France offers flexibility for India to integrate indigenous weapons with Rafale

[Pakistanithinktank]

well if they surrender like wussies then they won't expect sugary times from the Awaam. If no guts to use em then why even keep em bcaz no guts to use?
I get what you say but losing and surrendering to hindutva simply isnt an option for any sane muslim in their right mind.
I'd rather die than to do that!

It won’t come to that. I am sure Pakistani arms forces are ready for any misadventure from Indians, and this time it will be rude awakening for them. Pakistan allowed some Indian missiles because we wanted to test part of our air defense without showing all our cards. If you go back to last year Gobar Arya’s show, he alluded to this.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Aircraft were perfectly flying - all things considered with every possible disadvantage Pakistan has in geography and depth - to still manage flight operations against an enemy that has 20 times the budget, 3 times the force and enough depth - and for that enemy to gloat about attacking 3 airbases barely 5 minutes flying time for subsonic systems, and damaging 1 runway and 2 actually useful buildings in the process.. speaks volumes to the actual insecurity and lack of achievment for the enemy.

Not Pakistan.

Pakistan will continue to have this disadvantage unless it develops comparable underground facilities, hardened infrastructure, and other forms of strategic protection.

In any case, in a limited border conflict, the size of the country does not automatically determine the outcome. Small country side can concentrate their best available resources in a relatively small area and for such limited small conflicts

But in a full-scale war, the situation would be very different. Once the conflict expands, the side with fewer resources, smaller economic capacity, and less strategic depth would face increasing difficulties.

That is one reason Pakistan can potentially sustain a limited conflict, but a prolonged full-scale war would carry far greater risks and costs.

It may also help explain why Pakistani leaders and officials frequently bring up the possibility of nuclear escalation, while Indian leaders generally avoid publicly framing conventional conflicts in terms of nuclear war.

 

[Beijingwalker]

But in a full-scale war, the situation would be very different. Once the conflict expands, the side with fewer resources, smaller economic capacity, and less strategic depth would face increasing difficulties.

That is one reason Pakistan can potentially sustain a limited conflict, but a prolonged full-scale war would carry far greater risks and costs.

It may also help explain why Pakistani leaders and officials frequently bring up the possibility of nuclear escalation, while Indian leaders generally avoid publicly framing conventional conflicts in terms of nuclear war.

Full scale war on Pakistan will make India another Israel, Pakistan is an important nation in the Muslim world, India can't take on China and the whole Muslim world together.

 

[ety]

Pakistan will continue to have this disadvantage unless it develops comparable underground facilities, hardened infrastructure, and other forms of strategic protection.

In any case, in a limited border conflict, the size of the country does not automatically determine the outcome. Small country side can concentrate their best available resources in a relatively small area and for such limited small conflicts

But in a full-scale war, the situation would be very different. Once the conflict expands, the side with fewer resources, smaller economic capacity, and less strategic depth would face increasing difficulties.

That is one reason Pakistan can potentially sustain a limited conflict, but a prolonged full-scale war would carry far greater risks and costs.

It may also help explain why Pakistani leaders and officials frequently bring up the possibility of nuclear escalation, while Indian leaders generally avoid publicly framing conventional conflicts in terms of nuclear war.

In a full scale all out war between India and Pakistan, China won't stand idly by. Don't forget both India and Pakistan border China.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Full scale war on Pakistan will make India another Israel, Pakistan is an important nation in the Muslim world, India can't take on China and the whole Muslim world together.

Simple question: Would China really risk a nuclear confrontation just for meddling in another country’s affairs or supporting another country?

Why would anyone risk their own people’s lives for someone else’s affairs when they know their capital could become a nuclear target? I even remember that the US and Western countries were pushing China to enter the war in 1962, but China didn’t dare to take that risk.

And goes to any other country, because no one going jump between two nuke states , directly.... Indirectly indian and pakistan, both will get support from other countries

 

[Beijingwalker]

Simple question: Would China really risk a nuclear confrontation just for meddling in another country’s affairs or supporting another country?

Why would anyone risk their own people’s lives for someone else’s affairs when they know their capital could become a nuclear target? I even remember that the US and Western countries were pushing China to enter the war in 1962, but China didn’t dare to take that risk.

And goes to any other country, because no one going jump between two nuke states , directly.... Indirectly indian and pakistan, both will get support from other countries

Another country's affair? Kashmir disputes involve China, China also has land disputes with India in some other regions, how it becomes "meddling"?

