The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Hellfire]

If one goes by news that used to come in during the whole fiasco - IA was caught sleeping and were in two minds as to who were the actual intruders - sure, they had a doubt that it was PA regulars but then Pakistan's complete refusal that it was their personnel made it also seem that they were terrorists, they weren't aware of the numbers or of the level and depth of the intrusion for quite a while because a few innocent fact finding patrols were shot at and a few did not return back.

Don't go by the news then. The only advantage we had of the whole conflict is that then on neither side as able to launch full fledged attacks to capture each others post which was the scenario earlier. In addition, we got few posts which were never under our control which were captured in order to deny certain advantages which enemy had earlier.
Next there were no 'innocent' patrols. All were sent with likely chances of ingress. We were had - pure and simple. And they died. It happens. Saurabh Kalia was taken alive - happens. We know what happens on LC if you are taken alive - its better to die. We do it - they do it! Accept it and move on. Grow up as a nation! War is brutal. Never in the history it has been otherwise.

Nyet . The argument to consider again is that the thresholds do not remain as static and properly defined as the Indians would like to believe due to obvious reasons because they are evolving with time/threat perception/ground realities . You cant answer this question with your own ' Alright , this much is enough ' . I can understand being not able to fight an all out war and thus opting for a limited scale conflict , if need arises in the future , but this is nothing you can take for granted . The aim of Integrated Battle-group is somewhat understood . The real question is " Does India today has the capability to mobilize such number of troops to achieve a surprise over enemy and achieve a blitzkrieg through enemy lines whilst remaining under the threshold(s) ? " . I for one , do not think that Indian Army has acquired the weapons/logistics and the mobilization needed to bring troops on the border and pursue that strategy in the envisioned relatively " short time " minus the honoring red-line(s) part , which is a different thing altogether . I do not intend to overestimate or underestimate anything here , but I believe that is some area where the Pakistanis will enjoy parity ( or close to it ) over their enemy . Because if the IA has evolved for such warfare , so has its counterparts . If IA has made acquisitions for Cold Start , more or less they have been countered . Because , I understand the pattern employed by the opposition after the Op.Parakram in subsequent war games/exercises afterwards to cut down the mobilization time , but so has the adversary in Azm Nau exercises and if officials are to be believed , it still remains faster than the other side . What we routinely miss is that the Pakistan Army ( seventh largest in the world ) is the strongest service branch of Pakistan Armed forces , is well capable of deterring/fighting the adversary even when its acquisitions/projects are mostly on hold due to the economy . However one should always have a back-up plan to fall on , the nukes thus remain the ultimate guarantor of Pakistani security . Because in either case , assuming errors/mistakes/blunders of course on the part of mortals , there is no absolute guarantee that Pakistan Army will be able to contain/stop its counterparts conventionally and vice versa , the thing here is that the major population centers/important infrastructure/defense sites are so close to Indian border that it isn't long before the decision makers at SPD start to feel vulnerable and take into serious consideration - a tactical nuclear response to let the enemy know clearly and which is why , I said that there is no room for such limited intensity conflict even in the first place now .

You see you aren't able to even guess/estimate the kilometer to be ingressed/territories to be held before non conventional response kicks in - what does that tell you about the overall plan ? So how much is enough ? How small/little are your " small pockets of lands " you want to capture before any ceasefire ? Make sure , that they satisfy all these conditions - force Pakistan to come on the negotiating table to get the " territories " back and second and most important , do not make it feel threatened by crossing threshold(s) and third , do no harm to its conventional power to retaliate/fight/deter the enemy . Looks practical and possible ? For me , it doesn't . Actually , its laughable even writing all that , mate because it appears that Cold Start crosses a red line(s) by its design - no victory is possible without significantly damaging conventional capability of the adversary otherwise the forces are more than capable of reacquiring what is theirs . Alright , if going by your posts , the Pakistan Army is successfully able to contain Indian progress/check ingress ( which I believe that it presently is ) , then it is also very likely that its able to retake the captured territories , do not you think ? Also the fifty kilometer area hold figure you so easily and occasionally cite isn't realistic , because of the shallow geography of the country , Pakistan can ill afford to lose such large territories to India as you think . In such case , when the risk is looming large over the integrity and existence , what negotiations do you think are to be held by our side ? Diplomacy isn't the way forward for Islamabad then , no demands are to be accepted . That is where the Nasr comes in , to deliver a warning to retreat because the threshold has been crossed . The aim of India in such case isn't achieved , its misadventure has a extremely high risk of turning into a catastrophic failure . Why expect us to play by your rules in our own soil when you are the invader ? International pressure can come in earlier even , not allowing the Indians to cross in the first place . Why wouldn't they like to stop it , before it even starts ?

When you cross ? . abundans cautela non nocet . The problem here is I do not see you crossing . The very fact that you haven't been able to cross long since we went nuclear , points to the fact that the nuclear response cant be factored in . Assume the rationality , we all do , but it doesn't come at the expense of national security . How is the same deterrent being affected in the near future ? Please , do not say the ABM shield is coming in , I know it is , but its effectiveness and record around the world is a big question mark - not something I would put my faith in , it might allow some more room and political advantage , but that is assuming the enemy isn't developing new sophisticated missiles or equipping the current ones with counter-measure(s) . You can start by checking the unsolved problem of MIRV for such a shield , rendering it almost useless and this isn't my opinion/conclusion .

Ti oshibal drug! I agree. I also don't see any crossing. wont repeat what i wrote in post to alpha1. MIRV as of today is difficult to be intercepted especially with 'smart' versions. I am just saying - we will retaliate. Lets not really go round in circles, you wont accept - nor will I. Lets accept each others views as views and move on. I am telling what is our posturing! I also do not agree to your assessment of Op Logistics et al. But then that's your assessment.

 

[The SC]

Really? So how is it that 70% of erstwhile J&K Kingdom even now shown to be under India physically? Oh wait. You guys have grown up studying your own version of history!!! As per your army you are at Siachen Gacier too (forget the fact that the nearest you got to Siachen was when you had Qaid post at Bila FondLa in Saltoro's western face which you lost and are now west of Saltoro ranges). Keep on getting a high and live in your own la-la land!
And your line about MUSLIM world - there is nothing more divisive or more undying than Shia-Sunni enemity .... glimpses of which we see in Mid-East today. Keep deluding yourself on the so-called invincibility of Muslim world. As if all muslim nations will come to fight for you when your *** is being kicked!



Hey are you an OBL stooge? Or Al-Q incarnate? First go an unite the "MUSLIMS" of this world and prevent them from fighting each other from Africa to middle east to south east.



Stop giving pathetic excuses.



As for the navy - no wonder our navy got paralysed in Bay of Bengal and pounded your *** there day after day and your dear Uncle Sam had to maneuver his CBG to threaten us! Hmmm thanks to Pak Navy!!! Who was paid off by us? Where is MBI Munshi? He will definitely cry RAW paid off your Naval chief to send the sub to "paralyse" us! And elaborate on your last line in above quoted text.

You are definitely a breath of fresh air. A good laugh!



Yeah yeah 3rd Battalion Rajputana Rifles captured Fort Bhinwar of Islamgarh (Rahim Yar Khan, Bhawalpur, Sukkur) in Pakistan with 01 x OR wounded in their dreams only eh? Wonder if it was one millimeter from IB!!!!!!!

All those fights you are seeing between muslim are only trainnings with live ammunitions and with some casualities of course to make it plain true and realistic, like it goes in all serious military training, there are casualities.

The Sunni-Shiaa divide is but an illusion in non muslim minds, in reality there is no such divide, apart from what your intelligence services are trying to provoque in Pakistan or the Israeli ones in the middle east, beware that we are aware.

And now you are blaming RAW, your own intelligence service of paying Pakistan to paralyse your own navy during that war... So who is the good laugh now?

Please stop projecting how you feel about yourself on others, this will take you a lot of discipline and an inner tour of your thoughts and emotions before realizing it.

