Although it has long since faded from public consciousness, the 1999 Kargil War has the dubious honor of being the first and as of now only major conventional war between two nuclear-armed states (excluding the on and off border fights between Russia and China, where fighting was minor and intermittent for the most part).
What are your thoughts on the this unique, yet largely forgotten conflict? Was the threat of an actual nuclear exchange overstated or understated? Could it be used to extrapolate how a theoretical war between NATO and the USSR would've turned out? What is the likelyhood of a future conflict between India and Pakistan over this mountain town?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9URN8tjRA
>>907636
A nuclear threat? Yes. Both countries have very poor standings with one another, but being direct neighbors the threat of nuclear war would stay just that: a threat.
I would not say how a theoretical war between NATO and the USSR would have been, because that would entail a large amount of nations with far more developed militaries and economies engaging one another.
The likelyhood of a conflict over the town? I'd say moderately likely because those countries would fight over anything if it meant drawing blood from one another. How likely is a conflict between the two countries in general? Just likely again. It could happen but then again it probably won't. Pakistan has nothing on the sheer numbers that India could pump out were a conflict to occur.
These questions are much more fleshed out than the usual "redpill me on this, pham". Are these your own or from some kind of school/university assignment? (I don't really care either way, just curious)
>>907636
>That Moment when you realise that the Indian Controlled Poonch is literally right next to the Paki Capital
KEK
U
C
K
>>907670
Graduated from Uni almost two years ago. So I'm just here on my own.
I played an ArmA III mission (youtube video was footage of it) based on the Battle of Tiger Hill and started reading about it. I was wondering what fellow 4channers thought of it.
I always thought Kargil in some ways was closer to a nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis was since in Kargil the two opposing sides actually stopped talking and started shooting, unlike Cuba where neither the Soviets or Americans actually fired on each other and at no point did communication between the two governments cease. Kargil was prevented from getting out of hand largely because of it's remoteness (the terrain made a blitzkrieg style breakout into open country by either side virtually impossible) and the fact that larger powers (mainly the United States) stepped in to put a stop to it.
>>907670
Do you have any comments on the development and subsequent involvement of the intelligence agencies of both countries involved? ISI and RAW today are boogeymen to the opposing country. But what were the operational successes of each organization, and what parallels are there between the Soviet and US intelligence conflict?
>>907670
I also asked about whether Kargil could a used as the basis of a theoretical Cold War gone hot scenario was because India and Pakistan have similar militaries in terms of technology and training, much like how the NATO and the USSR were for the most part evenly matched for most of the Cold War.
>>907796
It's probably safe to say that the Pakistanis badly underestimated India's willingness to fight to keep control of the LOC. Their whole war plan and goal was to seize the Kargil region and reinforce it to the point of making retaking it unfeasible.
India likewise failed to detect the initial incursion by Pakistan, but once they realize what was going on launched an effective response and drove Pakistan out in short order.
>>907796
>>907832
Original responder here, this anon said it as well as I could. The Indian countermeasures against Pakistan far outweighed the offensive pressure applied against them.
>>907798
I see what you mean now, but I still think that a cold war gone hot between NATO and the USSR is more complex than India and Pakistan going at it.
Could it be used as a basis? Only slightly. The military similarities between the two are okay for that, but the geopolitical repercussions and economic strain pales in comparison to a hypothetical conflict between the USSR and NATO. That really takes away from how effective it would be to make the Kargil War a hypothetical Cold War turning to real war.
>>907862
I think the most interesting parallel that could be drawn is how it could have happened and stayed non-nuclear.
In fact
>>907832
Draws an interesting parallel to Korea. The Soviets and DRPK badly underestimated how much the American's were willing to fight to hold onto Korea. Their war plan and goal was to seize the peninsula and stabilize it making retaking it politically unfeasible.
America failed to detect the initial incursions or react appreciably, especially around Ongjin, but once they had, they launched countermeasures that far outweighed the offensive pressure applied by the soviets and DPRK on Korea.
>>907636
>Could it be used to extrapolate how a theoretical war between NATO and the USSR would've turned out?
Not likely. The Kargil War was objective based and was dependent upon conditional surrender. Had war broken out between the COMBLOC and NATO it would have certainly been a war of annihilation and thus only unconditional surrender would have been accepted.
>>907915
My thoughts exactly.
>>907923
The ideological differences between the Warsaw Pact and NATO were certainly far more extreme, but so was the capability for total destruction.
Personally, I think there could have been limited scale war (say, confined to Central Germany and neither side attempts to expand it self) and it may have not turned nuclear simply because both sides wouldn't see the potential losses as worth the gain. Tens of thousands would still be dead though.
>>907960
Would have just given both sides an excuse to nuke up Germany.
>>907960
I read somewhere that the Soviets never took threats of nuclear escalation seriously and were going to roll with tacticals right out of the gate should a hot war start, I'll have to try and chase up a source.
>>907923
Feel free to correct me if you think this is wrong, but I have always been under the impression that a USSR-NATO nuclear exchange would have been unlikely to occur except in the case of
a) imminent nuclear attack by the other side (as was the case in Cuba)
b) a shift in the balance of power that left one side at such a severe disadvantage it could never hope to militarily recover (i.e. a Soviet blitzkrieg through Europe or the United States invading China as what Douglas MacArthur attempted to do in Korea).
Only in those two instances, would use of nuclear be seriously justified (at least in theory)
>>907981
I thought tactical nukes weren't actually that feasible in a battlefield situation because the fallout would have landed on friendly as well as enemy troops (not that that the Soviets really cared about that or anything, but it's unfeasibility was one of the reasons the concept nuclear artillery largely died by the 60s and the focus was shifted to missiles).
>>907965
If they actually wanted to, neither side needed an 'excuse' to nuke Germany.
The question is, would they want to nuke Germany?
>>908042
>I thought tactical nukes weren't actually that feasible in a battlefield situation because the fallout would have landed on friendly as well as enemy troops
Nah, Tactical was totally viable as early as 1950. Fallout isn't that big of a deal as long as you know you're dealing with it.
>>908044
Soviets probably wouldn't minded it all that much. To them, it would be getting even for the destruction wrought on them during WW2 (everyone on /pol/ likes to whine about "muh mass rape" but truthfully speaking, the Russians were far more forgiving of the Germans than everyone expected them to be).
>>909530
>Russians were far more forgiving of the Germans than everyone expected them to be
What did you mean by this?
>>909908
He meant that they didn't Dissolve the historic Mistake known as G*rm*ny once and force all to spare Europe from the most meme nation in history
>>909928
If the Russians had decided in 1945 to massacre the population of Germany under their control in retaliation for Operation Barbarossa, no one would have lifted a finger to stop them. And yet, despite Stalin's penchant for slaughtering/deporting whole populations, they didn't. Even with all the rape and pillage, it largely tapered off after six months.
>>907960
That looks like the Wehrmacht.
>>910724
it does a little, yeah
>>910770
It's just the helmets.
>>907981
The "Seven Days to the River Rhine" Warsaw Pact exercise involved limited nuclear strikes, ostensibly kicking with a NATO first strike, although scenarios often did that to dress up offensive plans.
>>907960
>82nd airborne panama.jpg
That looks like a 3rd Inf Div shoulder patch to me.
>>910724
Yeah, I read that the US Army was initially hesitant to field the PASGT because of it's similarity to the Stalhelm but they changed their minds after it's performance in Grenada and Lebanon.
>>914437
3rd ID didn't participate in Panama to my knowledge and I found this photo off an 82nd Airborne website.
>>907783
Pakistan acquired Ballistic Missiles from North Korea in exchange for nuclear material and technology sharing.
The Pak Army intended on using them, but found out that they didn't work.
>>907981
>the Soviets never took threats of nuclear escalation seriously
Is this why they literally stockpiled more nukes than the rest of the world combined?
>>916774
Am... Am I supposed to be surprised?
