The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Hellfire]

you can call it cold start or pro active defence, the intention remains the same - mobilize in 72 hours, 8 IBG's thrusting towards pakistan - this is a serious threat IMO. add the triad with indian subs patrolling the indian/arabian sea areas requires a detailed, sombre and painstaking analysis of what pakistan planners can do to deter this threat...

....first in the conventional sense and then the nuclear response.

fatman I think that with the present posturing India is catered for Pakistan more than adequately.What the present indian mindset (and what the present indian army thinking is) is, is more evolved than what was tried out in 1987 in Ex Checkerboard. In 1987 Indian army tried mobilisation validation on the premise that a war (inclusive of deployment of nukes in tactical backdrop) has to be fought with Pakistan with additional requirements of deployment of holding strength in order to negate possible Chinese moves along Norther borders. The whole scenario (without getting into details) entailed diversion of troops from Pakistan border to China centric posturing.

This posturing was catering to multiple deployments in Ladakh-Garhwal-Sikkim-Arunachal in addition to possible chinese military thrusts through Nepal-Bhutan-North Myanmar.

Now Pakistan, IMO, does not remain the centerpoint. India is preapring for a reverse phenomenon wherein China will be main and Pakistan may try to take advantage of situation.

Hence a more Northern centric approach is there. The commensurate change and enhancement in Indian posturing needs to be seen in this backdrop

And as earlier I have been saying that irrespective of Pakistan's approach to develop short range nuclear capable missiles in order to, as many forum members here claim, 'neutralise conventional superiority' of India, is irrelevant and impractical. Our approach is very clear. In any case of CBRN usage, India reserves the right (and here the line in our nuclear doctrine is clear) to respond massively to cause unacceptable damage with a weapon of own choice. Means, even a chemical attack on a platoon size unit of IA may result in a massive nuclear strike at targets which have strategic value.

So the risk of escalation is there for Pakistan too.

 

[Hellfire]

Precious little unless they first get that economy working on making sense, more private, a whole lot less Awaami -- Some will be disillusioned and argue that this is a long term cure, actually there is no long term or short term or medium term cure, there is only the cure, and that means allowing the economy to function as the players in the economy determine.

difficult and wishful thinking. Pakistan's 'radicalisation' is eating it now. I doubt that the level of tolerance required to run a free market economy (which involves both national and multi/international corporations thriving) exists today in Pakistan. From one of the most modern societies its become one of the most intolerant.

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.

The simple fact of your statement can be seen from the seemingly impotency of India in kashmir. On the face of it we appear as a weak state incapable of sorting out our enemies and their supporters (Pakistan) .... and this is underscored by numerous posts here too in this forum. But on the other hand, we continue to have a significantly huge military presence in Kashmir with hardly a dent in these 30 years in economic terms. In addition under Op Sadbhavna IA is undertaking a massive rehabilitation and civic action program which may not win us the disgruntled Kashmiri people but has showcased Indian operations in Kashmir as a humane counter insurgency operation which can not be, by any stretch of imagination, called an ethnic cleansing and we are pouring in money in the area. So economics do play the important part here.

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. !!

Really! Would have expected better of you. 2002 was a pointless exercise, that is if war was to be followed (which it was initially). But the fact that it forced US to force Musharraf to control the proxies in the form of HM, LeT, JeM et al and significantly reduced the incursions across LC, led on to a ceasefire along LC was an achievement. Idea was to force west to come off its self induced stupor of ignoring Pakistan's soil being used for terror related activities and address it head on - objective achieved. Ask your diplomats .. dont go by public domain rhetoric ......!

And yes Cold Start is non-starter!!!!! Keep that view up!

 

[Hellfire]

cold start as a doctrine has not been formalised by Indian planners - Pakistan's Azm-e-Nau-4 which is a riposte to india's cold start is also not formalised or can be implemented because in essence cold start dosnt exist as we know it. so both countries are merely posturing and war gaming.

india has not identified and clustered any of their formations into IBG's. further both the army and airforce are bickering over the control of the armed helos which shows that the level of co-ordination required for a successful foray into pakistani territory by IBG's could face such internal problems.

You are wrong about the armed helis. Its been decided long back. Contrary to what media says the AH-64 will go to IAF with possible add on orders. IA is getting its own Aviation brigades @ 1 per corps initially which shall have LANCER/Dhruv (WSI) variants for attack role and continue with Dhruv/Cheetah/Chetak assortments for recce/casevac etc. As for the media reports - the question was as to deployment of Mi-17V5s which has been resolved and are at pre-eminent disposal for air maint and rapid deployment requirements with Army.

Integration of air assets into IBG with stress upon air-cavalry type operations (IBGs in sofar will be brigade strength integration with possible combat group core) is underway.

 

[Hellfire]

But according to your cold start doctrine, your armoured divisions will be already on Pakistani territories, that is an invasion, and Pakistan can legally use any mean at its disposal to thwart your invasion including tactical nuclear weapon to be used on its own territories, but to decimate your integrated battle group (IBG) formations let us say once and as soon as the bulk of them has crossed into Pakistan.
If you answer with strategic nuclear weapons than your cold start theory is a hoax, and can not be implemented, and the whole thing will come back to India starting a nuclear war that it can not win either.

Your premise is wrong here. Even with an invasion, the PA can not and will not employ nukes because the oft touted range of 40-50 kms is not much from a military point of view especially in terms of your own army's calculations which will cater for any ingress (successful) by an enemy to be contained in this limit. Its the normal conventional thinking. However if you are trying to imply that Pakistan will employ its weapons in first meter itself then an all out retaliation will be ordered. The beauty of Indian nuke command and control is that once the threshold is crossed by enemy even if the PM is neurotic enough not to order a retalition, the retaliation moves ahead on the premise that the highest office has been compromised for whatever reasons. No one, I repeat, no one has the guts to stop the armed forces from a massive retaliation. The Indian command and control has specific mechanisms whereupon there are standing instructions to individuals A to Z on what to do on a certain point. They act in consort A not knowing who B is and whats B's location or role ..... and so on ... and are required to pass/enforce their given orders. This will automatically ensure a. greater security and checks on retaliatory process b. independence of retaliation orders from interference by compromised/controlled/neurotic political authority.

In addition, you are mistaken if you think we will not win. Costs will be tremendous but I assure you, a small CBRN attack at tactical theater will result in a retaliation that shall obliterate your nation (you may do us damage too in return but it shall be lesser and later and too small in comparision). And its all hot air if you think Indian nukes will come from BARC then be assembelled and so on ............ you need not believe it. No country is that foolish that it does not have its nukes in ready condition.

As for the triad - our ships have it .... and if its in public domain ........ then it must already be in place right?

No wonder Cold Start has recently been renamed by the Indians as ‘proactive defence’ strategy, meaning mostly monitoring strategy.

Nope. Its meant exactly as that. Like transborder raids. We raise a hue and cry and kick butt for every transgression and paint PA in bad light.

Similarly, cold start exists. You are worrying sick about it. We are here discussing it. And it all has to be seen in backdrop of China-Pakistan vs India (Indian POV) with emphasis on China acting funny and Pakistan taking potshots piggy backing

 

[Alpha1]

the PA can not and will not employ nukes because the oft touted range of 40-50 kms is not much from a military point of view especially in terms of your own army's calculations which will cater for any ingress (successful) by an enemy to be contained in this limit.

can you please provide the source where you got this idea?

