Operation Sindoor and Aftermath

[ezsasa]

What you said is logical but could've only been possible if the GoI was eager to get itself in an all out war, which I highly doubt. If that's what it wanted, we would've conducted SEAD/DEAD on May 7th followed by the actual missile attacks on terrorist installations and if the Pakis retaliated (they would have) we would've bombed their air bases like on May 10th but on a greater intensity with not just the runway but also aircrafts like what you suggested. It seems to me, that originally the GoI wanted a repeat of Balakot where we would've struck targets and they would've retaliated, both sides claiming victory and then ignoring each other for the next 6 years but that plan got de-railed with Porki reaction and had to improvize to get their DGMO to request a ceasefire and sell it as a win to Indians.

at some point all these "would have" "could have" theoretical assumptions have to consciously fall back on reality checks for confirmation. reality check here is what has been stated and executed by the actual main players in the game, in this case the gormint and security forces. they checked almost every box, that security focussed intelligentsia of the country have been debating on.

we need to have clarity on what has been achieved:

- demonstrate that terrorism is the primary issue between India and pakistan.
- combat proven tag to many of the defence equipment
- raise the cost of an misadventure i.e deterrence
- demonstrate restraint factored into the operational planning
- find space for conventional deterrence, as a response to sub-conventional warfare imposed by paki army.
- find space for conventional retaliation under nuclear overhang.
- call out nuclear bluff
- let pakis know, pakjabi heartland is no longer out of bounds
- there is space for both kinetic and non-kinetic responses.
- remind pakis of their lack of strategic depth .
- erase the distinction between jihadis and their state sponsors.


if folks want to apply their mind, and add more chapters to the playbook, can use the above mentioned points as the new baseline and build on it. we also have to be careful not to over read the outcomes, beyond a point so much so that it blurs the lines between hallucinations and reality.

 

[cicada3307]

This is a great talk given by Lt General Raj Shukla. He mentions that Late PM Vajpayee later regretted not going to war with Pakistan after mobilizing Operation Parakram. He also describes the incremental change in our attitude towards Pakistanese sponsored terrorism. The conclusion is that Operation Sindhoor was basically a notice to Pakistan that going forward there will be heavy cost attached to any act of terrorism. He acknowledges that the Operation Sindhoor may not deter Pakistan's terror activities but it certainly adjusts what Pakistan should expect after committing terrorism.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_33vVKfjeM

As a matter of fact, I would be happy if an act of terrorism happens sooner than later. It might sound cruel and illogical but that is the only way forward for us to destroy the country called pakistan, split it into four pieces and make sure that it poses no further existential threat to us in future. Terrorism is rooted in the very veins of Pakistani Punjabi muslims, untill and unless we make them flee from from their land we will not be able to live in peace. For that we need to split them into 4, make them endlessly fight inbetween them for food, land and water.

 

[concard]

@Azaad You may be right. It is likely going to happen by 2030. And we are not prepared.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GJJVAQNOWM&ab_channel=CappyArmy

 

[Anants]

@Azaad You may be right. It is likely going to happen by 2030. And we are not prepared.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GJJVAQNOWM&ab_channel=CappyArmy

China is likely to first confront India. The way the USA intervened on behalf of Pakistan, and the speed with which it reached a tariff agreement with China, has given Beijing new confidence. China now believes that, aside from some material support and limited intelligence sharing, the US will not significantly intervene in an India-China conflict.

China may choose to engage India first to test its military capabilities and strategies. Tibet and the surrounding geography offer a strategic advantage for launching a short, quick conflict aimed at boosting domestic and international confidence.

But, we are not adequately prepared. Our military focus has remained too Pakistan-centric, and our response to China's moves has been as dismissive as Pakistan’s typical reactions to India. I'm not saying we can't take them on—I believe we can. But we are not preparing fast enough, largely because we don't believe a confrontation is imminent or their reponse is going to be anything different from Pakistan. That mindset needs to change, and urgently.

 

[Azaad]

@Azaad You may be right. It is likely going to happen by 2030. And we are not prepared.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GJJVAQNOWM&ab_channel=CappyArmy

It's imperative we de fang Paxtan , even accelerate the process of their disintegration before 2030.

Fortunately for us this is Fauji Foundation we're talking about , an organisation known to habitually miscalculate with disastrous results of which 1971 is only the most prominent example.

I'm expecting them to return before the year is out. This time , hopefully , Leaderji goes in for a de capitation strike , destroy or at any rate render their Nuke production , storage & deployment centers unusable & uninhabitable & does away completely with the PAF & PN .

