Replies

An Indian win would be akin to France winning against Germany in 1936, had they decided to strike. There are winners and losers in great powers conflicts. In this one, the clear choice in terms of US interests is India. It's a no brainer.

"In this one, the clear choice in terms of US interests is India. It's a no brainer." Why do you say that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but just want to know your reason for comparing India to France and Pakistan to (Nazi)Germany. There clearly have been attacks on Indian assets coming out of Pakistan, but the government there claims the attacks come from terrorists that it can't effectively control. Maybe they are telling the truth, and India's crushing the Pakistani government's power would just leave those terrorists even more unrestrained than they are now. Or maybe there's real proof that the Pakistani government is fully involved in the attacks.

I'm generally not a fan of Islamic governments and their demands and grievances, but, as I understand it, the deal at partition was that the majority religious affiliation in a region would determine whether that region became part of Pakistan or remained Indian. Kashmir has a majority muslim population, but a Hindu royal family. India broke its own principle and sided with the royals. If all that is so, then India is in the wrong.

There are winners and losers in great powers conflicts. In this one, the clear choice in terms of US interests is India. It's a no brainer.

If India could win and it would solve the problem of terrorism, I'd be all for it.

I think they can defeat the Pak army, although it wouldn't be easy, but I don't see how they could govern the country. All that would be left is anarchy, and that's where terrorism thrives.

It seems counterproductive to me, not to mention the fact that a couple of Indian cities might get nuked in the process.