India's Cold Start Is Too Hot

[Emmie]

Guys its now Julian Assange's take....

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

But Sir i still fail to understand the objectives of Cold Start Doctrine, i have taken a lot of interest in this doctrine and have thoroughly studied and analyzed it. It appears to me that the objectives of the Indian Army are extremely flawed, they hope to capture small chunks of territory in rapid time (72-96 hours) and hold that territory for bargaining. But what makes the Indian war planners think that Pakistan will come to the negotiating table, what if Pakistan Army chooses to engage and evict the Indian IBG's. Its going to be really hard for the Indian IBG's to fight through attrition and flanking battles.

Never the less, its a very bold strategy and something that is very interesting. One can only expect innovative armies like the US, USSR or Wehrmacht to come up with a doctrine like this. Definitely thinking away from fighting attrition battles on the border to fighting battles deep inside the enemy's territory.

You should read the link that I gave where a US expert has commented.

When the IBGs move into Pakistan, it will obviously be contested all the way. I think that is but natural. And it will not be a cakewalk for the IBGs either.

One thing that I have experienced is that it takes a minimum of 72 hours before one can discern where the actual thrust is coming, especially when the attack is on a broad front.

What is critical is the use of reserves for the defender. If the defender prematurely commits his reserves, it can create serious problems thereafter, more so because reserves once committed, must be recreated the fastest. And recreating reserves is not that easy since it is rare that one would have uncommitted troops and tanks at this juncture.

Therefore, as I see it, it is a cat and mouse game and it can go any way.

That is just my thoughts.

 

[Xeric]

Though i have retired from this thread because of some personal reasons, still i think you deserved a (final) response as it is always guud to discuss matters with men in boots.

I'm afraid you have not got the gist and you are selectively editing my post.

Fortunately i did get the exact gist of your posts and it is that's why i am 'selectively' quoting your posts, because the unquoted part of your posts are just rehotrics.

Anywaz..

You wrote:

I wrote in reply:

If some IBGs are nuked, I fail to see why the IA has to withdraw.

i'll again emphasis that by this definition (provided you understood what i tried to hypothesized in my post # 193 i.e. if we are able to counter/thwart X number of IBGs (the numbers that would render the CS untenable) either by conventional defencive measure or by the employment of tac nukes) than i fail to see the point of carrying on with the assault as t would only lead to more damage on your part (more IBGs getting nuked) thus causing india to suffer more and ultimately respond in kind thus again leading to MAD. Now, this all war-gaming was in response to the queries that were raised by your fellow countrymen so as to what a tac nuke can or cannot do. This may not taken as what we might actually do or this should not be taken as doctrinal aspect of our counter CS strategy, if any. i am sure you understand what a hypothesis is.

If they are to withdraw, then why go in, in the first place?

i'll again reiterate that by definition the indian army should then remove the chapters concerning the execution of Withdrawal as a Major Ops of War from its field manuals/GSPs, that's one.

Two, if an belligerent faces reversals beyond those that he has planned (in this case X number of IBGs getting wiped off which in turn make CS untenable), than the logical decision is to withdraw. Now i am not under estimating you military's moral or the capability to fight, but then you more than anyone should know the reason behind why military's are taught Wdr as an ops of war. Now dont cite me the cherry-pick reasons concerning a Wdr whereby one wdrs to bring an enemy to a pre-selected killing zone etc.

Therefore, once the Cold Start commences, there is no question of withdrawing because even in a conventional war there is no withdrawal, even if some reverse occur on the flanks.

Flank?

Did i anywhere in my post # 193 say anything about flanks?

1. I will once again state it that if the tac nuke attack affect a few IBGs and it is below the 'strategic level', why should the IBGs (you missed something here) not nuked, withdraw and how is it the ONLY option?

?

2. I also alluded to a conventional scenario as an example. Now, if in a conventional war, a flanking battalion is wiped out, does it mean that the Battalion that is still moving forward, stop and reel back? Or does it go on to accomplish its mission?

Not necessarily.

One always reinforce success and not the failure, but then who's hypothesizeing wiping off a flank only? Which part of X-numbers-of-IBGs-getting-wiped-off you did not understand? X numbers, the numbers that would adversely affect your probability to achieve your aim/objectives.

3. If the tac nuke attack is still below the strategic level, where is the issue of MAD, which is at the strategic level?