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Another country's affair? Kashmir disputes involve China, China also has land disputes with India in some other regions, how it becomes "meddling"?

Then why would China directly fight India and risk a war?

Why wait for Pakistan to start the war?

Is China really so weak that it needs a third country to initiate a war in order to pursue its own claims?

Because china can justify putting own capital on risk, by saying we are fighting for our claim lands

 

[Beijingwalker]

Than directly china take fight and risk war with india..

Why wait for Pakistan to start war?

Is china so weak?

We did in 1962, only fools believe China is weaker now than 1962. We wait for India to start it just as we did in 1962.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

We did in 1962, only fools believe China is weaker now than 1962. We wait for India to start it just as we did in 1962.

Dp We live in only 60 years back... China has only to tell, we did in 1950, 60... Nothing else

Was there any nuke risk?

Is nothing changed?

 

[Beijingwalker]

Dp We live in only 60 years back... China has only to tell, we did in 1950, 60... Nothing else

Was there any nuke risk?

Is nothing changed?

Pakistan is also a nuclear power, don't you fear nuke risks when India makes a war threat?

 

[ety]

Then why would China directly fight India and risk a war?

Why wait for Pakistan to start the war?

Is China really so weak that it needs a third country to initiate a war in order to pursue its own claims?

Because china can justify putting own capital on risk, by saying we are fighting for our claim lands

Lol, India becomes the hegemon of South or Eastern Asia by invading and occupying China's long term strategic partner Pakistan is not acceptable situation to China. It's called strategic coordination of the two on the borders. Yes, China is unlikely to attack India to start a war unprovoked, does that mean China is scared of India then ? Maybe that's Indian logic.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Pakistan is also a nuclear power, don't you fear nuke risks when India makes a war threat?

Am I not saying the same thing?

No other country would want to risk its own people’s lives by directly joining a war between two nuclear-armed states.

No one can afford that risk. If their own capital were hit by a nuclear weapon simply because they intervened in a conflict between two nuclear-armed states, they would never be able to justify that decision to their own people.

 

[Beijingwalker]

Am I not saying the same thing?

No other country would want to risk its own people’s lives by directly joining a war between two nuclear-armed states.

No one can afford that risk. If their own capital were hit by a nuclear weapon simply because they intervened in a conflict between two nuclear-armed states, they would never be able to justify that decision to their own people.

You keep provoking and threatening Pakistan, a nuclear power, it's not a sign of mutual respect you give to another nuclear power.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

You keep provoking and threatening Pakistan, a nuclear power, it's not a sign of mutual respect you give to another nuclear power.

If any terrorist activity is linked to Pakistan, then it becomes a major concern for India because of the history of Pakistan supporting to armed people in Kashmir.

Otherwise, border disputes can remain unresolved. India has not tried to change the status of the disputed territory simply by launching an attack, and the issue can remain at the level of competing territorial claims

India and Pakistan can continue to maintain their respective claims for hundreds of years without such indirect support to such actors

I only said that no country would want to directly enter a war between two nuclear-armed states.

Nuclear weapons are not something to be used casually. If a conflict becomes serious and a third party directly intervenes, it could open the Pandora’s box of nuclear escalation.

Just think about it—why is no country directly sending its own troops to fight against Russia in the current war?

Because nuclear weapons aren’t built merely to be kept on display. When a country is facing the possibility of losing everything.

 

[Yasser76]

If any terrorist activity is linked to Pakistan, then it becomes a major concern for India because of the history of Pakistan supporting to armed people in Kashmir.

Otherwise, border disputes can remain unresolved. India has not tried to change the status of the disputed territory simply by launching an attack, and the issue can remain at the level of competing territorial claims

India and Pakistan can continue to maintain their respective claims for hundreds of years without such indirect support to such actors

I only said that no country would want to directly enter a war between two nuclear-armed states.

Nuclear weapons are not something to be used casually. If a conflict becomes serious and a third party directly intervenes, it could open the Pandora’s box of nuclear escalation.

Just think about it—why is no country directly sending its own troops to fight against Russia in the current war?

Because nuclear weapons aren’t built merely to be kept on display. When a country is facing the possibility of losing everything.

No one buys this BS anymore, in fact Malaysian PM called India out on it as BS

Try another excuse like "we just hate muslims", that one is more believable