 

[Hellfire]

can you please provide the source where you got this idea?

its basic military idea - you cater for a breach of 40-50 kms at max by any spearhead by div/corps sized offensive formation before you are able to muster forces to contain it, the figure is not sacrosanct but the momentum of a breach will at max take this much before opposing force is able to deploy forces to check the breach .... you dont need everything in black and white to be able to appreciate a likely breach. Its not an idea, its common sense taken into consideration what a potential enemy ingress might lead to and contingency planning is done on same. A battalion sized front is 3-5 kms at the most consolidated estimate in any ground attack ...... thats the conventional formulation and any breathrough as per this 'doctrine' will be led by minimum a brigade sized maneuver group with overall strength of minimum a division

Its just basic logic which I dont think any professional army will be ignoring while planning its response. If PA is willing to employ nukes at levels below this - its dangerously low threshold and the responses will be accordingly

 

[Storm Force]

Cold start has existed since its inception around 6 years. There have been four massive war games






dipicting cold start in this time period. The last version involved 150 fighters and over 50,000 troops. Csd is stil evolving as the Indian army modernises....
The Indians will use this threat regularly to keep pak on their toes

 

[The SC]

Your premise is wrong here. Even with an invasion, the PA can not and will not employ nukes because the oft touted range of 40-50 kms is not much from a military point of view especially in terms of your own army's calculations which will cater for any ingress (successful) by an enemy to be contained in this limit. Its the normal conventional thinking. However if you are trying to imply that Pakistan will employ its weapons in first meter itself then an all out retaliation will be ordered. The beauty of Indian nuke command and control is that once the threshold is crossed by enemy even if the PM is neurotic enough not to order a retalition, the retaliation moves ahead on the premise that the highest office has been compromised for whatever reasons. No one, I repeat, no one has the guts to stop the armed forces from a massive retaliation. The Indian command and control has specific mechanisms whereupon there are standing instructions to individuals A to Z on what to do on a certain point. They act in consort A not knowing who B is and whats B's location or role ..... and so on ... and are required to pass/enforce their given orders. This will automatically ensure a. greater security and checks on retaliatory process b. independence of retaliation orders from interference by compromised/controlled/neurotic political authority.

In addition, you are mistaken if you think we will not win. Costs will be tremendous but I assure you, a small CBRN attack at tactical theater will result in a retaliation that shall obliterate your nation (you may do us damage too in return but it shall be lesser and later and too small in comparision). And its all hot air if you think Indian nukes will come from BARC then be assembelled and so on ............ you need not believe it. No country is that foolish that it does not have its nukes in ready condition.

As for the triad - our ships have it .... and if its in public domain ........ then it must already be in place right?



Nope. Its meant exactly as that. Like transborder raids. We raise a hue and cry and kick butt for every transgression and paint PA in bad light.

Similarly, cold start exists. You are worrying sick about it. We are here discussing it. And it all has to be seen in backdrop of China-Pakistan vs India (Indian POV) with emphasis on China acting funny and Pakistan taking potshots piggy backing

You are talking like if your country was the only one with those capabilities, you must be day dreaming.
Its your highest ranking generals that are and were worried sick about the cold start theory so much that they have changed their approch with the name too.
What I was referring to is, if your army overwelms the Pakistani army by an unlikely surprise attack, and that it comes to Pakistan's survival, then it can use tactical nuclear bombs to destroy the rear of your attacking army and finish off the rest conventionally.
So, if they use it against invading troops and you take your big guns to attack civilians then (God forbid) they will attack and destroy the best and most meaningful things you have or ever have had, it is pretty simple and your country will lose its most important infrastructures, your economy will sink in an abyss, and you may recover in a hundred years or so, if ever...
This is not what I wish for India nor for Pakistan, It is just your talk and misunderstanding of my quotes that makes your false pride and arrogance worth responding to in theory.
Reality in these matters is much more complicated and it is being discussed in hundreds of books and thousands of articles, each speculating on a different outcome.
At the end I am not wrong nor mistaken,I was merly answering about your cold start theory and my thoughts are reinforced by the decision of your highest ranking generals and politicians to abandon it, I can now see clearly how wrong and mistaken you are about Pakistan, since if your country has all those capabilities, mainly the nuclear ones, and Pakistan has far more sofisticated and more numerous ones, whose premise is wrong here...? for the rest they match you well beyond the population proportions.
Don't even mention China and Pakistan against India, that is total foolness for you.
Anyway, no war will be good for India, do not think that skirmishes of a few soldiers is war. War is more demanding and it will sink the Indian economy in no time, with a bad economy, your country will not be able to continue and thus the war will be lost.
Talking about provocations, there is never a proof beyond any doubt who provoques whom in the area. So no blame should be put on Pakistan alone, nor on india alone, you should also think about third parties who would like a conflict to suit their own benefits.