No hard feelings here, I do not wish war with India, it is only for crazy guys if someday they come to power and want war, they should know right now that they can not win it (at least because of MAD), so the best is to concentrate on economy, education and all the positive and constructive sides of existence.

 

[Secur]

See any political class on either side of border can not afford to not respond to a nuclear strike by either side. So its MADness! I know its stupid - but then that's the fact of life.

Mate , we fight proxy wars in each other country's all year round , this is our history . The field of psychology tells us that when in a dilemma , especially big ones with extra ordinary risks involved and at times when anticipated , usually the person prefers not letting it come to make either choice if he can avoid it or doesn't make the choice(s) at all . The first case may hold relevance for you here .

In any event, the premise of achieving a conventional parity/finishing-reducing disparity with tactical employment is flawed as I have told you what Indian Defence establishment is postured for today. I mean this forum is about analyzing .... you and I don't know till last what will happen.

Let similar things take care of similar things , why not ? . Well , then let me just say that a flawed doctrine is needed to counter a flawed war concept developed after the realization that an all out full blown war isn't an option , after all , it doesn't appear that Indians can achieve their desired objectives without inviting a nuclear response .

Ti oshibal drug! I agree. I also don't see any crossing. wont repeat what i wrote in post to alpha1. MIRV as of today is difficult to be intercepted especially with 'smart' versions. I am just saying - we will retaliate. Lets not really go round in circles, you wont accept - nor will I. Lets accept each others views as views and move on. I am telling what is our posturing! I also do not agree to your assessment of Op Logistics et al. But then that's your assessment.

Well its really getting repetitive now . You have your views and I have mine . Agreed to Disagree .

 

[Alpha1]

So in either case a tactical use against Indian troops even on own territory will have fallout over India.
Additionally am sure you shall agree that it shall be an air burst and not an impact mechanism that shall be used for a tactical deployment. In that case wind itself is biggest factor. Lets not get into the details as I am sure you know what I am talking about.

There is little and or ''NO'' ''Local Fallout'' incase of an airburst optimised to Maximize a specific PSI range.
for example : If a device is to be detonated above a city it will most likely be detonated at a hieght which maximizes 15 PSI range blast radius. Incase the bomb is of 50kT yield it will be detonated at the hieght of 730m and if a 50kT device is detonated above 260m it will have negligible LOCAL Fallout. lets not get into more technical details...
i hope you got the point that a nuke can be detonated at a height which results in negligeble Local Fallout

 

[Hellfire]

There is little and or ''NO'' ''Local Fallout'' incase of an airburst optimised to Maximize a specific PSI range.

Refer the premise which you have used in the above contention. The point of NO LOCAL FALLOUT in not under contention/discussion. You have talked about strike in own territory. I have quoted prevalence of wind conditions in Indian sub-continent. And will join the dots for others to understand too.

Air burst has, as you know, highly miniaturized vapor particles created due to local vaporization not inclusive of the heavier dust/sand particles (resultant of a surface explosion), which enables persistence of radioactive particles (neutrons) much longer in atmosphere than would have been with dust/sand particles due to simple weight which allows dust/sand to settle at a faster rate than the air particles. Result: while the surface burst will result in higher subsequent contamination levels, the air burst will result in albeit lower yield levels but higher persistence and area coverage due to gradual and slow settling down of the 'cloud' thus my contention. Due to North-West to South-East wind directions prevailing throughout subcontinent for majority of the year, a strike even against advancing Indian IBGs which we are talking about, will have effects on this side of the border. no body is talking about local fallout!

 

[Sergi]

No nuclear attack at all

No need to kill innocent & poor Indian people

We can destroy Indian military infrastructure with conventional weapons in just 3-4 hours
But condition is first strike from Pakistan

Very low number of human casualties along with a several billion dollars damage to Indian military infrastructure

Also, India will not remain in the condition to second strike

Need to know, How?

Seriously !!!!! And whats changed from past. Pak has always took the first shot.
In conventional war fare we are not match to each other. Indian assets and economy is many times greater than Pak's plus huge geographical area. Thats why Kargil happened

Last thing , now you have lost the American leverage too.

