If it wasn't for the Cold War, would India have dismembered Pakistan further sometime before Pakistan got nukes?

Oct 2015
1,138
India
Old paradigm on nukes must change somewhat.

Nukes are not really effective and even in their presence on both sides conventional war can go on. There are three examples.

First was in 1999 when Pakistan occupied Kargil Hill some 10 kms inside Indian territory during winter months when both side traditionally evacuated from the ice-cold area. Pakistan calculated (General Musaraf was the Army head in Pakistan) that since Pakistan is a nuclear state, India would gulp it. Quite to the contrary, India launched a full-scale Army & Air attack and evicted them. Pakistan, on verge of defeat - having no face left - sent Nawaz Sharif the Prime Minister to USA un-invited in a commercial flight to tell Clinton that Pakistan had nukes hoping US may get worked-up and try to halt Indian attack. But he got no response from Clinton. So nuke detente did not work.

Second, now also, Pakistan Army is carrying out a low-intensity war in Jhelum Valley (five districts of Kashmir). Methods are copy-pasted from Afghanistan. Send terrorists, train locals, supply arms & ammo, use Islam and preaching thru mosques to alienate local population, kill politicians standing in elections or trying to vote, kill students going to schools (so that they go to Madrasas and get indoctrinated & get no employable skills), kill journalists who talk of negotiations. Pakistan's stated intention is to create limited mischief, only so much that India does not launch a full-scale attack on Pakistan. So India possessing nuclear weapons is not really stopping them.

Third, even more important than the above are the example of US and North Korea. Neither could have bombed the other. President Trump was forced to announce development of "small" nuclear bombs which could damage without affecting neighbours like Japan and China. North Korea, of course, blinked as the head there realized it is better to have a kingdom 'guaranteed for his life' and enjoy it than to fight. Afterall he getting old.

So nukes do not prevent a conventional war. And hardly anyone can use it on others. May be, they are just expensive toys.
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
What about if India sets up independent states in west Pakistan and then withdraws? For instance, an independent Baloch state, Sindhi state, et cetera.
It is not impossible that Indian Army assists setting up an independent state in Balochistan. However, withdrawing maay lead to reverting to old staatus. Because the new state will be too weak to defend itself. About 66% of Pakistani Army soldiers are from Punjab. Even if the 10% from Balochistan leave and join the Army of their new country, it will be difficult for them to defend their new country on their own.

However, I do believe that it is time India should start actively supporting the struggle of Baloch people. For one, Baloch, despite being Muslims, are being persecuted by Pakistan Army. Situation is similar to Bangladesh in 1971.

It is relatively more practicable for India to establish and support a democratic state Afghanistan - Taliban & terrorism notwithstanding. However, wars are very expensive and India needs resources for its own economic development. Since US has been funding the war, one may at the least, expect it to continue. Here also I think US is not on friendly terms with Iran and all mobilization to Afg will have to be thru Iran. And lastly, one needs to answer a question wearing Indian shoes - What is in it for me?
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Old paradigm on nukes must change somewhat.

Nukes are not really effective and even in their presence on both sides conventional war can go on. There are three examples.

First was in 1999 when Pakistan occupied Kargil Hill some 10 kms inside Indian territory during winter months when both side traditionally evacuated from the ice-cold area. Pakistan calculated (General Musaraf was the Army head in Pakistan) that since Pakistan is a nuclear state, India would gulp it. Quite to the contrary, India launched a full-scale Army & Air attack and evicted them. Pakistan, on verge of defeat - having no face left - sent Nawaz Sharif the Prime Minister to USA un-invited in a commercial flight to tell Clinton that Pakistan had nukes hoping US may get worked-up and try to halt Indian attack. But he got no response from Clinton. So nuke detente did not work.

Second, now also, Pakistan Army is carrying out a low-intensity war in Jhelum Valley (five districts of Kashmir). Methods are copy-pasted from Afghanistan. Send terrorists, train locals, supply arms & ammo, use Islam and preaching thru mosques to alienate local population, kill politicians standing in elections or trying to vote, kill students going to schools (so that they go to Madrasas and get indoctrinated & get no employable skills), kill journalists who talk of negotiations. Pakistan's stated intention is to create limited mischief, only so much that India does not launch a full-scale attack on Pakistan. So India possessing nuclear weapons is not really stopping them.
You're describing short duration skirmishes, or small wars, not full blown high intensity conflicts of national survival.