We can then sit back & watch Paxtan implode courtesy all those terror groups they helped create directly or indirectly. Although this won't solve the Paxtan problem for us & create another set of problems , at least this will put an end to the first set of problems their existence created for us.

 

[fire starter]

Damages are very extensive.

No surprise porkis surrendered.




View: https://x.com/rajfortyseven/status/1922815827360776325?t=brW7kpEwOxi26d4bNXsmow&s=19


View: https://x.com/rajfortyseven/status/1926523771919138826?t=06gaG2OgwLXCE8OEYebUsA&s=19

 

[concard]

China is likely to first confront India. The way the USA intervened on behalf of Pakistan, and the speed with which it reached a tariff agreement with China, has given Beijing new confidence. China now believes that, aside from some material support and limited intelligence sharing, the US will not significantly intervene in an India-China conflict.

China may choose to engage India first to test its military capabilities and strategies. Tibet and the surrounding geography offer a strategic advantage for launching a short, quick conflict aimed at boosting domestic and international confidence.

But, we are not adequately prepared. Our military focus has remained too Pakistan-centric, and our response to China's moves has been as dismissive as Pakistan’s typical reactions to India. I'm not saying we can't take them on—I believe we can. But we are not preparing fast enough, largely because we don't believe a confrontation is imminent or their reponse is going to be anything different from Pakistan. That mindset needs to change, and urgently.

With respect to tariffs, Trump has paused for 90 days if I am right. There is no trade agreement which has been signed or agreed upon with US until now. Given the huge trade deficit US has with China more than anyone else, I don't see Trump agreeing to anything so quickly. Chinese did not follow through with the previous deal when Trump was in first term. It is unlikely there will be a breakthrough very soon between them.

The rest of your comment I fully agree. We have a haramkores as bureaucrats. These haramkores who have studied 10,000 pages of facts become bureaucrats and this filth run the country indirectly. American Universities employ wide range of specialists in every domain to help them understand many topics. Whereas here a scumbag politician delegates these tasks to a bureaucrat expecting magical solutions.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Need to create a compilation for this

View: https://x.com/Duorope/status/1926530521883959794

 

[Nicky]

Yes, as I said, neither side wants us to succeed, neither side wants to push us hard enough to fall into eithers lap or pull a total wildcard move like making a long term military alliance with russia, Ala 1971.
This is the calculus at play and it'd actually advantage to us, if we recognize the situation and have a clear foreign policy plan on it.

China has nothing to offer, the US won't offer without us sacrificing autonomy or with heavy restrictions like they tried to put when we went for S400.

Them raping or mutilating a serving line woman officer is like 100x worse optics to them than us, in the Western perception scale. That's the kind of News even CNN will cover on front page, coz muh feminism and patriarchy are bigger priority for news media than geopolitical interests.

Unlikely, Hamas still has positive feedback and many western governments back it, inspite of what they did on 7th October and then still keeping hostages.

Feminists will not decry Islam no matter what it does.

 

[Nicky]

There is nothing for us to miss. US has & will always be tiled to it's bitch.

Dont know why Chellany simply says these things as though he has invented a new fact.

Irrespective of what we do, US will always come to it's bitch's help especially when there is a firefight & bitch is at the receiving side.

It does not matter what we do or "we got wind of it" earlier.

Even if we offer them bases in Andaman, Arunachal & Ladakh, they still will not abandon Pakistan.

The point was we should not have become overjoyed with a Modi visit. In my view, it's useless to try to court them, we should simply keep it business.

All that Modi in Texas campaigning for the orange orangutan is useless.

Instead pour resources into our industry and using any tactics to get it done.

So if we knew Us will come to save it's bitch, we should have hit harder instead of proportional.

 

[Physx32]

@Azaad You may be right. It is likely going to happen by 2030. And we are not prepared.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GJJVAQNOWM&ab_channel=CappyArmy

Do we have any underground facilities for joint operations and ensure continuity of government?

My guess is we don't, because during operation Sindoor, we saw chiefs of the 3 services, defence minister and senior officers travelling frequently (and publicly) to PM residence which is comical.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

Well this thread is fucked. At least try staying on topic guys.

In other news

View: https://x.com/OsintTV/status/1926570946128724079

 

[Teengunalagaan1]

Admin, delete if already posted.


View: https://youtu.be/yq1MAoqMfYg?si=NWM5wvv9K4xcvB6l

 

[indrajit]

View: https://youtu.be/wwKAFIZwGJ4?si=hDdyrucClGWGnJc2

The interviewer is a bit of a buffoon but the subject was undeterred and well worth a watch.

 

[asl001]

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/V7IunDR4o40?si=HjSbHPsHwkw8Rkna
Sem2sem

 

[Ajayant Tripathi]

Why are we even debating fitness of woman for combat roles. Its clear cut answer. They are not made for combat role.

I am okay if they are kept in ceremonial roles. Armed forces are not about combat only. They have other ancillary departments. Woman can serve in canteen, clerical and other roles which do not require combat.

It doesn't compromise with our fighting ability.

Having some woman in uniforms serve make armed forces inclusive too. As someone earlier rightly said they other half of the popualtion will also have a stake in our armed forces.

But we are a country with surplus meat bags and so govt may even send them to an active battlefield. Who knows? It is very unlikely though. Even the woman will chicken out. They are fighting for and larping on active combat roles because they believe that they will not truly see a gruesome battlefield in their lifetime.

Once the equation flips even these woman will be asking for non combat roles. Reality always wins over fiction.


No matriarchical society is alive today. Woman today have more power than their predecessors because state has monopolized violence.

Even in personal relations these fem nazis submit to their abuser. Its a different thing to bark in public.

I will though agree both genders have a role. Currently woman have more oppurtunities than in past and they have every right to monopolize on them. They can't and should not be limited inside four walls.

Public violence is lesser now. Woman should be more visible in public now. There is nothing wrong in it.

But active combat roles?? Thats a stretch. Their are other housekeeping roles in institution which they can easily do. May even run supply trucks but not to the frontlines.

 

[concard]

I have not commented on the crap discussion which is going on in this thread regarding women serving in frontline combat. The reason is most of them who are talking about it are the people who always lose the sight of big picture and go on and on about talking BS. Let me explain with a simple logic and real history.

When I was in Germany I asked a Indian immigrant who was living there since 1970's his experience about life living in West Germany. He said during 1970's he barely saw military aged males in West Germany on the streets. Just for your information, Germany lost close to 20 million military aged men in WW2. They invited guest workers from Turkey, Spain, and other countries to prop up their economy. Now imagine if Germany lost 20 million young women in WW2. Who is going to birth the next generation of German kids? German men?

It is a simple freaking fact, when there are no young women in the country who are capable of giving birth, that nation won't survive for very long. Even in this age of wokeness it is still women who give birth to next generation not men. Men are replaceable albeit it might take some time but women are irreplaceable. Apart from this simple logic, putting women in frontline combat can have consequences if they are especially captured by enemies during battle. I don't think I have to elaborate on that. Now can we stop this stupid discussion here?

I also support what @Anants has said regarding this topic too. Women should serve in defensive roles far from the frontline.

 

[concard]

Do we have any underground facilities for joint operations and ensure continuity of government?

My guess is we don't, because during operation Sindoor, we saw chiefs of the 3 services, defence minister and senior officers travelling frequently (and publicly) to PM residence which is comical.

We were not in a full fledged war so you can't blame them for meeting PM publicly. However, whether we have underground bunkers or not is a big question. I believe we must have them somewhere. It would be utterly ridiculous if we don't have them.

 

[redpanda]

The stress tolerance you are talking about isn't related to military activity.

Yes, women have higher stress tolerance ability than men when it comes to domestic stuff and raising babies. Women are better multi-taskers too.

I lose my mind if I spend more than 15 mins with a toddler. My cousin sisters can spend entire day with the same toddler. Technically, that means they have higher ability to tolerate stress than me.

Doesn't mean they'll perform better on the battlefield compared to me.

Also there is a difference in default reaction between men and women in case of physical tolerance. Men prefer fight or flight (befriend is tertiary) while women prefer befriend or flight (fight is tertiary response). There are research paper on this.

 

[Sanglamorre]

Do we have any underground facilities for joint operations and ensure continuity of government?

My guess is we don't, because during operation Sindoor, we saw chiefs of the 3 services, defence minister and senior officers travelling frequently (and publicly) to PM residence which is comical.

If this was a fully confidential matter, there wouldn't be press photos of the meetings. OP Sindoor was as much opinion influencing as it was military. It was a very public facing effort.
So you get the photo ops and headings to exhibit to public. It is what it is.

Also, the adversary couldn't even hit an airfield. The danger was so low, precautions like secret number bunker meetings weren't probably needed.