Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[paritosh]

India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a ‘beggar country’ based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.

Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
now in the event of a war...the importance of holding higher ground would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up heights and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro heights...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"

 

[Skeptic]

India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a ‘beggar country’ based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.

Great, so that is what country's defence has come to... getting a better bang for the buck? is that so simple? I think you have been influenced by existing kiddish bickering on this thread. Generally all your posts are remarkable and informative, but this one sir, is kiddish.

If we use the same logic in the Kashmr scenario, pakistan is getting better bang for the buck there as well. You are spending lesser and India is controlling the terrritory. So you must be pleased with the status quo?

Defending your land has nothing to do with money and the comparasion of the two are completely redundant. There have been greater lengths others have travelled to protect ther homlands than to spend some quids.

 

[toxic_pus]

India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost.

You are essentially echoing what Mr Xeric has done before, to which I had responded earlier and then deleted. The fact that, GoP has on several occasions tried to dislodge the Indian troops from the Siachen glacier and has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors, means GoP attaches more value to Siachen than you are willing to admit.

You can downplay Siachen’s importance, and I personally feel that you are not entirely wrong in that, but it is apparent, that GoP is more than willing to risk the expenditure and lives of her sons, just to be where Indian troops are today.

The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.

 

[Kasrkin]

Generally all your posts are remarkable and informative, but this one sir, is kiddish.

Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning and context of my words. It was being claimed, crudely, that Siachen is less of a burden on India because Pakistan is ‘begging for aid’ and what not. I pointed out that Pakistan’s defense budget is stable, even if it is less than India’s, and as per the defense spending, the particularly pointless and futile confrontation in Siachen is still heavier to sustain on the Indian side, despite their financial superiority. I was not looking to claim a ‘kiddish’ score, as you presumed.

If we use the same logic in the Kashmr scenario, pakistan is getting better bang for the buck there as well. You are spending lesser and India is controlling the terrritory. So you must be pleased with the status quo?

Defending your land has nothing to do with money and the comparasion of the two are completely redundant. There have been greater lengths others have travelled to protect ther homlands than to spend some quids.

The logic you are implying is not the one I used. Siachen is a wasteland of complete strategic, cultural, and military irrelevance. It has no resources to speak of, not even human inhabitants. The very act of breathing there is a challenge. Pakistan can do the same thing with 1/3 of it that it can do with the whole of it: stop Indian forces from using it as an unguarded route to enter Azad Kashmir. The whole state of Kashmir is entirely different. Not only do the Muslims living there under the yoke of Indian rule have strong cultural links with Pakistanis, Kashmir’s riverheads are also a lifeline for our agro-based economy. You can be proud of your ‘possessions’ in Siachen all you want, it is only natural that the human psyche would seek to glorify and rationalize one’s accomplishment. But the fact is that the place is hell, and when there is no ceasefire and shells are raining, then not even the hardiest and suicidal mountaineers would risk life or money to go there. Like I said, at the end of the day it is your decision, your money, your men, your lives. They may be ‘some quids’ to you, but that’s none of my business.

Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
now in the event of a war...the importance of holding higher ground would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up heights and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro heights...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"

I understand the point you are trying to make. But on the ground it is not a reality. We have always been at war in Siachen since the 80s. Many skirmishes, many lives have been lost and outposts have changed hands. Artillery duels were a consistent and unending affair between the two armies and we have not been pushed out of the glacier because of elevated Indian positions. So, the Kargil realities do not apply here, firstly because the Pakistani and Indian posts are not close enough that you can hurl grenades out of an Indian post and it lands on the Pakistani one. All of them are relatively far apart. Second, unlike Kargil, we have no wish or need to storm and take the heights you’re stationed in. We’re content to watching you from where we are. If we try to storm all your posts, then perhaps your grenade falling on our head logic will apply. But the reality is that the Indians can’t come down, because we will gun them down on descent, anymore than we can go up, that is something I’ve heard officers from both sides admit. It’s a stalemate, our posts are just less costly to maintain, and much less costlier to supply.

 

[Kasrkin]

The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.

toxic_pus your argument is mostly based on false assumptions. There is no relation between Kargil and Siachen, Siachen is overlooking no vital highway. The plan for Kargil would’ve starved Siachen resulting in an Indian surrender, yes, as it would've Indian forces across a large chuck of the LoC. However that does not mean that Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil. Second, yes there have been skirmishes in Siachen, but none of them were designed or planned to expel the Indians from the glacier entirely. The Indians looked for weaknesses in our lines and attacked it, we looked for weaknesses in yours and attacked them (biggest Pakistani attack was actually motivated by revenge for an earlier Indian assault). Sometimes patrols ran into each other and there were firefights. None of this translates into ‘Pakistan is desperate to be where India is now’. Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Pakistan was in control of the heights Indians control now, it would still cost us much lesser than what it costs you because our path to Siachen does not require helicopters or expensive snow-vehicles to cross.

 

[toxic_pus]

There is no relation between Kargil and Siachen, Siachen is overlooking no vital highway. The plan for Kargil would’ve starved Siachen resulting in an Indian surrender, yes, as it would've Indian forces across a large chuck of the LoC. However that does not mean that Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil.

If I recall correctly, I have never alluded that “Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil” . What I have said is, the GoP “has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors”.

Second, yes there have been skirmishes in Siachen, but none of them were designed or planned to expel the Indians from the glacier entirely. The Indians looked for weaknesses in our lines and attacked it, we looked for weaknesses in yours and attacked them (biggest Pakistani attack was actually motivated by revenge for an earlier Indian assault). Sometimes patrols ran into each other and there were firefights. None of this translates into ‘Pakistan is desperate to be where India is now’.

This is the point that I was making in that post. Worth of Siachen to the two countries is measured differently and not necessarily, in terms of expenses or loss of life, or how much natural reserve it holds or if it overlooks any major highway etc. For GoI, it is a matter of national pride. For GoP, it is perhaps a matter of revenge, which is just a flip side of nationalism. I of course believe, that it is more than just revenge. It is about regaining a lost territory which they believe is theirs, and retaining it.

Please note, I am not arguing if GoI is justified or if Shimla agreement was violated. I would choose to stay away from that debate.

Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Pakistan was in control of the heights Indians control now, it would still cost us much lesser than what it costs you because our path to Siachen does not require helicopters or expensive snow-vehicles to cross.

You are correct, but it still would have shot up the bill.

 

[Kasrkin]

For GoP, it is perhaps a matter of revenge, which is just a flip side of nationalism.

You misunderstood. By revenge I didn't mean spite for the Indians being there. I was referring to a tit for tat raid. If the Indians keep attacking, the Pakistan Army are hardly the ones to sit quietly and take it. Do note that nothing you've said authenticates your claims that 'Pakistan would like to bleed just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions'. While it is easy to see how the Kargil operation would've led to an embarrassing and crippling blow to the Indian operation in Siachen, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Kargil was formulated because of Siachen or that the Pakistani blood spilt in Kargil was for Siachen, I can tell you we certainly don't look at it like that. Thus your contention that Pakistan is willing to pay every bit that India is for controlling those heights on Siachen does not hold.

You are correct, but it still would have shot up the bill.

Almost twice the cost actually, according to my calculations. Thats still a lot less than India's expenditure. The vast majority of your money goes into ferrying the supplies and rotating the troops, and India maintains twice as many troops as we do.

 

[Xeric]

Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
now in the event of a war...the importance of holding higher ground would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up heights and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro heights...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"

...so you can't totally ignore the importance of holding heights in Siachin.

Paritosh, you have been a guud debater, but i am really surprised at the understanding that you have shown of military matters. Holding heights at Siachen!? i mean, what's the point actually? i think you have mixed up heights and dominating features that are important when fighting battles at Plains, with fighting a war at Siachen. Let me ease it out for your assimilation:

Imagine a theater of war somewhere around your Punjab. Consider that you are holding a mole, hill, or a small cliff etc etc and the area surrounding it is plain, i mean quite low as compared to the 'heights' it surrounds. Now in this case you definitely are dominating a vast area around you as:

1) You can see much further-this can help in observation and direction of fire.

2)You can 'affect' an important landmark while staying miles and miles away from it.

3)It would be very difficult for the enemy to mount and attack on you because of the obvious reasons.

4)You have a moral ascendancy over the enemy

5)i can go on and on but i dont want to open up a tactics class here.

6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle, but if the battle is a 'static' one, the one being fought at Siachen, these heights become actually unless.

Now let's consider this in the Sicahen scenario:

1)You sit at 18000 ft and i sit at 17000 fit or may be at 17500 ft. There is a large 'La' (Balti word for way)/gap between the two ridges that we occupy, and most of the times this gap stretches for miles.

2)You cant see beyond my ridge line, i cant see beyond your ridge line.

