• Tuesday, October 22, 2019

War Doctrine and Cause for Concern

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by Afterburner, Mar 5, 2019.

  1. Afterburner

    Afterburner FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2019
    Ratings:
    +1 / 25 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    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 IMG-20190303-WA0006.jpeg
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 1
  2. Pied Piper

    Pied Piper FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 259 / -0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Pakistan is not in a position to purchase on like for like basis......but should maintain cost effective weaponry that gives it the ability to punch above its weight.
    It should utilise its growing and capable defence industry in developing and upgrading its equipment. It should continue to purchase and jointly develop capable platforms with its allies, such as China and Turkey.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. Hakikat ve Hikmet

    Hakikat ve Hikmet ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,191
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Ratings:
    +11 / 15,069 / -1
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    United States
    "Vintage Military" Bahane, Ambani* Shahane....

    *Represents 50 folks (Marwari, Parsi, Jain etc.) who control 70% of India's wealth. Similar folks sold India to the East India Company
    **The top graduates from the Indian military academies, according to IDR, join their logistics/procurement corps
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  4. Signalian

    Signalian PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    5,300
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Ratings:
    +162 / 11,214 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Pakistan will find it hard to fight a long sustained war, and India wants to indulge Pakistan in short quick conflict.

    So Guess what happens?

    A short conflict is very easy for Pakistan to tackle and give a bloody nose to India and this is what has happened here. India has tried to stretch Pakistan's military through an escalation, not a war. This gets the Pakistani Military prepared and ready for action. but where is the war ?

    India tries to make a certain zone active, Pakistan reacts easily. Had India made 10 zones active and started to drain Pakistani military throughout the border apart from LOC, things would be different. LOC is mostly active/hot. This is nothing new. India has prepared Pakistani forces to respond on LOC effectively by keeping this zone under fire since years. The PA formations deployed on LOC are thoroughly trained due to constant ceasefire violations by IA. Currently, most of the ammunition from COD's is going north on LOC and Sialkot sector. So unless India brings alive the whole IB along with LOC, Pakistan will concentrate on one active sector while keeping forces alert in other sectors.

    Next is the element of surprise. Indian threatens and sends warning of attacks and then conducts a comical strike. Where is the surprise? All the military history is filled with success of missions based on surprise, deceit and deception. The deception that IAF tried was trying to thin out PAF CAP's and sorties conducted for AD, but there is NO full fledged war going on that PAF has to conserve assets to strike at 10 locations in coming days, save few sorties for PA and PN and on top of that conserve spares, fuel etc for the duration of war. PAF can put in air as many planes as it wants, since its knows that IAF will be coming any time and there will be only A2A combat.

    India has made the wrong strategy to punish Pakistan. As long as the conflict is limited in nature, Pakistan will easily deploy resources and weapons in that zone and give a very effective and immediate response.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  5. khansaheeb

    khansaheeb SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,697
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Ratings:
    +2 / 5,965 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    With the fire power India and Pakistan have a sustained war will be too expensive in terms of human cost to both sides and is highly unlikely. We have partners with us who are there for the long run and will happily supply us with weapons to give India a good drumming.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. MastanKhan

    MastanKhan PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    17,326
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Ratings:
    +157 / 45,006 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Hi,

    Pakistan's military should have looked at more than giving a bloody nose to india 15 years ago---.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2