India's Cold Start Is Too Hot

[Xeric]

Santro and TTT, enough of sympathies for Kargil, back to topic, shall we?

BTW, your 'feeling sorry for them' was strange, would love to reply to it, but may be the Kargil thread would be a better RV for it.

 

[waz]

Pakistan has masses of armour at its disposal, including 3,000 battle tanks. Large scale thrusts are not a new thing and have been successfully countered with lines of anti tank defences and counter formations of heavy armour.

What Pakistan has to worry about is the pathetic state of the navy......

 

[desioptimist]

I dont think India will ever attack pakistan(in response to a terror attack) if it is doing well economically and having good name globally. However if the situation was opposite(pakistan was doing great but we were falling) ,I am sure someone in govt would have taken military option much more seriously.
For now, letting RAW do the dirty work is a better strategy.

 

[Dazzler]

Isn't that due the fact that there is no evidence at that point (even now) linking Pakistani Govt to 26/11?

Do you really think your forces were reluctant to take action only due to a lack of evidence? Did they find evidence for 2001 parliament attack? If not, what was the purpose of mobilizing thousands of troops for almost 10 months only to withdraw them later? It has more teeth than this if you read the context of both events. i.e. 2001 and 2008, you will get a clear picture. Things are not as simple as they appear.

 

[deckingraj]

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?

Though i believe i am not a jingo yet i feel India will use nukes...I mean what other option will we be left with??? I can totally understand if you are saying that India will not implement CSD fearing that IBG's will be nuked but hypothetically if we overcome the fear and Pakistan went ahead nuking our IBGs i cannot comprehend how will we not retaliate with nukes....Help me a bit more there.....

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?

Yeah this part make sense....As per you the tactical nuke missile will send a message to strategist on our side, try CSD and it is nuclear war...in short don't try CSD.....However what is troubling me and other likes is that the argument was same even before this tactical missile...You start CSD and i will retaliate with full force(including nukes)....In short with or without this tactical nuke, message was - try csd and be ready for nuclear war....What am i missing here????

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.

Thanks for doing an extra effort in describing the situation to "limited knowledge group" people...However can u please elaborate about how the magnitude would be different??? If the aim is to nuke IBG's then wouldn't the payload be adjusted accordingly??? Secondly as asked above, if hypothetically we did cross and you did nuke our IBG's(by Nasr or by Shaheen) what option will we be left with but to retaliate with nukes????? As far as deterrance is concerend i am in agreement with you(though IMO NASR don't bring any new deterrance)...but here we are talking about a point when IBG's have entered Pak(which means deterrance is no longer there) and Pak has retaliated with Nukes....

I believe our disagreement is here - You believe if Pak use NASR on Indian IBG's then India do not have a case to nuke Pak in retaliation, however if Pak use Shaheen then India have a case....If that is correct can u please describe a bit more???

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?

Now that make lot of sense...Ignore what i asked above....but just one question...In the same token Raising bar and using tactical nuke on a conventional attack will not make Pakistan a culprit????

Anyhow as far as deterrence is concerned i am in agreement with you...however post deterrence it is a guess work....

 

[Bang Galore]

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?

Wow! It is always interesting to see Pakistanis thinking of themselves acting in some kind of a vacuum but believing that India's response will always be moderated as per Pakistani dreams. Your argument that Indian planners would have to reconsider CSD because of the presence of "tactical nukes" at Pakistani disposal and an apparent willingness to use them at the first available opportunity while not without merit runs into one simple problem - if you are arguing that India would be deterred by an apparent Pakistani willingness to use "tactical nukes", why shouldn't Pakistan be deterred by India's stated response to such use i.e. a massive first strike that may or may not preclude a Pakistani second strike (or instead lots of small nukes delivered at lots of Pakistani military assets ). Actually this line of argument is very weird since it assumes that India will not respond to any Pakistani provocation (a terrorist attack) and will again be unable to respond to threatened Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Incidentally, remember that in 2002, it was the politicians who were unwilling not Indian military commanders.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Wow! It is always interesting to see Pakistanis thinking of themselves acting in some kind of a vacuum but believing that India's response will always be moderated as per Pakistani dreams. Your argument that Indian planners would have to reconsider CSD because of the presence of "tactical nukes" at Pakistani disposal and an apparent willingness to use them at the first available opportunity while not without merit runs into one simple problem - if you are arguing that India would be deterred by an apparent Pakistani willingness to use "tactical nukes", why shouldn't Pakistan be deterred by India's stated response to such use i.e. a massive first strike that may or may not preclude a Pakistani second strike (or instead lots of small nukes delivered at lots of Pakistani military assets ). Actually this line of argument is very weird since it assumes that India will not respond to any Pakistani provocation (a terrorist attack) and will again be unable to respond to threatened Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Incidentally, remember that in 2002, it was the politicians who were unwilling not Indian military commanders.

