The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Contrarian]

And that is precisely Pakistan's position: that India may decide how the conflict starts, but Pakistan will decide how it ends.

There is no "limited engagement" as India wants to believe; once India starts anything, it will snowball.

You dont get it. The fact that Pakistan decides on how it ends is a loss for Pakistan.

Assume that Pakistani terrorists cause a war with India. India would have certain demands from Pakistan. Pakistan would almost certainly decline every one of them.

India would launch a war with Pakistan using IBG's.

After a few days India breaks Pakistan's defences and Pakistani generals decide to nuke and vaporize one IBG which is most threatening on Pakistani soil to send a message to New Delhi.

New Delhi has to respond with nukes otherwise that political party in power will cease to exist from the next elections onwards.
New Delhi retaliates with 2 tactical nukes - one on the brigade that launched the Pakistani nuke and the second on an important Pakistani formation.

Meanwhile they give a 24 hour break for Pakistan to decide before the IBGs continue - whether Pakistan accedes to Indian demands or not.

Regardless of whether Pakistan agrees or not - Pakistani territory has been nuked at 3 locations!

Now lets assume that GoI gets scared to withdraws military after this 24 hour offer even if Pakistan still declines its demands.

In either scenario, Pakistan looses very badly! And any military strike on Punjab much less a nuclear strike will destablize the whole of Pakistan. Pakistan is together because of Punjab and its farming. If that is gone, so is Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

India would launch a war with Pakistan using IBG's.

And Pakistan is saying there is no such thing as a limited engagement.

What part do you guys have trouble understanding?

 

[muse]

While I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, what we must also acknowledge is that it is not the army's job to run the economy. The army's job is to make the best use of available resources to meet its doctrine, and Pakistan's focus on tactical nukes is precisely in line with that -- especially given our huge economic disadvantage.



And that is precisely Pakistan's position: that India may decide how the conflict starts, but Pakistan will decide how it ends.

There is no "limited engagement" as India wants to believe; once India starts anything, it will snowball.

The so called Pakistan Army will beg to differ with you - it has run Pakistan for most of Pakistan's existence and it eats up the majority of Pakistan's budget and foreign aid -- The economy is everybody's business - even in the US, you will have noted Adm. Mullen's statement before congress I believe, that he thought the biggest enemy the uS faced was the dire economic condition it finds itself in -- lets not socialize ills of the Pakistan economy

 

[Contrarian]

GOI knows well that this is a charade that elements of the so called Pakistan army is playing with the people of Pakistan - this whole business of Islam running rampant in Pakistan is n the minds of some, calibrated - it keeps the politicians from thinking they actually run the show, it keeps the population terrorized and forever thanking the so called Pakistan Army for terrorizing them and it keeps the Americans up at night thinking about crazies with the fingers on nuclear buttons --- but on the other hand just because some think that this is calibrated does not mean that their thinking is valid.

Pakistan have had more than ten years to respond to cold start - cold start is inherently aggressive, it is bold and creative - what it now needs as it has from day one is capability - Systems such as Nasr deny the policy effectiveness - the Indian policy makers have upped the ante, however, Safriz does make a valid point, Pakistan is going to be finished as a going concern, it has every incentive to view the terms tactical and strategic with elasticity.

What cannot be denied is that Cold Start or Pro active Defense has a logic to it, and that logic is undercut by systems such as Nasr - On the other hand, why not allow Pakistan to fall into it's adversaries hands like a fruiting rotting from the inside?? Pakistan have cut the Indian conventional balance to size, can it arrest the cancer eating away at it from inside? Can it make it's economy function normally? Can it understand that the Primary function of a state is to provide security for it's citizens and not terrorize it's citizens?

If you read the responses of Pakistani interlocutors for what they say and do not say, you will note that they seem to have no idea of what "success" means other than the Indian frustrated -- what do you suppose it says about them and the state that created them?

I agree.
However read my last post as well.

Pakistanis have a habbit of cutting their own nose to spite India.

Something has to give in the end, India starting to strut around and threatening Pakistan would be the very worst thing Delhi could do now or in the near future regardless of any Pakistani terror attack in India. Even if there is a terror attack, GoI should su(k it and still keep talking to Pakistan about trade and peace.

Nothing will defeat Pakistan Army than words of peace from New Delhi.

