What's new

Should Countries with Large Armed Forces look for War?

if we can do that than why not a bit more than that...
ANA can't be trusted with a lot of heavy equipment as many of them tend to defect & heavy equipment may fall into hands of Taliban or other enemies of india

Also Air Force said they cannot spare anymore when new request came from Afghanistan.

Even delivery for 4th Mi -24 is delayed because lack of spares from Russia.


@PARIKRAMA
However I think India has very good chance to provide our Indigenous Arms to afghanistan and test their effectiveness.
We can learn in Afghanistan what we need to improve like Israel did for Merkava in Lebanese conflict.
Our own equipment will be battle tested & can be marketed as so.
At the time if we see actual combat (if any),we will be fully aware of weakness and strength of own indigenous equipment.

Some equipment will need to be manned & secured by India like Tejas,LCH and Akash defence system as you can't trust ANA with these components.

Base in Afghanistan is risky
But we may get find it rewarding if some risk is taken. Also if we give Afghanistan our indigenous equipment we will know where improvement is needed.
 
Neither am I trolling, nor am I stupid. The case of Pakistan sending its soldiers as mercenaries in defence of Arabs was provided as an example of using your military for diplomatic purpose. In response to it I state the truth that Pakistanis are 'kiray ke tattu' for Arabs and are treated as such. You people are treated as expendable meat shield (apart from the fact that a part of your population is more loyal to Saudis than Pakistan) is because Arabs know that you need their money to finance your military as you have non-existent MIC, and you would turn to them for alms if you have war with India (again because you need foreign exchange to buy weapons) hence for them your soldiers are like any other of numerous South-Asian slaves they buy every year to work for them.
sir you are definately mistaken
we sent our militaries and got strategic partnerships
saudis and emirates bailed is in 90s sanctions remember
had it not been them we would have been like north koreans by now
your diplomatic approach is pathetic
i would say again
indians need to realize that other than them
others are also executing theit foreign policy
yes we have not been much succesful
but our diplomacy is also not failure but far from it
Alms , MIC all comes when you get the diplomacy
you mentioning south-asian slaves
kiray k tattu
clearly exhibits your approach
kindly refrain from quoting me again
i m allergic to bullshit
 
Pakistan sending its soldiers as mercenaries

Either your also trolling or don't know the definition of mercenaries are individuals who fight for others based on monetary gains outside the confines of their native State's military forces.

India is no longer in deterrent category
you see India is in expansionism(strategic)
seychelles and multiple listening bases

Strategic expansion is also deterrence.

Deterrence isn't just the act of discouraging an attack on the political confines of the State. But also it's interests. There is a large Indian diaspora across Eastern Africa(Kenya to S. Africa).
 
Coming to India - Can we justify investments just on the basis of deterrence which can be achieved non conventionally? Or should we take baby steps so that the cost of training, risk of expiry of platforms and consumables without usage, salaries etc which are inevitable in such a large armed forces do not form just a sunk portion of our budget with no returns?

Firstly, is this your own write up?


Secondly, for the bold, do you mean to suggest an increment in nuclear/ERWs stockpile? How do you quantify your deterrence without an adequate force structure to enforce it?

The remaining part, you are looking for tangibles where the results are intangible. Need one quote Kautilya on the role of the Mauryan Soldier in the structure of Magadh Empire?


Or can we utilize it to expand our geo-political foot prints in the region. Not straight out territorial gains but to perhaps support and further the regimes favorable to us.

The Indian policy is of soft power projection. However, that requires an adequate capital back up, something that we have begun to now do. This policy has, perhaps, yielded greater dividends than a hard power intervention as can be seen with Indian Foreign Policy successes on multiple fronts.

The approach to each country has to be country specific. In February 2012, Indian Special Forces were put on standby and platforms stationed for immediate military intervention in Maldives when Najeeb Government was toppled. However, unlike last time round, the government thought things out and by 0300 hr the teams were made to stand down and platforms resumed their peacetime orientation.

This mature and pragmatic approach allowed India to keep clear of Maldives as also maintain its influence which would otherwise have been lost.
 
We have large scale aggression by China/Pakistan contained by Nuclear Deterrent.

No, I beg to differ, we have not. There is no reduction in the scope of aggression nor of effort by the enemy states in this scenario. On the contrary, it has allowed the incremental usage of unconventional methods of furthering own interests, as evident from various examples in our own case.

We have merely shifted the scope of conflict from full spectrum to unconventional/covert thereby rendering our conflicts into the arena of 'plausible deniability' and allowing for a pretence of normal diplomatic and political relationships which can be 'managed' if at either time any party is caught in an awkward position.

Incursions can be dealt with by -

Preventive measures like intelligence outposts and regular patrolling by BSF and Army

Large section of army based in fwd bases.

Let's take a look at the Chinese border. ITBP and in case required, regular infantry units are involved in the border management in these areas. As long as the boundary remains unsettled politically, you are left with only two options:

a. Either accept the transgression of your areas by the opposite forces like is prevalent and continue with a tit for tat approach wherein you counter every such move with a move of your own

or

b. You take decisive action to check the enemy.

These are the only two available routes to check the moves of the enemy. You may puts hundreds of troops, but if they are told not to fight, there is nothing much you can do with the enemy

The policy is being amended as till date the remote areas of the border with China did not have any Indian settlements, which is a long term plan that is doing the rounds.


This begs the question -

Are we extracting any strategic gains from the presence of aircrafts, navy, armor outside of deterrence?

My point is not that we should use them and bombard others senselessly but we have seen how agressive positioning and posturing can yield dividends.

If your aim is to fight a war, then yes. There are more points that need to be dealt with on that.

Say we can move couple divisions to XYZ from UP or MP. If that is too much then how about couple of companies as "advisers/trainers"? How about one squadron for air support?

Indian military advisors have been ingrained where strategic objective required them. In Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Masood got Indian military help right from the takeover of Kabul by Taliban.

Cost of such maneuvers is small but benefits are manifold

Again, intangibles. There is no tangible gain. Intangible loss in terms of diplomatic currency and potential negative fallouts are a plenty.

- Could provide much needed A2G experience to our Air-force outside of practice sorties. Last they were used was in Kargil.

Simulators can be set up. C-17s has been set up now in Gurgaon. On the other hand, the costs for logistics (not to mention diplomatic costs) of any combat engagement will be much greater than setting up multiple simulators for training of different troops and organising regular participation in exercises like RED FLAG.

- Could be used to expend ageing ammunition like US did GW

Clearly, you are unaware of how we deal with ageing ammunition. The same is downgraded and converted into training ammunition. Same is for the Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) or the CBRN suits.


- Officers as advisers can test the efficacy of their tactics on how to deal with large scale armed insurgencies/armies

We have the largest pool of combat trained officers in the world along with US and now Pakistan is joining the ranks.

- If we are a part of coalition then it further pays dividends in training.

That is being changed slowly. In Iraq, we had prepared to send our NBC reconnaissance teams just as there was a huge hue and cry in India over impending Indian intervention.

The domestic costs are always high for any government especially the present government which is under flak every day even for taking a hard stand on national security.

I know we are at the middle of the stack when it comes to certain aspects of Modern Warfare. This would be good idea to correct our limitations/flaws in low risk foreign environment instead of getting surprises like in Kargil/65

1965, the political failure of preceding years. Kargil, the failure of the commanders on ground. No other way out of that.

Can you unequivocally say that we can't spare this much?

We don't want to spare this much. Not a question of can't.


But what stops India from providing air support to ANA to kill some talis? You do know it is imperative that not only Afghan Govt survives but consolidates and expands to protect Indian investments. You also know that it better to fight them in Afghanistan than in Kashmir. You also know that we will gain immense goodwill & achieve tangible dividends from Iran and US along with logistical support. All this not for IPKF like venture which was doomed because they were fighting against Tamils hence had negative connotations for internal audience as well leading to sabotage and worse but to fight those who are our "natural enemies"

Direct intervention = direct propaganda for recruitment of cadres for Jihad in Kashmir. Best to stay away. Let them fight their own battles, we must increase our advisory and equipment role to match the threat and work to improve the socio-economic indices over the long haul.

IPKF doomed because of lack of political directives.

They enforced negotiations and elections and cleared Jaffna, as per the only mandates given to them.

There was a lack of clarity whether to enforce bifurcation of the country, integrate the Tamil portion into Indian Tamil Nadu or merely to do peace keeping. The result was RAW was training and arming LTTE and we ended up putting our troops against them

You will agree, till as such time India did not go back on perceived 'promises', LTTE cadre would simply surrender to an IPKF column without firing a bullet?

