraf to the Americans. The American press, with leaks from officialdom, has been harping over this credibility gap in pronouncements and practices.

Instead of being merely reactive, General Musharraf needs to reach out and take sorely needed initiatives on the political and diplomatic fronts.One week after the crisis, the military regime has not taken a single visible political or diplomatic initiative, other than alternating between strong rhetoric and frantic appeals. Conversely, the badly bruised and battered BJP government, whose credibility lay in tatters after Gujarat, has managed to forge an unprecedented consensus through the parliament and consultations with opposition political leaders.

In this national crisis, rather than retreating into a bunker, the government should be giving the lead by taking measures that revive national morale and confidence.

One analysis I read a while back (lost the link, I'm afraid), stated Pakistan's supplies and stores of war materials to be sufficient for up to 4 weaks of full scale war, or many months of war limited solely to the Kashmir region.

What this means is that you could expect a conflict to remain conventional for up to about 3 weeks, to be followed by a nuclear exchange, and then about 1 week of post-nuclear combat by surviving troops.

The fact is that Pakistan lacks the supplies for a prolonged conventional war with India - remember that by the end of 1965 war, we only had sufficient ammunition to fight for one more week.

Of course, now any war is likely to go nuclear and thus be concluded before the point where Pakistan runs out of ammo - there's a good reason why we haven't, and shouldn't, ever sign a no-first-use treaty with India.

NLI, Gilgit Scouts backed by arty is not militia. You Pajama clad tattus could not hold on to heights that they so “bravely” occupied when empty.

The Friday Times - March 29 - April 04, 2002 - Vol. XIV, No. 5 says:

Ha. Read this now famous Reidel Policy Paper on Kargil. Get the facts, alteast once…

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm