Not accurate here at all.
The Sino-Soviet clashes happened in 1969 whereas China just tested their first warheads in 1964 that too with Soviet help. They didn't have any credible delivery mechanism to threaten USSR. In fact it was a limited war smaller than Kargil. It was more of a pissing contest since Nikita Kruschev basically denounced Stalin's policies and that pissed off Mao a lot as he was pretty chummy with Stalin and used the same Stalinist policies in China.
All other examples you cited here are not between two nuclear powers.
-Korean War between US/UK and allied powers directly engaged North Korea and then later China who were supported indirectly by USSR.
-Vietnam was an insurgency for uniting their country where the French pulled the same divide and rule tactic as in India
-Yom Kippur War of '73 had Egypt and Syria on one hand with USSR support and Israel with US support on another. Even though Israel had nukes by 1968 they have always denied the same.
In fact at at one point in the 73 war Israeli PM Golda Meir thought of using nukes as a last resort but the Israelis managed to turn the tide by conventional warfare.
-Afghanistan in the 80's was the Mujahideen supported by US and Saudi against the USSR. Again both sides weren't nuclear.
If you're interested in military tactics devised by the Indian forces look up the Cold Start doctrine concoted by Sundarji.
A small excerpt here.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...mitations_and_Possible_Response_from_Pakistan
This doctrine is a massive headache for the Pakistani military but they have developed tactical nukes which are small nukes designed to hit Indian armored formations after they have penetrated Pakistani borders by about 80 Km and they are unable to push back using conventional means.
These guys are so crazy that they have a policy to nuke their own territory. :O
The NE didn't have much of a outside support and that outside support from India is precisely the reason Bangladesh exists today.
The LTTE defeat was an ethnic cleansing which we Indians cannot do as a principle .Otherwise how are we better than these dogs?
Moreover the international backlash(which would be absolutely justified) would ruin us and set us back by a decade or more. Think about the 1988 Tianamen Square debacle which halted the Chinese economy to a large extent till they got into the WTO in 2001.
The Khmer Rouge was actively supported by the US during the Vietnam war to act as a counterpoint to the Vietcong.
Once the US left and Pol Pot killed a million people in his country no one from the outside was ready to support them.
Hence the Vietnamese could go in and wipe them out.
This is pretty scary. Once these guys have a carte blanche all their focus will be on us. Whether we go hard or go soft it won't matter.
Because they believe that martyrdom buys them a Season Pass to heaven.
You can only defeat an enemy by destroying their will to fight. If thats the carrot in front of them then 100 of them are ready to die to kill one of us.
As for the Kargil War it is a bit funny as the Paki army executed the tactical operation superbly but failed at the strategic level.
Think in case of a broader war in the western theater which will always be the focal point of conflict between Indian and Pakistan due to topography if they had pulled a Kargil parallelly then we would have to divert a substantial portion of our combat power which could be deployed in Rajasthan into routing out these guys from Kargil.
That would include a major chunk of the infantry and almost all of our artillery which is darn limited to this day. So tactically you are locking up a large portion of your enemy by only deploying a couple of regiments of light infantry. Pretty neat.
However being the hothead doofuses they are they played their aces up the sleeve too early which would come in handy in case of a broader war.
Apologies for the long post guys. Problem is no one in my circle is interested in geopolitics. So excuse my rant.
