What's new

The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

. . .
whoever wrote this article thinks himself as the decider of life and death of hundreds of thousands of indians,but 'jantaa' may not agree with him if his plans made public.Millions of Indians might not want to die only because 'some' of their soldiers were killed in a limited nuclear strike.

Its same as sayig to Pakistan..'if you kill one of our armed brigade with a small nuke,we will give you excuse,rather force you to kill and finish off the rest of our population'.
I have doubts about the sanity of this 'policy maker'.
 
.
While it is true that Pakistan have for the most part cut the Indian conventional imbalance down to size, with everyday that the Indian economy races ahead of the Pakistani economy, new fissures open not just in the balance Pakistan has sought to create, but within the integrity of the Pakistani state and the concept of the meaning of Pakistani nationhood.

...and that the Indian economy will give India far more resources to apply pressure on the fissures that you speak about. Anything Pakistan can & does do in India can be reciprocated with a substantially larger budget within Pakistan. Considering Pakistan's smaller size & India's larger budget, there will a much larger bang for the buck...literally.
 
.
you are senior member than me.. Was expecting a intelligent reply.. But don't know why I forgot patriotism is a disease when present in excess..
Any ways we don't have to prove our worth.. We care more for our people than yours.. I think you know it very well at what time India defeated Pakistan in wars.. Whatever the equation is..
and also i need to tell you every time U stareted it.. And belive me than your armed forces was as sunrise with halls.. At that time there were no 1 Pakistani soldiers after 10 Indian ones.. Only a face of defeat..

In case you missed it, i never added a pov in my first post, the whole idea was/is, if India initiates it's CSD, Pakistan has means to neutralise it....power entails responsibility hence, no misadventure no reaction.....2002, India tried to intimidate Pakistan for almost a year and in the end in a soul destroying move pulled back unilaterally after losing around a thousand men.
It's always India which introduces, mostly for self consumption such terminologies as, Cold start or even surgical strikes, hot pursuits and what not.....Pakistan just sits easy and check mates. !!
 
.
...and that the Indian economy will give India far more resources to apply pressure on the fissures that you speak about. Anything Pakistan can & does do in India can be reciprocated with a substantially larger budget within Pakistan. Considering Pakistan's smaller size & India's larger budget, there will a much larger bang for the buck...literally.


Indeed, this is, at least to my thinking, exactly right - IF and we all now that this is a a big "IF" only because it's Pakistan we are talking about, but if Pakistan can get the economy out of the clutches of govt bureaucrats, then actually a reverse of the situation will present itself -- because there is a limit to the needed bang and the larger size of India and the larger size and budget allocated to maintain the the armed forces will have the effect of being a burden, while the balance of terror can be maintained without the Pakistani state cracking up.

Pakistan does have an economy, contrary to what many people are think, however, it cannot be the fountain of national revival without getting the government out of the economy - a huge challenge for a place like Pakistan where kleptoracy is not just accepted but is a moral imperative.
 
.
Wonder why it is not noticed that even now Indian ends are being met.

The stupidest thing India could do is to physically attack for it would polarise all the divergent groups who are pulling in different directions & tearing the national fabric of Pakistan.

Why should India attack when :

1. For the first time the PA is deployed both on the East & West of its country.
2. The PA spends close to 25- 30 % of its peace time resources in defending itself from its own countrymen.
3. PA stands discredited in the eyes of the world & ppl of its own country after Abbotabad & more.
4. More people die daily of bomb blasts than in any other aggressive act .
5. Resources are stretched thin across the nation.
6. Financially - less said the better.
7. The Shia - Sunni divide is getting worse & has crossed a point of no return in some states.

.. and so much more.

Does Indian need to actually attack when the mere threat is serving its ends ?

The Cold Start is already on ...
 
.
Wonder why it is not noticed that even now Indian ends are being met.

The stupidest thing India could do is to physically attack for it would polarise all the divergent groups who are pulling in different directions & tearing the national fabric of Pakistan.

Why should India attack when :

1. For the first time the PA is deployed both on the East & West of its country.
2. The PA spends close to 25- 30 % of its peace time resources in defending itself from its own countrymen.
3. PA stands discredited in the eyes of the world & ppl of its own country after Abbotabad & more.
4. More people die daily of bomb blasts than in any other aggressive act .
5. Resources are stretched thin across the nation.
6. Financially - less said the better.
7. The Shia - Sunni divide is getting worse & has crossed a point of no return in some states.

.. and so much more.

Does Indian need to actually attack when the mere threat is serving its ends ?

The Cold Start is already on ...

