The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Secur]

That is both an dangerous and illogical assumption to make. If Indian political leaders were to be so scared by the use of tactical nukes that they would scream for a halt, then how would the act of ordering the shallow thrusts in the face of Pakistani nukes be explained? Once any attack actually takes place by Indian forces, it must be understood that Pakistan's nuclear bluff has been called. Then the only options is to either do what India needs you to do which would mean a substantial reversal in your proxy use and save Pakistan or risk annihilation by continuing with the escalation. Where is the logic now? If indian forces have moved into Pakistan, it must mean that the threat of Pakistani nuclear option has been accounted for and factored in. That scenario simply does not allow for the luxury of further testing India's resolve. It is because a threashold has already been breached that Indian forces would be involved in action within Pakistan in the first place. Use of a nuclear weapom against Indian assets/formations is a definite breach of the Indian threshold. The minimum acceptable response will be a similar use of a nuke against Pakistani forces. Believing anything else is simply delusional & best left to others who insist on wallowing in it. Not you.

You have returned back to Square One . Actually even a limited scale conflict today carries a large risk of uncontrollable escalation because of nuclear weapons on both sides and is simply a no go in this era and I do not see Indian politicians getting ahead with such suicidal plan . Everything to lose and well nothing to get for both sides . I said that fighting a controlled war while assuming thresholds of adversary isn't possible hence the plan is deterred in the first place without even put to place . Prediction of non-static and vague thresholds is illogical and dangerous to do actually , the Pakistani response cant be anticipated/guessed by any means , I have explained when the country will escalate the situation and opt for tactical strike and how Cold Start will inherently breach one of the red lines by design , yes it asks you to destroy Pakistan's war fighting machine so that it cant fight back/retaliate/deter effectively - Indian leaders can decide to endanger their population for their troops though even though none of their threshold(s) are crossed - India's existence and integrity isn't threatened . Each more nuclear strikes takes both close to point of no return and you have conveniently missed mutual annihilation . You are getting unrealistic in your argument now by saying " Pakistani nuclear options and their response " whilst India remains conventional and hopes adversary to remain so too , can be factored in whilst the game theory dictates , that isn't possible because of Nash equilibrium . The current scenario and Pakistan's low thresholds because of different factors do not allow any luxury of crossing the border by Indian troops at all , let alone call any so called bluffs or expect Pakistanis to give up and accept all your demands . You cant fight a war in enemy's soil on your terms . Remember one can never be too careful . You see , I do not think they will be crossing the border because of the risk involved and high stakes , retreating or MAD option comes later when and if they make a foolish choice of crossing Pakistani threshold (s) .

I think the conventional disparity was pretty much evident on both Western and Eastern front in 1971. And Yes, it was not due to Dharma and certainly not due to any love for Pakistan. Its a simple Cost Benefit analysis.

Even though the witch wanted to , she wasn't allowed to do it , read your history . The same nuclear weapons have deterred four wars between us , the same cost benefit analysis tell us how Cold Start will remain cold for the foreseeable future because no side can fulfill its objectives while remaining under control .

 

[notorious_eagle]

Neither was the conventional disparity and the international diplomatic opinion that much in favor of India as it is now . I do not believe in any supposed Indian love for Pakistan or dharma , please do not try to convince me about it .

Pakistan has not and will not operate based on Indian intentions. Pakistan' posturing and policies operate based on Indian capabilities. Its essential for peace and equilibrium that Pakistan's Defences hold against Indian Misadventure.

And with this logic, Pakistan's Nukes are then pretty much for nothing except show and for some attention (sometimes wanted, sometimes unwanted) from the world polity..

They are Pakistan's insurance policy against India.

And which part of this is bad for the people of Pakistan?

Sir

You would have to expand a bit more.

 

[Armstrong]

Oi @Secur - This son of a cold-start has creating such a frosty situation over here - Wheres the love on this thread ?

 

[The SC]

You are merely sugar coating.
I said we have fought them before, we have defeated them before. Not once, not twice, repeatedly.

If they choose to fight India, or if India chooses to fight them..they will lose like they always do.

History speaks for itself, with facts beyond any doubt, and the only time you think you won was when East Pakistan or Bangladesh wanted to separate from Pakistan, than Pakistan had to fight you from far away and its forces were split between the two Pakistans at that time, so you think you won , but it is geography that won, apart from that you either were even with Pakistan with a 5 to 1 ratio in almost everything or you lost, those are facts you can look them up yourself without any bias before getting mad.

 

[The SC]

I see you have taken care of our offensive and defensive formations with this superstrategy of yours. I am all for it. Please tell PA not to waste good money buying all the good gadgets for yourselves and instead use it for Pakistan itself!

Hahahaa!! For once I agree with you. I have said it a number of times (and here Vajpayee and Musharraf were pragmatic) - make LC an IB - and move on. We cant and should not be held hostage to Jinnah - Nehru - Gandhi difference of opinions. They had intellectual difference which we are paying for in blood and abject poverty inspite of "freedom".

[/QUOTE]

Pakistan is arming itself for its defense sake, since India too has extremists that might take power one day, so what you call gadgets are just a form of a life insurance , to which you have a right too.
So, a strong Pakistan is very good for India as a country; if it is deterrent enough for some crazy guys and their might be crasiest decisions (remember Hitler and it adventurism), then it is best for Indian people at large too.

 

[Joe Shearer]

History speaks for itself, with facts beyond any doubt, and the only time you think you won was when East Pakistan or Bangladesh wanted to separate from Pakistan, than Pakistan had to fight you from far away and its forces were split between the two Pakistans at that time, so you think you won , but it is geography that won, apart from that you either were even with Pakistan with a 5 to 1 ratio in almost everything or you lost, those are facts you can look them up yourself without any bias before getting mad.

If anything - any one single thing - lies at the bottom of the totally unnecessary illwill between two neighbouring countries, it is the original error of one community that it needed - not would like, but absolutely needed parity - with the other communities, especially the one that was then the majority community. Without going into the background of this perception, and without dragging in my eminent young friend YLH and his very apt reference to consociationalism, it needs hardly any astute analysis to point out that the same childish state of mind has been carried forward into the Pakistani military.

I am sick and tired of @The SC and other apologists claiming that all was even until an accident of geography led to a catastrophic debacle. This is a stupid assertion, downright unfounded, and confirmed again and again and again by all responsible Pakistanis themselves, including, and this is most pertinent, many with an outstanding military background (there are others with a contrary view, of course, who can argue with Hamid Gul's fixed ideas, or with ZH and his lunatic prancing about).

What is absent from all this nonsense is the fact that India started with a strong aversion to the military and all things military. Most Pakistanis - I suspect all Pakistanis - have no clue about this very real side on Indian military thinking at the political level. From the time when a maudlin idiot called Purushottam Das Tandon wanted to put the entire army into canvas shoes, to Krishna Menon's deliberate destruction of the morale and professional integrity of much of the senior leadership - we were fortunate that Muchu Chaudhuri, K and Sam Manekshaw survived this frightful psychological warfare, largely due to the self-sacrifice of Timmy Thimaiyya - the decision to put the Army on completely indefensible positions against the Chinese through a purely political decision, backed up by a rogue officer, through to "St." Anthony's kneejerk bans on vendors if a rival vendor floats a phony story about money having changed hands, the Indian military has had a raw deal throughout. Look at the horrible delays on upgradation of the Air Force; look at the criminal lapses in bringing up the submarine arm, due to an idiotic insistence that the public sector should execute the whole of the programme; the refusal to equip Sundarji's rapid response divisions with the mobility and the carrying capability actually to move fast; or, on a minor scale, the utterly idiotic games that the politicos played with marine defence, giving the marine police speedboats without diesel - would the Pakistani military have lasted one shoot-out on the border, that they take such pride in "winning", or at least that their claque does? - with these handicaps?

With every increasing year, the gap increases. It is already visible in purchases for the Air Force - you don't buy the best, you buy what is the easiest obtainable and affordable - or for the Armoured Corps - ditto, ditto. What do you want to see happen before you acknowledge reality? A badly copied missile curving around and taking out a major city?

I really wish that we would see less of such alternate histories - if the sky had been overcast on the date, Kennedy would not - could not - have been assassinated - and a paranoid refusal to face facts. Grow up and take account of reality. A nation cannot fight off another six or seven times its size, with its economy in an agonising mess, it cannot afford the superior technology to achieve parity, and the nuclear solution is not a solution, except to a lunatic or its functional equivalent, a thinktank.

 

[The SC]

If anything - any one single thing - lies at the bottom of the totally unnecessary illwill between two neighbouring countries, it is the original error of one community that it needed - not would like, but absolutely needed parity - with the other communities, especially the one that was then the majority community. Without going into the background of this perception, and without dragging in my eminent young friend YLH and his very apt reference to consociationalism, it needs hardly any astute analysis to point out that the same childish state of mind has been carried forward into the Pakistani military.

I am sick and tired of @The SC and other apologists claiming that all was even until an accident of geography led to a catastrophic debacle. This is a stupid assertion, downright unfounded, and confirmed again and again and again by all responsible Pakistanis themselves, including, and this is most pertinent, many with an outstanding military background (there are others with a contrary view, of course, who can argue with Hamid Gul's fixed ideas, or with ZH and his lunatic prancing about).

What is absent from all this nonsense is the fact that India started with a strong aversion to the military and all things military. Most Pakistanis - I suspect all Pakistanis - have no clue about this very real side on Indian military thinking at the political level. From the time when a maudlin idiot called Purushottam Das Tandon wanted to put the entire army into canvas shoes, to Krishna Menon's deliberate destruction of the morale and professional integrity of much of the senior leadership - we were fortunate that Muchu Chaudhuri, K and Sam Manekshaw survived this frightful psychological warfare, largely due to the self-sacrifice of Timmy Thimaiyya - the decision to put the Army on completely indefensible positions against the Chinese through a purely political decision, backed up by a rogue officer, through to "St." Anthony's kneejerk bans on vendors if a rival vendor floats a phony story about money having changed hands, the Indian military has had a raw deal throughout. Look at the horrible delays on upgradation of the Air Force; look at the criminal lapses in bringing up the submarine arm, due to an idiotic insistence that the public sector should execute the whole of the programme; the refusal to equip Sundarji's rapid response divisions with the mobility and the carrying capability actually to move fast; or, on a minor scale, the utterly idiotic games that the politicos played with marine defence, giving the marine police speedboats without diesel - would the Pakistani military have lasted one shoot-out on the border, that they take such pride in "winning", or at least that their claque does? - with these handicaps?

With every increasing year, the gap increases. It is already visible in purchases for the Air Force - you don't buy the best, you buy what is the easiest obtainable and affordable - or for the Armoured Corps - ditto, ditto. What do you want to see happen before you acknowledge reality? A badly copied missile curving around and taking out a major city?

I really wish that we would see less of such alternate histories - if the sky had been overcast on the date, Kennedy would not - could not - have been assassinated - and a paranoid refusal to face facts. Grow up and take account of reality. A nation cannot fight off another six or seven times its size, with its economy in an agonising mess, it cannot afford the superior technology to achieve parity, and the nuclear solution is not a solution, except to a lunatic or its functional equivalent, a thinktank.

As far as I know the Pakistani economy is doing good, not good enough but still on the positive side with a 4.5 growth rate.
Pakistan is only buying what it can afford, and it happens that luckily they can JV with China and get some of the most sophisticated systems out there, and for a very good price too, while India with an economy going downhill is trying to purchase some too expansive sophisticated weapons from abroad, so who is lunatic here, someone who produces his own sophisticated weapons or the one who tries desparately to buy them to match the other one for parity purposes.
Briefly India has and tries to have too different weapon systems which shows how lunatic and inpractical it acts towards it own economy and its own people, there is no coherence in your purchases of weapon systems from Russia, the US, Britain, France, israel and many more, it only gives more confusion to your technicians and engineers since you need way too many platforms and industrial bases, hence your almost total failure in producing anything indegenious that is worth that word; just too many different parts and too many different technologies to deal with, apart from the military humanwise shortcomings you talked about.
India is very hangry for new and latest technologies and It is good to have all those technologies and to uild up on them, but it will take India another 50 years before it can realy produce something at high level based on the current technologies, just education wise, the pool is far from enough right now.

No one talked about an accident of geography, it is about geography itself, if you do not or pretend not to understand, please look up a world map.

 

[Contrarian]

History speaks for itself, with facts beyond any doubt, and the only time you think you won was when East Pakistan or Bangladesh wanted to separate from Pakistan, than Pakistan had to fight you from far away and its forces were split between the two Pakistans at that time, so you think you won , but it is geography that won, apart from that you either were even with Pakistan with a 5 to 1 ratio in almost everything or you lost, those are facts you can look them up yourself without any bias before getting mad.

BD was suppressed. Till IA entered the fray, they were getting crushed. IA was the one who snapped Pakistan Army.

And maybe you need to revise on what has been taught to you as facts. In all the wars, India has gained more territory than Pakistan gained.
Even in 1971, India gained more territory in West Pakistan, than West Pakistan did in India.

Maybe you are still hung up on 1100 AD or something. Back when India was divided into Kingdoms so others could easily invade and conquer India. Today, we are one of the largest nations on the globe and our military is rather well polished and accomplished.

The results have been for all to see. Facts as I mentioned - which all clearly say that India won more land from Pakistan each time we went to war.

 

[MilSpec]

History speaks for itself, with facts beyond any doubt, and the only time you think you won was when East Pakistan or Bangladesh wanted to separate from Pakistan, than Pakistan had to fight you from far away and its forces were split between the two Pakistans at that time, so you think you won , but it is geography that won, apart from that you either were even with Pakistan with a 5 to 1 ratio in almost everything or you lost, those are facts you can look them up yourself without any bias before getting mad.

With 5:1 superiority India did not deploy all of those 5 against 1 as keyboard generals like to presume, more so, with a force of less than 18000 it made 55000 strong surrender unilaterally in 71 . As far as facts if other engagements of 47, 65, and 99 are concerned, you might want to go back and revisit those "facts", they might suggest otherwise....

 

[Joe Shearer]

As far as I know the Pakistani economy is doing good, not good enough but still on the positive side with a 4.5 growth rate.
Pakistan is only buying what it can afford, and it happens that luckily they can JV with China and get some of the most sophisticated systems out there, and for a very good price too, while India with an economy going downhill is trying to purchase some too expansive sophisticated weapons from abroad, so who is lunatic here, someone who produces his own sophisticated weapons or the one who tries desparately to buy them to match the other one for parity purposes.
Briefly India has and tries to have too different weapon systems which shows how lunatic and inpractical it acts towards it own economy and its own people, there is no coherence in your purchases of weapon systems from Russia, the US, Britain, France, israel and many more, it only gives more confusion to your technicians and engineers since you need way too many platforms and industrial bases, hence your almost total failure in producing anything indegenious that is worth that word; just too many different parts and too many different technologies to deal with, apart from the military humanwise shortcomings you talked about.
India is very hangry for new and latest technologies and It is good to have all those technologies and to uild up on them, but it will take India another 50 years before it can realy produce something at high level based on the current technologies, just education wise, the pool is far from enough right now.

No one talked about an accident of geography, it is about geography itself, if you do not or pretend not to understand, please look up a world map.

I don't need to look up a world map, I belong to the parts in question, and am not a non-resident whatever on earth it is to need maps for this purpose.

So now we know: the reason for recent purchases is that you want a one-stop shop, and the best technology that the originator refuses for its own military. Would it discommode you frightfully, awfully, if I refused to respond to these displays of wounded ego?

The only hope Pakistan has of achieving unpleasantly asymmetric strength is through asymmetric means, but asymmetric as in Iran, not asymmetric as in the utterly asinine way adopted in the past, by the country whose flag you do not display, which now faces open civil war in some provinces. This, whether you do not, or pretend not to understand.

With 5:1 superiority India did not deploy all of those 5 against 1 as keyboard generals like to presume, more so, with a force of less than 18000 it made 55000 strong surrender unilaterally in 71 . As far as facts if other engagements of 47, 65, and 99 are concerned, you might want to go back and revisit those "facts", they might suggest otherwise....

Are you joking? Revisit and all that?

Apropos of nothing - certainly not of any participant in this conversation - do you remember what they called King James I of England (and James VI of Scotland)? It kind of sums up the situation.

 

[The SC]

BD was suppressed. Till IA entered the fray, they were getting crushed. IA was the one who snapped Pakistan Army.

And maybe you need to revise on what has been taught to you as facts. In all the wars, India has gained more territory than Pakistan gained.
Even in 1971, India gained more territory in West Pakistan, than West Pakistan did in India.

Maybe you are still hung up on 1100 AD or something. Back when India was divided into Kingdoms so others could easily invade and conquer India. Today, we are one of the largest nations on the globe and our military is rather well polished and accomplished.

The results have been for all to see. Facts as I mentioned - which all clearly say that India won more land from Pakistan each time we went to war.

That is just not true, it is pakistan who got more land at least in Kashemir, so please go revise your history, and do not talk about 1100 AD, because you canont take on Pakistan alone, so do not talk about the Muslim world, that is by far too powerful for you or even for your thoughts
Happily for you they do not want to invade you again, but if need be...
Anyhow, this is small talk, since the first war was with an already split army, with one part on your side plus the the majotrity of people, and also Western Pakistan has a long and no direct supply route for its army in Bangladesh.
In direct confrontations on the western side you never won any war or battle, the most powerful weapon in pakistan's navy arsenal a US submarine sank by it own mine laying or a mechanical failure, and before that your navy was totally paralysed by this single submarine, I am not even mentioning all the technical help you had had from the commonwealth nations like England or Australia for instance.
after that your navy could attack a Pakistani port and sink a ship or two, but not before you have lost a destroyer too. On land the Indian army never won an inch of land.
And all this is old, very old indeed, today it is much more difficult for India to fight Pakistan, that will be just commiting suicide for India while damaging to Pakistan too and the whole area with the nuclear fallouts.

 

[The SC]

I don't need to look up a world map, I belong to the parts in question, and am not a non-resident whatever on earth it is to need maps for this purpose.

So now we know: the reason for recent purchases is that you want a one-stop shop, and the best technology that the originator refuses for its own military. Would it discommode you frightfully, awfully, if I refused to respond to these displays of wounded ego?

The only hope Pakistan has of achieving unpleasantly asymmetric strength is through asymmetric means, but asymmetric as in Iran, not asymmetric as in the utterly asinine way adopted in the past, by the country whose flag you do not display, which now faces open civil war in some provinces. This, whether you do not, or pretend not to understand.




Are you joking? Revisit and all that?

Apropos of nothing - certainly not of any participant in this conversation - do you remember what they called King James I of England (and James VI of Scotland)? It kind of sums up the situation.

No one is talking about asymetric warfare here but you, it is plain conventional warfare we are taking about. Assymetry is if Pakistan was not a nuclear power like Iran, the option of MAD is enough for deterrence.
No wounded ego here but yours again, like in every conversation we had before, the weapons Pakistan has or is getting is enough to send India run shopping for the same or near technologies, in panic mode.

 

[notorious_eagle]

The only hope Pakistan has of achieving unpleasantly asymmetric strength is through asymmetric means, but asymmetric as in Iran, not asymmetric as in the utterly asinine way adopted in the past, by the country whose flag you do not display, which now faces open civil war in some provinces. This, whether you do not, or pretend not to understand.

Sir

With all due respect, Pakistan is no where near as vulnerable as you make it out to be. The balance of numbers still have not changed despite India spending billions of dollars. Pakistan can still match India's Corps Level Deployment Strength. In the last 10 years, the disparity has been largely reduced due to some excellent acquisitions made by Pakistan. You would have a point if we would have exchanged blows in 2002. The Smerch was an absolute hammer, it could crush any fortifications or reinforcements thrown up by PA. But these acquisitions by India have largely been cancelled out by the acquisitions PA has made.

IA does not has the firepower, mobility, sophistication and the teeth required to achieve 'Battlefield Domination' against the likes of PA.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@notorious_eagle,

I have never concealed my own great respect for you and your views, which are always temperate and carefully thought through, and based on real professional knowledge. However, I am not sure about your first two assertions, about the balance of numbers not having changed due to India spending billions of dollars, and about Pakistan still being able to match India's corps level deployment strength.

First, in the same vein for which I criticised some armchair pundits a few posts earlier, India's military suffers from feast and famine. You forget that unlike Pakistan, India has always been regarded as an awkward customer by the leader of the free world, the US, and its minions. You forget that there was a crushing embargo enforced on us, even on civilian institutions, due to the punishment that was deemed appropriate. You forget that even high-end Mac computers were on the banned list when Pakistan was awash with them. You forget that some of us have been through this ourselves, personally; I have been made to stand cap in hand for an entry-level Silicon Graphics machine, and my foreign partner, BAE, no less, could do nothing about it. That is one machine, not a set, not a lab, not a facility. Remember what nuclear engineers were doing in exactly that time slot? You forget that our entire Sea King fleet was grounded, that our Sea Hawks were grounded because that same partner, one phase earlier, under Dept. of Commerce admonition, had cut off spares. You forget that no simulators were allowed except those that had earlier come in with the original fleets sold, and that CA, Reflectone and Thomson kept us right out where we belonged. That was while Pakistani air force pilots had free access to the latest planes available in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia. And you forget that these billions were spent to replenish the years of neglect that the Indian military went through till Bush and Manmohan Singh built a rapport.

And please let us not argue about the countervailing influence of Soviet technology. My organisation was responsible for rewriting the IAF's manuals and I know personally what state the Russian manuals were in, and what problems a 100 flying hour design posed when flown for several times that mark. I could go on like this for every other technology that we got; we got it from them and fought wars with them, against the latest, shiny new stuff that we were faced with, because nobody else would sell it to us at the time.

Would you please respect my personal involvement with those most difficult times and refrain from mentioning those billions that have been spent recently? Take it as a humble request from a tired and flagging old sod, who remains proud of what he and his team did for our military, in the teeth of all odds.

You mentioned the parity in corps level deployment strength. I just don't understand what you mean: corps to corps, mano a mano? Somehow I thought the days of the phalanx were long over, and even a weak, undernourished Bengali like me can pull a trigger. But what did you mean? I shall wait for an answer.

By the way, why select a corps to be the basis of comparison? Has there been a successful corps-level action fought in the unhappy history of India-Pakistan rivalry, except in 71? Have there been even division level actions fought successfully earlier, in any encounter whatsoever? Why are we talking about manoeuvres at corps level? and if we aren't talking about these, why raise corps level issues at all? Instead, let us look at where your order of battle is located, where the opposing order of battle is located, and ask yourself if any holes exist. If, in your opinion, they don't, and somebody quotes Brass Tacks or Parakrama to me, I shall lie on the floor and drum my hands and feet on the ground.

You have been warned.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Cold start and his son, i talk to both of you & hope as well to see if your heart gets melted with the love for your own nation.


What sort of a heritage you both are trying to leave for the little Abdullah and Adiya of our future?


Why does one feels the need to fire a bullet and why is that the other kid have to wear a BP vest for his whole life?


Can we not deflect or redirect a major part of our economies towards the nation building, progress and prosperity of our people?


Instead of becoming a Canada for the U.S. we became a Germany for the U.K.


Instead of learning something from the mistakes that others had committed ,we preferred to open up our own fronts ,our own versions of WW-1 and WW-2.And to date we are there ready for the WW-3.That will be a WW-3 infact.



Do you generals…old folks of our time know that how torturous is it for a sane young man standing on this side of the border to take the life of another human who may be almost of the same age ,if he has some conscience left?

Can you read the mind of your soldier when he's about to push the trigger and end the dreams / life of another young man sitting across who’s aim is to save his motherland and society from the wrath that you guys have asked your men to inflict on them?


I know you can.
No explanation is required to elaborate this claim. Why?

Because i know you were soldiers as well at some point of time in your career on these front lines. You guys did fought alongside your men against each other.


But it just a horrible thought which questions the sanity of our higher ups that with all the knowledge of having nuclear weapons in our arsenal and considering the damage it can cause to both the nations we leave no stone unturned to boast our false egos and crush each other under it's weight.


To the Pakistani members:

One can see that it's another hope for the best and prepare for the worst type of situation and it's the job , just the name of the game to plan and counter against any plans. But you see when you are a wrestler and some young kid tries to be naughty with you and forces you to reply with force you’ll see his parents making every effort to stop that kid from doing so. They just won’t let that happen because they know you are wrestler and he’s just a teenager high on his hormones.

This may sound hilarious to you if you are a wrestler.

Tell me are you a wrestler in this case. Are you the Asian tiger you dream of?

Is Pakistan there yet to enjoy the situation?
There isn't any need to deliver a speech to the ones that know all about the horrors of war and our miserable economic state.