Posted on 12/30/2001 1:23:20 PM PST by Sawdring
WASHINGTON, DEC. 30. India enjoys a strong numerical advantage over Pakistan in both conventional and nuclear weapons, giving it an edge in its current confrontation with its perennial foe, according to data released by a leading United States think-tank.
But a prominent U.S. expert on South Asia also warned that the roughly two-to-one military advantage of the Indian armed forces makes it more likely that a cornered Islamabad could lash out with a nuclear strike. ``If you had a full war between India and Pakistan, not just skirmishes on the border... India would start winning,'' said the former U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Dennis Kux, who has served in both India and Pakistan. ``And at a certain point Pakistan, rather than going under, would push the button,'' he said, appearing on CNN's `The capital gang' show.
According to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), India, whose population exceeds one billion, has more than 1.2 million soldiers on active duty compared to Pakistan's 6,20,000. A similar advantage is observed in practically all major conventional weapons category, the survey showed.
New Delhi's arsenal includes 3,414 main battle tanks and 1,540 light tanks, while Islamabad's heavy armour is limited to a total of 2,300 pieces. At a time when the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan has demonstrated the new strength of air power, India appears better positioned to achieve superiority in the sky, if its current tensions with Pakistan were ever to boil over into a shooting war.
India's air bases house 738 combat aircraft while Pakistan's house just 353, according to the CSIS. New Delhi also has nearly a five-fold advantage in transport aircraft and a six- fold one in combat helicopters, which, as events in Afghanistan have shown, can inflict devastating damage on ground troops. In addition, India has 37 naval aircraft compared to Pakistan's five, the report indicated.
Islamabad has an advantage only in self-propelled artillery, being able to field 240 pieces compared to India's 180. But it loses out in towed artillery where New Delhi has a 4,175-to-1,467 advantage, the data showed.
Mr. Kux said geography also favored India because an armoured blitz across the arid Punjab province toward the Afghan border could cut off Islamabad, the capital, from Sindh, the country's economic powerhouse, and its main port of Karachi. ``India could just cut across the middle of Pakistan. In the desert, it should be fairly easy to do.''
But U.S. experts believe that even in an exchange of nuclear strikes, India, while suffering tremendous losses, could have an advantage. Although no reliable official data is available, it is estimated that New Delhi has 400 kg of weapons- usable plutonium, according to the CSIS report. Since it takes about six kg of plutonium to manufacture a nuclear bomb, the amount would be sufficient to produce some 65 bombs if old technologies are used or 90 employing more advanced methods.
By contrast, Pakistan is believed to have more than 200 kg of weapons-grade uranium, which is enough to construct 15 to 25 nuclear weapons, the report said.
I believe India tried to do exactly this in 1971. It either failed, or was aborted.. do you know?
India otoh would look at Pakistan as one theater - China being another along with the Indians considering Bangladesh, Burma and their large coastline as being areas to protect. For these reasons I believe that the Indians have probably let the Pakis know that even though they have a 'no first use' policy with the nukes, they might have no choice but to use them pre-emptively if Pakistan-China start mobilising in concert. You'll note the recent change in Paki rhetoric to that of peace - with still a faint hint of nuclear blackmail thrown in for good measure.
If the USN wasn't in the Arabian sea, I would betcha that the Indian Navy would have moved out to blockade the Pakis.
As it seems tha tthe Pakis have a tendency to be Osama-backers, I hope they get their clocks cleaned. Not a very loving statement, but then, war is not a very loving action.
Actually that was when a holy war was waged on America. We have never actually even waged war on Afghanistan. WWIII would have to involve many countries fighting against many other countries. I have not seen this type of fighting. All I have seen is us dropping bombs on Afghanistan and the talibums and al-quida running like rats. If you want to call that WWIII you have the right but I fail to see it.
Furthermore, India has hundreds of ancient gods on its side, among them Rama, Krishna, Shiva-Kali....while Pakistan has only Satan, who appeared to the mad bandit Muhammad in the guise of an angel and possessed him while he uttered the hypnotic passages of the Koran.
BTW, why is it that we always are told the Koran is "the" Muslim holy book? Nearly all their directives, everything the makes Islam the hellish thing it is, come from the Hadith or other sources in the tradition.
This is boilerplate.
Pakistan would have little opportunity to use the nukes once the war starts. The nukes have little military value, being deterrent only. And they would soon have no air bases or missile bases left to launch from. The nukes are useless to Pakistan.
Very likely. It has taken years for prior world wars to get roaring. This might not be any different.
Pakis fought them to a draw in the west in 71
A large percentage of the Indian military was being employed in what is now Bangladesh
Most of the Indian armored forces were in the west however.
Logistics stopped the Indians as much as casualties. They couldn't have sustained a drive into Pakistan even if they'd had Desert Storm like success
In training and equipment Indians and Paks are pretty evenly matched.
Indians have the numbers though
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.