First of all, your argument is totally flawed. How can the State of Pakistan guarantee that there wont be any terrorist attacks inside India even if it is traced backed to terrorists inside Pakistan. There is absolutely no evidence that terrorist attacks inside India had any sort of backing from the State of Pakistan. Did the US attack Saudi Arabia after it was discovered that the majority of the high jackers for 9-11 were Saudis? No, you are asking something Pakistan cannot deliver.

The tactical nuke reminds me of the Cold War. The USSR planned to use a tactical nuke to capture small chunks of German territory, NATO wasn't going to risk a nuclear holocaust for the sake of small pieces of territory. In our case, the tactical nuke is there as a last ditch if an Indian IBG manages to break through and is on its way to capture a strategic location. After Pakistan exercises this option, it would be up to India how much heat they want to turn up. If Pakistan is in a State of War and the tactical nukes are fired, it is extremely likely that the order will be given out to start assembling our strategic missiles. If India chooses to exercise the option of a massive nuclear response, as soon as Indian nukes are detected on our radar screens, Pakistan will fire back whatever nukes have been assembled. All the nukes that are hidden in Pakistan to withstand a nuclear strike will be given the order to also launch their nukes towards India. So overall, if India chooses the option of nuking Pakistan, it will ensure the destruction of both Pakistan and India. So my advice is, please stay within your borders and lets work on creating peace instead of exchanging nukes. All this talk of India withstanding a nuclear strike is nothing but hogwash, just like the notion of Indian politicians whom were unwilling to go to war in 2002. It were Indian politicians whom gave the order to mobilize your Army, it was your Army's incompetence that it took them 3 weeks to mobilize their Strike Corps. Obviously by that time sanity prevailed and the right decision was taken to not go to war.

 

[ares]

First of all, your argument is totally flawed. How can the State of Pakistan guarantee that there wont be any terrorist attacks inside India even if it is traced backed to terrorists inside Pakistan. There is absolutely no evidence that terrorist attacks inside India had any sort of backing from the State of Pakistan. Did the US attack Saudi Arabia after it was discovered that the majority of the high jackers for 9-11 were Saudis? No, you are asking something Pakistan cannot deliver. .

It is moral obligation of any sovereign state that no terrorist attacks are executed against third country from its territory.If a state unable to prevent such attacks, it should stop calling itself a sovereign state and step aside so that others can do a clean up job is its country(eg drone attacks).

Your Saudi Arabia example is flawed..thought the terrorist might have been of Saudi origin..but this particular terrorist network operated out of Afghanistan..that is why, Afghanistan is under US boots today.

 

[Vinod2070]

What does the "state of Pakistan" mean?

There is no doubt that elements of ISI and PA were involved in the 26/11 attacks and before that the Mumbai bombings of 1993. Civilian ministers may not be aware of it as they are not aware of much that is going on in Pakistan itself.

The basic issue is still on the intention of the Pakistani establishment, the deep state. And there is every reason to doubt them as long as the likes of LET are still having a free reign to be used against India.

If there was any doubt, the sham of the trial against the 26/11 accused and not lifting a finger to bring those dastardly terrorists to book has blown it.

 

[notorious_eagle]

It is moral obligation of any sovereign state that no terrorist attacks are executed against third country from its territory.If a state unable to prevent such attacks, it should stop calling itself a sovereign state and step aside so that others can do a clean up job is its country(eg drone attacks).

So i assume India had the moral obligation of not hosting the Mukti Bahini in its territory whom at the time were considered terrorists? This has to be the height of hypocrisy, the Mukti Bahini had full support of the State of India while can you say the same about the terrorists whom conducted attacks in Mumbai. Stop it with this attitude of being "Doodh say Dhula Huwa", Pakistan is doing whatever it can under the resources it possess to put an end to terrorism.

There is no doubt that elements of ISI and PA were involved in the 26/11 attacks and before that the Mumbai bombings of 1993. Civilian ministers may not be aware of it as they are not aware of much that is going on in Pakistan itself.

Is there even an ounce of evidence to support your ridiculous claims or did you just pull this out of your a**. I think the latter is the case because there is no proof to suggest that ISI or PA were involved in any of the terrorist bombings inside India. You people need to stop believing at whatever propaganda your Government feeds you.

If there was any doubt, the sham of the trial against the 26/11 accused and not lifting a finger to bring those dastardly terrorists to book has blown it.