 

[Hellfire]

You are talking like if your country was the only one with those capabilities, you must be day dreaming.

What is the point?elaborate please.

Its your highest ranking generals that are and were worried sick about the cold start theory so much that they have changed their approch with the name too.

really? nope ... its being toned down for the political reasons (read diplomatic). 'india is a peace loving we dont want war we are non offensive oriented ....... et al' the usual bullshit.

What I was referring to is, if your army overwelms the Pakistani army by an unlikely surprise attack, and that it comes to Pakistan's survival, then it can use tactical nuclear bombs to destroy the rear of your attacking army and finish off the rest conventionally. So, if they use it against invading troops and you take your big guns to attack civilians then (God forbid) they will attack and destroy the best and most meaningful things you have or ever have had, it is pretty simple and your country will lose its most important infrastructures, your economy will sink in an abyss, and you may recover in a hundred years or so, if ever...

This is where you lost the gist of the whole posturing. I have been telling this over past 2 years and I repeat again - the cold start is centered around - on a grand scale - reorganisations within the existing IA formations. There was the concept of 'strike' corps and 'holding' corps in 80s when IA was undergoing a change in thinking. These holding corps are deployed already at the border and they were organised and equipped for a role involving exclusive defensive deployment. In that set up the spearheads would be from the heavily mechanised, armoured formations composed of strike corps which are located well inside India.

Now the 'holding' corps concept is out. The change is introduction of 'pivot' corps - ie the same static deployment at western border (which PA knows very well) will no more be defemse oriented exclusively. They shall shift from defensive to offensive roles upon intent of hostility. They have been augmented to initiate offensive operations from their present locations without need for clearly demarcated FUP (forming up place) et al. So in short, there is no 'surprise' attack for PA; instead you have a situation where PA is aware what lies opposite them and have a rough idea from declared Indian intentions that the formations are poised and equipped to initiate offensive operations at minimal notice (3-4 hours). Only you do not know what time will it take IA formations to actually achieve the adequate concentration of existing formations for initiating a breakout, adding to the 'fog of war'. In addition you know the force exists but you dont know the point/sector where the concentrations will take place. Also additional air assets earmarked/integrated will provide complete dominance in battle space. It precludes (and here americans have exhibited doubts about our capabilities wrongly) usage of roads/rail etc for mobilisation/concentration of force.

In addition, if you have just a little bit of an idea of military operations, an initial thrust at multiple points by IA with strike corps following up over next 48 hours at variable points to deliver a more concentrated blow, will be sufficient to overwhelm your defences at atleast a few points (due to some surprise and a lot of momentum/tempo of operations), which maybe exploited by shifting of forces to make a wider-deeper breach. These will succeed initially and in any case as I said, a breach of 40-50 kms is achieveable which is anyways the rough distance before (and here I am taking best case scenario) you can muster enough force and concentrate them to stop the attack. And your logic of attack in rear etc is a waste of good bandwidth. If you know your military tactics you will know its sheer nonsense. The moment you even use a nuke at tactical level; we respond overwhelmingly. Your military commanders will not use nukes in first few kilometers until and unless they want to commit a seppuku. And we do have a greater arsenal and stockpile than you, irrespective of what the web sites and your own assessment says. Its not in civil domain - the intricacies of India's nuke Command and control. Its the only aspect where the civil government of the day has not been able to interfere.