Tac nukes are at a tac level, your response with IRBMs would be a strategic one, our response to that would then lead to MAD. Simple, no? Hindi mai tashreehi karaon kaya ab..??

The effects of a tac nuke attack will depend on the yield, weather conditions etc.

Sure it does.

If there is the possibility of a tac nuke attack, would the troops and tanks etc not be in an NBC mode?

And even if the weather conditions does not harm most of an IBGs fighting capability, now what is the possibility that 1/4 or 1/3 of the spared IBG can perform the same task of a 100% viable IBG now when the sheer attacker Vs defender ratio (in strength, the 1:3 shyt) has been hampered to the defender's benefit? Also, am i hypothesizing wiping off one or two IBGs? And also who would stop us from re-tac nuking the remainder of the survived IBG? Now you are also correct in informing me that under the possibility of tac nuke threat you guys would probably be operating under NBC mode, now tell me seriously, is the speed of operations is same in case the same operation is executed under NBC mode and vice versa (this will affect your much aspired blitzkrieg - again favoring Pakistan who even also under NBC mode would be affect in a lesser magnitude by virtue of its static operations/less mobile operation while being a defender), this is one. Two, NBC mode doesnot shelter men and material near ground zero, now i dont say NBC protection is useless, but it primarily helps troops passing over an area ONCE it has been nuked, again i should not undermine the capability of NBC mode, only that we might require more tac nukes to achieve the same results this time.

I am not ruining the discussion. It appears that you are ruining your own peace of mind. You will appreciate that even under serious disagreement with many issues bandied around, I am not using words and sentence that may appear to be offensive and crude. Why? Because I am equipped to discuss and not prone to fantasy and so, I shrug off much what is being written. I found Santro more close to reality and so I replied to his post, which you found not to your liking. I assure you that I have no ill feeling or carry the historical baggage that burdens most when I enter this portal. In fact, I find a great feeling of satisfaction that I can have a discourse with many beyond the historical animosities, which is no good to man or beast.

Had that been the case you never would have brought Siachen and Kargil in this discussion, coz when you did, for me, you were no different than any other indian troll. BTW, if you felt sorry for my men in Kargil, i also bemoaned when we had to vacate posts after your commanders failed to collect your deads and consequently the mortal remains would turn into carrions thus making the (defended) locality unsuitable for life. i never wanted to bring this up with you, but when you dared a third instance of history while at the same time playing more catholic than a pope, i had no other choice.

Even if PA uses tac nukes, it will not prompt India to resort to MAD. The issue will still be in the tactical realm.

i wish it does.

When the international community intervenes, the Cold Start still is a success.

Aaa..hmmm.. NO!

If the international community intervenes after the stated objectives of CS (destruction of Pak armed forces/'terror' camps) are archived, it sure is a success, BUT, if it intervenes at the outset of CS (which it would do fearing the NAD scenerio after we tac nuke you), it would be a phail!

If you read that article I posted the link of the foreign commentary, you will realise the aim of the Cold Start.

i have my own ways to get to know the 'aim' of CS, not that i dont read open sources.

Apparently, you have not understood the aim of the Cold Start even though you are admonishing all and sundry that they haven't.

Yeah, why would i. When i am some e-worrier only having access to indian news sites and think tanks. Anywaz, may be this would help:
"
The Chief of Army Staff unveiled the new Cold Start concept in April 2004. The goal of this limited war strategy is to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan before the international community could intercede, one that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army while denying Islamabad a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level. - Walter C. Ladwig III Merton College University of Oxford, A paper prepared for Cold Start: India’s New Strategic Doctrine and its Implications
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA"


"This (Cold Start) concept trades on the value of having mobilized operational forces always ready to conduct limited punitive strikes against Pakistan, sliding as suggested earlier under the threshold of Pakistan’s red lines. In the case of cold start, however, the focus was no longer on striking terrorist training camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir but rather on striking high-value Pakistani military facilities in Pakistan proper (destruction of Pak armed forces). - Nuclear Stability and Escalation Control in
South Asia: Structural Factors Rodney W. Jones"



"....Cold Start.....will carry out an operation against clearly defined targets in Pakistan.

These could be terror training camps or launch pads to infiltrate terrorists into India. It could also target elements of the Pakistani army that may try to defend the terrorists. - Army may use Cold Start doctrine against Pak"

And finally from something you had quoted yourself on this thread (BTW, i had read this paper years back):

"[For Cold Start]...India’s strategic military objectives need to:...... Focus on the destruction of the Pakistani Army and its military machine without much collateral damage to Pakistani civilians.
- INDIA’S NEW COLD START WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED"

Wonder, why i am only quoting open sources (as you call it)?

I sincerely hope you have understood so that we do not go round and round like Tony Lumpkin!

Oh, it's guud to run in circles, isnt it?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I think it is best to give your post the go by since I have no desire to wade through the topic to correlate the issues raised and since you have a penchant to misrepresent as up did by deliberately alluding to issues that I have not made like when I mentioned that if it is below the strategic level (as you stated earlier), then where is the issue of MAD (i.e. strategic level)? And you made it appear as if I was talking of IRBMs!!! Christ!!

Except for the amusing ones that you have quoted.

1. on striking high-value Pakistani military facilities in Pakistan proper (destruction of Pak armed forces).

It is amusing. Does the author think that if the IBGs attack high value Pakistan military facilities, Pakistan will be sitting and twiddling its thumbs? Typical American fancy wording cleverly using all encompassing fancy words and phrases to camouflage deficiency in exactitude! Facilities as I understand is usually static, However, in today's penchant to use American English and thought, I presume it could mean also mobile assets. If so, does he want to convey that the IBG objective would be a nuclear installation or does he mean the Pakistan strategic Armour reserves?

In either case, it is beyond the IBGs capability and so the contention is bogus. Further, if high value objectives were the aim, then it would be better to use the Strike Corps rather than with a couple of IBGs. Hence, is the aim of the IBGs high value targets?

Lastly, it is most humorous to note that the IBG could undertake ((destruction of Pak armed forces). Is this in brackets your addition or the authors? In all these wars which were with no hold barred, if India has not been able to destroy Pakistan's armed forces, to believe that the IBGs could do what the Indian Army could not do in all the wars is most ludicrous a thought!!

2. These could be terror training camps or launch pads to infiltrate terrorists into India. It could also target elements of the Pakistani army that may try to defend the terrorists.

This is from a news channel. Therefore, one can hardly fault their thought as they are not equipped to understand the military. And interesting you quote it too as an IBG objective!!

I leave it to all, if IBGs are used for terrorist camps/ launch pads for terrorist! If they are so used, it is a total waste of effort, more so, when there are more efficient and less cumbersome ways to take on such objectives.

3. In so far as Focus on the destruction of the Pakistani Army and its military machine without much collateral damage to Pakistani civilians, you are again displaying your forte to obfuscate for effect!!

Do be good enough to not edit and selectively append. It does not impress. Let me help you. Just check the box below where I have appended the issue in its correct context.

India’s Strategic Military Objectives Needs to be Made Clear: India’s strategic military objectives need to:


* Shift from capturing bits of Pakistan territory in small scale multiple offensives to be used as bargaining chips after the cease fire.

* Focus on the destruction of the Pakistani Army and its military machine without much collateral damage to Pakistani civilians.

Please note it is India's Strategic Objectives and not the Cold Start Objectives. It is a world of difference!!!!

 

[praveen]

can we use deep battle in tandem with cold start to take out pakistans reserves?

 

[praveen]

One thing is clear cold start has taken out the nuclear initiative from pakistans hands

 

[Avatar]

Pakistan will be using a low yield nuke against an invader whose invading our land in our own territory. We wont be using the tactical nuke in the Indian territory, it will be against invading Armoured Formations whom are in our territory to capture our land. There is no way India can expect to gain world sympathy as an invader, Pakistan will be the victim because it is defending its territory. Anyways be assured, if the Indian IBG's manage to thrust forward and break through our defences and are on their way to capture a strategic location, we will use a tactical nuke against your IBG's. If you are too worried about a nuclear war, don't cross the border.



Pakistan has nukes in the triple digit numbers, do you honestly think thats not enough to destroy India? It appears to me that your patriotism is taking the best of your judgement. Pakistan wont be using a high yield strategic nuke to target the Indian IBG's, it will use a low yield tactical nuke. Know the difference between the two and you will finally get a sense of what i am talking about.



