Cold Start Doctrine, explained in a video.

[Genesis]

One needs to be dense or overly confident to talk war with a nuclear armed country, by your postings you appear to be naive - one, check out what the CCP has to say about relations with India before you propose a war with India. Secondly winning a war against India is not that easy as you naively seem to imagine in your day dreams.

Nuclear nation? So are we, except at this point, your missiles are not ready, and even when they are, you must still build them, that takes time and money. With the current Chinese demonstration, be it soft landing on moon, anti satellite and quite a few other things, experts have concluded the same tech can be used in anti missile and precision strike.

At this point you would be foolish to use nuclear in any non occupation of New Dehli circumstance, and even then. You could barely destroy Tibet, while we can wipe the India off the map with ease. Hence also why we don't threaten the US with nuclear war much, not until our new hypersonic missile system is finished or our strategic nuclear submarine reaches full maturity and in numbers anyways.

Unless you have data proving otherwise.


I said China doesn't want war, but then again so did many nations before they went to war, 1962 was an example for us, we didn't want war, but India made some provocative moves to us, including sheltering the Lama, let's not debate this point, at least it looks that way to us.

Right now we are saying no interference in indo pak war, but then that's the logical thing to say. If a war happens and Chinese involvement is not the right move and we said yes, then it would be a disaster if we don't go, but if we said no, then we could be in command of our next move. This is the problem US faces, if they had no treaty, they would be in control of their next move without losing anything, but right now, the ball is in our court, and we decide when we bring down the court.

Winning a war with India isn't as hard as you think, have you actually checked it out what those mountain corps are using? I mean most of them, not the elite few? Outdated weapons with barely means of transportation. We are in a better position than 1962, then India is undermanned and under equipped, but our weapons were not superior by much we just had more.Today not only do we have more, but it's better, in some cases a lot better and a lot more numerous.

As to undermanned, that's more of a problem now compared to then, with no means of transportation for both side back then, we had to plan and prepare much in advance, today we can summon 100,000 within a week, if not sooner. Our supplies can extend coast to coast, while on the other side the infrastructure has hardly improved and won't improve to a point that it's effective until much later, if at all.


But again this is military forum, simply speculating for fun, don't have to take it as a declaration of war dude.

 

[SQ8]

Very well said, On CSD on various threads I have made my views clear about IBG and Air support.

But on a different note, i seriously think low intensity conflict will be counter productive to India, India will have larger losses, Instead, a full fleeted air interdiction blitz, with multiple IBG's within limited time would play to the advantage.

Another issue is objective, if the objective is to cause grave damage to military structure, why should India make any ground incursions into pakistan to hold any territory.

Swift air interdiction, with limited ground movement, and recall should be more than enough, spontaneous localised escalations followed by negotiations... If India puts a division anywhere near lahore, there is no holding back pakistan from detonating it's mini atomic hathiyaar, as it can fall back on the claim , we told you so....

Thus instead of holding territory, attack ground radars, military, pwer and transportation network. Keep away from civilians and draw pakistan into border conflict..

That is the most logical option. Shock and awe.. but without actually taking anything away from it.
However, the disadvantage to such a policy would be to ensure that a Pakistani strike back does not successfully hit the same targets. The growing refocus on stand off weapons in the Pakistani arsenal almost points to this very sort of conflict. where they are looking to stay within the relative safety of thier own turf whilst being able to hit the immediate nodes of the Indian war machine. However, a prolonged attack at the military infrastructure may invite the atomi option from the establishment.. perhaps on the back channels themselves.

Yet, Im not seeing India actually achieving anything worthwhile even with this option. As being forced into a ceasefire by atomic weapons without actually securing much in concessions other than an expensive war gets nothing.

 

[MilSpec]

That is the most logical option. Shock and awe.. but without actually taking anything away from it.
However, the disadvantage to such a policy would be to ensure that a Pakistani strike back does not successfully hit the same targets. The growing refocus on stand off weapons in the Pakistani arsenal almost points to this very sort of conflict. where they are looking to stay within the relative safety of thier own turf whilst being able to hit the immediate nodes of the Indian war machine. However, a prolonged attack at the military infrastructure may invite the atomi option from the establishment.. perhaps on the back channels themselves.

Yet, Im not seeing India actually achieving anything worthwhile even with this option. As being forced into a ceasefire by atomic weapons without actually securing much in concessions other than an expensive war gets nothing.

That's the thing though, I am not sure if indian objective to retaliate against some mumbai like scene would be to gain anything worthwhile, it will be just some vindictive score settling type action, and seems like the safest option would be to enter a conflict with minimum losses on both sides where both come out looking like victors...
All out conflict with pakistan will not bring any significant advantage to india, With nukes, a straight win is not possible, So I guess it would be safe to say don't enter a fight that you can't win for sure...

I dont see any change in equation for next decade or so... world events will then dictate what happens next...

 

[Kompromat]

@Oscar

There are people who have mentioned that Pakistan did test TNWs in 1998.

 

[acid rain]

Nuclear nation? So are we, except at this point, your missiles are not ready, and even when they are, you must still build them, that takes time and money. With the current Chinese demonstration, be it soft landing on moon, anti satellite and quite a few other things, experts have concluded the same tech can be used in anti missile and precision strike.

At this point you would be foolish to use nuclear in any non occupation of New Dehli circumstance, and even then. You could barely destroy Tibet, while we can wipe the India off the map with ease. Hence also why we don't threaten the US with nuclear war much, not until our new hypersonic missile system is finished or our strategic nuclear submarine reaches full maturity and in numbers anyways.

Unless you have data proving otherwise.


I said China doesn't want war, but then again so did many nations before they went to war, 1962 was an example for us, we didn't want war, but India made some provocative moves to us, including sheltering the Lama, let's not debate this point, at least it looks that way to us.

Right now we are saying no interference in indo pak war, but then that's the logical thing to say. If a war happens and Chinese involvement is not the right move and we said yes, then it would be a disaster if we don't go, but if we said no, then we could be in command of our next move. This is the problem US faces, if they had no treaty, they would be in control of their next move without losing anything, but right now, the ball is in our court, and we decide when we bring down the court.

Winning a war with India isn't as hard as you think, have you actually checked it out what those mountain corps are using? I mean most of them, not the elite few? Outdated weapons with barely means of transportation. We are in a better position than 1962, then India is undermanned and under equipped, but our weapons were not superior by much we just had more.Today not only do we have more, but it's better, in some cases a lot better and a lot more numerous.

As to undermanned, that's more of a problem now compared to then, with no means of transportation for both side back then, we had to plan and prepare much in advance, today we can summon 100,000 within a week, if not sooner. Our supplies can extend coast to coast, while on the other side the infrastructure has hardly improved and won't improve to a point that it's effective until much later, if at all.


But again this is military forum, simply speculating for fun, don't have to take it as a declaration of war dude.

LOL,

Haathi ke daath dikane ke aur hothe hain aur khaane ke aur...

You know whats common between North Korea and China - the fancy parade soldiers and their fancy weapon systems.

You are a naive kid...leave the heavy lifting to adults and dont mess up the thread with your wet dreams.

 

[HariPrasad]

Cold start doctrine is too old and this doctrine must have emerged since than or new doctrine must have emerged there after.

It is totally possible that this doctrine may have been propogated by RAW to to hide the real doctrine or Misguide Pakistan to divert its military preparedness in wrong direction.

 

[Genesis]

LOL,

Haathi ke daath dikane ke aur hothe hain aur khaane ke aur...

You know whats common between North Korea and China - the fancy parade soldiers and their fancy weapon systems.

You are a naive kid...leave the heavy lifting to adults and dont mess up the thread with your wet dreams.

NK has fancy weapon systems? Well it must seem that way to you.

But seriously, what exactly are you doing on a forum if not to discuss. You time would be better spend reading the news if all you are doing is not doing any discussion.

 

[Ammyy]

Now even Pakistani people understand that they can not win against India without outside help.
Your military knows this fact since long that why they choose different route (terrorism).

If (highly doubtful) next Indo-Pak trigger off then it will be nuclear one and China is not fool that they will risk there economy for Pakistan

Can anyone post complete video or link .... It seems interesting

 

[rockstarIN]

A major air attack would likely lead to all out war... and the all out war..

An Indian armed attack against Pakistan mostly coz of major terror attack originating from Pakistan. In that context, limited ground strikes against terror camps being supported by huge quantity of escort fighters (to take care of PAF resistance even ready to accept the losses at A2A) will prompt Pakistan to declare an all out full blown war against India? Please note the bombing will only be aimed at terror network not to any official Pakistani military targets. In another scenario, what IAF limit the bombing strikes only to Pak Kashmir?

The Indian objective will be the same as 2008 intrusion.

 

[Dash]

That's the thing though, I am not sure if indian objective to retaliate against some mumbai like scene would be to gain anything worthwhile, it will be just some vindictive score settling type action, and seems like the safest option would be to enter a conflict with minimum losses on both sides where both come out looking like victors...
All out conflict with pakistan will not bring any significant advantage to india, With nukes, a straight win is not possible, So I guess it would be safe to say don't enter a fight that you can't win for sure...

I dont see any change in equation for next decade or so... world events will then dictate what happens next...

Post NATO pull out is the next event and has enough at disposal to change any equation.

 

[forcetrip]

Under no circumstances will China ever intervene directly in an Indo-Pak war, much less for a highway.
Generally Pakistani's tend to keep peddling these among numerous other fantasy flights to feel more secure.

Genesis, please take a look at what your own journals and think tanks have said and the history of Chinese actions.
Then look at the topography, whether even if China intervenes directly, would it have an impact in the time period that is required to make India go from offense to defence.

Now ask the question again and you will get your own answer.

A country of 200 million people does not need people to fight for it. It needs Money, fuel and weapons. Are you suggesting that China will not give these in case of war with India?

 

[Contrarian]

A country of 200 million people does not need people to fight for it. It needs Money, fuel and weapons. Are you suggesting that China will not give these in case of war with India?

Not enough to make any difference after the war starts.

There is no sane Pakistani here who thinks that China or for that matter any country will intervene on behalf of Pakistan. Frankly, Pakistan does not need a foreign power to intervene because it has enough firepower to crush anything India can throw against Pakistan, thus frankly we are quite secure . The best way to gauge Pakistan's response against Indian aggression is to see how Pakistan simulates and fights its enemies in war games.

Long time no see friend.
While you may say that no sane Pakistani thinks that any other country will intervene. I would reckon you are being shifty with the truth. You are aware of the general Pakistani disposition on these matters.

The qualifier sane would imply that the majority of the populace is insane. That said, ofcourse the folks at GHQ would know better...but who is to say that the national Pakistani psyche does not affect them at all.

The Chinese have made it quite clear to Senior Pakistani Strategists that China will not intervene militarily in an Indo-Pak conflict. They have also made it clear that although they will not intervene militarily, they will supply Pakistan with weapons and frankly that is all Pakistan needs. After the Mumbai attacks, arms were shipped to Pakistan on an emergency basis.

Once the war starts, no amount of weapons supplied post that point will be useful in any time frame.

 

[Khan_patriot]

Gimme a break. You're talking from the top of your head when you don't even know the ground realities, for which you need to have served in the army which you haven't. As a civilian who is clueless on military affairs, it's better you don't make a fool of yourself by your ignorant comments.

Thanks!

And I am guessing that your armchair gives you the perfect vantage point to judge the Indian as well as Pakistani military......

 

[jarves]

And I am guessing that your armchair gives you the perfect vantage point to judge the Indian as well as Pakistani military......

He has served in Indian army!!!!

 

[qaisar]

the problem is indians too often overestimate themselves.....war is game in which you have to have a buddy........ for india it is russia and for pak its china..... today indians are dare to speak so loudly because pakistan is in a weak position and has been facing existential threats for last 30 years from super powers...while india, comparitively in russian safe hand managed to grow it,s economy during that time....but you forgets that time never remains the same....today we are weak tommorow we will be strong.....and when you say pak hopes that china will intervene, why do you forget 1965 when your PM ran to USSR and begged them to intervene.......despite having unparallel relation with saudia and china, nobody will intervene otherwise to protect her own intrests.....and nobody does neither pakistan as a country ever expected.......leave everything else....even if today, china takes army on indian border, i can bet that your PM will again run towards USA and RUSSIA....so stop saying that pak expects this or that.....everybody has allies and everybody takes help, even USA and Russia do, so what is india or pakistan....

Agree