India failed to provide any evidence to implicate that Hafiz Saeed was behind the attacks in 26-11, you should be blaming your Government instead of Pakistan for their incompetence in collecting any evidence against Hafiz Saeed.

 

[Vinod2070]

Is there even an ounce of evidence to support your ridiculous claims or did you just pull this out of your a**. I think the latter is the case because there is no proof to suggest that ISI or PA were involved in any of the terrorist bombings inside India. You people need to stop believing at whatever propaganda your Government feeds you.

There is enough proof. What do you expect, a smoking gun with PA military officials being videographed ordering the carnage?

There is a long history of Pakistan supporting terrorists of the LET and JEM and so on. They are out in the open, the donation boxes in the market place, open recruitment of terrorists, the JEM guy openly running terrorist centers after being released, Ajmal Kasab and the pathetic attempt to hide his identity, the communication between the terrorists and their handlers back in .

ISI involvement with Dawood Ibrahim and 1993 Mumbai bombings is fairly clear to everyone. Your totala Miandad's relationship to that terrorist is no secret either.

That you chose to put blinders doesn't mean all have to do it.

India failed to provide any evidence to implicate that Hafiz Saeed was behind the attacks in 26-11, you should be blaming your Government instead of Pakistan for their incompetence in collecting any evidence against Hafiz Saeed.

So India is expected to spoonfeed you all evidence, even for what happened within Pakistan where Indian investigators have no access?

Pakistan is playing a game of smoke and mirrors. It will continue doing it as long as it can. WHat happens during the process is for us to wait and see.

One thing is for sure, you ain't fooling anyone.

Even now, there are charges against Pakistanis including a Pakistani army major in a USA court for 26/11. Kasab and the others were all Paksitani terrorists.

 

[toxic_pus]

Wow! It is always interesting to see Pakistanis thinking of themselves acting in some kind of a vacuum but believing that India's response will always be moderated as per Pakistani dreams.

Come on Bang Galore. Our 'tactically brilliant' western neighbours have always, in their 'tactically brilliant' wisdom, known what our response will be in the event of their misadventure. And, invariably, got it wrong. Everytime. In '47 they never thought India would send army in Kashmir (let alone accede Kashmir). In '65 they never thought India would cross IB. In '71 they never thought India would get involved. In '99 they never thought India would fight back. Xeric is merely continuing the tradition. Rest assured they will do it again. Unfortunately that 'tactical brilliance' will ensure the end of South Asia.

 

[Xeric]

Wow! It is always interesting to see Pakistanis thinking of themselves acting in some kind of a vacuum but believing that India's response will always be moderated as per Pakistani dreams. Your argument that Indian planners would have to reconsider CSD because of the presence of "tactical nukes" at Pakistani disposal and an apparent willingness to use them at the first available opportunity while not without merit runs into one simple problem - if you are arguing that India would be deterred by an apparent Pakistani willingness to use "tactical nukes", why shouldn't Pakistan be deterred by India's stated response to such use i.e. a massive first strike that may or may not preclude a Pakistani second strike (or instead lots of small nukes delivered at lots of Pakistani military assets ). Actually this line of argument is very weird since it assumes that India will not respond to any Pakistani provocation (a terrorist attack) and will again be unable to respond to threatened Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Incidentally, remember that in 2002, it was the politicians who were unwilling not Indian military commanders.

^^ Seems i struck a raw nerve there. Now it really seems that you are actually speaking from your behind. Really your post are as entertaining as a funfair at a funeral!

Anywaz, what i hypothesized in my previous reply was basing on the limitation of your beloved CSD. Only if you knew what CS was actually about, tsk tsk. i'll waste my time explaining you all this again once i am assured that you have actually read and comprehended the CSD.

Now let's start over again and let's see if you can refute and put some counter arguments to my step by step employment of tac nukes as mentioned in my previous reply, believe me, rants would not get you anywhere!

 

[Markus]

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?

If Indian mission succeeds that is prime targets incl Muridke get destroyed and if some Sukhois do get shot down, I thing that is acceptable. If PAF retailates cross border then we will respond.

Regardless of the posture your navy takes, Indian navy will proactively enforce a distant blockade of your prime port and if India looses assets (that is our planes go down), then Indian navy may also take first action and take out one or two of your forward deployed warships.

Indian IBG's will mobilize but will still not cross the border.

 

[ashant]

I have one question:

Suppose, in a highly hypothetical scenario, an Indian IBG crosses the border into Pakistan and captures territory, and then Pakistan retaliates with a tactical nuke attack on the IBG, within Pakistani territory. Can India justify using a retaliatory nuke attack on Pakistan? It is improbable that this can be justified, since Pakistan has used tactical nuke on it's own territory.