In conventional warfare, India is superior to Pakistan just by sheer number, here is a list from Jane's defense weekly a 2005 update:
Indian Army statistics: Active Troops 1,400,000, Reserve Troops 900,000, Territorial Army 200,000, Main Battle Tanks 5600, Artillery 3800, Support Aircraft 9 squadrons of helicopters, Surface-to-air missiles 1900.
Pakistan Army statistics: Active Troops 800,000, Reserve Troops 200,000, Territorial Army 150,000, Main Battle Tanks 2900, Artillery 1700, Support Aircraft 11 squadrons of helicopters, Surface-to-air missiles 700.
But you can be rest assured that a war between India and pak will not remain conventional for long. Probably China will take their side and Russia will take India's side, USA will remain neutral and sell arms to both...
In a worst situation, God forbid, if nuclear weapons comes into play, and probably Pakistan makes a first strike,(India will never strike first) it will annihilate about 70% of west India, with India's counterattack wiping off about 90% of Pakistan, because India has 4.5 megaton NW's while Pakistan has 2.3 megaton.
Lets just hope nothing as above happens, conventional war or proxy war restricted to the borders are a far better option. Moreover, neither country can afford either a full fledged war, the Pakistani economy will crash in less than 7 days on a full fledged war, while India will go bankrupt in 30 days time.
2006-12-01 21:29:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
In my opinion, if it happens I can assure that Pakistan is finished. All the nations in the world knows Pakistan supports terrorism. India always have the upperhand on Pakistan. the truth is the US and China cannot support Pakistan anymore because if they do, their economy will be shattered because they depend on India a lot. Pakistan keeps itching India because they are just jealous of our growth. There is no denying in that. If the war really happens once more, India will this time not be lenient!!!!
2016-05-22 22:26:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I doubt other countries would bother getting involved. China would benefit with India occupying herself with war and the US would probably be quite pleased to have people who identify with Islamic Pakistan's cause trot over to the Indo-Pak border and busy themselves there rather than at the Pak-Afghan border.
Speaking purely economics and military-wise, Pakistan has a small fraction of the weaponry and money of India so it would seem to be very obviously India who would "win", which is to say, would force the other side first to admit defeat. Both sides would lose in the sense that everyone has already mentions but India stands much more to lose.
Still, it hardly seems likely that India and Pakistan would be foolish enough to go to war again. It seems to me that Pakistan has been just a little cheeky because of it's economic and military backing from the US and god knows theyve got to use all their bullets if they want more from America (makes you really suspect the Yankee reasons for involvement in Pakistan as sly promoter of regional conflict- in their typical fashion that we've seen so many times). Still, Pakistan and India surely know that the countries that would benefit from them going to war would be China and the US. Even in the Kargil skirmish, you've got to give both sides (particularly India, dare I say with its very obviously superior military might) credit for not going overboard. If there is such a thing as a controlled "war" or military action, that was it.
2006-11-29 13:31:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tarun Banerjee 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
India and Pakistan have been at war since 1948 roughly.
Lord Mountbatten made a sideline deal with one of his Majaraja's in what is now known as the Kashmir.
The UN mandate was that all Muslim areas of former India were to be known as Pakistan. This Majaraja was Hindi but his entire region was Muslim. Stories vary by the Pakistani and Hindi accounts, but this region is the main reason for the battles and wars that followed.
India refers to this former Majaraja's area as the "Jammu and Kashmir". Pakistan refers to it as the Ajed Jammu Kashmir (Free Kashmir region).
President Musharrif took the entire region by force several years ago and the USA placed an embargo on Pakistan to get him to give it back to India.
For all its vaunted men and machinery, India was unable to take this area back by force until the Pakistani Army pulled out voluntarily.
2006-12-03 19:36:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by wolf560 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Serious and worked out answer: Nobody would.
If either one stood to gain at all, they would have gone to war in the late 1990s.
But since the inevitable outcome would be to utterly destroy both economies and a large portion of both countries' populations, neither country sees the war as worth having.
(That doesn't stop them from figuring out ways to "win" a pyrrhic victory, though, since the scarier the possibility of war, the less likely the other side is to initiate one.)
2006-11-28 09:59:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jeff S. 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Pakistan would likely be the victors. The world would inevitably take sides and it could possibly be a WW3.
2006-11-28 04:34:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Maria Gallercia 4
·
3⤊
3⤋
As is generally the case in war, NO ONE!
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!
2006-11-28 04:27:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by producer_vortex 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nobody would win that one.
2006-11-28 04:24:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by tom l 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
wolfie you need to check your facts...... I bet u stayed at a terrorist camp....they sure can brainwash people.........lol.....;)
2006-12-05 18:23:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by arbiter_47 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
I know it wouldn't cost that much-cheap labor....
2006-11-28 04:19:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