The only static answer for PA is to deploy overwhelming force to atleast check india. That shall entail a heavy burden on your economy! So in either case a win-win for us.

This is not what I wish for India nor for Pakistan, It is just your talk and misunderstanding of my quotes that makes your false pride and arrogance worth responding to in theory.
Reality in these matters is much more complicated and it is being discussed in hundreds of books and thousands of articles, each speculating on a different outcome. At the end I am not wrong nor mistaken,I was merly answering about your cold start theory and my thoughts are reinforced by the decision of your highest ranking generals and politicians to abandon it, I can now see clearly how wrong and mistaken you are about Pakistan, since if your country has all those capabilities, mainly the nuclear ones, and Pakistan has far more sofisticated and more numerous ones, whose premise is wrong here...? for the rest they match you well beyond the population proportions.

All I am saying is that cold start is something we have devised to keep things under control. We do not trust Pakistan not to be stupid. You have been a lot in past too. Lahore visit by Vajpayee and your stupidity at kargil which scuttled whatever chance there was is a historic proof. In addition, your sense of nationhood is identified by religious base, something that only exists in vote bank politics in India and not at grass root levels. The social fabric of yours is seeing more and more radicalisation - from one of the most modern and liberal societies you have gone down the path of radical islam - something that is expanding in your country. Your army wants to retain control over power directly/indirectly by fanning anti-India and India war mongering .... something we are not at all interested in. As common people we in India want better jobs, we are seeing better times than our preceeding generations and we know it comes through economic and social progress. You wage a war against us in Kashmir saying you want its freedom when it was you in 1947 who launched an offensive against J&K under Op Gulmarg even after the population wanted to be free of india and pakistan both and J&K had signed standstill agreement with Indian and Pak governments. It was at your stupidity that the Maharaja, who was pro-Pakistan due to better connectivity, was forced to acceed to India. And its thanks to your stupidity that the common Kashmiri 'suffers' till date as we pour more and more troops on ground.

Don't even mention China and Pakistan against India, that is total foolness for you. Anyway, no war will be good for India, do not think that skirmishes of a few soldiers is war. War is more demanding and it will sink the Indian economy in no time, with a bad economy, your country will not be able to continue and thus the war will be lost. Talking about provocations, there is never a proof beyond any doubt who provoques whom in the area. So no blame should be put on Pakistan alone, nor on india alone, you should also think about third parties who would like a conflict to suit their own benefits.

My dear you telling me? I assure you am aware of what we do and what Pakistan does. You took 3 heads of our soldiers in J&K in Aug 2011 on 2nd on 28th Aug 2011 we took 25 guys; similarly we knocked off one post of yours which used to fire on our party. Too bad you dont have RTI (Right to Information) or you could get the veracity of these. But yes Pakistan and India, we both do things.

 

[The SC]

What is the point?elaborate please.



really? nope ... its being toned down for the political reasons (read diplomatic). 'india is a peace loving we dont want war we are non offensive oriented ....... et al' the usual bullshit.



This is where you lost the gist of the whole posturing. I have been telling this over past 2 years and I repeat again - the cold start is centered around - on a grand scale - reorganisations within the existing IA formations. There was the concept of 'strike' corps and 'holding' corps in 80s when IA was undergoing a change in thinking. These holding corps are deployed already at the border and they were organised and equipped for a role involving exclusive defensive deployment. In that set up the spearheads would be from the heavily mechanised, armoured formations composed of strike corps which are located well inside India.

