''What if'' based on Kargil war. my "why so" consideration based on Army control over pakistan - these are my points of view, and may be I'm wrong.
That is not a why so since army's control over Pakistan ensures it doesn't pull off any stunt like that again given its condition and power differential.
And unlike Kargil where India had international pressure of not crossing LoC, doesn't exist anymore. War will immediately escalate to level of strategic weapons and bring down any possibilities of an attrition war making Pakistan's tactical warfare capabilities insignificant.
I don't think so. Pak brought 1000 pgms from USA, produces their own pgms[less capable] and buying from China. How much they used on counter terrorism unknown. Pak having more smart pgm than us from US, China and their own. Meanwhile our AF waiting for for foreign ones and brought 1000 pgm excluding hammer.
Air power, air defenses, artilleries, mechanised infantry, amphibious warfare vehicles, anti armour warfare capabilities neutralise that advantage greatly. The production ability is what you are leaving unaccounted along with zero thesis of statistical comparison.
Anyway the PGM part isn't going to flip war in Pakistan's favour either. It certainly ensures more frequent artillery and drone strikes from India. All of priorities of Indian military would have changed had Pakistan being primary target.
It's a militant state with nuclear weapons. - right.
Rest- wastage of ammunition due to improper storage,
That's again a straw man argument unless you provide a data that this much ammunition goes waste that India will run out ammo in war even along with production in local factories.
IAF crying due to falling sqn strength, army saying PA mbt having day/night capability and our most of tank lacks it, artillery also not enough. All these issue due to snail decision making, on the other hand pak make decisions super fast.
IAF, Army or artillery, all still outnumber Pak by a great margin. China has a far stronger artillery though.
All the snail's pace decision are on country's procedure as well as effort to indigenise which will pay in future when India is denied foreign weapons.
Developing homegrown industry when possibilities of war are little is best thing to do.
Government of India will be biggest @$$e$ if they focus on panic buying than trying for homegrown even if it causes handicapped capabilities for some time.
Consider like this- if pak like Hitler, they already nuked us, but they are not, they send highly trained & equipped terrorists'
Either way, it doesn't back your argument about military.
Terrorists are dealt with special forces or border surveillance, only sometimes with military through surgical strikes.
Totally right, but India not an allay of US. hey are lenient on India - yes, that why they giving more important to kashmir & muslims, minorities now.
This again is a display of inability to think again.
They are still lenient on Indo Russian relations hoping for Indian cooperation against China and they off course tame India also for not being in their camp.
There are no black and whites in politics but gret shades. There are middle paths and dual thing in every relationship just as China is largest trade partner of US as well as enemy.
We can comfortably ignore your point here.
So according to you India a small country ?
No, I said Africa is insignificant for big countries. Don't get what are the issues with your comprehension.
Africa is not essential for growth of any big country for 3 decades at least, Asia is.
Either of China and India are only dumping spare money in Africa. If you look into statistics, you will find that economy and future of USA, Europe, China, India, Japan and Southeast Asia are dependent on each other and Africa is not even a chapter.
Not future, but present. In future Africa provide natural resources to match US/Chinese economy.
Africa already provides/Europe takes resources from Africa at cheap leaving them poor.
India & China not dumping, but spending money in Africa to build their own[ind/china] future.
Since current investments are not big and Africa's low income countries are showing no signs of income growth (in some cases, entire GDP growth comes from increased population), we can say China and India are only dumping small amounts of money and gambling there.
China, India, Japan, Korea and other Asian powers have been trying to industrialising themselves like Europe from day 1 of their independence. The case is opposite with Africa since larger population was tribal.
Asia didn't grow just because of population but since it also was a cluster of advanced civilisation like Euroepan empires and had strong social systems.
Africa doesn't.
You only considering consumer class, and forget about producer class who produce goods for consumer class & money class. China become world 2nd economy thanks to producer class, not consumer class.
You said Africa will drive China and India's growth and I said they don't consume.
And LOL what, China isn't dependenton consumption? 40% of Chinese GDP comes from consumption by common population alone, most of their growth came from increased local consumption and so was India. What China produces is consumed in West, Japan and India and hence, US, EU, China, India and Japan are dependent on each other mostly and not Africa.
Creating what you call a "producer class" requires beginning of household consumption and a skilled population to produce it before foreign consumption. If consumption increases, living standards and skills will improve and foreign companies will open factory in your country to address consumption and later export from your country.
Africa as a whole is far from first stage.
You may not have any iota knowledge of the economics, kindly just don't make up nonsense arguments out of your mind.
Do you really thing money class really care about huge population/people ??
Only huge population which consumes can support rise of rich people and a large rich population supports rise of super rich , small population doesn't LOL.
