Countering Cold Start doctrine by PAF

[muse]

A "limited war" may make sense were one an Israeli facing paramilitary units and ill trained Arabs - in the Pakistan-India context, it's just plain stupid - neither the Indian is any kind of Israeli in training or equipment, nor the Pakistani any kind of Arab militia - the reality of both is nuclear weapons, the Indian says he'll start it, the Pakistani response is that he'll finish it.

Some Indians respond to this as "manly valor", we may be grateful that thus far Indian expression of this valor are confined to verbal expression.


With regard to cold start and limited war, it is akin to coming to a gun fight equipped with a knife, it's just plain stupid.


Alibaz:

Media may offer hysterical scenarios in India - lets look at the behaviour - they were on the border for a year without moving so much as an inch into Pakistani territory - does that suggest to you that they have lost their minds or that they do not take what they have been told seriously?

The message to them is clear, You may start it, but we'll finish it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir we are in agreement that these aircrafts are purchased for shifting of troops but we look at the whole scenario with 180 degree different view . What I think is India creates a Mumbai like situation maligns Pakistan, uses its forces deployed close to boarders western borders and within a very short time it moves its forces from peace locations and a final blow within a week by moving reserves from EAST. So to me its an aggressive plan not a defensive with the main purpose of getting west in unprepared state. Am sure you will not agree to my perspective but this is what I believe in.

Dear Sir,

As you have predicted, with stunning insight, we do not agree on your perspective: to the man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. If you wish to see aggressive intent in everything, you will see aggressive intent in everything.

As a matter of curiousity: is it your contention that the incident at Mumbai was an Indian 'creation'? Just curious.

Sincerely,

 

[shanixee]

The purpose of Cold start doctrine is not just to eleminate so called terror camps but to distroy infrastructue of Pakistan army and airforce in as limited time as possible which will open door for a bigger assult on Pakistan by Nato and US troops in very near future as they hve did this before in Iraq by hitting him in 1991. Gettin Kuwait back and putting Iraq in sanctions meanwhile collected and improved their forces and again attacked and occupied Iraq. Similarly the agenda is very simple. Attack Pakistan in the name of cold start on the other hand US and EU countries will pressure Pakistan not to take it on a full scale war and not to retaliate on massive scale even retaliate it should be limited. If complete war goes on not let Pakistan use its nuke. create unrest and economic problems in Pakistan so that people dont rise to this threat. give India so much of wepons that even after Pakistan's retaliation it will remain enough for future. then after that not let Pakistan buy conventional weapon as Pakistan will be under UN sanctions which is no big deal for US to do. the only thing stopping them is that they need Pakistan nore then ever in afganistan which initially they thought might not be as much as it turned out to be. I remember Michel Mullen said 2 or 3 weeks back in India that he is worried if anytihng similar happend like Mumbai attack it will be a big problem. now the question is if he knows that anything will happen or he just said this on his experiance. US did not expected the result of afganistan will be like this and did not expected their economic ressession other wise present might be very diffrent from wat it is now. we can give this credit to our ISI which has done remarkable Planning. after 9/11 henery kasenger said US made a mistake attacking afganistan and then Iraq. they should hve started from Egypt, Saudii Arabia or from Pakistan.
so its not simply cold start doctrine its more then that which I see in near future.

(ALL IN THIS IS IN MY OPINION EVERY 1 HAS RIGHT TO AGREE OR DISAGREE)

 

[Bang Galore]

It is an absurd proposition that one side will use tactical nuclear weapons and the other side will then quietly fade away.You will understand that in such an eventuality, nobody will stop to calculate kilotonne yield, mode of delivery and target and then conclude that a tactical nuclear weapon is not a use of nuclear weapons. The first reaction to such a tactical nuclear weapon will be retaliation.

Tactical nuclear weapons are a joke in this scenario.

Secondly, nobody is advocating nuclear war, but then nobody is advocating a free license to one neighbour to attack the other at will, and be assured of no retaliation. Such an assurance cannot be given. Unfortunately, there is a very real failure on the part of Pakistanis in general to understand that the present peace drive is a Manmohan Singh initiative; it does not necessarily have much support even in the Congress party, leave alone the mass of the country. These peace drives happen every time there is a sentimental Punjabi seeking peace at any cost.

On his departure, which is a question of time, you may confidently expect a significant change in our foreign policy, and in our state security policy too. The present Home Minister is a hawk, and is inclined to advocate drastic measures. These are not my wishes or my hopes, these are facts available on enquiry.

If there is another large-scale incident, there will be consequences, and the threat of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, will not count. The Pakistani establishment makes a major error in understanding, in assuming that there is a perpetual position of neutralisation due to Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons. It may prevent an attack, it may not prevent a counter-attack.

