The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[illusion8]

There's no sense or logic applied in war , I can assure that these things doesn't work like you think . I was really surprised to see that last post of yours . Actually , now with the ever increasing warheads and robust delivery systems , one would be mad enough even to cross the border for whatever reasons , the stakes are very high and no one can predict anyone's response .

He's right and I don't think you got what he meant.

any war ends with some kind of treaty - wars are not fought in vacuum and are not a win all or lose all scenario.

In the context of India Pakistan - prime examples are the 65,71 and the Kargil war - where the war remained limited and did not go overboard and when victory or ceasefire was declared we went into some kind of rapprochement or an agreement. Countries don't fight wars to win completely or lose completely because many factors come into play.

 

[Secur]

He's right and I don't think you got what he meant.

any war ends with some kind of treaty - wars are not fought in vacuum and are not a win all or lose all scenario.

In the context of India Pakistan - prime examples are the 65,71 and the Kargil war - where the war remained limited and did not go overboard and when victory or ceasefire was declared we went into some kind of rapprochement or an agreement. Countries don't fight wars to win completely or lose completely because many factors come into play.

Is he ? Of course he's right for you , he somehow seems to rationalize/prove the concept of the enemy's taking assurance/guarantee from the enemy and hence getting the Indian objectives fulfilled in theory without the ' worst ' happening but no he didn't mean that by any chance , had he , he would have said it explicitly . In reality , it is much different than what you are thinking here . All " conventional " wars do end with some kind of treaty , but what treaty are you talking after a nuclear war or during/after a TNW strike , if I may ask ? Do we have a previous example in a war between two nuclear states ? If so , what ? There are dilemmas then , not treaty/agreements/compromises . We seem to have examples where the wars didn't end in a treaty or agreement or any rapprochement - US invasion in various countries .

In the context of India-Pakistan , all wars be it the First / Second Kashmir War , Bangladesh War or the Kargil one ended in ceasefire/agreement , but at that time , we weren't fighting or thinking of fighting under the nuclear umbrella except for the last , even then the proper delivery systems and mechanisms weren't there . The conventional disparity has grown in favor of India massively since then due to various factors , bringing the thresholds down on other side to compensate for that . Changes the whole scenarios , just a nuke . We seem to analyze many factors here , but the necessary condition for achieving objectives in Cold Start seems to cross a threshold - the destruction/crippling of Pakistani conventional forces and hence bringing the nukes(s) on the table - are the Indians ready to face the dilemma then or before crossing the border knowing that they may cross the threshold(s) if they do not intend to ( going by the popular Indian version ) ? .

 

[illusion8]

Is he ? Of course he's right for you , he somehow seems to rationalize/prove the concept of the enemy's taking assurance/guarantee from the enemy and hence getting the Indian objectives fulfilled in theory without the ' worst ' happening but no he didn't mean that by any chance , had he , he would have said it explicitly . In reality , it is much different than what you are thinking here . All " conventional " wars do end with some kind of treaty , but what treaty are you talking after a nuclear war or during/after a TNW strike , if I may ask ? Do we have a previous example in a war between two nuclear states ? If so , what ? There are dilemmas then , not treaty/agreements/compromises . We seem to have examples where the wars didn't end in a treaty or agreement or any rapprochement - US invasion in various countries .

In the context of India-Pakistan , all wars be it the First / Second Kashmir War , Bangladesh War or the Kargil one ended in ceasefire/agreement , but at that time , we weren't fighting or thinking of fighting under the nuclear umbrella except for the last , even then the proper delivery systems and mechanisms weren't there . The conventional disparity has grown in favor of India massively since then due to various factors , bringing the thresholds down on other side to compensate for that . Changes the whole scenarios , just a nuke . We seem to analyze many factors here , but the necessary condition for achieving objectives in Cold Start seems to cross a threshold - the destruction/crippling of Pakistani conventional forces and hence bring the nuke on the table - are the Indians ready to face the dilemma then or before crossing the border knowing that they may cross the threshold(s) if they do not intend to ( going by the popular Indian version ) ? .

You are missing the whole concept of war here -

wars are fought to achieve objectives, throughout history wars have been fought for objectives.

US disengagement in Afghanistan and Iraq is based on objectives of 9/11 and destroying Al Qaeda. It got extended because the objectives changed by the passage of time - since day one they were pretty sure when they will disengage or what will be the objectives that will be met to disengage.

The enemy's assurance/guarantees as you call it are what forms the terms for the treaties or ceasefires which get drawn out during talks. 65 war - Pakistani objectives were Kashmir - you intended it to be restricted to Kashmir and the Tashkent agreement ended the war in a ceasefire.
71 war ended in a ceasefire and surrender of forces, 99 war ended in Pakistan retreating it's forces from Kargil - prime example of India restricting the war engagement. 62 war another example of restriction not employing AF and Navy from the Indian side and retreating after coming to a certain distance for China.

As Nawaz Sharif talked about a fourth war - if that happens again there will be objectives for Pakistan and for India to fulfill. The terms of engagement, the restrictions and limitations will be set on both sides based on that.

We seem to analyze many factors here , but the necessary condition for achieving objectives in Cold Start seems to cross a threshold - the destruction/crippling of Pakistani conventional forces and hence bring the nuke on the table

Cold start doctrine actually has a lot to do with logistics and faster mobilization rather than any fixed objectives. Complete destruction of Pakistani forces will never be an objective in any war unless Pakistan employs nukes.

are the Indians ready to face the dilemma then or before crossing the border knowing that they may cross the threshold(s) if they do not intend to ( going by the popular Indian version ) ?

That would depend on Pakistani's and their actions - one can safely estimate what warrants India to cross the borders going by past examples when we fought our wars. Pakistan primarily have to ensure that they do not cross the threshold that would leave India with no option other than war to begin with.

 

[Secur]

The enemy's assurance/guarantees as you call it are what forms the terms for the treaties or ceasefires which get drawn out during talks. 65 war - Pakistani objectives were Kashmir - you intended it to be restricted to Kashmir and the Tashkent agreement ended the war in a ceasefire.
71 war ended in a ceasefire and surrender of forces, 99 war ended in Pakistan retreating it's forces from Kargil - prime example of India restricting the war engagement. 62 war another example of restriction not employing AF and Navy from the Indian side and retreating after coming to a certain distance for China.

I am not missing anything here , you are typing the whole thing yourself but not realizing the key word you write yourself . You see , you describe wars and then say " the war ended " in such and such agreement and treaties , but there the war ended after being fought with conventional ability and no massive damage , here today the war ends with a nuke or two detonated on one/both side or the subcontinent being doomed , what treaty/agreement shall we put up then ? One with the cockroaches who can survive of course properly ? The only treaty we can come up with , if Indians ever make the mistake , is to warn them to withdraw after initial TNW strike , that is it . You choose to continue and it results in MAD , which is why you dont cross the border in the first place , which is the reason the whole plan is deterred before even being put into place .

Cold start doctrine actually has a lot to do with logistics and faster mobilization rather than any fixed objectives. Complete destruction of Pakistani forces will never be an objective in any war unless Pakistan employs nukes.

I know what Cold Start has to do with and what it envisions . The question is how is achieving the objectives possible without crippling the Pakistan's conventional warfighting ability making it unable to fight/deter/retaliate first thus inviting a nuclear retaliation because the threshold has been crossed . You are talking about the seventh largest army in the world , you think you wouldn't have to defeat it first ? Its defeat is itself a threshold , because there we are left at adversary's mercy . The idea of fighting a controlled war/without crossing red lines is flawed , it isn't possible to ensure that , not specially during a war , which is why it hasn't been employed yet . The idea itself is nothing new , it dates to '87 blitzkrieg style war preparation as far I conclude , this is a modern form obviously .

 

[illusion8]

I am not missing anything here , you are typing the whole thing yourself but not realizing the key word you write yourself . You see , you describe wars and then say " the war ended " in such and such agreement and treaties , but there the war ended after being fought with conventional ability and no massive damage , here today the war ends with a nuclear or two on one side or the subcontinent being doomed , what treaty/agreement shall we put up then ? One with the cockroaches who can survive of course properly ? The only treaty we can come up with , if Indians ever make the mistake , is to warn them to withdraw after initial TNW strike , that is it . You choose to continue and it results in MAD , which is why you dont cross the border in the first place , which is the reason the whole plan is deterred before even being put into place .

Why does Pakistan maintain an army, air force and a navy if its only objective in the end of the day is going nuclear?

why does Pakistan maintain huge forces along the Indian border and have an infrastructure to support it and safeguard it against Indian forces in the event of a war?


As always you have a limited comprehension to understand as to what the poster is trying to communicate and it's not the first time. Crossing of the border will depend on Pakistani actions as has always been the case, India will go into war with certain objectives if it comes to that.

if Indians ever make the mistake , is to warn them to withdraw after initial TNW strike , that is it . You choose to continue and it results in MAD , which is why you dont cross the border in the first place , which is the reason the whole plan is deterred before even being put into place .