There are massive internal contradictions in Pakistan, and threats from Delhi keep suppressing them and serve only to keep PA in power directly or indirectly.

 

[muse]

Some Indian friends are responding as if Indian actions and policy making is done in a vacuum -- It is pertinent that Mr. Ezdi quotes the Economist, when citing concerns in international capitals about the content of cold start and pro active defense

 

[Contrarian]

And Pakistan is saying there is no such thing as a limited engagement.

What part do you guys have trouble understanding?

A war using IBG's means a full fledged war. It in no means implies a limited war.

New Delhi will launch a full scale war - that full scale war will be fought using IBG's.

Some Indian friends are responding as if Indian actions and policy making is done in a vacuum -- It is pertinent that Mr. Ezdi quotes the Economist, when citing concerns in international capitals about the content of cold start and pro active defense

All politics is local. If the Government has to survive it has to do as the people wish.
There are only two things that can prevent a war in that scenario - costs and capability.
If costs are deemed unacceptable then there will be no war.
If capability is lacking there will be no war.

US or any other nation have limited traction when it comes to these issues. US only comes to play and mediate if the polticians in Delhi want mediation.

 

[third eye]

What cannot be denied is that Cold Start or Pro active Defense has a logic to it, and that logic is undercut by systems such as Nasr - On the other hand, why not allow Pakistan to fall into it's adversaries hands like a fruiting rotting from the inside?? Pakistan have cut the Indian conventional balance to size, can it arrest the cancer eating away at it from inside? Can it make it's economy function normally? Can it understand that the Primary function of a state is to provide security for it's citizens and not terrorize it's citizens?

If you read the responses of Pakistani interlocutors for what they say and do not say, you will note that they seem to have no idea of what "success" means other than the Indian frustrated -- what do you suppose it says about them and the state that created them?

Thats just the point I was trying to make . Wars are not always the shooting kind. To lose one party does not always need to die.

You dont get it. The fact that Pakistan decides on how it ends is a loss for Pakistan.


New Delhi has to respond with nukes otherwise that political party in power will cease to exist from the next elections onwards.

The Indian response will not hinge on the next elections but national Policy.

Once Indians are nuked on any side of the IB / LC all bets are off. Every resource in the kitty shall be brought to bear - Land , Sea & Air to close things in India's favour. This may or may not imply complete annihilation of the adversary .

 

[Developereo]

it has run Pakistan for most of Pakistan's existence

That song is getting old -- like a child blaming his parents for all his troubles.

Pakistan has been under democratic governance for significant periods, with zip to show for it. It is time we held the civilians accountable for governance instead of latching on to convenient scapegoats.

-- The economy is everybody's business - even in the US, you will have noted Adm. Mullen's statement before congress I believe, that he thought the biggest enemy the uS faced was the dire economic condition it finds itself in -- lets not socialize ills of the Pakistan economy

Adm. Mullen doesn't make economic policies. Civilian administrators tasked with that responsibility do so. Mullen simply says what the army needs -- it is then up to civilians to raise that money.

A war using IBG's means a full fledged war. It in no means implies a limited war.

New Delhi will launch a full scale war - that full scale war will be fought using IBG's.

Precisely.

Pakistan is saying, before you send those IBG's, better warm up your nukes and be prepared for a nuclear showdown.

 

[Contrarian]

Pakistan is saying, before you send those IBG's, better warm up your nukes and be prepared for a nuclear showdown.

Why are you being thick?
Ofcourse it is expected. This fact has been apparent for over a decade.

When Indian military crosses Pakistani thresholds, Pakistan will (now) use a tac nuke to target an IBG.
The entire point is that Delhi will respond with tac nukes further and more than one.

The result is that whatever the outcome - ie GoI getting Pakistan to agree to its demands or not, Pakistan has still been nuked 3 times.

So Pakistan still losses in any and all cases.

 

[Developereo]

Why are you being thick?
Ofcourse it is expected. This fact has been apparent for over a decade.

When Indian military crosses Pakistani thresholds, Pakistan will (now) use a tac nuke to target an IBG.
The entire point is that Delhi will respond with tac nukes further and more than one.

The result is that whatever the outcome - ie GoI getting Pakistan to agree to its demands or not, Pakistan has still been nuked 3 times.

So Pakistan still losses in any and all cases.

YOU are the one who's missing the point that Cold Start has been neutralized by linking it directly to a nuclear scenario.

With the development of tactical nukes, Pakistan has lowered its threshold of nuclear engagement.

So what is India offering that changes that calculation?

 

[muse]

All politics is local. If the Government has to survive it has to do as the people wish.
There are only two things that can prevent a war in that scenario - costs and capability.
If costs are deemed unacceptable then there will be no war.
If capability is lacking there will be no war.

US or any other nation have limited traction when it comes to these issues. US only comes to play and mediate if the polticians in Delhi want mediation.

politics may be local but that also true of geo-politics?

In an earlier post, actually on the Karzai lethal aid thread, I had said that many are persuaded that the best way to understand the interaction of states in the international system is to look at the capabilities states bring o the table, an India increasingly intertwined in the US system of alliances is an India that accrues some capabilities and also experiences a restraining mechanism --- will a terrorists attack provoke a war? Possibly, but that would mean a conscious decision to allow the terrorist plan to succeed, I don't ally see that happening.

 

[Contrarian]

YOU are the one who's missing the point that Cold Start has been neutralized by linking it directly to a nuclear scenario.

With the development of tactical nukes, Pakistan has lowered its threshold of nuclear engagement.

So what is India offering that changes that calculation?

Good lord.
Great to see that Pakistan has lowered its threshold for nuclear engagement. It still does not change much. Indian forces still know before going in that if they succeed, there is a high possibility of atleast one of the IBG's being obliterated.

Pakistan still does not use nukes till its conventional defences have been broken and IBG's are inside Pakistani territory.

Any use of nukes at that point on Indian IBG will result in
1. Pakistani strike on IBG on Pakistani soil.
2. Indian retaliatory tactical strike on Pakistani forces on Pakistani soil.

In either case, Pakistani soil gets nuked multiple times while Indian mainland is sitting safe from nukes.

 

[third eye]

Good lord.
Great to see that Pakistan has lowered its threshold for nuclear engagement. It still does not change much. Indian forces still know before going in that if they succeed, there is a high possibility of atleast one of the IBG's being obliterated.

Pakistan still does not use nukes till its conventional defences have been broken and IBG's are inside Pakistani territory.

Any use of nukes at that point on Indian IBG will result in
1. Pakistani strike on IBG on Pakistani soil.
2. Indian retaliatory tactical strike on Pakistani forces on Pakistani soil.

In either case, Pakistani soil gets nuked multiple times while Indian mainland is sitting safe from nukes.

The Pak approach as I read on this thread seems to be as though the possession & threat of use of a Nuke is a guarantee for peace & if not then some sort of huge deterrent.

The Indian view in my opinion is acceptance of the fact that once a threshold is crossed Pak is bound to nukes East or West of the IB / LC - it does not matter.

Once sufficiently provoked, India will cross that threshold at a time & place(s) of its choosing. The rest must be built around this premise.

 

[Developereo]

In either case, Pakistani soil gets nuked multiple times while Indian mainland is sitting safe from nukes.

What makes you think the Pakistani response will be restricted to Pakistani soil?

 

[Contrarian]

Pakistani's are right. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent.

But it is a deterrent till war is launched.

If the war is launched, then the costs have been factored in already.

Pakistani's seem to be under the illusion that if an IBG is struck with nukes, India is quietly withdraw without making a sound to save its rest of the population.

They dont consider the possibility - and one that has already been espoused in many lectures of security by the army - that India would respond with tactical nukes first and then consider whether to withdraw or not in light of the conditions placed on Pakistan.

The next logical step or onus then lies on Pakistan - and the only escalation possible - to attack mainland India with nuclear weapons. The question then for the Generals is - are they willing to sacrifice their entire population or not.

If not - and the Army's competent personnel believe so - that Pakistan will at that time accede to a few demands and decline a few. This gives both a facade that Pakistan did not cave in and allows Indian military to return back as well.

But in this process - Pakistan gets nuclear bombed multiple times on its soil.

What makes you think the Pakistani response will be restricted to Pakistani soil?

Because NASR is a short ranged ballistic missile loaded with tactical nuclear weapons.
There is a reason it has been developed. It is part of the escalation ladder.