Now the 'holding' corps concept is out. The change is introduction of 'pivot' corps - ie the same static deployment at western border (which PA knows very well) will no more be defemse oriented exclusively. They shall shift from defensive to offensive roles upon intent of hostility. They have been augmented to initiate offensive operations from their present locations without need for clearly demarcated FUP (forming up place) et al. So in short, there is no 'surprise' attack for PA; instead you have a situation where PA is aware what lies opposite them and have a rough idea from declared Indian intentions that the formations are poised and equipped to initiate offensive operations at minimal notice (3-4 hours). Only you do not know what time will it take IA formations to actually achieve the adequate concentration of existing formations for initiating a breakout, adding to the 'fog of war'. In addition you know the force exists but you dont know the point/sector where the concentrations will take place. Also additional air assets earmarked/integrated will provide complete dominance in battle space. It precludes (and here americans have exhibited doubts about our capabilities wrongly) usage of roads/rail etc for mobilisation/concentration of force.

In addition, if you have just a little bit of an idea of military operations, an initial thrust at multiple points by IA with strike corps following up over next 48 hours at variable points to deliver a more concentrated blow, will be sufficient to overwhelm your defences at atleast a few points (due to some surprise and a lot of momentum/tempo of operations), which maybe exploited by shifting of forces to make a wider-deeper breach. These will succeed initially and in any case as I said, a breach of 40-50 kms is achieveable which is anyways the rough distance before (and here I am taking best case scenario) you can muster enough force and concentrate them to stop the attack. And your logic of attack in rear etc is a waste of good bandwidth. If you know your military tactics you will know its sheer nonsense. The moment you even use a nuke at tactical level; we respond overwhelmingly. Your military commanders will not use nukes in first few kilometers until and unless they want to commit a seppuku. And we do have a greater arsenal and stockpile than you, irrespective of what the web sites and your own assessment says. Its not in civil domain - the intricacies of India's nuke Command and control. Its the only aspect where the civil government of the day has not been able to interfere.

The only static answer for PA is to deploy overwhelming force to atleast check india. That shall entail a heavy burden on your economy! So in either case a win-win for us.



All I am saying is that cold start is something we have devised to keep things under control. We do not trust Pakistan not to be stupid. You have been a lot in past too. Lahore visit by Vajpayee and your stupidity at kargil which scuttled whatever chance there was is a historic proof. In addition, your sense of nationhood is identified by religious base, something that only exists in vote bank politics in India and not at grass root levels. The social fabric of yours is seeing more and more radicalisation - from one of the most modern and liberal societies you have gone down the path of radical islam - something that is expanding in your country. Your army wants to retain control over power directly/indirectly by fanning anti-India and India war mongering .... something we are not at all interested in. As common people we in India want better jobs, we are seeing better times than our preceeding generations and we know it comes through economic and social progress. You wage a war against us in Kashmir saying you want its freedom when it was you in 1947 who launched an offensive against J&K under Op Gulmarg even after the population wanted to be free of india and pakistan both and J&K had signed standstill agreement with Indian and Pak governments. It was at your stupidity that the Maharaja, who was pro-Pakistan due to better connectivity, was forced to acceed to India. And its thanks to your stupidity that the common Kashmiri 'suffers' till date as we pour more and more troops on ground.



My dear you telling me? I assure you am aware of what we do and what Pakistan does. You took 3 heads of our soldiers in J&K in Aug 2011 on 2nd on 28th Aug 2011 we took 25 guys; similarly we knocked off one post of yours which used to fire on our party. Too bad you dont have RTI (Right to Information) or you could get the veracity of these. But yes Pakistan and India, we both do things.

