Afterburner
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Read this amazing piece by a friend and pasting it "as is" for readership.
For serious readers...
India's Cold Start
After the 2001 Indian Parliament Attacks, India decided to mobilise their armies for an attack on Pakistan, however, it took them so long to mobilise that the situation cooled off amidst international pressure.
Since then, they decided to follow a new military doctrine, defining which in simplest terms, they would be able to launch limited attack on Pakistan within a short span of time, combining all three forces, and at already decided military targets. That way they wanted to escalate the proceedings at sub nuclear level, using conventional weapons.
Militarily, India has more human and material resources, and a bigger financial reserve than Pakistan and in a conventional war of slightly longer duration, they presumed that they have an edge over Pakistan. The difference, however, is in will and capability to launch a nuclear attack.
Indian hopes of gaining supremacy through that doctrine came crashing when following their biggest war games as rehearsal to that doctrine, Pakistan conducted their own military exercises under "Azm e Nau". To top that, Pakistan conducted tests of Nasr (Hatf IX) which can carry tactical nuclear payload over 60km. This was Pak's message to them that even in case of any conventional adventures from India, we will target their armies with limited Nuclear strikes as our defensive strategy. This is the best deterrence we have so far and that is Bcoz it's a war between two armies, one that wants to survive while other that is willing to go down fighting.
Its a logical conclusion of the strategic differences between the objectives of two armies. India wants to expand and prosper, hence, their army prefers self preservation. Pak wants to survive & exist and majority believes in afterlife, hence, we are comfortable with self destruction. While in case of offensive strategy, we remain unconventional in terms of human and material resources. Therefore, as the saying goes, "making India bleed through a thousand cuts".
However, it came to me as a surprise that India's recent executions have not represented their own doctrine but rather, Israel's preemptive strategic war doctrine. Israel lacks strategic depth and to compensate for it, they rather prefer to take the war to enemy's soil rather than fighting it on their own land. Their neighbours lack the competing war machinery and hence Israel believes in killing the threats before they hatch, for which, they have the arsenal ranging from covert ground missions to aerial strikes all the way to nuclear deterrence, without much resistance. What India needed to understand was that most of Israel's neighbours lack not only the strategic depth but also the necessary professional army and firepower, unlike Pakistan which cannot b bullied in the same way. Our biggest asset are our tactical and strategic nuclear weapons which we won't hesitate to use when facing existential crisis, and our unconventional human assets who will still operate deep into their cities beyond the war zone. Together, these two factors will always compensate for their advantage in strategic depth.
Pakistan has rightly retaliated otherwise they would have faced more surgical strikes in futures fitting the same pattern. However, it's also time for us to adapt to this shifting paradigm of war strategy. I'm sure that our Generals would be looking keenly into this strategic shift from India. Among many things, we'll soon be seeing closer ties with Turkey and Middle East, procurement of long range strategic bombers, electronic jammers and other measures against early warning systems, and most importantly expediting the progress in ICBMs. In other words, now we'll be preparing for Israel along with India. And this would require more budget allocation for defense purposes.
Moreover, NYT's criticism of India's "vintage" army and Modi's comments about Rafale jets, will surely warrant an escalation in arms race, and Pakistan will have to follow suit to stay in competition. Therefore, it's a moment of concern not celebration, as it would mean a further cut on public welfare on both sides of the border.
Finally, I'd say that we must be concerned about this war hysteria by Modi's govt and put diplomatic pressure upon India to stop it. This time, India violated the international border with a full , including electronic jammers, escorts, refuelling planes and recons. The plan was perfect but execution was poor by all professional standards, but it may not remain like that forever. We may not be lucky everytime therefore we have to remain prepared. But that preparedness needs more money, or as an alternate, a stronger diplomacy. In a poverty stricken country, diplomacy must take the lead, in my humble opinion. Govt must manifest her will to curb the home grown militancy, even if they offer covert facilitation. There are tough times ahead and only a shrewd military and civilian leadership can steer through it.
After the recent events, and that NYT article, lots of arm dealers would be celebrating an anticipated monetary profit at the cost of further poverty on both sides of the border. Its something to despair not celebrate, as most of our twitterati and fb warriors are doing right now.
Regards,
EKK
For serious readers...
India's Cold Start
After the 2001 Indian Parliament Attacks, India decided to mobilise their armies for an attack on Pakistan, however, it took them so long to mobilise that the situation cooled off amidst international pressure.
Since then, they decided to follow a new military doctrine, defining which in simplest terms, they would be able to launch limited attack on Pakistan within a short span of time, combining all three forces, and at already decided military targets. That way they wanted to escalate the proceedings at sub nuclear level, using conventional weapons.
Militarily, India has more human and material resources, and a bigger financial reserve than Pakistan and in a conventional war of slightly longer duration, they presumed that they have an edge over Pakistan. The difference, however, is in will and capability to launch a nuclear attack.
Indian hopes of gaining supremacy through that doctrine came crashing when following their biggest war games as rehearsal to that doctrine, Pakistan conducted their own military exercises under "Azm e Nau". To top that, Pakistan conducted tests of Nasr (Hatf IX) which can carry tactical nuclear payload over 60km. This was Pak's message to them that even in case of any conventional adventures from India, we will target their armies with limited Nuclear strikes as our defensive strategy. This is the best deterrence we have so far and that is Bcoz it's a war between two armies, one that wants to survive while other that is willing to go down fighting.
Its a logical conclusion of the strategic differences between the objectives of two armies. India wants to expand and prosper, hence, their army prefers self preservation. Pak wants to survive & exist and majority believes in afterlife, hence, we are comfortable with self destruction. While in case of offensive strategy, we remain unconventional in terms of human and material resources. Therefore, as the saying goes, "making India bleed through a thousand cuts".
However, it came to me as a surprise that India's recent executions have not represented their own doctrine but rather, Israel's preemptive strategic war doctrine. Israel lacks strategic depth and to compensate for it, they rather prefer to take the war to enemy's soil rather than fighting it on their own land. Their neighbours lack the competing war machinery and hence Israel believes in killing the threats before they hatch, for which, they have the arsenal ranging from covert ground missions to aerial strikes all the way to nuclear deterrence, without much resistance. What India needed to understand was that most of Israel's neighbours lack not only the strategic depth but also the necessary professional army and firepower, unlike Pakistan which cannot b bullied in the same way. Our biggest asset are our tactical and strategic nuclear weapons which we won't hesitate to use when facing existential crisis, and our unconventional human assets who will still operate deep into their cities beyond the war zone. Together, these two factors will always compensate for their advantage in strategic depth.
Pakistan has rightly retaliated otherwise they would have faced more surgical strikes in futures fitting the same pattern. However, it's also time for us to adapt to this shifting paradigm of war strategy. I'm sure that our Generals would be looking keenly into this strategic shift from India. Among many things, we'll soon be seeing closer ties with Turkey and Middle East, procurement of long range strategic bombers, electronic jammers and other measures against early warning systems, and most importantly expediting the progress in ICBMs. In other words, now we'll be preparing for Israel along with India. And this would require more budget allocation for defense purposes.
Moreover, NYT's criticism of India's "vintage" army and Modi's comments about Rafale jets, will surely warrant an escalation in arms race, and Pakistan will have to follow suit to stay in competition. Therefore, it's a moment of concern not celebration, as it would mean a further cut on public welfare on both sides of the border.
Finally, I'd say that we must be concerned about this war hysteria by Modi's govt and put diplomatic pressure upon India to stop it. This time, India violated the international border with a full , including electronic jammers, escorts, refuelling planes and recons. The plan was perfect but execution was poor by all professional standards, but it may not remain like that forever. We may not be lucky everytime therefore we have to remain prepared. But that preparedness needs more money, or as an alternate, a stronger diplomacy. In a poverty stricken country, diplomacy must take the lead, in my humble opinion. Govt must manifest her will to curb the home grown militancy, even if they offer covert facilitation. There are tough times ahead and only a shrewd military and civilian leadership can steer through it.
After the recent events, and that NYT article, lots of arm dealers would be celebrating an anticipated monetary profit at the cost of further poverty on both sides of the border. Its something to despair not celebrate, as most of our twitterati and fb warriors are doing right now.
Regards,
EKK
