X-Sender: jaybee@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 3 2); 10 Jun 2002 14:11:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 46533 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2002 14:11:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2002 14:11:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ipop6) (202.188.0.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2002 14:11:50 -0000
Received: from user (sp-103-117.tm.net.my [210.186.103.117]) by ipop6.tm.net.my (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GXH00HERU3NXN@...> for agathiyar@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:11:49 +0800 (SGT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:11:43 +0800
Subject: Re: [agathiyar] Re: அணு ஆயதப் போர் -1h9yAtMQ==eUF0TVE9PQ==
In-reply-to:
X-Sender: jaybee@...
To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Message-id: <3.0.3.32.20020610221143.02071cc4@...>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <3.0.3.32.20020610000621.0071a294@...>
From: jaybee
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1292825
X-Yahoo-Profile: jaybee555
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 18524
At 04:43 PM 6/9/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Just because my scenarios are simple , don't discount the possibility
>either a conventional or a nuclear war breaking out. However, let us
>hear your scenarios.
Your scenario is based on too much optimism.
The war will take on newer dimensions. There will be more
developements involving neighbours and other friendly
countries. The war will not be contained.
You have not given any margin for insurgency.
I cannot write more than this. We have limitations.
Regards
JayBee
>--- In agathiyar@y..., jaybee
>>
>> Dear Vijinuk,
>>
>> You have left out a lot of variables - both
>> foreseeable and unforseeable. And some very important
>> factors of reality.
>> Your scenarios are too straight-forward
>> and simple.
>> War in the present world is no more like
>> game played on the ordinary chess board.
>
>
>Dear Jaybee
>
>I gave only a possible scenario based on some premises. I gave a
>scenario in which , Pakistan uses the nuclear weapon. Pakistan is
>very likely to use a nuke in the case of a possible collapse of the
>state itself. Under a military scenario like the one I gave, when
>it's faces collapse in it's main battle fronts of Punjab and Sindh,
>the state of Pakistan itself might collapse. Faced with such a
>collapse Pakistan might abandon Kashmir altogether -which is a
>rational policy- or go for a fight to the finish with India
>
>There is a possibility that the Indian army may face a prolonged
>campaign in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and some of it's best divisions
>may face an encirclement. The mountainous terrain of PoK can favour
>the defenders rather than attackers. To relieve presure on it's army
>in PoK, India can open new fronts in Punjab and Sindh, a strategy
>follwed by India in 1965.
>
>Of course you have other factors like foreign pressure on both the
>parties to stop the war, which the combatants may or may not heed. I
>think the Indian Govt is determined this time to seek a defenitive
>conclusion in Pakistan's Kashmir policy. India had all the chances in
>the world in 1948 and 1971 to eject Pakistan from PoK, but it missed
>the chances by being soft on Pakistan. For Pakistan's ruling elite
>and it's military rulers, Kashmir is one issue which gives them a
>suitable excuse to stay in power.
>
>
>I don't think, this time if the war starts, India wants to do a 1965.
>In 65, it was a stalemate which solved nothing. Stalemate is not a
>solution in Kashmir and I think Vajpayee govt realises that. Kashmir
>issue will solve itself only with these possible outcomes
>
>a. India is kicked out of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh
>
>or
>
>b. the present Line of Control is made an International frontier
>
>or
>
>c. Pakistan is kicked out of it's part of Kashmir altogether.
>
>Option a is not workable since India has enough military power to
>prevent it from happening
>Option b is possible, but the Pakistani ruling circles have not
>accepted that and their entire energy has been invested in wresting
>Kashmir fully. During the Simla agreement in 1972, Z.A.Bhutto made
>vague verbal promises to Indira gandhi to get his 1,00,000 prisoners
>of war back home to that effect. But once he got his PoWs, he went
>home and repudiated that idea. That was the time when Pakistan was
>weakest and a solution could have been imposed, but Mrs.G missed the
>chance. Pakistani military and civilian leaders would not like to
>have a clearcut solution like that.
>
>Option C is possible if India takes on Pakistan on it's own might.
>For strategic reasons, it will be useful because that will prevent
>infiltration of armed men from that part of kashmir into Kashmir
>valley and Jammu. Otherwise , you will see more Kargil like
>situations.
>
>
>Countries like the USA or the UK or Russia are least concerned in
>whose control Jammu and Kashmir is. Hence, it is upto India to
>implement a viable solution.
>
>
>My scenarios are possibly simple and straightforward. Wars are never
>predictable in their outcomes. Best laid strategies can come to
>nothing due to tactical and operational blunders. Conversely,
>tactically brilliant local commanders can suddenly open up new
>strategic possibilities, which if the military leadership, is alert,
>can seize the advantages- or waste them. In any war there are
>unpredictables like morale of the soldiers, nerve of the military
>leaders, psychological support from the public opinion and so forth.
>On each one, I can write an essay and I will do it in the future
>
>
>Just because my scenarios are simple , don't discount the possibility
>either a conventional or a nuclear war breaking out. However, let us
>hear your scenarios.
>
=================