And even then, with skirmishes of very limited importance involving small numbers of troops in grand scale of what was available, there was a very legitimate danger of nukes being used, which is why the conflicts ended rather quickly, especially from outside pressure.

Third, even more important than the above are the example of US and North Korea. Neither could have bombed the other. President Trump was forced to announce development of "small" nuclear bombs which could damage without affecting neighbours like Japan and China. North Korea, of course, blinked as the head there realized it is better to have a kingdom 'guaranteed for his life' and enjoy it than to fight. Afterall he getting old.
Wow. You used the fact that North z Korea is a nuclear power and thus protected from attack as evidence nukes aren't useful.

So nukes do not prevent a conventional war. And hardly anyone can use it on others. May be, they are just expensive toys.
Nukes do prevent conventional wars, which besides very recent nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, fighting small border skirmishes, there have not been any other two or more nuclear powers who have fought one another.

Possessing nukes and a delivery system is like having a pistol in a world dominated by fisticuff conflict. Having the pistol doesn't mean you have to use it, you can still punch someone. But you always have the chance to use it, the option. And why it's not just dangerous but near suicidal for two pistol armed individuals to purposely get into a fist fight, because if one pulls their pistol then fist fight turns into gun fight.

A word you need to learn, I recommend googling it before further commenting:
Deterrent
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
A bona fide genocide? The Pakistanis killed a lot of Bengalis to suppress an independence movement IIRC, but surely they didn’t aim to exterminate them.
It looks like some scholars question whether what happened in Bangladesh was a genocide:

1971 Bangladesh genocide - Wikipedia

Still, like in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, it was certainly mass murder (albeit on a much smaller scale than in Cambodia based on the percentage of the population that was murdered).
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
There is a style of presentation Wiki recommends. Don't post original research (or views), quote scholars on both side of a debate/issue.

Denials follow big events & history like a shadow. There are people who deny holocaust in WW-2 (at least one country has made it illegal to deny it), there are people who deny US landing on moon asking 'how could a flag fly' as shown in the picture. There were, at least 1-2 years back, videos on Youtube alleging that 9/11 was an inside job US Govt (and creators seemed to from western world).

To write history we have to conclude the most probable, and let denying people alone.
 
Last edited:

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,224
India
A bona fide genocide? The Pakistanis killed a lot of Bengalis to suppress an independence movement IIRC, but surely they didn’t aim to exterminate them.
You seem to have an inner line to the thinking of then dictator of Pakistan, Yahya Khan, who was indeed in effect bent on destroying the Bangladeshi Muslims, yet you think of him as a person who desisted from the ' Genocide ', meaning he killed quite a few million but did not kill the entire lot of Bangladeshis. Bangladeshis did not exactly thank Yahya Khan for being merciful, you can bet on that. If you insist on splitting hairs on this issue, Hitler did not manage to kill a whole lot of Jews, did he, though his achievement was killing 6.2 million of them. Do you think that he was merciful to the Jews, then?
 
Nov 2014
1,675
Birmingham, UK
, Yahya Khan, who was indeed in effect bent on destroying the Bangladeshi Muslims,
"You seem to have an inner line to the thinking of then dictator of Pakistan"; is it only you who has this special privilege, then? it seems rather unfair, to criticise another for assuming he 'has an inner line' and then to effectively do the same yourself ('who was...bent on destroying the bangladeshi muslims')

I would contend that holding/defending territory was more of a primary concern than genocide.
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,224
India
"You seem to have an inner line to the thinking of then dictator of Pakistan"; is it only you who has this special privilege, then? it seems rather unfair, to criticise another for assuming he 'has an inner line' and then to effectively do the same yourself ('who was...bent on destroying the bangladeshi muslims')

I would contend that holding/defending territory was more of a primary concern than genocide.
It is best if the poster concerned and your goodself go through the entire history of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war leading to the liberation of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangla Desh. It is highly unfair to belittle the horrifying killings of quite a few million Bangladeshis, men, women, and children by saying that there was no 'Genocide ' of the Bangladeshis. I think Manasmusa or any poster from Bangladesh ought to clarify the number of the unfortunates killed during the horrifying occupation by the brutal Pakistan Army, prior to the war.
Bangladesh estimates that 3 million Bangladeshi s were killed before its liberation. An independent estimate says 1.7 million were killed while Pakistan, the most lying nation on the planet concedes that 26,000 were killed.
 
Last edited:

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
Estimates vary widely, ranging from 1 to 3 millions. The intent of the Pakistani army was genocidal, without doubt.