There is little and or ''NO'' ''Local Fallout'' incase of an airburst optimised to Maximize a specific PSI range.
for example : If a device is to be detonated above a city it will most likely be detonated at a hieght which maximizes 15 PSI range blast radius. Incase the bomb is of 50kT yield it will be detonated at the hieght of 730m and if a 50kT device is detonated above 260m it will have negligible LOCAL Fallout. lets not get into more technical details...
i hope you got the point that a nuke can be detonated at a height which results in negligeble Local Fallout

What about geography !!! The reasons of Monsoon wind in our region is temperature difference in between land and sea. So wind will spread fallout in considerable area and not necessarily contain in Indian territory.

 

[Alpha1]

What about geography !!! The reasons of Monsoon wind in our region is temperature difference in between land and sea. So wind will spread fallout in considerable area and not necessarily contain in Indian territory.

We were talking about a tactical nuclear explosions (air bursts) 1-5kt of TnT inside pakistani territory
Oh here i go again, will have to give you guys a lecture on this
ok listen, we classify fallout like this:
Local Fallout.
Incase of a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the initial fireball and drawn up into the radioactive mushroom cloud. all this material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or if it has become neutron-activated. There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 um to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst (Do note that I am saying that in the discussed scenario is that the detonations will be air burst)
The larger/heaviour particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours called local fallout. Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield (multi-magaton) surface detonations.
People in the radiologically contaminated area, will have radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of many radiocontaminants.
Some radiation would contaminante large amounts of land and drinking water causing formal mutations throughout animal and human life.
In cases of water surface (and shallow underwater) bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller and so produce (less local fallout but will extend over a greater area.) The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding affect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout.
BUT Incase of an airburst it produces minimal local fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. and there is a certain hieght at which an airburst of a particular yield and fission fraction will produce negligble LOCAL FALLOUT.
Worldwide Fallout.
After an air burst the 1. fission products, 2. unfissioned nuclear material, and the residue of the warhead which will be vaporized by the fireball and will condense into a fine suspension ofparticles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere especially if the explosive yield exceeds 10 Kt of TnT (remember we are taking about An airburst of 1-5 kt of TnT range and that too at considerable hieght to maximise Blast effects). The particles will then be dispersed by the winds in the atmosphere and will slowly settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout. The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the human or animal body as a result of eating of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than that of local fallout's
And yes winds do matter a lot but an airburst of this trivial yeild will result in negligble local and little Worldwide fallout.
@Secur @Slav Defence

 

[Sergi]

We were talking about a tactical nuclear explosions (air bursts) 1-5kt of TnT inside pakistani territory
Oh here i go again, will have to give you guys a lecture on this
ok listen, we classify fallout like this:
Local Fallout.
Incase of a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the initial fireball and drawn up into the radioactive mushroom cloud. all this material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or if it has become neutron-activated. There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 um to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst (Do note that I am saying that in the discussed scenario is that the detonations will be air burst)
The larger/heaviour particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours called local fallout. Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield (multi-magaton) surface detonations.
People in the radiologically contaminated area, will have radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of many radiocontaminants.
Some radiation would contaminante large amounts of land and drinking water causing formal mutations throughout animal and human life.
In cases of water surface (and shallow underwater) bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller and so produce (less local fallout but will extend over a greater area.) The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding affect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout.
BUT Incase of an airburst it produces minimal local fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. and there is a certain hieght at which an airburst of a particular yield and fission fraction will produce negligble LOCAL FALLOUT.
Worldwide Fallout.
After an air burst the 1. fission products, 2. unfissioned nuclear material, and the residue of the warhead which will be vaporized by the fireball and will condense into a fine suspension ofparticles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere especially if the explosive yield exceeds 10 Kt of TnT (remember we are taking about An airburst of 1-5 kt of TnT range and that too at considerable hieght to maximise Blast effects). The particles will then be dispersed by the winds in the atmosphere and will slowly settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout. The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the human or animal body as a result of eating of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than that of local fallout's
And yes winds do matter a lot but an airburst of this trivial yeild will result in negligble local and little Worldwide fallout.
@Secur @Slav Defence

There are many points to counter specially the radiation and the half life period of the material. If you think it will just remain where it is used ( in BOTH cases ) then I dont have anything to add. Thats what your opinion and I cant change that.

