What's new

Killing India’s hidden ‘Cold Start’ strategy

I agree that most of your post consists of facts which are undeniable, yet it does not cover all points of views hence it is incomplete. What looks like a six to you may look like a nine to me. Both of us may be correct simeltaneously.

I believe that this is a decent post that deserves a response.



Things may have changed for India but for Pakistan not much has changed. The injustices of the Radcliffe award meant that Pakistan was a born a crippled state. Many including Prime Minister Nehru did not expect that we would survive, but we did. We did so by by becomming relevant to the United States of America. As we are becomming more relevant we are becomming more powerful. India on the other hand was born with economic and military superiority, no one ever doubted India's survival. The portions in bold clearly show that you admit that India's phathetic position is due to its own incorrect descisions . Pakistan's action were the requirement of a economically and military crippled state trying to survive in a hostile environment.



This is our strength not our weakness. Your politicians are just as useless as ours. At least we have some means to check them in Pakistan.



This a deliberately created misconception. The fact is that as of today India is not a global power US and China are. Pakistan through minimum effort has so far neutralized India's effort to become a global Power and both the US an d China have helped us do this. On the other hand we are becomming more and more relevant to the real super powers US and China. India is hence depent on its own resource being managed by own currupt leaders. Pakistan on the other hand due to it's strategic importance has the support of the Super Powers hence it is able to do better than India. Just wait for the winter season, more people will die of cold in India as compared to Pakistan who then is doing better??

You cant be more incorrect than that possibly about india and pakistan's relative importance to the world and about india and pakistani growth rate.

Secondly , yes India is not a global power yet and china is. However you can never equate USA's clout with china for atleast next 20 years.

Usa is a superpower and china is just an important global power , there is a difference.
 
No need to worry.

The both subcontinental armies are incapable of launching offensives into each other's terrirtories using armoured and infantry formations on the lines of the great GERMAN WEHRMACHT or the RED ARMY.

The officer corps of both armies do not have officers capable enough to plan and coordinate such complex offensive actions deep inside enemy territory.

These two armies can never ever conduct BLITZKRIEG (germany) or DEEP OPERATIONS (Red Army) like tactics.

On paper, they may have hundreds of thousand of troops and thousands of tanks but they can never transform into the infamous PANZER ARMIES or TANK ARMIES which took part in the greatest military conflict of human history.
 
Apart from nationalistic/patriotic propaganda bullshit written in official histories of both countries; an objective analysis of the 1965 war is nothing but a comedy of errors on both sides.

The only debate is which side commited more blunders than the other.

This situation will not change in the future and in the presense of nuclear weapons, these brain farts by some generals who hallucinate themselves to be the REINCARNATION of MANSTEIN, GUDERIAN or ZHUKOV will never be practiced in the battlefield.
 
You cant be more incorrect than that possibly about india and pakistan's relative importance to the world and about india and pakistani growth rate.

Secondly , yes India is not a global power yet and china is. However you can never equate USA's clout with china for atleast next 20 years.

Usa is a superpower and china is just an important global power , there is a difference.

I respect your point of view and your patriotism.

However the truth is that from a global prespective India's importance is primarily economic in nature hence if the global comunity does not have ties with India there are financial implications.

Links with Pakistan on the other hand are vital for peace and stability of the whole world. The primary concern of the world today is terrorism and in this context Pakistan is far more relevant than India. It is Pakistan's strategic location and importance in the war against terror which gives us the edge.

As far as India is concerned as long as it cannot sort out matters with Pakistan it can never claim to be a global power.
 
I respect your point of view and your patriotism.

However the truth is that from a global prespective India's importance is primarily economic in nature hence if the global comunity does not have ties with India there are financial implications.

Links with Pakistan on the other hand are vital for peace and stability of the whole world. The primary concern of the world today is terrorism and in this context Pakistan is far more relevant than India. It is Pakistan's strategic location and importance in the war against terror which gives us the edge.

As far as India is concerned as long as it cannot sort out matters with Pakistan it can never claim to be a global power.

I too respect your patriotic fervour .

1.However what you don't realize is that Pakistan's importance to the developed world is only till the time they are in Afghanistan , i think strategic thinkers even in Pakistan agree to this , that once these guys are out of afghanistan in another 4 years , Pakistan will lose much of its importance.

2. Economic importance is much stronger and much more long term compared with security importance.

3. This is a part of the world where the developed world has seldom any allies , which means to them this massive country with a fast growing economy is more important for them as an ally as they know friendship with the west does not have public support in Pakistan.

4. To counter chinese monopoly and possible hegemony in the future ,a strong india is very important not only for the west but for other south east asian countries like japan , south korea , phillipines , vietnam as well. Pakistan doesn't figure anywhere here .

5. You are wrong , terrorism is not the prime concern of the world today , economics is and will remain so for the foreseeable future even if you dont hear about it in the news as much as you do about terrorism because economics is boring.There India is wayyy more important .

6.Even in terms of the terror problem , Pakistan will be important mainly till the NATO is in Afghanistan .In the longer term , India is a more important ally against terror as we have an impeccable record in fighting against terror while Pakistan's record is shaky at best to the rest of the world.

7. Had Pakistan been so important western leaders would not have come to India ignoring Pakistan , called Pakistan a terror exporting country , ignored Kashmir and called India a global power .

8. About your statement in bold , you are grossly overestimating yourself . Whether India can become a global power or not depends solely on India's pace of future economic and military growth and thats about IT.No connection to Pakistan.

P.s- i think we are going off topic
 
India Importance versis Pakistan was demonstrated last WEEK when the USA president leader of the greatest nation on EARTH completely ignored Pakistan and went on a state visit pumping promoting indo usa 21st century strategic alliance in New Delhi and Mumbai.

Simply being located next to a haven of terrorist border does not give you global clout or importance.

In the 2000+ years that man kind has exsited the single most important/constant measure of national strength HAS AND ALWAYS will be your economic might. From the Roman empire to the british empire to USA since 1940 THE MIGHT of industrial strength has given you global voice and clout.

India is a top 11 industrial power and the second fastest G20 nation in terms of annually growth. This is why Barack obama took the trouble to come to woo india.

Pakistan is not apart of the G20 brics nations or a future great economic power. This is why they never get invited to global business functions which shape the future world order.
 
I agree with WAFFEN to a lesser extent re South Asian Armies in ability to plan and excute a major invasion or conquest.

You only have to look at the mayhem with 26/11 attack in mumbai to evidence this.

As for Pakistan planning any major war they cant even keep a real elected GOVT in power for 5 mins and have their generals and secret service controlling national policy for 60 years. The country is in a constant state of war with each other.

You cannot compare a developing country ability to fight a major war with a first rate/world power like germany uk or USA..

THE ONLY TIME there has been a clear plan and good execution of a military assault was in 1971 when under indri ghandi India invaded EAST PAKISTAN and created a seperate state inside 12 days. Pakistan could nt prevent this.

All other attempts to win wars have been stalements in leaderless style planning. #
Even Kargil was a FARCE " wat was mushraff thinking would happen" he gave no thought to india,s response, or the worlds atitude towards Pakistan. As for india vancy abandoning your bunkers for 3 months. How stupid and pathetic.
 
I too respect your patriotic fervour .

1.However what you don't realize is that Pakistan's importance to the developed world is only till the time they are in Afghanistan , i think strategic thinkers even in Pakistan agree to this , that once these guys are out of afghanistan in another 4 years , Pakistan will lose much of its importance.

2. Economic importance is much stronger and much more long term compared with security importance.

3. This is a part of the world where the developed world has seldom any allies , which means to them this massive country with a fast growing economy is more important for them as an ally as they know friendship with the west does not have public support in Pakistan.

4. To counter chinese monopoly and possible hegemony in the future ,a strong india is very important not only for the west but for other south east asian countries like japan , south korea , phillipines , vietnam as well. Pakistan doesn't figure anywhere here .

5. You are wrong , terrorism is not the prime concern of the world today , economics is and will remain so for the foreseeable future even if you dont hear about it in the news as much as you do about terrorism because economics is boring.There India is wayyy more important .

6.Even in terms of the terror problem , Pakistan will be important mainly till the NATO is in Afghanistan .In the longer term , India is a more important ally against terror as we have an impeccable record in fighting against terror while Pakistan's record is shaky at best to the rest of the world.

7. Had Pakistan been so important western leaders would not have come to India ignoring Pakistan , called Pakistan a terror exporting country , ignored Kashmir and called India a global power .

8. About your statement in bold , you are grossly overestimating yourself . Whether India can become a global power or not depends solely on India's pace of future economic and military growth and thats about IT.No connection to Pakistan.

P.s- i think we are going off topic

I only agree with the portion in bold
 
It does not only matter how many types of weapons you have, but their quantity also matters. Your ability to buy enough weapons if war is extended also matter and it matters more then just having weapons.
 
Is this thread still going, some people on this thread are mind-numbingly tedious, in conclusion, The Pakistani Armed Forces are flexible enough, and with their Army, Air-force, Navy being modernised with US, Chinese and others assistance = and have enough assets to blunt whatever dastardly plans the indians have.

END OF:).
 
As for india vancy abandoning your bunkers for 3 months. How stupid and pathetic.

India did not abandon their posts. It was in fact common for both country's to leave forward posts and retreat to other posts due to severe weather conditions. This is when the incursion occurred. However I do agree that this was a mistake and I would think that GoI and the Indian defence forces have learnt from their mistakes. Anything done to avoid war is a good thing in my books.
 
Here's the text of current US ambassador to india Tim Roemer's cable regarding Cold Start from wikileak.

He's basically saying that India cannot do it and pakistani army knows that Cold Start is not going to happen. He is also subtly pointing out that Manmohan singh may have delayed operationalizing Cold Start after the momentum it got under NDA rule.

Roemer also says that if India did not do it after 26/11, then US can be sure that India will not do it ever. Plus, despite pakistan army's whining about Cold Start, they would not have done 26/11 if they were worried about Cold Start.

1. (S/NF) Summary: The Indian Army's "Cold Start Doctrine" is a mixture of myth and reality. It has never been and may never be put to use on a battlefield because of substantial and serious resource constraints, but it is a developed operational attack plan announced in 2004 and intended to be taken off the shelf and implemented within a 72-hour period during a crisis. Cold Start is not a plan for a comprehensive invasion and occupation of Pakistan. Instead, it calls for a rapid, time- and distance-limited penetration into Pakistani territory with the goal of quickly punishing Pakistan, possibly in response to a Pakistan-linked terrorist attack in India, without threatening the survival of the Pakistani state or provoking a nuclear response. It was announced by the BJP-led government in 2004, but the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has not publicly embraced Cold Start and GOI uncertainty over Pakistani nuclear restraint may inhibit future implementation by any government. If the GOI were to implement Cold Start given present Indian military capabilities, it is the collective judgment of the Mission that India would encounter mixed results. The GOI failed to implement Cold Start in the wake of the audacious November 2008 Pakistan-linked terror attack in Mumbai, which calls into question the willingness of the GOI to implement Cold Start in any form and thus roll the nuclear dice. At the same time, the existence of the plan reassures the Indian public and may provide some limited deterrent effect on Pakistan. Taken together, these factors underline that the value of the doctrine to the GOI may lie more in the plan's existence than in any real world application. End Summary.

What It Is and What It Is Not

-----------------------------

2. (S/NF) As we understand it, Cold Start is an operational plan devised by the Indian Army and designed to make a rapid and limited penetration into Pakistani territory with the goal of quickly punishing Pakistan over some event, such as a Pakistan-linked terrorist attack in India, without threatening the survival of the Pakistani state or provoking a nuclear response. Cold Start is not a plan for the comprehensive invasion or occupation of Pakistan. Cold Start is said to have been formulated after the Indian Army's slow and drawn-out 2002 mobilization in response to the fatal 2001 Pakistan-linked terror attack on the Indian Parliament. The lengthy process of mobilization, lack of strategic and operational flexibility, and the resulting lack of any element of surprise drew criticism from Indian politicians and opinion leaders, which prompted Indian Army planners to devise Cold Start. (See Reftel for further details on Cold Start's genesis).

3. (S/NF) In order to avoid the Indian Army's slow and lumbering military mobilization process and preserve the element of surprise in attack, Cold Start attacks could begin within 72 hours after the attack order has been given, and would be led by armored spearheads launched from prepared forward positions in Punjab and Rajasthan. As described, the plan emphasizes speed and overwhelming firepower: armored formations and accompanying infantry would advance into eastern Pakistan with limited goals in terms of distance and in terms of duration. Although the plan reportedly has a significant air support component, it is unclear to us how much joint versus parallel planning has taken place. We have not heard of a major operational role for the Indian Navy or parallel sea-launched attacks. (Reftel provides further analysis of the military aspects of Cold Start doctrine and implementation).

4. (S/NF) A positive attribute of Cold Start from the Indian perspective is that the short 72-hour time period between decision and attack could shield the GOI from international pressure to refrain from taking military action against Pakistan. India's prolonged 2002 mobilization period gave the international community notice of Indian troop movements and allowed plenty of time for a series of Western interlocutors to lobby GOI leaders. Even if the plan is never actually implemented -- and there is considerable question as to GOI intent to ever implement it -- news of Cold Start's existence has already paid dividends to Indian policymakers by providing reassurance to the Indian public that the GOI has the means to punish Pakistan for attacks on Indian soil without triggering potential mutually-assured nuclear destruction. From the Indian perspective, the unimplemented plan has the added virtue of accentuating Pakistani discomfiture and angst, which in theory may have some deterrent value.

Prospects for Cold Start

------------------------

5. (S/NF) As noted above, GOI intent to ever actually implement Cold Start is very much an open question. The Cold Start doctrine was announced in April 2004 by the BJP-led government that was replaced shortly thereafter by the Manmohan Singh government, which has not since publicly embraced Cold Start. A political green-light to implement Cold Start, fraught as it is with potential nuclear consequences, would involve a highly opaque decision-making process and would likely necessitate broad political consensus, a factor that could prolong the time between a precipitating event such as a Pakistan-linked terror attack and Cold Start deployment (which in turn could reduce the element of surprise). We lack firm details of the decision-making process that the political leadership would use in the event of an incident that would trigger consideration of Cold Start or other military action against Pakistan. The precise function of the Cabinet Committee on Security in ratifying decisions to take military action, the character of the military's advisory responsibilities to the Cabinet, the possible ad hoc nature of decision-making in the upper levels of the Indian government and the role of Congress Party figures like Sonia Gandhi in this process are not clearly understood.

6. (S/NF) If the GOI were to implement Cold Start given present Indian military capabilities, it is the collective judgment of the Mission that India would likely encounter very mixed results. Indian forces could have significant problems consolidating initial gains due to logistical difficulties and slow reinforcement. Reftel sets forth in detail the various resource challenges that India would have to overcome, challenges that range from road and rail transportation to ammunition supply. In addition, Cold Start's reliance on swift mobile advance would have to contend with a large number of built-up populated areas in Pakistan that the Indian Army did not have to face in 1971, the last time it advanced in force into Pakistani Punjab and Sindh.

7. (S/NF) Indian leaders no doubt realize that, although Cold Start is designed to punish Pakistan in a limited manner without triggering a nuclear response, they can not be sure whether Pakistani leaders will in fact refrain from such a response. Even in the absence of a Pakistani nuclear response, GOI leaders are aware also that even a limited Indian incursion into Pakistan will likely lead to international condemnation of Indian action and a resulting loss of the moral high ground that GOI leaders believe India enjoys in its contentious relationship with Pakistan.

Comment

-------

8. (S/NF) We think that the November 2008 Pakistan-linked terror attack in Mumbai and its immediate aftermath provide insight into Indian and Pakistani thinking on Cold Start. First, the GOI refrained from implementing Cold Start even after an attack as audacious and bloody as the Mumbai attack, which calls into serious question the GOI's willingness to actually adopt the Cold Start option. Second, the Pakistanis have known about Cold Start since 2004, but this knowledge does not seem to have prompted them to prevent terror attacks against India to extent such attacks could be controlled. This fact calls into question Cold Start's ability to deter Pakistani mischief inside India. Even more so, it calls into question the degree of sincerity of fear over Cold Start as expressed by Pakistani military leaders to USG officials. Cold Start is not India's only or preferred option after a terrorist attack. Depending on the nature, location, lethality, public response, and timing of a terrorist attack, India might not respond at all or could pursue one of several other possible options. Finally, several very high level GOI officials have firmly stated, when asked directly about their support for Cold Start, that they have never endorsed, supported, or advocated for this doctrine. One of these officials is former National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, who has recently been replaced. While the army may remain committed to the goals of the doctrine, political support is less clear. ROEMER
 
apun to bus ye kahe ga k Pakistan or hindustan dono bum mar kar aik doose ko tabah kardo, then adha continent china k pas, adha roos, adha america or adha arab/ iran kha jayenge...
thats good for us..
 
apun to bus ye kahe ga k Pakistan or hindustan dono bum mar kar aik doose ko tabah kardo, then adha continent china k pas, adha roos, adha america or adha arab/ iran kha jayenge...
thats good for us..

Hum to nahi shuru karenge, aur na hi apni aabroo jaane denge.
Hum bhi rahenge aur hamaara Hindustan bhi rahega.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom