India's Cold Start Is Too Hot

[foxbat]

It was a brilliant plan executed wrongly- we faced the same problem you will face during CS-

Nah! You just tried to copy Operation Meghdoot. Unfortunately for dear ol Musharraf, he ended up on the losing side again

 

[Rank]

For the sake of simplicity, assume Indian Sukhois strike Muridke and blow it up and successfully return back.

Simultaneously, Indian warships impose a distant blockade and sink one or two of your forward warships.

India CBG's mobilize in small numbers but do not attack.

How will Pakistan react?

If this kind of plan eva work your military definitely try to do this kind of job after 26/11!

 

[muse]

For the sake of simplicity, assume Indian Sukhois strike Muridke and blow it up and successfully return back.

OK, but suppose, just for the sake of simplicity that the Sukhois do not return or that a majority of them do not return and that the PAF does not cross the international border and that the PN does not offer combat

How would the Indian state respond? Will it still send in it's IBG's, without assurance of air cover?

 

[Rank]

OK, but suppose, just for the sake of simplicity that the Sukhois do not return or that a majority of them do not return and that the PAF does not cross the international border and that the PN does not offer combat

How would the Indian state respond? Will it still send in it's IBG's, without assurance of air cover?

No! India will sent Minister Krishna along with Brahmos (in his both pockets) lol

 

[Areesh]

May be we did.. You just haven't realized.. And I dont mean the terror attacks happening within Pakistan.. After all there is more than one way to skin a cat.. Isnt it?

Well you might find many skins to satisfy your self. Doesn't change the fact that you failed to do what you wanted to do after every terrorist attack inside Bharat.

 

[Xeric]

It's funny to see a jingostic bum and a professional agreeing upon the same concept whereby they both are not sure of the point where their own nuclear threshold would breach, but surprisingly they seemed to be sure of the same when it comes to Pakistan.

the whole concept of tactical nukes in indio-pak context is flawed. once a country uses tactical nukes the other country will reply back with full force. so the very idea of having a tactical nuclear weapon is absurd.

tactical nuclear weapons is a flawed concept of cold war. i dint agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

watsoever be yield, use of tactical nuclear weapon by one country is like a giving a free ticket to othr country to bomb u hell back to stone ages. The retaliating country can always say they dint use Nukes first and were forced to use nukes only to save themselves as they feared more nuclear attacks all over country.

so tactical nuclear nukes in present scenario is strict no no.

I agree with you, but then it all depends on the yield and the compulsions matched with the tactical aim.

Retaliation is the natural corollary.

And then the staying power.

Though some sense prevailed when TTT related the nuclear tit for tat to the yield of the initial tac nuclear attack, but the joy was short lived when he summed it up with "Retaliation is the natural corollary."

How can you people base an entire doctrine on a postulate which you yourself fail to recognize/comprehend?

Strange world!

 

[foxbat]

OK, but suppose, just for the sake of simplicity that the Sukhois do not return or that a majority of them do not return and that the PAF does not cross the international border and that the PN does not offer combat

How would the Indian state respond? Will it still send in it's IBG's, without assurance of air cover?

A second wave i suspect.. Or may be an enforced blockade. too many hypothetical variables i think..

 

[foxbat]

Well you might find many skins to satisfy your self. Doesn't change the fact that you failed to do what you wanted to do after every terrorist attack inside Bharat.

what matters is the output and not how you do it. Today as per western mindsets, Pakistan is inches short of becoming a synonym of terrorism in the Thesourous. Your economy is in shambles. Your people are getting killed on a daily basis due to bad policies of your military dictators dating back to 80's. Tell me what worse could have India done (or would have tried to do) to you that you havent accomplished by yourself.??

May be not getting attacked turned out to be worse for Pakistan.

 

[Areesh]

what matters is the output and not how you do it. Today as per western mindsets, Pakistan is inches short of becoming a synonym of terrorism in the Thesourous. Your economy is in shambles. Your people are getting killed on a daily basis due to bad policies of your military dictators dating back to 80's. Tell me what worse could have India done (or would have tried to do) to you that you havent accomplished by yourself.??

May be not getting attacked turned out to be worse for Pakistan.

See this is what I am talking about. You can find many skins to satisfy your ego. Every one can find many "success" in his failures just like you and many other fan boys usually do. But that doesn't changes the fact that the Bharat failed to implement it's military doctrines that it devised after every incident of terror inside Bharat. CSD is a military strategy. We are talking about military strategy. Even I can refute the so called "successes" of Bharat that you mentioned but I won't considering it something off topic. We are talking about military strategies and it's implementation. So talk about it instead telling us about pathetic "successes". We aren't interested in what you believe and how you satisfy your ego. We want to discuss a military doctrine so please do the same. Thanks and best of luck.

 

[Xeric]

1. wen u lower u nuclear thresh hold by attacking indian armed forces with tactical nuclear weapon u become the "fall guy" not india. india will be at full liberty to strike at all u r nuclear sites and take out u r nuclear missiles site first simultaneously.

Tac Nukes are primarily there to increase the strategic nuclear threshold by veiling the strategic nuclear weapons, these DOES NOT lower "u nuclear thresh hold by attacking indian armed forces with tactical nuclear weapon"

What a @$#!

 

[foxbat]

See this is what I am talking about. You can find many skins to satisfy your ego. Every one can find many "success" in his failures just like you and many other fan boys usually do. But that doesn't changes the fact that the Bharat failed to implement it's military doctrines that it devised after every incident of terror inside Bharat. CSD is a military strategy. We are talking about military strategy. Even I can refute the so called "successes" of Bharat that you mentioned but I won't considering it something off topic. We are talking about military strategies and it's implementation. So talk about it instead telling us about pathetic "successes". We aren't interested in what you believe and how you satisfy your ego. We want to discuss a military doctrine so please do the same. Thanks and best of luck.

Military strategy devoid of political and diplomatic strategy is bound to fail. Which is why Kargil didnt work..

 

[foxbat]

So to recap, what is the purpose of this new super missile

1. Is it to attack Indian IBGs before they enter Pakistan with a nuclear weapon or after they do
2. If it is before the IBG enters Pakistan, then wouldnt that be a nuclear attack on India (Indian soil) resulting in a full fledged nuke retaliation?
3. If its is after IBG enters Pakistan, doesnt the distance between the attack point (i am assuming the trigger wont be before losing a couple of battles which means a IBGs getting a few Kms inside the border) and the cities like Lahore make using even a tactical nuke a little suicidal??

 

[Xeric]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Any use of nukes by either party will lead to a Nuclear war right? So what's the use of having a smaller nuke as opposed to the whole "sha-bang"?

It seems the concept of tactical nukes is based on the presumption that India will either:

a) Not attack fearing the Nasr (which is the same deterrence the Shaheen offered)
b) Withdraw it's troops after being attacked and not retaliate fearing a nuclear escalation

To clarify, what I am questioning here is the purpose of the Nasr. Strategically speaking; what differentiates it from any of your conventional nukes?

Your post doesnt really speak high of your knowledge about nuclear strategy (for instance when you first say things like 'Nasr which is the same deterrence the Shaheen offered), still just to clearify your doubts i will like to say this;

1) The CSD hinges upon the conjuncture that the attacking forces MUST archive its aim (i.e. destruction of Pak Armed Forces and/or destruction of so called terror camps) well before the international community steps in and put a lid over the conflict thus preventing it from turning into a MAD scenario. i hope we are on the same page till now, right?

Ok.

2) Now when the CS unfolds itself (whereby multiple thrusts would be made at different and varying theaters) the speed of operations would be of utmost importance. Why? Firstly, so that Pakistan is kept off-balance, preventing her to retaliate with force, Second; damage Pakistan as much possible within the stipulated time, Three; destroy Pakistan's defence forces/C & C installations so that when the push comes to shove, there's no one to press the red button.

3) Now this would entail continuity and perpetuality in sustainance of the operation in a very fluid environment. Now how about Pakistan wipes off an IBG (or a part thereof) with these so called useless Tac Nukes during the very initial phase of operations? Which, in the absence of tac nukes might have taken Pakistan MORE (not quantifying it deliberately) time to do the same. We all know that all of the IBGs are not supposed to be reused (a military term) once they have been launched as not all of them would meet the desired success. Now let's say india considers that 4 out of the 8 IBGs would reach their objectives in may be like 60 hours after they have been launched and at the same time india also believes that these 4 successful IBGs would also have dne their job well (destruction of Pak forces blah blah blah).

Now this scenario is without the presence of tac Nukes. Now lets consider the same scenario with the availability of tac nukes. Previously 4 IBGs were countered/halted/thwarted within 60 hours with the non-availability of tac nukes, but now with the availability of the same, 4 may be more of the IBGs are countered/halted/vaporized well before the completion of 60 hours or 72 hours for that matter i.e. Pakistan achieved the same thing in 1/4 (may be more) of X time (X time being the time Pakistan had taken achieved the same results when tac nukes were not available). This would entail that your CS would go for a six in the very early stage. i know that some rather most of the jingos would now tell me that if this happens then india will surely retaliate with a similar but more massive response. i disagree! Why?

Well when the CS is based of the fact that it should culminate well before the enemy react in terms of a counter-value strategic nuclear attack i.e. it leads to a nuclear war this ensuring MAD, which in turn means that CS is nuke allergic, then pray tell me why would india NOT stop the assault and wind up the CS knowing full well that it can now not achieve the stipulated targets, instead of going all gung ho and retaliating to a tac nuke attack with a strategic one? Idiocity, perhaps? Or is it that your commanders would forget that the basis of CSD was nuke phobic?

Now this brings me to your other query. IS Shaheen and Nasr comparable? Well for now (keeping in view your limited understanding) i'll only say that targeting an IBG with Shaheen would mean inviting india to respond in kind as the this launch might not restrict itself to a counter-force target but it's sheer magnitude would make it a counter-value one. Also,the close proximity of the attacker and the defender would rule out a ballistic missile attack, why? Coz it's stupid. Moreover, this will never happen because if Pakistan finally decide to go nuclear, well it would choose target that fir in the counter-value/force pretext. Now compare this with Nasr, a 60 km range missile, with a very lower yield that would target a small portion of the the attacking force, which even if wiped off, might not result into a similar response, one because you dont possess a similar weapon, two raising the bar and retaliating with a strategic strike would make india the culprit, three if common sense if applied, a tac nuke attack is responded with a tac nuke attack, not with a strategic one!

Savvy?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

If Pakistan uses tactical nuclear weapons, does it deter India from doing the same?

Compare the armour availability and the troop levels.

And once the nuclear weapons even if tactical is used, what will be the international reaction?

And compare the CNP.

 

[praveen]

how will pakistanis know real time where the IBG's are going to do the thrust along the border?whal if their awacs were taken out before that