Plus I am sorry I dont have time to reply you indepth. Will try when get enough time. Just would like to say playing with nukes isnt joke. Result will be Nuke-cola for everyone

 

[Alpha1]

Just would like to say playing with nukes isnt joke. Result will be Nuke-cola for everyone

I am of the opinion that There are some scenarios in which tactical nuclear weapons can be used to balance out conventional power disparity between the two countries.

 

[Alpha1]

Given the present strength of the two armies ,Chances of India's cold start to achieve the desired objectives in a given period in the future at any level , form ''surgical to punitive strikes'' to a full scale ''Cold start'' operation . what some Indian brothers don't understand is that due to geographical constraints Pakistan will not have the flexibilty to loose space and strategicaly important areas.
Pakistan army will resist the agression with it's full might to stall the Indian forces at ALL levels .
The Indian agression even when it is supposed to be time - and place specfic , as the Cold start doctrine suggests , there is no doubt that it will be encountered by Pakistan by Full force.
It is a well accepted FACT that Due to (MAD) india can never win a full scale Conventional war. however some indian brothers still harbour the notion of winning sort of a mini war. New delhi cannot guarantee that a limited strike will not escalate to a full scale war and It is again a Fact that a full scale nuclear exchange will destroy both countries.
Indian leadership's exaggerated sense of it's armed forces' Capabilities is quite risky and dangerous for the sub-continent.
Indian army's failure to achieve desired objectives through a limited war based on envisaged strategy Might force the leaders to push for a full scale Nuclear exchange which will prove disastrous for both countries.
Paksitan's existing critical deficiencies and growing conventional asymmetry vis-a-vis India could fforce paksitan to lower it's nuclear threshold and lowering the nuclear threshold will destabilize the whole region
IMO
There is no scope of a cold start strategy in Indo-Pak circumstance. Subcontinent is not Europe where USSR and USA could validate their strategies, where the ultimate loosers were to be the Europeans.
India and Pakistan need a more prudent approach and 19th century limited war concepts promoted by Clausewitz and liddel hart can't be replicated in 21st century between two neighbourly countries which have very high stakes to defend and protect over Thirteen hundred Million People.

regards

Alpha1

 

[janon]

Given the present strength of the two armies ,Chances of India's cold start to achieve the desired objectives in a given period in the future at any level , form ''surgical to punitive strikes'' to a full scale ''Cold start'' operation . what some Indian brothers don't understand is that due to geographical constraints Pakistan will not have the flexibilty to loose space and strategicaly important areas.
Pakistan army will resist the agression with it's full might to stall the Indian forces at ALL levels .
The Indian agression even when it is supposed to be time - and place specfic , as the Cold start doctrine suggests , there is no doubt that it will be encountered by Pakistan by Full force.
It is a well accepted FACT that Due to (MAD) india can never win a full scale Conventional war. however some indian brothers still harbour the notion of winning sort of a mini war. New delhi cannot guarantee that a limited strike will not escalate to a full scale war and It is again a Fact that a full scale nuclear exchange will destroy both countries.
Indian leadership's exaggerated sense of it's armed forces' Capabilities is quite risky and dangerous for the sub-continent.
Indian army's failure to achieve desired objectives through a limited war based on envisaged strategy Might force the leaders to push for a full scale Nuclear exchange which will prove disastrous for both countries.
Paksitan's existing critical deficiencies and growing conventional asymmetry vis-a-vis India could fforce paksitan to lower it's nuclear threshold and lowering the nuclear threshold will destabilize the whole region
IMO
There is no scope of a cold start strategy in Indo-Pak circumstance. Subcontinent is not Europe where USSR and USA could validate their strategies, where the ultimate loosers were to be the Europeans.
India and Pakistan need a more prudent approach and 19th century limited war concepts promoted by Clausewitz and liddel hart can't be replicated in 21st century between two neighbourly countries which have very high stakes to defend and protect over Thirteen hundred Million People.

regards

Alpha1

After 27 pages this is simply going back to square one, going back full circle. All you have said here is that a conventional war can escalate to nuclear, and India cannot take that chance. (Can Pakistan?) The very reason for devising new strategies after 2001 (whether cold start or something else) was because of this understanding. The very reason for this term "cold start" was to wage limited war against the nuclear backdrop. In short, Indians and Indian military planners are well aware of the possibiltiy of escalation. Your post should have been the start of the discussion, not come after 27 pages. Because trust me, that is what the military planners start off with, since they know these facts as well as we do.

Are you suggesting that war will never happen between the two countries? That's a very far fetched conclusion to make. US and China have not ruled out the possibility of a war, and in fact are preparing hard for such an eventuality, although in case of a war between them, both those countries stand to lose a lot more than India or Pakistan would.

Besides, I see this constant assumption that India fears nuclear war more than Pak does. While it is true that India will not initiate a nuclear conflict, be assured that India will risk one if push comes to shove. If another 26/11 happens, public pressure will be too high for the govt not to go to war or launch punitive strikes. And of course, a Kargil like attempt by Pakistan will also not be allowed to succeed - any attempt by Pak to take Indian territory will lead to war, these are non negotiable things. It is a fact that Pakistanis still dream of taking Kashmir from India, and if any such attempt is made, the threat of nuclear war will not prevent India from defending every inch of her territory.

 

[SQ8]

Besides, I see this constant assumption that India fears nuclear war more than Pak does. While it is true that India will not initiate a nuclear conflict, be assured that India will risk one if push comes to shove. If another 26/11 happens, public pressure will be too high for the govt not to go to war or launch punitive strikes. And of course, a Kargil like attempt by Pakistan will also not be allowed to succeed - any attempt by Pak to take Indian territory will lead to war, these are non negotiable things. It is a fact that Pakistanis still dream of taking Kashmir from India, and if any such attempt is made, the threat of nuclear war will not prevent India from defending every inch of her territory.

The assumption about the assumption is wrong. The idea is not about the fear of a nuclear conflict.. it is the assumption made that while the Pakistani leadership may be at a point willing to sacrifice all of Pakistan for the chance to deny India its "victory".. India has a lot more to lose and wishes to ensure the survival of its people.. and hence will not look for the "victory" if its careful calculations dont give it that. A big gamble on the Pakistani side, and perhaps one on thin ice.. but your assumption needed to be corrected.

A basic reflection of what you are dealing with as a national psyche was seen when Sri Lanka won the final yesterday.. there was aerial firing in celebration here. It wont matter if all Pakistanis melt and die a horrible radiation death.. as long as Indians and India suffers the same. ..and it is there that I can assure you (with whatever knowledge I have from professional and personal life).. Pakistan has the ability to make happen with greater than 90% chance of success.
From the start, that was the goal.. and it was a goal that was let known to Indian leadership(directly or indirectly) at various times since 1999.

This gamble or policy , will crack the day India also forgoes "no first use". Then there will be simply a knife hanging over your head and mine that one series of unfortunate events would end our lives as we know it.

 

[janon]

The assumption about the assumption is wrong. The idea is not about the fear of a nuclear conflict.. it is the assumption made that while the Pakistani leadership may be at a point willing to sacrifice all of Pakistan for the chance to deny India its "victory".. India has a lot more to lose and wishes to ensure the survival of its people.. and hence will not look for the "victory" if its careful calculations dont give it that. A big gamble on the Pakistani side, and perhaps one on thin ice.. but your assumption needed to be corrected.

A basic reflection of what you are dealing with as a national psyche was seen when Sri Lanka won the final yesterday.. there was aerial firing in celebration here. It wont matter if all Pakistanis melt and die a horrible radiation death.. as long as Indians and India suffers the same. ..and it is there that I can assure you (with whatever knowledge I have from professional and personal life).. Pakistan has the ability to make happen with greater than 90% chance of success.
From the start, that was the goal.. and it was a goal that was let known to Indian leadership(directly or indirectly) at various times since 1999.

This gamble or policy , will crack the day India also forgoes "no first use". Then there will be simply a knife hanging over your head and mine that one series of unfortunate events would end our lives as we know it.

And vice versa, but what is new in that? Plainly put, that is the MAD concept that the world has had time to think about for several decades now, due to the cold war. We all know that that is what a nuclear war will come to - complete destruction of both countries.

It is true that Indians do not wish for such an end, and that is reflected in our no first use of nukes policy. But that is as far as you can assume about Indians. Pakistanis here seem to be assuming (as I said earlier and you disputed, but are saying it yourself) that the fear of a nuclear holocaust will also deter India from any conventional war. It does to an extent, but there are limits to that caution. I believe strongly that in the event of another major attack from Pakistan like 26/11, India will be forced to do punitive strikes, bending to public opinion. Remember, in India the govt fears the voters as much if not more than it fears Pakistan. 26/11 was the first of its kind in India, because until then terrorism was confined to faceless bomb blasts or encounters with security forces or the parliament. But when Pakistanis in flesh and blood were seen roaming through our railway stations and shooting common people, there was outrage like never before, just as USA's 9/11. It united everybody from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, hindus and muslims and everybody else, in the anger that was felt towards Pakistan. The GoI did not respond militarily at that time, because they had no plans for such a situation, and did not know what the appropriate response should be. But they cannot afford to do nothing the second time - our military has been instructed to chalk out retaliation plans for future scenarios. Long story short, what I'm trying to say is that there will be situations when India will have to use its military against Pakistan, regardless of the nuclear factor.

The very fact that India has very ambitious plans for modernizing and even expanding its already large conventional forces should tell you that we intend to use them if the need arises. For a fraction of a fraction of that cost, we could simply build several hundred nukes and missiles and call it a day - but we are not doing that. While we have enough nukes to destroy a country, we are still investing hundreds of billions into our conventional capabilities.

The fact that Indians do not wish for nuclear holocaust, and would prefer not to go down that route unless necessary, whereas Pakistanis may be a little more trigger happy, is already reflected in our No First Use policy. But thinking that it extends to a No War At All policy is the mistake Pakistanis are making.

 

[SQ8]

But thinking that it extends to a No War At All policy is the mistake Pakistanis are making.

As I said before, it is not the no-war ideals of India that are being assumed, but the calculations made before going to war.

 

[janon]

...India has a lot more to lose and wishes to ensure the survival of its people.. and hence will not look for the "victory" if its careful calculations dont give it that...

About this part - "victory" doesn't mean conquest or occupation in the Indo-Pak scenario. At least, not from an Indian POV. All said and done, India has no desire whatsoever to rule Pakistan or capture Pakistani Kashmir - most Indians don't care for any of that, which I know is in contrast to the Pakistani psyche that wants to take Kashmir from India. But there can be other forms of "victory".

To give you an example, the one moment after 9/11 when American people felt victorious and overjoyed was not when the Taliban govt was overthrown (most of them hadn't heard about Taliban before) or when Saddam's statue was toppled or he was captured (not many had subscribed to Bush's lies about Saddam and 9/11), but when Osama was shot dead by navy SEALs in Abottabad. I personally witnessed NY and Chicago celebrating with flags and chants of "USA! USA!", and random people high fiving each other on the streets. It was closure for them, it was evident in the very air.

In our context, in the event of major attacks from Pakistan that actually anger the population at large, if India does punitive strikes on terror camps or assassinates a terrorist, it will be seen as a victory for India. (Of course I know India has no capabilities to mount an Op Neptune's Spear.) But any decisive punitive strike on Pakistani "non state actors" or terrorist infrastructure or even military infrastructure, will be seen as a victory. You have to understand, that is the only sort of victory that Indians really want, not to march into Islamabad and plant the tricolor there.

Another example would of course be a Kargil style victory, where we can thwart a Pakistani attempt to take our lands - that will also be a big victory for Indians, but somehow I don't see any such misadventures from Pakistan in the medium term future.

"Victory" for Indians would be in defence or in retaliation - not in conquest or hegemony.