India's Cold Start Is Too Hot

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The answer to the Cold Start is not hard to find.

Is it to dismember Pakistan?

Not really.

Why?

Not possible given the manner in which the international powerbrokers will intercede as they have done always.

1971 was the closest India was to it. And why could they not? The US, Russia and all said enough!

So, what is the answer?

It is there for those who can see.

Also, in any war, none can survive in any good health!

Not even the US in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

There is always a price to be paid!!

 

[Bang Galore]

To Counter MKI, we have F-16's.....
Besides that MKI is not battle proven n its quite hard to think abt it especially NOV 08, when India tried to invade in Pakistan Airdpace using MKI's and sent back by PAF falcons.

Secondly from ur side every thing will not be used (Army) but from our side every thing will be used including nukes.

Forget what we know or don't know. For the purpose of this discussion we are assuming that when & if the Indian military initialises operations (cold start or some other fanciful name), a decision would have been taken with the best intelligence available ( lets leave out Rumsfeld's the unknown unknowns) and with the knowledge that whatever happened in India (terrorist attack or some such) warrants this decision inspite of the risks that it carries, then surely it would be unwise to argue that the Indian armed forces would be doing so on a wing & a prayer. Lets us not belittle this discussion with the proposition that only Pakistanis have plans. Surely if India doesn't know what it is getting into (with all the secret weapons that Pakistan supposedly has), surely the opposite can also be argued. Why walk in with the assumption that Pakistan has "unknown unknowns" on its side but India doesn't have any?

Another point often made is that Cold Start or similar will push a lot of buttons in Pakistan & the nuclear option is thrown in like we are discussing a pie fight. It would be wise to remember that whatever led to the initialisation of such an operation having finally triggered off the fuse is equally to held up as a provocation. No country will endlessly allow another country to decide the scale of escalation whatever the threat that poses. The law of diminishing return works both ways.

Rumsfeld's axiom:

Reports that say something hasn’t happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

and with the knowledge that whatever happened in India (terrorist attack or some such) warrants this decision inspite of the risks that it carries, then surely it would be unwise to argue that the Indian armed forces would be doing so on a wing & a prayer.

And surely not with a sacrificial goat at the feet of Lord Shiva as some chap so quaintly said.

And anyway, India has a whole Regiment of Muslims and they would not do so and yet battle on as they have done before, apart from the Muslims in various other Regiments too!

That apart from a Regiment of Buddhists too!

 

[Markus]

What about the unknown knowns?

Things we actually know but we dont realize that we know them.

 

[praveen]

nasr seems to have diluted pakistani deterrence rather than strengthening it .The shifted from strategic nukes to tactical nukes ie good for india

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The real test of the Cold Start will be in a war.

I fervently pray that such a day never visits India and Pakistan.

It is better to be a pacifist (as I was called) than a foolhardy gung ho jingo!

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

the whole concept of tactical nukes in indio-pak context is flawed. once a country uses tactical nukes the other country will reply back with full force. so the very idea of having a tactical nuclear weapon is absurd.

tactical nuclear weapons is a flawed concept of cold war. i dint agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

the whole concept of tactical nukes in indio-pak context is flawed. once a country uses tactical nukes the other country will reply back with full force. so the very idea of having a tactical nuclear weapon is absurd.

tactical nuclear weapons is a flawed concept of cold war. i dint agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

I agree with you, but then it all depends on the yield and the compulsions matched with the tactical aim.

Retaliation is the natural corollary.

And then the staying power.

 

[Areesh]

Like 18 advanced F16s to counter over 160 (and soon to be 270) MKIs?

This one line suggests you don't have any idea what CSD is all about. What a shame.

At least try to realize what you are talking about. The thread is about Cold Start doctrine kids.

 

[SQ8]

The operative word was 'near parity'.

US vs Iraq near parity?

If anyone would have to attack Burkina Faso, then there would be air superiority ab initio!

Now if the US were to attack China, would there be air superiority?

Therefore, the operative word remains 'near parity' in the sub continent.

I read in some post that Pakistan was on network centric operations!

I do hope that the person understands the whole gamut of the concept!

The problem one faces is that if one see a speck in the sky it becomes -

Is it a bird?

is it an aircraft?

No, it is superman!!

Now try justifying to an avid Superman fan!

I can assure you sir.. those that are at the forefront of the endeavor.. know their job well.

 

[SEAL]

I promise you that 60 km rocket of yours can have absolutely no effect on CSs failure

Its not a rocket its a multi tube ballistic missile with tactical nuclear warhead can fry your attack formations in a moments.

 

[SEAL]

the whole concept of tactical nukes in indio-pak context is flawed. once a country uses tactical nukes the other country will reply back with full force. so the very idea of having a tactical nuclear weapon is absurd.

tactical nuclear weapons is a flawed concept of cold war. i dint agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

Yes and thats the failure of CSD.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

I agree with you, but then it all depends on the yield and the compulsions matched with the tactical aim.

Retaliation is the natural corollary.

And then the staying power.

watsoever be yield, use of tactical nuclear weapon by one country is like a giving a free ticket to othr country to bomb u hell back to stone ages. The retaliating country can always say they dint use Nukes first and were forced to use nukes only to save themselves as they feared more nuclear attacks all over country.

so tactical nuclear nukes in present scenario is strict no no.

 

[Markus]

Yes and thats the failure of CSD.

Ok Ok, we accept the failure of CSD.

We are now working on CSD Part 2 and we will get back to you soon.

Happy now?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I can assure you sir.. those that are at the forefront of the endeavor.. know their job well.

I sure hope so.

And they also hopefully understand the geopolitical and geo strategic compulsions or realpolitik.

Just to amplify, Pakistan should not allow its territorial integrity and sovereignty violated by the US.

But then, Pakistan stands helpless as it appears.

Not anyone's fault, I will not hesitate to state.

It is the stranglehold of geoploitics and geostrategy.

It is not confined to Pakistan alone.

It is a stranglehold that is universal!

Guess why the US is not putting their boots on the ground in Libya?

One has to understand the issue or reality and not be paper tigers.

Guess why Pakistan's Op Badr in Kargil failed?

It was a brilliant plan, but it missed out on the real issue - logistics and resupply, apart from faking it that it was mujahideens in action!

You should read the diary of the Pak Capt that India retrieved.

It was a sad read!

They were left on a wing and a prayer (to use this very apt terms someone used earlier).

I was there!