Here you safely assume that even if Pakistan creates a situation that will force our hand to go to war or respond to an invasion by Pakistan India will not respond because Pakistan has a few nukes. This is a delusion that will be proved wrong if it ever comes to that. Pakistan has ensured that it remains within limits and does not cause situations like Kargil, 48, or 65 again so I don't see why would we even think of going to war.

I know what Cold Start has to do with and what it envisions . The question is how is achieving the objectives possible without crippling the Pakistan's conventional warfighting ability making it unable to fight/deter/retaliate first thus inviting a nuclear retaliation because the threshold has been crossed . The idea of fighting a controlled war/without crossing red lines is flawed , it isn't possible to ensure that , not specially during a war , which is why it hasn't been employed yet . The idea itself is nothing new , it dates to '87 blitzkrieg style war preparation as far I conclude , this is a modern form obviously .

It will depend on the objectives or to ensure that Pakistan does not complete it's objectives. There is nothing other than fighting a controlled war because of nukes in the picture - that is if the events on the ground warrant a war engagement. All external forces will ensure that.

Pretty lame to assume that if Pakistan goes to war with us India will not respond because you have nukes...before you start quoting reasons of war being the terrorist incidents on Mumbai or the parliament attacks then let me say that India never went to war because of a terrorist incident even when we did not have nukes.

 

[Secur]

Why does Pakistan maintain an army, air force and a navy if its only objective in the end of the day is going nuclear?
why does Pakistan maintain huge forces along the Indian border and have an infrastructure to support it and safeguard it against Indian forces in the event of a war?
As always you have a limited comprehension to understand as to what the poster is trying to communicate and it's not the first time. Crossing of the border will depend on Pakistani actions as has always been the case, India will go into war with certain objectives if it comes to that.

Maybe , you can take your own advise this time of comprehending things instead of repeating the common Indian myth of " Pakistani state is irrational and suicidal and will go nuclear at the drop of the hat " . I have said before that Pakistan will fight conventionally to its full ability before and only opt for tactical nuclear strikes if its conventional forces fail to deter/fight the Indian Army which is why we maintain the world's seventh largest army to safeguard the country against threats and maintain its integrity and existence and find it more than a match against our primary adversary . Did you read my previous posts ?

The poster isn't trying to communicate any agreement/treaty but rather just hoping to fight a controlled war in which he envisions the adversary taking assurance/guarantee from adversary and completing its objectives whatever they may be without a " nuclear " response ( even crippling Pakistan's conventional war fighting ability which of course is necessary to achieve it ) , nothing more , nothing less . Otherwise , maybe you can advise him to be clear in what he's trying to say . India can go to war , that is her choice of course , but do not expect her to set the thresholds and fight a war in enemy's soil on her terms . That is my simple point .

It will depend on the objectives or to ensure that Pakistan does not complete it's objectives. There is nothing other than fighting a controlled war because of nukes in the picture - that is if the events on the ground warrant a war engagement. All external forces will ensure that.

Once again ! The " not completion " of Pakistani objectives which is evicting the Indians out of occupied territories/area and being able to retaliate effectively itself crosses a threshold . Unfortunately , there's no such thing as even a " limited conflict " left now in which you can keep it under control or hope to do so . The minute you cross the border , the uncertainty , the fog of war , the mistakes , the blunders , the decisions , the unpredictable response will come into play ( by both sides ) - which is why I said that it is flawed . We will not take any external forces guarantee/assurance for our existence and integrity , we think we ourselves are more than capable of ensuring that or taking the enemy down with us , no third option of surrender left now . Remember Z.A Bhutto vow of never signing the Treaty of Versailles ever after the Fall of Dhaka and when we decided to initiate the nuclear program ? Yes , it stands true even today .

Here you safely assume that even if Pakistan creates a situation that will force our hand to go to war or respond to an invasion by Pakistan India will not respond because Pakistan has a few nukes.

I do not overestimate my country's capabilities nor underestimate the enemy's . But hasn't it happened during the last four encounters ( '87, '99 , '01 , 08 ) where nobody went to war because of a few ( though the number is 100-120 ) nukes ?

 

[illusion8]

Maybe , you can take your own advise this time of comprehending things instead of repeating the common Indian myth of " Pakistani state is irrational and suicidal and will go nuclear at the drop of the hat " . I have said before that Pakistan will fight conventionally to its full ability before and only opt for tactical nuclear strikes if its conventional forces fail to deter/fight the Indian Army which is why we maintain the world's seventh largest army to safeguard the country against threats and maintain its integrity and existence and find it more than a match against our primary adversary . Did you read my previous posts ?

The poster isn't trying to communicate any agreement/treaty but rather just hoping to fight a controlled war in which he envisions the adversary taking assurance/guarantee from adversary and completing its objectives , nothing more , nothing less . Otherwise , maybe you can advise him to be clear in what he's trying to say . India can go to war , that is her choice of course , but do not expect her to set the thresholds and fight a war in enemy's soil on her terms . That is my simple point .



The " not completion " of Pakistani objectives which is evicting the Indians out of occupied territories/area and being able to retaliate effectively itself crosses a threshold . Unfortunately , there's no such thing as even a " limited conflict " left now in which you can keep it under control or hope to do so . The minute you cross the border , the uncertainty , the fog of war , the mistakes , the blunders , the decisions , the unpredictable response will come into play ( by both sides ) - which is why I said that it is flawed . We will not take any external forces guarantee/assurance for our existence and integrity , we think we ourselves are more than capable of ensuring that or taking the enemy down with us , no third option of surrender left now . Remember Z.A Bhutto vow of never signing the Treaty of Versailles ever after the Fall of Dhaka and when we decided to initiate the nuclear program ? Yes , it stands true even today .

And, you expect me to believe that? what's happening on your western border has given you enough reason for you to go to war multiple times.

If what you say is only limited to India and how you respond to India then an attack on Indian forces or crossing the LOC or the IB by Pakistan will be termed an invasion and an act of war whether you go all fancy about it or as the delusionary speakers in Pakistan call the LOC as just a line that if crossed is not a war scenario.

For all the grand standing of Bhutto, and his fiery speeches, Pakistan end of the day signed the ceasefire and surrender treaty in Bangladesh and hanged Bhutto too for good measure.

 

[rockstarIN]

@illusion8

The main point secur is saying is their conventional power is quite low now in comparison with Indian power now and now they even threaten to go nukes soon even after crossing the border and arguing to 'buy' it.

Our stance and nuke policy is very clear on this, already explained clearly after those tactical nuke talk. There won't be any hesitation. So there is no need to argue.

And what he is saying 'the flawed' already happened in 1999. A limited conflict under nuke umbrella.

 

[Secur]

And, you expect me to believe that? what's happening on your western border has given you enough reason for you to go to war multiple times.

If what you say is only limited to India and how you respond to India then an attack on Indian forces or crossing the LOC or the IB by Pakistan will be termed an invasion and an act of war whether you go all fancy about it or as the delusionary speakers in Pakistan call the LOC as just a line that if crossed is not a war scenario.

For all the grand standing of Bhutto Pakistan end of the day signed the ceasefire and surrender treaty in Bangladesh and hanged Bhutto too for good measure.

I do not expect anyone to believe anything , I just do not want them to assume things on our part and even trust it to be true . Wars aren't governed by rules or logic(s) . Please , enlighten me , what has happened on the Western border which has put the " country's existence and integrity " in danger , anything which couldn't be fought/deterred by conventional means ?

I made it clear that in today's nuclear dominated scene , crossing the border by any side is simple a no-go , it goes out of control the moment you do so , because neither you can predict the other side's response nor anticipate everything , why not read the posts first ?

P.S Bhutto said that thing after signing the Shimla Agreement and starting the Pakistani nuclear program and he said that for a reason , even his political adversaries later maintained the same stance . What is the use of that weapon if it cant guarantee the safety of the country ?

 

[illusion8]

@illusion8

The main point secur is saying is their conventional power is quite low now in comparison with Indian power now and now they even threaten to go nukes soon even after crossing the border and arguing to 'buy' it.

Our stance and nuke policy is very clear on this, already explained clearly after those tactical nuke talk. There won't be any hesitation. So there is no need to argue.

That's what nukes have done in the end of the day - it has wiped out Pakistan's capability of mounting an invasion on Indian soil like 48, 65 or Kargil.

I do not overestimate my country's capabilities nor underestimate the enemy's . But hasn't it happened during the last four encounters ( '87, '99 , '01 , 08 ) where nobody went to war because of a few ( though the number is 100-120 ) nukes ?

99 Kargil - India for the better part of the engagement did not know if the invaders were terrorists or PA regulars - India's only objective was to clear the heights and it did.

parliament attacks and Mumbai attacks weren't sound enough reasons for going to war - we have a different weapon and a different style of war for that.

 

[Secur]

Our stance and nuke policy is very clear on this, already explained clearly after those tactical nuke talk. There won't be any hesitation. So there is no need to argue.

There will be more than hesitation in such case , boy , its called a dilemma . Not asking you to buy anything from me , just asking you to not buy things on our behalf and present it to us . I asked you to explain me the Indian thing of " putting the life of billions of Indian citizens at risk " just because of a few ( ten at max ) thousand troops but you never replied . Yes , its a doctrine alright , but no one has never explained it before to me , because Indian " thresholds " ( at least the real ones where they lie aren't being crossed ) and the political leaders would be quite reluctant and may ask the Indian Army to consider other options instead of endangering the whole population .

As for the Kargil conflict , Indians didn't cross the Line of Control let alone the International border , boy , isn't that so ? That is when we both didn't even have the robust delivery systems and the conventional disparity wasn't what it is today . Imagine it now .

 

[illusion8]

I do not expect anyone to believe anything , I just do not want them to assume things on our part and even trust it to be true . Wars aren't governed by rules or logic(s) . Please , enlighten me , what has happened on the Western border which has put the " country's existence and integrity " in danger , anything which couldn't be fought/deterred by conventional means ?

I made it clear that in today's nuclear dominated scene , crossing the border by any side is simple a no-go , it goes out of control the moment you do so , because neither you can predict the other side's response nor anticipate everything , why not read the posts first ?

P.S Bhutto said that thing after signing the Shimla Agreement and starting the Pakistani nuclear program and he said that for a reason , even his political adversaries later maintained the same stance . What is the use of that weapon if it cant guarantee the safety of the country ?

Of course, Pakistan cannot mount invasions similar to what it did before ever again.

Please , enlighten me , what has happened on the Western border which has put the " country's existence and integrity " in danger , anything which couldn't be fought/deterred by conventional means ?

Too much at least by India's standards to even start at any point.

 

[Secur]

99 Kargil - India for the better part of the engagement did not know if the invaders were terrorists or PA regulars - India's only objective was to clear the heights and it did.
parliament attacks and Mumbai attacks weren't sound enough reasons for going to war - we have a different weapon and a different style of war for that.

Actually , well they knew everything after that happened . Just that it wasn't worth risking a nuclear response by crossing the border back then too .

That is what you are telling me when you amassed your troops on the border for a whole year and later withdrew yourself ? Make a thousand excuses , but the Indian public was crying for blood and rallying for war , just that someone else wasn't ready knowing the result .

Too much at least by India's standards to even start at any point.

Tell me , then .

 

[illusion8]

Actually , well they knew everything after that happened . Just that it wasn't worth risking a nuclear response by crossing the border back then too .

That is what you are telling me when you amassed your troops on the border for a whole year and later withdrew yourself ? Make a thousand excuses , but the Indian public was crying for blood and rallying for war , just that someone else wasn't ready knowing the result .

We only came to know much later - but then by that time our only objective was to take back the heights. It was nukes that deterred it but Pakistani actions that limited the war - the actions were that they stopped the logistics, refused to accept the dead as PA troops, did not send in reinforcements, did not provide air support, did not acknowledge the soldiers. If Pakistan had escalated it by sending in reinforcements then the war would have spread.

We took over a year to amass troops at the border (hence the birth of the cold start doctrine) - it was a move to bring in pressure on Musharraf and he capitulated at the end calling for withdrawal of the troops.

Tell me , then .

Drones, Abottabad, deaths of tens of thousands of Pakistani civilians, deaths of thousands of Pakistani troops - good enough reasons to go to war.

 

[Secur]

We only came to know much later - but then by that time our only objective was to take back the heights. It was nukes that deterred it but Pakistani actions that limited the war - the actions were that they stopped the logistics, refused to accept the dead as PA troops, did not send in reinforcements, did not provide air support, did not acknowledge the soldiers. If Pakistan had escalated it by sending in reinforcements then the war would have spread.
We took over a year to amass troops at the border (hence the birth of the cold start doctrine) - it was a move to bring in pressure on Musharraf and he capitulated at the end calling for withdrawal of the troops.

Well not really , read your own history in such case . Indians never accepted the Pakistan's stance of " they are irregulars " actually . Yes , that is the point , your objective was to take back the heights , ours would be to take back the land that India has occupied initially , either you retreat or we sound warnings and come to the point of " no return " then . Pakistan didn't stop anything until Mr.Sharif went to Washington and kept fighting the " poorly planned " conflict .

I said that you can make a thousand excuses now but the objective of bringing troops to the border is to fight a war - not to let them rest for a year and then withdraw . Of course we pulled ours back too , because of a reason , the primary reason we mobilized them became non existent , the Indians had gone back . The mobilization and logistics * faster than Indians * is one thing - we pride ourselves on , even today , our cantonments are close to the border for historic reasons .