So the question of building up the body to neutralise a gun holder means only that if gun neutralises gun, the stronger man beats up the weaker. If either gun is used, the other gun will instantly be used.There is no asymmetric doctrine possible, given the ground-level hostility between the two peoples.

This is something that needs to be read by everyone. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons is essentially just that - a threat. It is meant to deter an attack. Once discounted and an attack mounted, it holds limited significance unless the attacker(or counter attacker) intends to completely destroy or overrun the country. The bluff holds value only until it has been called. An attack under such circumstances would mean that India has essentially called the bluff putting Pakistani leadership in very difficult position. Do nothing & lose face or do something stupid & essentially lose country. If Pakistan is not deterred by India's nuclear weapons, then why should India, beyond a point be deterred by Pakistani nukes? Since almost all Pakistani commentators & posters in this forum discount the first use of nuclear weapons by India, are you guys essentially arguing that the Pakistani authorities are crazier & therefore might use nukes against a country armed with nukes of its own? Joe's post makes it clear what would follow if that were ever to happen.

A segment of Indian opinion, frustrated by it's inablity to exert meaningful influence on Pakistani policy asserts that nuclear weapons may not account for much, we'll huff and puff and blow your house down -- a segment of Pakistani opinion sees this for what it is just bluster and another segment of Pakistani opinion offer this bluster a single digit salute.

Yet others hope the Indian will sink in greater treasure in the pursuit of an inflated ego, we cannot but wish them well.

It will go nuclear in an instant, they remind us - and we remind them that is what we have said from the beginning -- irresponsible positions are just that, not strategy.

No need to remind, you would have all gone to the huffing & puffing place by then.

With regard to cold start and limited war, it is akin to coming to a gun fight equipped with a knife, it's just plain stupid.

As Joe pointed out above, it's not just a knife being carried. Guns too are available if one party wishes to escalate the fight.

The message to them is clear, You may start it, but we'll finish it

Ooh ! Is this you doing your version of the huffing & the puffing because such school yard threats are best left there - in the yard.

 

[Vinod2070]

A segment of Indian opinion, frustrated by it's inablity to exert meaningful influence on Pakistani policy asserts that nuclear weapons may not account for much, we'll huff and puff and blow your house down -- a segment of Pakistani opinion sees this for what it is just bluster and another segment of Pakistani opinion offer this bluster a single digit salute.

Yet others hope the Indian will sink in greater treasure in the pursuit of an inflated ego, we cannot but wish them well.

It will go nuclear in an instant, they remind us - and we remind them that is what we have said from the beginning -- irresponsible positions are just that, not strategy.

Irrespective of what you guys think, India has no intention to muddy our hands in this cesspool. We are super focused on our economy and building our country.

The only message is, you can't continue terror and "bleeding by a thousand cuts" under the subtext of nuclear blackmail. And that terror has costs that may not be to your liking at all.

Rest, we well understand that any war with Pakistan won't be a limited war. It has to be "aar paar ki ladaai". It will be the last resort and it should be.

 

[Patriot]

Nuclear Weapons won't be used unless the war is on for at least 3 weeks after which conventional supplies will slowly finish and invite nuclear retaliation.Its not just on paper but a reality just as United States Navy has doctrine that any attack on it's carriers will invite nuclear reaction.While India may start war the so called limited war - Pakistan will finish it - There is no such thing as limited war.This doctrine is so highly flawed and it showed that during Mumbai attacks.Indians could not do anything.I'll quote Zraver here.

Cold Start is/was a joke. Mumbai proved that it failed as a deterrent. Hell the whole premise behind it was a joke. As I detailed on *** the plan was doomed in its goals from the start. It was never going to mobilize faster than the Pakistanis, never going to penetrate far and fast to threaten population centers or destroy a large part of the PA, not without wrecking itself in the process.

Pakistan has been buying exactly the equipment it needs to crsh an Indian offensive- heavy ATGM and A-100 MLRS to attrit the IA on the border at the point of penetration. Plus tanks that are good enough to engage the IA inside Pakistan where the Pakistani's will be fresh and at best lightly attrited by the IAF, but the IA will be tired, low on consumables and heavily attritted.

 

[alibaz]

Dear Sir,

As you have predicted, with stunning insight, we do not agree on your perspective: to the man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. If you wish to see aggressive intent in everything, you will see aggressive intent in everything.

As a matter of curiousity: is it your contention that the incident at Mumbai was an Indian 'creation'? Just curious.

Sincerely,

Sir who is man with hammer,the one who is buying all sorts of weapons from all around the world or the one who already fighting WOT what he gets is with strings.

I never said that Mumbai incident was Indian creation but you can assume what ever you feel like sir

 

[Vinod2070]

Many seem super confident that "Pakistan will finish it".

I seem to remember one certain Iraqi information minister hours before Baghdad fell.