But still some delusionals from across the boarder wouldn't stop to claim that.
In case you missed it, i never added a pov in my first post, the whole idea was/is, if India initiates it's CSD, Pakistan has means to neutralise it....power entails responsibility hence, no misadventure no reaction.....2002, India tried to intimidate Pakistan for almost a year and in the end in a soul destroying move pulled back unilaterally after losing around a thousand men.
It's always India which introduces, mostly for self consumption such terminologies as, Cold start or even surgical strikes, hot pursuits and what not.....Pakistan just sits easy and check mates. !!
 
.
But still some delusionals from across the boarder wouldn't stop to claim that.

Today 1 INR = 1.80 PKR

This means that for every Rs 1 Lakh India spends on its defence Pak spends Rs 1.80 Lakhs. Add to this finance costs & interests etc it would nearly be double i.e almost Rs 2 Lakhs.

Now check the size of the economies and the ability of both nations to spend without borrowing or diverting from spending on basics for its citizens.

Pak has to spend almost double of what India does just to keep up if we compare apple to apples.

Reminds you of what USA did to USSR ?

The Cold start is on.. really.
 
.
Today 1 INR = 1.80 PKR

This means that for every Rs 1 Lakh India spends on its defence Pak spends Rs 1.80 Lakhs. Add to this finance costs & interests etc it would nearly be double i.e almost Rs 2 Lakhs.

Now check the size of the economies and the ability of both nations to spend without borrowing or diverting from spending on basics for its citizens.

Pak has to spend almost double of what India does just to keep up if we compare apple to apples.

Reminds you of what USA did to USSR ?

The Cold start is on.. really.

You cant fail a failed economy :D
The good thing about having a failed economy.
Same as Israel can do nothing to Palestine economically....they can only attack Palestine..
India doesnt have any of these options with Pakistan.
 
.
You cant fail a failed economy :D
The good thing about having a failed economy.
Same as Israel can do nothing to Palestine economically....they can only attack Palestine..
India doesnt have any of these options with Pakistan.

I agree , all this was put forth in relation to the point of the policy of Cold Start not being effective.

' You dont have to fight to be a man'

If this is the Pak idea of ' Check Mate' as someone just wrote.. Good Luck.
 
.
whoever wrote this article thinks himself as the decider of life and death of hundreds of thousands of indians,but 'jantaa' may not agree with him if his plans made public.Millions of Indians might not want to die only because 'some' of their soldiers were killed in a limited nuclear strike.

Its same as sayig to Pakistan..'if you kill one of our armed brigade with a small nuke,we will give you excuse,rather force you to kill and finish off the rest of our population'.
I have doubts about the sanity of this 'policy maker'.
@muse

This statement of Saran is a policy decision of GoI.
What it means is that that the GoI will consider a tactical nuclear strike on its military forces even on Pakistani soil as an attack on Indian mainland and may retaliate with a strategic level strike.

The key word here is that GoI reserves the right to strike strategically in response to a tactical one but it may not exercise that option as well.

The most likely response to a tactical nuclear strike on Indian forces in Pakistan is multiple tactical nuclear strikes on Pakistani defence formations.

That is why there are 8 IBG's and they are trying to make them very mobile with NBC capable ICV's. The complete loss of one or partial loss of a few should not be enough to halt the entire offensive.

And leave it up to Pakistan again - whether it chooses to escalate or not. In both the scenarios multiple locations of Pakistani territory get nuclear bombed.


Though I completely agree with @third eye. It would be the foolishness of the highest order. Nothing in the world - including Islam- unites Pakistani's like their animosity and desire to 'equal and match' India. To attack Pakistan or heck even threaten Pakistan and give Pakistani's a reason to unite and pull their country out of the morass would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Far easier to let things play out and nudge at the right places along the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Precious little unless they first get that economy working

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 leave it up to Pakistan again - whether it chooses to escalate or not.

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.
 
.
@muse

This statement of Saran is a policy decision of GoI.
What it means is that that the GoI will consider a tactical nuclear strike on its military forces even on Pakistani soil as an attack on Indian mainland and may retaliate with a strategic level strike.

The key word here is that GoI reserves the right to strike strategically in response to a tactical one but it may not exercise that option as well.

The most likely response to a tactical nuclear strike on Indian forces in Pakistan is multiple tactical nuclear strikes on Pakistani defence formations.

That is why there are 8 IBG's and they are trying to make them very mobile with NBC capable ICV's. The loss of one should not be enough to halt the entire offensive.

And leave it up to Pakistan again - whether it chooses to escalate or not. In both the scenarios multiple locations of Pakistani territory get nuclear bombed.


Though I completely agree with @third eye. It would be the foolishness of the highest order to attack Pakistan and give Pakistani's a reason to unite and pull their country out of the morass. Far easier to let things play out and nudge along the way.


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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom