Killing India’s hidden ‘Cold Start’ strategy

[Patriot]

Cold Start will be history once our Air Force is 60% BVR equipped .

 

[Pagla Dashu]

To me, this 'cold start' doctrine is probably India's most successful psyops against Pakistan. And, as Vassnti said, a perfect Loch Ness monster.

 

[Toshiba]

By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.

Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.

By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.

y cant be sure wat is waiting u,specially when u.s is there

Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.

will love 2 c the toll

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

That is very wrong way of looking at it...Of course one should listen to the Army however the final authority should be in the hands of Civilian govt.

lol, very wrong way.

to some extent but no you are WRONG. if army was in control in vietnam and allowed full force to be used excluding nuclear weapons u.s. would not have have been engaged in decade plus war.

If we go by what Armed forces say then US will not pull out from AF for another 10 years. Do you think that is right decision???As per news around Kargil, that plan was rejected by then PM Mrs Bhutto but the moment Army got its say a blunder like Kargil was tried.

you lost kargil. what constitutes winning to you people? reclaiming most but not all of your land.

how much damage it caused the little we talk better it is....In short Army way of dealing with issue is by Iron hand which may or may not be right. Thus final authority should lie with democratic set-up where there are many check and balances

lol, what are you talking about? military knows best in times of war. do you not understand the scope of the question and reasoning?

the commanders on the ground know better than anybody else.

 

[Areesh]

Now after cold start we are taking lectures on democrazy from the Bharatis. Lolzzz

 

[third eye]

In our case, the government listening to the military when it comes to dealing with India. Unfortunately our political leaders are a bunch of morons when it comes to dealing with India, so as a Pakistani i have 100% faith in my Army and believe they can protect our interests better than any politicians.

It is interesting to see people feel thus.

Each time Pak has had to face disaster / embarrassment ( Kargil) there was a General either at the root of it or at the helm ( 65 & 71).

The old cliched phrase of the PA having a nation and not the nation having PA comes to mind.

What about when not dealing with India ?

To quote Clemenceau the french PM in early 1900's " War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men."

 

[Pagla Dashu]

you lost kargil. what constitutes winning to you people? reclaiming most but not all of your land.

And what constitutes winning to you people? Loosing most and holding an insignificant part of land.

 

[gubbi]

lol, very wrong way.
to some extent but no you are WRONG. if army was in control in vietnam and allowed full force to be used excluding nuclear weapons u.s. would not have have been engaged in decade plus war.

Fact: More bombs were dropped in Vietnam by US than any other wars in history, till then, combined! There. And yet, US lost the war. You are wrong about your assessment.

you lost kargil. what constitutes winning to you people? reclaiming most but not all of your land.

What were the objectives of this conflict? What were Pakistan's objectives and what were India's objectives - that includes both military and political. Which one of the belligerents failed to meet almost all of their objectives and which one managed to meet most of the objectives. The one that managed to meet the objectives won the conflict.
So, you are yet again wrong.

lol, what are you talking about? military knows best in times of war. do you not understand the scope of the question and reasoning?
the commanders on the ground know better than anybody else.

Wrong again. Military and war are just one of the options to further or achieve political and diplomatic objectives. Without a clear political and military objective, any kind of war is a waste of important resources. That being said, military commanders are trained to fight. What they do on the battlefield is best left to them. However, the political bosses are the ones who know how to use military to achieve whatever objectives they set.

You need to educate yourself about many things, my friend.

Why India don't just publicly, disavow the "Cold Start Doctrine" -- The Indian claims range from there is no such a thing to it does not work - what's clear is the US is not buying this -- and really, if it's a dog, why not just publicly disavow "Cold Start"?

Cold Start? Who dat? He my baby daddy -- kidding aside, I don't think I understand what the block is with disavowing it - what am I missing?

A lot Muse. The political bosses in India are giving the military leaders some room to make certain comments publicly. Those comments and all this noise about "Cold Start Doctrine" is achieving the desired effect, in that the Pakistani military establishment is on tenterhooks! That method of confusing the enemy and frustrating him and sapping the morale and resources is akin to a victory without ever having to fire a shot. Sun Tzu's Art of War 101.

So you tell me, why should India acknowledge or deny the existence of CSD, when this ambiguity works perfectly in its favor?

