Did India really 've OFFENSIVE doctrines??

[janon]

Why is that picture shaped like a Penis? Because missiles do not look like that.

That's not a missile, it's a bomb. And many nuclear bombs look exactly like that. (Without the human face on it, of course.)

 

[Green Arrow]

I think India has offensive policy against Pakistan and defensive policy against china. This can be seen in recent Indian border tensions with both China and Pakistan

 

[OrionHunter]

" India ki Neeyat Achi nai lagti mujhe "

Aur Pakistan ki neeyat to bahut hi achhi hai! Hum 1947 se dekh rahe hain.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Even though none of my previous two points have been answered by defensive Indians, i still ask; when India says that "there exists a Space for Limited War within the Nuclear umbrella between Pakistan and India", how the eff can this be termed as being defensive?!

"Seeking" space for war, that too between nuclear armed belligerents is NOT being defensive!

Yes offensive is Best defence , When PAK using Terrorist / Non-State actors waging war against India, India patience will break sometime and it cannot be stopped by US like always.

ABM / Nuke Sub will make India to response more aggressive in future corse of event. I think 2016 is the D day where India will deploy ABM system around Del / Mumbai.

 

[Levina]

So, @@levina
Theory of Simultaneity, Cold Start, Pro Active Operations all are 'defensive' concepts?

yes!

The doctrine, known as Cold Start, deviated from the defence posture that India’s military had employed since independence in 1947. “The goal of this limited war doctrine is to establish the capacity to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intercede, and at the same time, pursue narrow enough aims to deny Islamabad a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level."

The above from " Ladwig, Walter (Winter 2007–08). "A Cold Start for Hot Wars?: The Indian Army's New Limited War Doctrine". International Security 32 (3): pp. 158–190, 159. doi:10.1162/isec.2008.32.3.158."

So are cutting Pakistan into two halves, Dissecting GT road, Surgical Strikes and finding Space for war under a Nuclear Overhang, right?

cutting Pakistan into halves is somebody's imagination because if India dreamt of such a thing then it would not have limited itself to LOC, India still wants LOC to be converted into IB. And tell me Pakistani stance on this.

Even though none of my previous two points have been answered by defensive Indians, i still ask; when India says that "there exists a Space for Limited War within the Nuclear umbrella between Pakistan and India", how the eff can this be termed as being defensive?!

Those were our ex-defence minister George Fernandes's words on jan 26 2000.
Just by taking bits and parts of his speech you would end up misconstruing it.
These words were said as Fernandes was summing up India's post Kargil security dilemmas vis-a-vis Pakistan and New Delhi's readiness to fight a limited conventional war under the nuclear shadow.
It so happened that after acquiring nuclear weapons the military leadership in Pakistan embarked on a course of confrontation with India in the mistaken belief that the India would be paralysed from an effective response because of the nuclear factor.So reaffirming India's determination to resist such nuclear blackmail, India had declared its readiness to fight any limited conventional war imposed on it by Pakistan.
And to make it even more clear he did say that "Pakistan has convinced itself that under the nuclear umbrella, it would be able to take Kashmir without India being able to punish it in return".
India's own reading of the Kargil war is that an atomic arsenal ``can deter only the use of nuclear weapons, but not all and any war''.And under the nuclear shadow, a ``conventional war remained feasible though with definite limitations if escalation across the nuclear threshold was to be avoided''.We still have a no-first use policy when it comes to nuclear arsenal while Pakistan has been vague, Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically.
It clearly shows who is being offensive here.

 

[OrionHunter]

yes!

The doctrine, known as Cold Start, deviated from the defence posture that India’s military had employed since independence in 1947. “The goal of this limited war doctrine is to establish the capacity to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intercede, and at the same time, pursue narrow enough aims to deny Islamabad a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level."

The above from " Ladwig, Walter (Winter 2007–08). "A Cold Start for Hot Wars?: The Indian Army's New Limited War Doctrine". International Security 32 (3): pp. 158–190, 159. doi:10.1162/isec.2008.32.3.158."




cutting Pakistan into halves is somebody's imagination because if India dreamt of such a thing then it would not have limited itself to LOC, India still wants LOC to be converted into IB. And tell me Pakistani stance on this.



Those were our ex-defence minister George Fernandes's words on jan 26 2000.
Just by taking bits and parts of his speech you would end up misconstruing it.
These words were said as Fernandes was summing up India's post Kargil security dilemmas vis-a-vis Pakistan and New Delhi's readiness to fight a limited conventional war under the nuclear shadow.
It so happened that after acquiring nuclear weapons the military leadership in Pakistan embarked on a course of confrontation with India in the mistaken belief that the India would be paralysed from an effective response because of the nuclear factor.So reaffirming India's determination to resist such nuclear blackmail, India had declared its readiness to fight any limited conventional war imposed on it by Pakistan.
And to make it even more clear he did say that "Pakistan has convinced itself that under the nuclear umbrella, it would be able to take Kashmir without India being able to punish it in return".
India's own reading of the Kargil war is that an atomic arsenal ``can deter only the use of nuclear weapons, but not all and any war''.And under the nuclear shadow, a ``conventional war remained feasible though with definite limitations if escalation across the nuclear threshold was to be avoided''.We still have a no-first use policy when it comes to nuclear arsenal while Pakistan has been vague, Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically.
It clearly shows who is being offensive here.

The bottom line is that a conventional war will never escalate into a nuclear conflagration unless the Pakistani generals lose their mind completely. Nukes have only deterrent value. The danger of course is if pakistan's nukes fall into the Jehadi hands. This is not impossible considering that terrorists had almost succeeded in hijacking a Pakistani Naval frigate, PNS Zulfiqar from right under their noses!!

The Indian subcontinent division of transnational terror group al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the attack on a Naval dockyard in Karachi — the organisation’s first strike since its existence was made public recently. The attackers, the statement said, were former Pakistan Navy officers-turned-jihadists who were attempting to hijack a missile frigate to stage an attack on a United States aircraft carrier!

That could happen on one of Pakistan's nuke facilities too! Stealing Uranium/Plutonium for making a 'dirty bomb' by the terrorists isn't beyond the realms of possibility. An inside job would be difficult to detect until it is too late.

Instead of wasting scarce resources on a useless nuclear program in an environment where nukes will never ever be used and costing billions which Pakistan can ill afford seeing that their economy is down the rabbit hole, it would be far more prudent if they use their resources on healthcare, education, poverty alleviation, energy, infrastructure development and so on.

It seems they don't believe in the doctrine of MINIMUM DETERRENCE but continue to build nukes notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan now has the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world costing billions of dollars, far above minimum deterrence levels.

 

[Xeric]

yes!

The doctrine, known as Cold Start, deviated from the defence posture that India’s military had employed since independence in 1947. “The goal of this limited war doctrine is to establish the capacity to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intercede, and at the same time, pursue narrow enough aims to deny Islamabad a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level."

The above from " Ladwig, Walter (Winter 2007–08). "A Cold Start for Hot Wars?: The Indian Army's New Limited War Doctrine". International Security 32 (3): pp. 158–190, 159. doi:10.1162/isec.2008.32.3.158."

i am sorry to say, but then i have to say it that you have no idea what you are talking about.

First, you have mixed up Theory of Simultaneity (ToS) with Cold Start, both of which were two separate and distinct doctrines atleast 10 years apart. Now, i will leave it to you to find what ToS was, and may be then we can discuss it further.

Now coming towards Cold Start (CS).

CS in its simplistic form means that India:

- will 'attack' Pakistan even before we are able to mobilize.
- will try to keep the 'attack' limited so as not to cross Pakistan's perceived nuclear threshold.

Now this is irrespective of whether the attack is triggered by an itch or a false flag on the Indian side.

Also, this imply the following:-

- Pakistan will already on the defensive.
- Pakistan "militarily" has not done anything so as to prompt an offensive strike from India.
- Unlike previously (Brasstacks & Op Parakaram) there would be no standoff prior to the actual assault/attack, that's to say there would be no kind of military posturing by Pakistani Strike Corps / Offensive elements which could make India feel that Pakistan might go for an offensive, hence India should preempt such a move by launching a preempt strike.

- In short, the total burden to keera of attacking Pakistan would be on India.

So, tell me Sire, how does this make you 'defensive'?

Use commonsense!

cutting Pakistan into halves is somebody's imagination because if India dreamt of such a thing then it would not have limited itself to LOC, India still wants LOC to be converted into IB. And tell me Pakistani stance on this.

You probably were born recently, i mean are young.

Go a bit beyond 1990 in history and you will know what Indian's doctrine was back then. Hint Hint: ToS

Those were our ex-defence minister George Fernandes's words on jan 26 2000.
Just by taking bits and parts of his speech you would end up misconstruing it.
These words were said as Fernandes was summing up India's post Kargil security dilemmas vis-a-vis Pakistan and New Delhi's readiness to fight a limited conventional war under the nuclear shadow.
It so happened that after acquiring nuclear weapons the military leadership in Pakistan embarked on a course of confrontation with India in the mistaken belief that the India would be paralysed from an effective response because of the nuclear factor.So reaffirming India's determination to resist such nuclear blackmail, India had declared its readiness to fight any limited conventional war imposed on it by Pakistan.
And to make it even more clear he did say that "Pakistan has convinced itself that under the nuclear umbrella, it would be able to take Kashmir without India being able to punish it in return".
India's own reading of the Kargil war is that an atomic arsenal ``can deter only the use of nuclear weapons, but not all and any war''.And under the nuclear shadow, a ``conventional war remained feasible though with definite limitations if escalation across the nuclear threshold was to be avoided''.We still have a no-first use policy when it comes to nuclear arsenal while Pakistan has been vague, Pakistan has stated that it may use its nuclear arsenal under a number of different circumstances including to fend off a conventional attack and even if India tries to strangle it economically.
It clearly shows who is being offensive here.