Just reverse your strategy and you might understand what pakistan can do too, it is a too way strategy, and pakistan can come up with something very surprising to paralyse your efforts of war.
Take for example, your air force, it is just struggling to match that of Pakistan qualitatively, the Qing class AIP hunter killer submarines are near completion and their delivery will come soon, they are more than a match for two nuclear submarines, since they can remain in hiding for months too.
But the main subject of yours is land warfare with some kind of air cover. You should remember that in the history of muslims and Islam they are used to fight much bigger and powerful military and nations than theirs and...win., Just think Iraq and Afghanistan for instance, Your country's capacities can not match those of the US or Russia and they both lost, it is a message for you if you decide one day to wage war.
Apart from these nightmerish and morbid scenarios, I agree with you on better jobs and better life for you as well as the Pakistanis and wish that those old conflicts you mentionned will be resolved peacefully, since like our disscussion shows, the military options are all on all tables for no avail but destruction, which is contrary the the wishes of the majority of people be it in India, Pakistan or elsewhere.

 

[Contrarian]

Just reverse your strategy and you might understand what pakistan can do too, it is a too way strategy, and pakistan can come up with something very surprising to paralyse your efforts of war.
Take for example, your air force, it is just struggling to match that of Pakistan qualitatively, the Qing class AIP hunter killer submarines are near completion and their delivery will come soon, they are more than a match for two nuclear submarines, since they can remain in hiding for months too.
But the main subject of yours is land warfare with some kind of air cover. You should remember that in the history of muslims and Islam they are used to fight much bigger and powerful military and nations than theirs and...win., Just think Iraq and Afghanistan for instance, Your country's capacities can not match those of the US or Russia and they both lost, it is a message for you if you decide one day to wage war.
Apart from these nightmerish and morbid scenarios, I agree with you on better jobs and better life for you as well as the Pakistanis and wish that those old conflicts you mentionned will be resolved peacefully, since like our disscussion shows, the military options are all on all tables for no avail but destruction, which is contrary the the wishes of the majority of people be it in India, Pakistan or elsewhere.

Yeah.

So Muslim or Martians, they die just as easily and get defeated just as easily. India is not US or Russia, when we fight war, we have boots on the ground to shoot them in the face.

We'v fought them before and they have not won anything.
We have infact divided their country in two. Taken over more Pakistani land in each war than they took Indian lands.

Lastly, you are completely misinformed. IAF is not struggling to match PAF qualitatively. PAF is struggling to match IAF qualitatively.

 

[Hellfire]

Just reverse your strategy and you might understand what pakistan can do too, it is a too way strategy, and pakistan can come up with something very surprising to paralyse your efforts of war

My Pleasure. but hardly which shall as you say paralyse our war effort!

Take for example, your air force, it is just struggling to match that of Pakistan qualitatively

On the contrary, quality is not the issue. The issue is insufficiency in numbers for a potential two front war and especially taking into calculations the PLAAF.

the Qing class AIP hunter killer submarines are near completion and their delivery will come soon, they are more than a match for two nuclear submarines, since they can remain in hiding for months too.

That is irrelevant a point. In any case a couple of submarines wont make much of a difference especially when the dominance of the navy is being determined by the platforms being deployed especially in terms of CBGs and the flotilla as a whole and sensors/equipment.

But the main subject of yours is land warfare with some kind of air cover. You should remember that in the history of muslims and Islam they are used to fight much bigger and powerful military and nations than theirs and...win., Just think Iraq and Afghanistan for instance, Your country's capacities can not match those of the US or Russia and they both lost, it is a message for you if you decide one day to wage war.

Totally irrelevant your invocation of history. In addition nothing to do with Islam and Muslims et al. if that be the case you have Muslim troops in IA too and quite a huge proportion at it. In addition, you can always look at 300 the movie based on real life events !!!!!!!!! (lol) Pakistan openly aided militants against USSR (with US aid) and against US .... and was able to 'take them down'. But you have failed in 30 years to do the same in Kashmir. The reason - tech has nothing to do with fighting an insurgency/assymetric war. Its the question of boots on the ground and the resolve (political will).

Anyways since I can make out you are more based on rhetorics than anything of susbstance ... will take my leave

 

[The SC]

My Pleasure. but hardly which shall as you say paralyse our war effort!