 

[CONNAN]

By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.

Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.

isn't the JF 17 supposed to replace the old F 7's

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

Fact: More bombs were dropped in Vietnam by US than any other wars in history, till then, combined! There. And yet, US lost the war. You are wrong about your assessment.

Provide source for this. If you are not lying this is what the non-military leaders thought. Drop more bombs and that will win the war instead of listening to the commanders on the ground.

Its not suprising you weren't quick enough to realize this.

What were the objectives of this conflict? What were Pakistan's objectives and what were India's objectives - that includes both military and political. Which one of the belligerents failed to meet almost all of their objectives and which one managed to meet most of the objectives. The one that managed to meet the objectives won the conflict.
So, you are yet again wrong.

Yes, you lose part of "your land" but still cosider it a win. How simple minded.

Wrong again. Military and war are just one of the options to further or achieve political and diplomatic objectives. Without a clear political and military objective, any kind of war is a waste of important resources. That being said, military commanders are trained to fight. What they do on the battlefield is best left to them. However, the political bosses are the ones who know how to use military to achieve whatever objectives they set.

You need to educate yourself about many things, my friend.

Military decisions in a time of war need to be left to the commanders on the ground. Apparently, you cannot even conjecture the mistakes of previous wars.

You, my friend need to get a GED.

 

[Markus]

On one hand there is an argument that Indian cold start is Frozen DOA (Dead on Arrival) and on the other hand, a contrast argument is given Pakistan feels threatened bcoz of the Indian cold start doctrine and talks of using tactical weapons on Indian IBG's.

Opposite views?

 

[gubbi]

Provide source for this. If you are not lying this is what the non-military leaders thought. Drop more bombs and that will win the war instead of listening to the commanders on the ground.

Do you think any political leader would give orders to a military commander to drop more bombs to win a war?

Total tonnage of munitions dropped in Vietnam.

An errata from my previous post: Tonnage of munitions dropped were 3 1/2 times that of WWII, and not of entire wars in history. I misread a report long time back.

Yes, you lose part of "your land" but still cosider it a win. How simple minded.

Are you for real? Pakistan wanted to internationalize Kashmir issue, yet again, but lost the military conflict and subsequently lost face in international diplomatic circles. Clearly, you dont understand the intricacies of war and diplomacy. They are but two sides of a multifaceted polyhedron. One cannot separate one from the other. I rest my case.

Military decisions in a time of war need to be left to the commanders on the ground.

On the field, yes. You are right about that. However, the political bosses dictate when to start or stop a war, based on what objectives need to be met.

 

[gubbi]

On one hand there is an argument that Indian cold start is Frozen DOA (Dead on Arrival) and on the other hand, a contrast argument is given Pakistan feels threatened bcoz of the Indian cold start doctrine and talks of using tactical weapons on Indian IBG's.

Opposite views?

Confusion in the enemy camp.
Nice.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

Are you for real? Pakistan wanted to internationalize Kashmir issue, yet again, but lost the military conflict and subsequently lost face in international diplomatic circles. Clearly, you dont understand the intricacies of war and diplomacy. They are but two sides of a multifaceted cube. One cannot separate one from the other. I rest my case.

Oh my, what a clever way to state you won Kargil. I bet you also think you won the war in 1947 too.

 

[prototype]

For Cold start,India need extensive superiority in Air...though IAF looking stronger than PAF,there is no way by which IAF would cripple PAF in less than 20/25 days...and by then,Indian cold-start would be resting in peace..!!
Right now,India is in no position to practice so called cold-start doctrine..!! IAF atleast need 10 more squadrons for implementing cold-start on Pakistan..!!

By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.

Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.

u r not the only force which is undergoing modernization,ur force really look dismal when our modernization will, b complete

300 FGFA's,120-200 MRCA's,250 LCA mk-2's,10 Globemaster's,6 Phalcon Awacs,24 DRDO AEWs,272 MKi's,45 MRTA, 6 C-130J Super Hercules and many more

Almost all fighters are BVR capable so that is no big deal

the stats itself support India's cold start doctrine,otherwise India dont have ordered that much transport aircrafts,that to strategic airlifters's(globe master),if India have something like cold start in their mind,it had not ended,it had only started