Yessir!

This is known is offensive posturing aka offensive doctrine aka initiating the war. aka commonsense!

 

[Bang Galore]

CS in its simplistic form means that India:

- will 'attack' Pakistan even before we are able to mobilize.
- will try to keep the 'attack' limited so as not to cross Pakistan's perceived nuclear threshold.

Now this is irrespective of whether the attack is triggered by an itch or a false flag on the Indian side.

Also, this imply the following:-

- Pakistan will already on the defensive.
- Pakistan "militarily" has not done anything so as to prompt an offensive strike from India.
- Unlike previously (Brasstacks & Op Parakaram) there would be no standoff prior to the actual assault/attack, that's to say there would be no kind of military posturing by Pakistani Strike Corps / Offensive elements which could make India feel that Pakistan might go for an offensive, hence India should preempt such a move by launching a preempt strike.

- In short, the total burden to keera of attacking Pakistan would be on India.

So, tell me Sire, how does this make you 'defensive'?

Use commonsense!

Depends on how much common sense goes into deciding what is an offensive action? Regardless of your reference to "false flag", we have all just been witnesses to a known terrorist threaten jihad from a public platform in Pakistan, one who has been named by India for an outrage that killed scores of Indians. Why then should the GoI & the Indian armed forces not treat this gentleman's group (& therefore any actions undertaken by them) as constituting an extension of the Pakistani state and responsibility being fixed accordingly? Any action taken in retaliation need not (you can consider them otherwise) be then categorised as "offensive", it can be purely a retribution to an offensive attack from Pakistan.

 

[Xeric]

The bottom line is that a conventional war will never escalate into a nuclear conflagration

Really?!

How are you sure?

Do you know what are nuclear threshold is?

No you dont. Believe me, we'll fcuk anybody up if they attack us, that's the bottom line you and other should take home.

unless the Pakistani generals lose their mind completely.

If and it is likely that we will, use nukes in case you guys cross even an inch of our border, it would be the Indian generals who would have already lost their mind for forcing us to do it. Seriously, this No-First-Use crap will not save you guys from the burden of getting the Sub continent nuked just because you guys 'assume' that we will not use something which is at our disposal.

Nukes have only deterrent value.

Exactly!!

Nukes "deter" war.

BUT

What if the deterrence have failed?

What if our nukes, as you are trying to claim and project are unable to deter Indian from initiating a war?

Nukes to mainay ghar tu nh lay k jana bhai, apko he thokay gay tika k, be assured of that.

In short, the weapons which were to deter a war have failed in doing so, the only logical thing to do now is to use them and to remind you of the penalties of failing to under the basics of nuclear strategy, that nukes are there to deter war.

The danger of course is if pakistan's nukes fall into the Jehadi hands. This is not impossible considering that terrorists had almost succeeded in hijacking a Pakistani Naval frigate, PNS Zulfiqar from right under their noses!!

The Indian subcontinent division of transnational terror group al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the attack on a Naval dockyard in Karachi — the organisation’s first strike since its existence was made public recently. The attackers, the statement said, were former Pakistan Navy officers-turned-jihadists who were attempting to hijack a missile frigate to stage an attack on a United States aircraft carrier!

That could happen on one of Pakistan's nuke facilities too! Stealing Uranium/Plutonium for making a 'dirty bomb' by the terrorists isn't beyond the realms of possibility. An inside job would be difficult to detect until it is too late.

Instead of wasting scarce resources on a useless nuclear program in an environment where nukes will never ever be used and costing billions which Pakistan can ill afford seeing that their economy is down the rabbit hole, it would be far more prudent if they use their resources on healthcare, education, poverty alleviation, energy, infrastructure development and so on.

Dont have time to reply to this gibberish.

It seems they don't believe in the doctrine of MINIMUM DETERRENCE but continue to build nukes notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan now has the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world costing billions of dollars, far above minimum deterrence levels.

Building nukes to match the enemy's capability - that is what "minimum" deference is.

Now if that mean building 100s, 200 or 1000s of them, depending on what you guys have in your kitty, we'll do it! Dont play innocent.

 

[Bang Galore]

No you dont. Believe me, we'll fcuk anybody up if they attack us, that's the bottom line you and other should take home.

Good point. Surely you accept that this can equally be the position taken by India, right? Why does anyone think that the level of escalation will always be the prerogative of one side alone? If there is an attack on India from within Pakistan or backed by Pakistan (including what India sees as state supported proxies), that will be seen as such & if GoI so chooses, will be responded to accordingly.

 

[Xeric]

Depends on how much common sense goes into deciding what is an offensive action? Regardless of your reference to "false flag", we have all just been witnesses to a known terrorist threaten jihad from a public platform in Pakistan, one who has been named by India for an outrage that killed scores of Indians. Why then should the GoI & the Indian armed forces not treat this gentleman's group (& therefore any actions undertaken by them) as constituting an extension of the Pakistani state and responsibility being fixed accordingly? Any action taken in retaliation need not (you can consider them otherwise) be then categorised as "offensive", it can be purely a retribution to an offensive attack from Pakistan.

As you said, irrespective of the fact that the terror incident was a false flag or real, you agree that India will initiate war, right? That my sir, is known to be aggressive or being offensive.

Now to correct you understanding of "Any action taken in retaliation ".

Militarily, a Preemptive Strike, though being an offensive itself is known to a "defensive" maneuver. Now let me explain this.

If any of the following scenario builds up:-

- Pakistan had moved its strike elements to battle localities.
- India is unable to find where the strike elements are i.e. unable to predict where/which sector they would be employed.
- Pakistan is going to do something what Israel did by using its airforce to destroy forces while they are still inside their peace locations.
- That India knows if Pakistan would attack first, it would be able to inflict such losses recovering from which would not be possible for India.

NOW, if India launches a preemptive strike with either of the following aims:-

- To destroy Pakistani strike elements which were to attack India before they are employed.
- Inflict such losses on Pakistan that instead of launching a offensive by employing those strike elements, Pakistan is forced to do fire-fighting and save itself from more destruction and thus should re-direct its strike elements (which were to attack India) on a defensive role instead of an offensive one.

THEN, the preemptive strike or as you say retaliation will be considered as "defensive". That's what military books say. Try to get hold of your own books, they will also tell you the same.

So please, stop putting a terror incident into the same category as that of a (military) offensive posture.

These tricks may work on civvies, not on me.

 

[Sam Manekshaw]

Then we will have sword decide between us.

How many times?

 

[Bang Galore]

As you said, irrespective of the fact that the terror incident was a false flag or real, you agree that India will initiate war, right? That my sir, is known to be aggressive or being offensive.

Now to correct you understanding of "Any action taken in retaliation ":

Militarily, a Preemptive Strike, though being an offensive itself is known to a "defensive" maneuver. Now let me explain this.

If any of the following scenario builds up:-

- Pakistan had moved its strike elements to battle localities.
- India is unable to find where the strike elements are i.e. unable to predict where/which sector they would be employed.
- Pakistan is going to do something what Israel did by using its airforce to destroy forces while they are still inside their peace locations.
- That India knows if Pakistan would attack first, it would be able to inflict such losses recovering from which would not be possible for India.

NOW, if India launches a preemptive strike with either of the following aims:-

- To destroy Pakistani strike elements which were to attack India before they are employed.
- Inflict such losses on Pakistan that instead of launching a offensive by employing those strike elements, Pakistan is forced to do fire-fighting and save itself from more destruction should re-direct its strike elements (which were to attack India) on a defensive role instead of an offensive one.

THEN, the preemptive strike or as you say retaliation will be considered as "defensive". That's what military books say. Try to get hold of your own books, they will also tell you the same.

So please, stop putting a terror incident into the same category as that of a (military) offensive posture.

These tricks may work on civvies, not on me.

2 points. I never said "irrespective of any false flag", merely that even if you called it so......

To answer your main point, I said that regardless of whether you call it a preemptive strike or not, the logic backing the argument of it being a retaliation against an attack by the state of Pakistan or its proxies is valid irrespective of how you wish to categorise it.

No tricks, merely a stating of "common sense" position that an attack by a known proxy of Pakistan can & will be seen as an attack by the Pakistani state, protestations like you have said not withstanding. I didn't argue specifically on military posture, you can go back & read what I said exactly. Maybe those in Pakistan's power structure too should understand that the "trick" of separating the Pakistani state from its proxies may not work as well as before. Maybe then, we can all be done with these "tricks".

 

[rockstarIN]

So please, stop putting a terror incident into the same category as that of a (military) offensive posture.

These tricks may work on civvies, not on me.

What if a punishing action by not crossing the border by land(by air or on naval assets) for the sake of the argument?

What will be Pakistan's response on this?

 

[Xeric]

What if a punishing action by not crossing the border by land(by air or on naval assets) for the sake of the argument?

What will be Pakistan's response on this?

Some wise man has said, i and quote: Never test the depth of water with both feet.