 

[sammar72]

When the most professional country ie USA has already used Nuclear weapon knowingly that enemy was not armed with Nuclear warheads, USA has no moral or any right to stop using nuclear weapons's first use. In an actual war scenario with pakistan or china, India shall only be fool not to use Nuclear weapon as offensive than counter strike. If enemy don't wont India on face of Earth than India has every right to go to any length to wipe out the every nooks and corner of enemy country. God knows while we have followed principles of No-First use of WMD, or defensive style of life over last 1000 years. Just dump our old thining and use every trick and oppertunity in the book to achieve the supremacy in the World. Time of Live & Let Live long gone. It's time of Survival of the Fittest. Hinduism has to reinvent itself among the 1000 years continued bloody war between Islam & christianity. World only listen to the Strength.

 

[forcetrip]

When the most professional country ie USA has already used Nuclear weapon knowingly that enemy was not armed with Nuclear warheads, USA has no moral or any right to stop using nuclear weapons's first use. In an actual war scenario with pakistan or china, India shall only be fool not to use Nuclear weapon as offensive than counter strike. If enemy don't wont India on face of Earth than India has every right to go to any length to wipe out the every nooks and corner of enemy country. God knows while we have followed principles of No-First use of WMD, or defensive style of life over last 1000 years. Just dump our old thining and use every trick and oppertunity in the book to achieve the supremacy in the World. Time of Live & Let Live long gone. It's time of Survival of the Fittest. Hinduism has to reinvent itself among the 1000 years continued bloody war between Islam & christianity. World only listen to the Strength.

Thats a whole new level of wow .. The problem with the subcontinent is that people like you are breeding by the dozens.

 

[Patriot]

Many seem super confident that "Pakistan will finish it".

I seem to remember one certain Iraqi information minister hours before Baghdad fell.

I would think that the Iraqi Minister statement seems more similar with Indian's Army Chief Statement that they will defeat Pakistan and China in 96 hours.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Tx for wonderful post Joe.

I had doubt regarding Punjab being main theater of conflict. Given the array of canals along IN-PK border, don't you think it will be major bottleneck for PA for any corp level ops?

Regarding CS, I am not sure if anybody have idea what this is all about. While we hear lot about CS, there is no groundwork regarding quick deployment or basing BG near border have been done. I have feeling this is something else. Either its boggeyman or we are interpreting in wrong way.

Actually, the feeling that I'm getting is that we've underestimated the scale of the project. Many assumed that when they spoke of reorganization of battle groups and stuff like that that was it. Fact is, that was just a temporary & immedeate. From IA's perspective it seems to be a fundamental gearing up lasting ten/twenty years for the doctrine to be realized. I mean, the fibre optic communiation networks, the sats, the AWACS and associated equipment required to create the capability required- that drop in on day one right? They're getting into the system in a planned, phase wise approach over a period of ten/15 years. n all of those are quite important for a strategy like this to really work. So you do what you can immedeately and then over a period of time systematically build the infrastructure and keep doing those training exercises so that you can fully realize the potential.

 

[Vinod2070]

I would think that the Iraqi Minister statement seems more similar with Indian's Army Chief Statement that they will defeat Pakistan and China in 96 hours.

There was no such statement by the Indian chief. Try and read it again. This time more carefully.

 

[Iggy]

There was no such statement by the Indian chief. Try and read it again. This time more carefully.

No need to tell it mate. it has been explained here zillion times here..they know it clearly what the Army chief has said..they just trolling around..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir who is man with hammer,the one who is buying all sorts of weapons from all around the world or the one who already fighting WOT what he gets is with strings.

I never said that Mumbai incident was Indian creation but you can assume what ever you feel like sir

Dear Sir,

The man with the hammer is neither the first nor the second; it is a mono-maniac who insists on seeing the world in terms of one proposition and one only. In this case, everything in the world that occurs is seen in terms of Indian aggression. So, purchase of large transport aircraft, formulation of a doctrine to govern the eventuality of war, to quote just two examples, and with everything else that happens to align with this view as well. That is why to the man with the hammer, the world looks like a nail. It has nothing to do with your limited buying and your unlimited buying, for example.

Regarding the Mumbai incident, this is what you did say:

What I think is India creates a Mumbai like situation

Some questions for you:

1. Do you think India created the earlier Mumbai situation? Please feel free to say yes; as the truth emerges, point by point, be sure that you will be reminded at every step.
2. If not, if you accept it was an attack by Pakistani terrorists, why did you insinuate that it was an "Indian creation"?

It is quite all right to state, in the teeth of all evidence, that Mumbai was a secret plot by the Indian state to make another country look bad. It is just that I would like you to say it and be on record. It builds the case for a certain class of people being inclined to conspiracy theories in desperation at not being able to defend themselves.

Sincerely,