War aims do not depend on War. It is the aims that necessitates the War.
I can already sense this will be a waste of my time, but I will indulge you for a little bit. As mentioned already - I envision having to fight multiple wars, with incremental goals - to achieve my final objective.
So it obviously depends on what stage we're at - both the short and long term goals are clearly stated. Can't be any more clear than this.
So I asked what is our main problem with Pakistan ? Define it.
Pakistan's very existence in its current form.
Do not confuse issues. Is there any thing which can achieve all together? After all you have decided to use last resort of state instrument. India will certianly not conduct War for such worthless objectives as Akhnoor dagger.
This shows a clear lack of reading comprehension.
So you want four weak neighbours on the West which can be bought piecemeal by any Sikh or CIA or some Financier to fuck us even harder?
Bogus argument, shows weak understanding of geopolitics. What part of treaty bound friendly nations is difficult to understand? And are you really this scared of countries which could vaguely be prone to CIA interference; as if you aren't currently bordered by a country with a nuclear weapon program + strong military that constantly harasses you at the bidding of bigger more powerful enemies? If the CIA wants to fuck with you do you really think they can't work directly in India - a country where countless people are up for sale, espc. in Gvt/politics/bureaucracy?
Was Eastern Bloc successfully used to fuck USSR? Or was it a collection of satellite states tightly controlled by them? Has Latin America successfully been used to fuck the USA?
If you're so terrified of a couple potential satellite countries, and can't even exercise control over that easy of a neighborhood, there are much deeper troubles.
Why War if it can be achieved by other means. War is not a football match.
Because it clearly cannot.You can only create certain favorable circumstances, final blows will have to be dealt in a war.
And if it were so straight forward to achieve without conflict, it really is inexplicable why we haven't seen more progress towards these ends in recent times.
It can easily be achived without War.
No, it clearly can't.
You mean you do not accept partition of India ? and want back the land and 22 Crore Jihadi Abduls.
Stupid comment, either properly read and understand what's written before commenting, or don't waste my time.
Be clear what you want, You are trying to shop like a child who wants all cars in the show window.
I'm crystal clear, if your mind is confused, that's not my problem.
You will be hanged for War crimes. Though Pakistani generals are yet to hanged for their War crimes in Bangladesh. All of them are fucking 72 virgins by now I suppose.
Another stupid comment, stop wasting my time with nonsense.
Tell me the aim, Do not bash up the bush.
Have been damn clear about it. The only one
beating* around the bush here, with pointless lengthy rants, is you.
That is because someone like you was at the helm of affairs who did not know abac of War and what the country needs? They decided to terminate Wars on their whims and fancies.
If you're going to engage with me, type in clear, proper English that can be understood. The past leadership was incredibly inept. Either in the way it handled the wars, or in the way it handled the negotiations - or both. And the less said about Gvts which missed out on opportunities to strike, the better.
So that is your crux = that IA do not need tanks. Will your allow our soldiers to throw stones on you would nationalise those too.
Typical idiotic exaggeration. Crux is that this many tanks aren't needed, and the ones already present in the Army are sitting and gathering rust - while money we don't even have is blown on another 400 or so. 400 more tanks which will also gather rust. The money would be better spent on the Air Force or Navy, or even allocated towards the needs of actual soldiers.
War is not a solution to sub conventional warfare. That is foregone conclusion but jingos still talk of War without knowing what they want.
It actually is, but that's a lengthy subject to get into, and I strongly suspect at this point that I'm wasting my time. You likely wouldn't grasp the points I made, and would respond with more semi-English gibberish like before.
Any government is willing to fund some one else who can deter war for half the price. Try it.
So, this is what happens when people talk of matters military.
More gibberish. Stop wasting my time. Off to sleep now.