If you have a problem with that, DONT INVADE OUR LAND. You cant be the invader and expect us to play by your rules, if you try to invade our land than we will do everything in our power to crush your invading army.

When is India invading ?

There is no need for Indian IBG's to cross the LOC in an event of another 26/11, and another 26/11 is the only event I foresee that will cause tension between the 2 neighbors.

The cold start strategy was publicized just to waste resources and sweat on the other side of the border, and that's exactly what's happening. Do you really think India's armed forces are stupid enough to release plans which they intend to use ?

And in any case, ANY real strategy that India's military is likely to pursue in an actual invasion will only be known by very few individuals, and it will have in depth considerations of a nuclear environment. We already know how much you are depending on nukes, there's no need to tell us. Tactical or Strategic, Nukes are a last resort.

Lastly, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the real world, in a nuclear war, at most Pakistan might use 1 or 2 strategic nukes before the war is over. The consequences of using those nukes will hit Pakistan harder than anything India can return, and India does have 3rd strike capability.

 

[Xeric]

^^ Seems as if someone is sweating hard.

Almost every publication that list the same objectives as i have mentioned are false and erroneous, only what you say is correct, is that what you wanted to suggest?

Anywaz, just to wind it up...

Please note it is India's Strategic Objectives and not the Cold Start Objectives. It is a world of difference!!!!

What was the CONTEXT in which these fringging Start Objectives were listed? Op Parakram? Or was it Cold Start? i think it is not rocket scince to understand that it is the latter. Also as the name of the quote article suggests ;INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED, the Strat Objectives are in the context of CSD, otherwise, which other indian strategy calls for the synergy of the TRI-SERVICE as the author of the same article says right next to the two objectives that you and i have quoted? Here allow me to help:

"....India’s Strategic Military Objectives Needs to be Made Clear: India’s strategic military objectives need to:

* Shift from capturing bits of Pakistan territory in small scale multiple offensives to be used as bargaining chips after the cease fire.

* Focus on the destruction of the Pakistani Army and its military machine without much collateral damage to Pakistani civilians.

All the three armed forces have to synergise operations towards destruction of the Pakistan Army as it is that which enslaves Pakistan, impedes democracy in Pakistan and indulges in military adventurism against India, including proxy wars and terrorism..... "

The bold (especially the underlined) part, my friend is the crux of Cold Start Strategy.


P.S. i omitted the rest of your post as one cannot respond to a blatant denial of facts, just for the sake of it. Sometimes, acceptance of mistakes is not a bad deal per se.

 

[JonAsad]

The cold start strategy was publicized just to waste resources and sweat on the other side of the border, and that's exactly what's happening. Do you really think India's armed forces are stupid enough to release plans which they intend to use ?

Frankly speaking this logic of your i have started to hear quite recently after NASR tests- Every system we bring in our Arsenal is not a waste of resource it an ASSET- it gives us more strategic advantage- makes more pain in your a55es- makes your CSD useless worthless-

And in any case, ANY real strategy that India's military is likely to pursue in an actual invasion will only be known by very few individuals, and it will have in depth considerations of a nuclear environment.

and India does have 3rd strike capability.

Based on your above statements- are you sure we dont have 2 or 3rd strike capability?-

Lastly, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the real world, in a nuclear war, at most Pakistan might use 1 or 2 strategic nukes before the war is over. The consequences of using those nukes will hit Pakistan harder than anything India can return, and India does have 3rd strike capability.

We are focusing on getting more nukes- and believe we will use all of it on India if its necessary- It will start by dropping Tactical nukes on indian IBGs and if deemed necessary at every strategic target inside India- This talk of Pakistan will suffer more is totally BS- Our Ballistic Missiles are technologically more advanced than your Duds- that keeps failing twice every three tests-

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

All the three armed forces have to synergise operations towards destruction of the Pakistan Army as it is that which enslaves Pakistan, impedes democracy in Pakistan and indulges in military adventurism against India, including proxy wars and terrorism..... "

The bold (especially the underlined) part, my friend is the crux of Cold Start Strategy.

Wow!

It does?

That is the crux?

You are now in South Block?!

Then the IBGs are the real weapons to wreak havoc!!

India must disband everything else since the IBG can do everything, they being the sword arm to destroy Pakistan!!

Read my replies and they are not denials either. Each part of your post has been separately answered.

But then since you are sitting in South Block (DHQ), who am I to argue with you?

The crux is the IBG!!

 

[deckingraj]

Going by this logic, it is clear that the cold start doctrine guarantees India nothing as far as keeping the threshold below nuclear is concerned and on our side we should be absolutely clear that even a tactical nuke used on our own territory will be considered as a nuclear attack and will be responded with full force.
So the final conclusion out of all of this will be that while Pakistan cannot predict India response if and when we use hatif 9, similarly India cannot predict Pakistans response if and when it will use nukes in response to the cod.

That to me is a sane conclusion...In fact the basic flaw(atleast alleged flaw for peopel outside strategist circle - including me) in cold start is how to guarantee that nuclear threshold will not breach...On similar token nuking Indian IBG's even on Pakistan soil cannot guarantee Indian threshold have not been breached....So in short - If India attempts Cold Start the best option for Pak would be to either fight conventionally or nuke every corner in India....Which brings me to my earlier question - What is this new missile bringing to the table????

Based on my discussion with Xeric i believe the argument is - Nuking IBG's on Pakistani soil means nuclear threshold is not breached...To me this has the same flaw as the cold-start about Pakistan reaction....

 

[RazorMC]

Cold Start only aims to cut the mobilising time and also to ensure the advantage of PA having the initiative is negated.

The doctrine calls for an offensive against Pakistan within 72 hours. Ample duration for Pak Fauj to mobilize the troops and employ counter-strategies since our geography allows a significantly lower response time to threats. Then there is the question of nuclear threshold which depends on real-time scenarios and not merely assumed theoreticals.

Many members have indicated an IAF involvement. Some would already know what that means; full-scale war. It will no longer remain a quick offensive to punish Pakistan and strike terrorist camps or anything.

In either case, I honestly don't see the doctrine being implemented considering the impact of such a decision.

 

[deckingraj]

Its not about the justification.....In times of war justification takes the farthest back seat. The issue is that the IA has devised the concept of CS particularly so as to avoid a strategic nuclear confrontation i.e. Move in fast, hold max land before the nuclear threshold is reached and before the international community intervenes then let the international pressure stop the on going hostilities and then use the land captured as a major chip in the negotiations post hostilities. That is the reason which actually makes the NASR come into play. Firstly it sends a message to the IA: You think you can avoid nukes flying by using the CS doctrine? Well think again..... Secondly and more importantly: You send your IBGs we will destroy them using tac nukes. Now that your CS has been dealt with lets see what you do next....Your thinking about using strategic nukes??? But isnt that exactly why you came up with the concept of CS so as not to reach a stage where strategic nukes are used? So what will you do now?

Let's hypothetically assume for a second that Pak don't have this missile...India attempts CSD what would be your option???? Either Pak would reverse the Indian attack by her conventional might or will raise the stake of the war i.e. turn a so-called limited war into a full-fledge war....The reason would be to bring International community to intervene before CSD can do a meaningful damage, right???


Now let's re-run the scenario with this missile. India attempts CSD, Pak tried to stop it conventionally and find it difficult, resort to tact nuke attack...Now what is the objective of using thes tact missile??? To me the objective is - defeat CSD without entering into MAD, no??? However aren't you assuming that India's response will be to retreat and not raise the stakes by Nuking Pak even though as per her doctorine nuke attack on India and her forces will be responded with Nukes???

In short the way CSD is gambling about Pak response, use of this new missile is also a gamble...As said in previous post the best option would be to either fight a conventional war or simply nuke India...Hope now you udnerstand why some members are saying that this new missile is not bringing anything new to the table...

ps: One confusion that I think I might be able to help with here is that one cant load up a Shaheen with a low yield nuke and use it on armored columns. That missile does not work that way. For that you need a smaller missile capable of carrying tac nukes (lower yield and smaller sized warheads specifically designed for this kind of usage). And as far as the question of targeting moving columns is concerned well dont the guided MLRS projectiles do exactly that?

Fair comment...

 

[Xeric]

In the words of Pranab Mukherjee; "you are in denial mode".

Thence, there's no fun in taking this any further.

 

[RazorMC]

One thing is clear cold start has taken out the nuclear initiative from pakistans hands

Would you care to elaborate on this ??
What initiative has been taken out ??