Singha wrote:vs Pak we are in a position to act conventionally and dare them to
escalate in a nuclear sense due to our superior number of air delivered and prithvi warheads.
We'd get our asses kicked at worst, and stalemated at best.
In a conventional limited war, we'd be playing to all of Pakistan's strengths. Indeed the Pakis can hold their own quite well in small skirmishes, artillery duels, tit-for-tat air strikes, etc. India's only superior to Pakistan when our military is fully mobilized, and it has to be a fairly long war (weeks or months, not days) to give time for an Indian blockade and our own superior logistics to become a factor.
Even then, the outcome is by no means certain. In any case what would be the point? Launch a full-scale mobilization followed by an all-out conventional attack... and then what? Obviously we can't follow through and take down the Pakistani gov't; it's widely understood we'll be nuked. We'd have to stop far short of inflicting a real defeat on Pakistan.... so what's the point? To make a statement?
Yes, let's spend tens of thousands of Indian soldier's lives and the equivalent of next year's entire military budget so we can "make a statement". To hell with that. I say no war unless it's
TOTAL. If we're not going to pre-emptively nuke Pakistan out of existence then we're obviously not serious, and would be better off turning the other cheek.