On the contrary, quality is not the issue. The issue is insufficiency in numbers for a potential two front war and especially taking into calculations the PLAAF.



That is irrelevant a point. In any case a couple of submarines wont make much of a difference especially when the dominance of the navy is being determined by the platforms being deployed especially in terms of CBGs and the flotilla as a whole and sensors/equipment.



Totally irrelevant your invocation of history. In addition nothing to do with Islam and Muslims et al. if that be the case you have Muslim troops in IA too and quite a huge proportion at it. In addition, you can always look at 300 the movie based on real life events !!!!!!!!! (lol) Pakistan openly aided militants against USSR (with US aid) and against US .... and was able to 'take them down'. But you have failed in 30 years to do the same in Kashmir. The reason - tech has nothing to do with fighting an insurgency/assymetric war. Its the question of boots on the ground and the resolve (political will).

Anyways since I can make out you are more based on rhetorics than anything of susbstance ... will take my leave

It is your best decision to date because you try to rationalize speculations.
And since your rhetoric is based on numbers only , you already had your answer.

 

[The SC]

Yeah.

So Muslim or Martians, they die just as easily and get defeated just as easily. India is not US or Russia, when we fight war, we have boots on the ground to shoot them in the face.

We'v fought them before and they have not won anything.
We have infact divided their country in two. Taken over more Pakistani land in each war than they took Indian lands.

Lastly, you are completely misinformed. IAF is not struggling to match PAF qualitatively. PAF is struggling to match IAF qualitatively.

All available information states that India is trying to keep up qualitatively with Pakistan while the latter is aiming to match India's quantity with high-tech solutions.

You are right about Muslims can die as easily as others, the difference is for what reason are you ready to die, is it for justice or unjustice. So what I mean, is when they take the decision to fight (after all diplomacy fails) for a just cause they have been very rarely defeated if at all.
Just remember that they have conquered India for centuries, that is an example of boots on the ground if you choose that option, the only difference is that, whenever they have been called upon to reestablish order or to fight injustice in other people's lands, they never splited those lands nor that they've boosted about their might, they had a positive objective to establish justice and call upon wrong people to spouse the right path, and when it was attained, either they left or they were invited to stay, so they never had occupation as an objective, only when muslim land itself was treatened by occupation that they went for occupation too and in the most civilized way humanity has ever known. India itself is but one of those numerous examples.
The main issue here is about some frontiers definitions, and that is a remanent of European colonialism all over the places they have occupied. So people should get over that and understand that it was done on purpose to ignite wars so that the ex-occupiers can sell arms to both sides of the conflict and hence boost their economies and war machines while weakening everybody else.
If you like to play that game, it means that you didn't undestand the lessons of history.

 

[Contrarian]

All available information states that India is trying to keep up qualitatively with Pakistan while the latter is aiming to match India's quantity with high-tech solutions.

You are right about Muslims can die as easily as others, the difference is for what reason are you ready to die, is it for justice or unjustice. So what I mean, is when they take the decision to fight (after all diplomacy fails) for a just cause they have been very rarely defeated if at all.
Just remember that they have conquered India for centuries, that is an example of boots on the ground if you choose that option, the only difference is that, whenever they have been called upon to reestablish order or to fight injustice in other people's lands, they never splited those lands nor that they've boosted about their might, they had a positive objective to establish justice and call upon wrong people to spouse the right path, and when it was attained, either they left or they were invited to stay, so they never had occupation as an objective, only when muslim land itself was treatened by occupation that they went for occupation too and in the most civilized way humanity has ever known. India itself is but one of those numerous examples.
The main issue here is about some frontiers definitions, and that is a remanent of European colonialism all over the places they have occupied. So people should get over that and understand that it was done on purpose to ignite wars so that the ex-occupiers can sell arms to both sides of the conflict and hence boost their economies and war machines while weakening everybody else.
If you like to play that game, it means that you didn't undestand the lessons of history.

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.