3)You are actually NOT dominating the area around you as the area surrounding you also have a mean height approximately the same as yourself-as it is Siachen we are talking about, not the Plains! Except a few glaciated parts and 'Las', that actually are on ground level.

4)There is no strategic road/route in that area that you can affect by the virtue of your 'more' height.

5)You have to think a 100 times before you even actually think of mounting the others height to capture it.

6)You talked about dropping a grenade just like that, sir at the most places even larger caliber direct firing weapons (which have longer range as compared to small arms) prove inefficient because of the distance between the two ridges that both the parties have occupied. Though there are instances where you can actually just drop the grenade and hit would land on the enemy's Post-and this hold guud for both the side and not only for india.

7)The battles is a 'static' one, not much of the movements, and the movements that take place are actually hidden by the terrain itself, which you can effectively engage by the virtue of your 'more' height. Moreover there is no infantry-works so the heights actually fail to achieve what they are supposed to.

8)There are many point, but i'll leave it here.

So the height dominance that you claimed of actually fails, rather adds more to your toil as more height at Siachen mean less air and very difficult logistics.

As for having a larger chunk of Siachen, i would say you could keep it as both the parties dont actually plan on moving forth their occupied areas.


These are a few points which just came to my mind randomly or should i say something that i personally feel without getting into detailed tactical analysis, which anyone with some common sense can think of. i wonder what the 'seniors' at your and my side who are actually more learnerd and experienced would be thinking about this!

 

[Xeric]

You are essentially echoing what Mr Xeric has done before, to which I had responded earlier and then deleted. The fact that, GoP has on several occasions tried to dislodge the Indian troops from the Siachen glacier and has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors, means GoP attaches more value to Siachen than you are willing to admit.

You can downplay Siachen’s importance, and I personally feel that you are not entirely wrong in that, but it is apparent, that GoP is more than willing to risk the expenditure and lives of her sons, just to be where Indian troops are today.

The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.

Surprised, i am.

Such blindness! My my my.

----

BTW, we have General Zorawar Singh back alive in your disguise, thanks to !

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One point of view. Thank you.

May I, and if you will, say that this notion of yours ‘conventional and unconventional deterrent’ has never worked in the past and will not work in the future either? It’s about time that we change our thought process, quit making stupid blunders, get out of this deterrent mode and take an aggressive role. That’s the only way to survive in this world ‘Gis ki Lathi us ki Bhense’.

Sonic,

Another thing to think about in terms of the money saved to buy F-16's, was that the US embargoed the ones we had bought (750 million is what they stole from us at the time I think) - they would have had no qualms about the rest either. So a no go there.

The other option was the French - very expensive, but the 4 Billion dollar deal that fell though because of the alleged machinations of the government at the time and the reported $200 million kickbacks.

In addition, I am skeptical of the claim that it costs the Indians only twice as much as us. They have what, almost twice as many troops that have to be supplied primarily through the air, and a much more hazardous supply line.

Their costs have to be triple or quadruple ours - just the numerical superiority alone would almost double their costs.

 

[qsaark]

In addition, I am skeptical of the claim that it costs the Indians only twice as much as us. They have what, almost twice as many troops that have to be supplied primarily through the air, and a much more hazardous supply line.

Their costs have to be triple or quadruple ours - just the numerical superiority alone would almost double their costs.

However, owing to their large economy, they are sustaining and will continue to sustain the cost. For us, on the other hand, this war is becoming more and more expensive simply because our resources are shrinking with time.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Paritosh, you have been a guud debater, but i am really surprised at the understanding that you have shown of military matters. Holding heights at Siachen!? i mean, what's the point actually? i think you have mixed up heights and dominating features that are important when fighting battles at Plains, with fighting a war at Siachen. Let me ease it out for your assimilation:

Imagine a theater of war somewhere around your Punjab. Consider that you are holding a mole, hill, or a small cliff etc etc and the area surrounding it is plain, i mean quite low as compared to the 'heights' it surrounds. Now in this case you definitely are dominating a vast area around you as:

1) You can see much further-this can help in observation and direction of fire.

2)You can 'affect' an important landmark while staying miles and miles away from it.

3)It would be very difficult for the enemy to mount and attack on you because of the obvious reasons.

4)You have a moral ascendancy over the enemy

5)i can go on and on but i dont want to open up a tactics class here.

6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle, but if the battle is a 'static' one, the one being fought at Siachen, these heights become actually unless.

Now let's consider this in the Sicahen scenario:

1)You sit at 18000 ft and i sit at 17000 fit or may be at 17500 ft. There is a large 'La' (Balti word for way)/gap between the two ridges that we occupy, and most of the times this gap stretches for miles.

2)You cant see beyond my ridge line, i cant see beyond your ridge line.

3)You are actually NOT dominating the area around you as the area surrounding you also have a mean height approximately the same as yourself-as it is Siachen we are talking about, not the Plains! Except a few glaciated parts and 'Las', that actually are on ground level.

4)There is no strategic road/route in that area that you can affect by the virtue of your 'more' height.

5)You have to think a 100 times before you even actually think of mounting the others height to capture it.

6)You talked about dropping a grenade just like that, sir at the most places even larger caliber direct firing weapons (which have longer range as compared to small arms) prove inefficient because of the distance between the two ridges that both the parties have occupied. Though there are instances where you can actually just drop the grenade and hit would land on the enemy's Post-and this hold guud for both the side and not only for india.

7)The battles is a 'static' one, not much of the movements, and the movements that take place are actually hidden by the terrain itself, which you can effectively engage by the virtue of your 'more' height. Moreover there is no infantry-works so the heights actually fail to achieve what they are supposed to.

8)There are many point, but i'll leave it here.

So the height dominance that you claimed of actually fails, rather adds more to your toil as more height at Siachen mean less air and very difficult logistics.

As for having a larger chunk of Siachen, i would say you could keep it as both the parties dont actually plan on moving forth their occupied areas.


These are a few points which just came to my mind randomly or should i say something that i personally feel without getting into detailed tactical analysis, which anyone with some common sense can think of. i wonder what the 'seniors' at your and my side who are actually more learnerd and experienced would be thinking about this!

I'm quoting you fully because, you may say you expressed random thoughts, but that is as brilliant an explanation of tactics as I have seen - but I'm a military novice.

This point I thought was particularly outstanding (again, I know little about tactics):

6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle,

Of course more informed people than me may provide a different POV; for example it seems to me that in any battlefield situation holding the height is always good (I've read up quite a bit on WW I).

So, given all that you've said, and also given my opinion that a guaranteed withdrawal is likely to be impossible for both sides to trust, what position would you rather be holding, the Indian or the Pakistani?

Again, thanks for the post; intellectually, it really forced me to rethink a fundamental position I'd held.

I ask again - any Indian military professionals who'd like to counter Xerics's post?

 

[bandit]

India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a ‘beggar country’ based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.

The guy was trying to justify the stand based on costs. I put up some straight facts relating to costs...I did no stereotyping...if the facts seem to do that please try to counter them rather than deleting posts that seem discomforting.

 

[Kasrkin]

I deleted it because it was a crude rant about 'Zardari going around with bowls in his hands', etc. Thats not the direction for the thread I want to allow, neither is it relevant to the matter of who spends a larger degree of their allotted defense budget on Siachen. Avoid posts like that in the future. Thanks.

 

[Xeric]

I'm quoting you fully because, you may say you expressed random thoughts, but that is as brilliant an explanation of tactics as I have seen - but I'm a military novice.

This point I thought was particularly outstanding (again, I know little about tactics):



Of course more informed people than me may provide a different POV; for example it seems to me that in any battlefield situation holding the height is always good (I've read up quite a bit on WW I).

So, given all that you've said, and also given my opinion that a guaranteed withdrawal is likely to be impossible for both sides to trust, what position would you rather be holding, the Indian or the Pakistani?

Again, thanks for the post; intellectually, it really forced me to rethink a fundamental position I'd held.

I ask again - any Indian military professionals who'd like to counter Xerics's post?

Thanks for understanding.

Holding heights is always guud in battle, that's the basics, but when we start actually looking deep into the battle minute and cursory points start taking bigger roles and can alter the battle so critically that one is stunned. Sitting on high ground and dominating a vast area is fruitful mostly (i didnt use only) when you can actually make use of it. If i can't actually 'dominate' my surrounding, because of certain facts then i may be at an advantages position but then i am not winning the battle because of it.

Now another more important thing, i can again justify when all i have said in my post that you referred to, the other way round. i mean i can negate all my claims that i made in my post and still can 'praise' heights that the indians are holding and can give them all the winning credits, as it's all about perception and how you read the battle. Though what i have written is not available any tactics book and i dont call it tactics as it is sheer common sense and nothing else. But tactics is no ones baby! You are tactics yourself and tactics is what you think, but in the latter case thinking clearly and calmly is very important. Otherwise blunders can happen!