If a major strike is being planned, it would take at least a month. Even the U.S. military, with its extensive logistical capabilities, would require months of preparation to launch an attack—even against a force like Hamas.
Because I am not planning for optics this time. I am planning for impact. Bigger the impact i am planning, the more time I need (upto an extent, there is no infinite impact in infinite time but i will take time that maximises my impact).
Sometimes here in the forum, a lot of us, including me, get bored of waiting for the kinetics. But if we think about it, is just striking Pak our purpose? I mean we can send missiles, fly jets, move infantry, and start artillery pounding in one hour. But the purpose is not just to strike.
The purpose is to win. If i go unplanned, put India at a bit disadvantage: this is the biggest disservice I can do to the nation. If I go planned knowing:
a. My clear objectives,
b. Where do I fight, how do I win, and
c. How my winning helps achieve my objectives
In that case, i will achieve better outcomes.
Something like Balakot is what Pak wants. So that they can fly their jets for an hour, fire a few missiles, and claim victory. Why do I give them that?
When I am planning, I will play on my strengths. My strength is that I can take Pak down in a prolonged fight. And only a slightly prolonged battle, with major losses to war fighting ability of Pak army, can help me achieve my objective of creating deterrence. I see some pundits talking we would do calibrated response below nuclear threshold. That is nonsense, everything conventional is below nuclear threshold.