PS: Only preliminary cursory post. Will keep more.

@Spectre A great topic indeed. Lets thrash it out
 
Last edited:
NO. But the one with large military industrial complex should.

If you have a big MIC, wars are good for you as it generates economic activity and employment for your citizens, allows for testing of new weapons, and dumps about to expire ordinance onto battlefield. Wars brings in money and lead to improvement in tactics and technology ,irrespective of whether you win or lose, if you have a robust MIC. Any win is more of a bonus from that point.

Just having a large army which is depending on foreign supplies is not enough, and example of Pakistan is not a very good one. Pakistan is a 'kiray ka tattu' and is treated as such by Arabs, while US ,Russia ,and to some extent China are respected due to their strength ,because its projection is organic and dependent on overall development rather than willingness to fight others war as mercenaries.

A great point, something that US is reaping benefits from, if one is to go by the literature available on net.

Herein lies the paradox for Indian scenario. While India indeed has a large MIC, the same is underwritten by the GoI. The lack of competitiveness and the assured pay has ensured that the incentive to perform has been systematically eroded. The same has remained a hub for simple license production that too, at times, with dubious results.

For a truly successful MIC, we need to either divest from the existing OFBs and Defence PSUs thereby introducing the classical element of 'perform or perish' as applicable in civil sector, or we need to throw open the defence market to the civil enterprise with license to export items under GoI regulations to friendly countries.

++ Security of maritime assets.

I think these three would be true in case of India

That is already in motion with the naval policy being implemented and integration of elements of infantry on any overseas deployment. However, to my dismay, we have yet to revisit the since shelved proposal to raise dedicated Marine Forces on the lines of US army There was a serious proposal in 2008-09, but due to the dithering of GoI over its maritime security policy, the same has been kept in abeyance. The move would go a long way in power projection in 'IOR & Beyond' (as per GoI directive) and will indeed bolster the efforts of Navy in terms of combat forces available and relive the pressure on MARCOs.

@PARIKRAMA as always, your post was excellent (#3. Reached there only till now.) Your last para summed up the actuality beautifully


Lastly Forces all through have been a very respectable and descent form of employment for youths of our country. with a growing young population and a limited employment scope and benefit in other sections of the industry, the forces service will always be tempting (beyond patriotic point). The economic prosperity and scope of employment options are also needed to help provide alternative career options for our youths as well.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/should-c...med-forces-look-for-war.445590/#ixzz4IDao3oor

Yikes, I don't have positive ratings to give you;)

@Joe Shearer Sir can I draw your attention to post #3 of @PARIKRAMA ?
 
The Armed Forces of a nation serve different ends at different times. The constant being security from external threats so that the nation may remain secure & progress.

This is the first requirement the Armed forces fill.

Besides this, are those dealt with in Post #1 & some more. To answer the question the title poses - No, nations should not look for war. However, they must not shy away from one when all else fails.

Once war is forced , it has to be carried into enemy land. Here beings the discussion on how much is enough. The factors that would help to decide would include :

a) Size & capabilities of immediate threats.
b) National aim , this includes the kind of damage it would like to inflict upon an adversary & the end state which is desired to be achieved.
c) Potential threats.
d) Need to establish presence in a nation's Area of interest to preclude an ' outsider' gaining a foothold in your Area of Interest.
e) Need and necessity to maintain a strong deterrence posture & retaliatory capability.

The Armed forces need to have abilities for a short sharp war / conflict where unacceptable harm is done to an adversary & retain the ability for a long slugging match.

Here adds to the picture things like the economic capabilities, production capabilities & so on. Ideally, a short sharp war should be looked at to indicate & enforce the national will. However if the push comes to a shove a long drawn out war must be within capabilities. Here besides the AF , the Navy plays a major role to choke the enemy whilst causing unacceptable attrition.

Add to all of the above the fourth dimension- Diplomacy. This has to be in sync with the national will & prepare the world for what is to follow so that the national view is known & accepted .

@Spectre
 
The same is downgraded and converted into training ammunition. Same is for the Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) or the CBRN suits.

What proportion is used as training ammo? Remember we have have huge stocks, not possible to use even 50% as training material. Rest are disposed off (sometimes dangerously w/o following protocol). Often times neither re-purposing or disposal takes place leading to situations where we have fires in our depots due to deteriorating nature of unstable expired stocks.

I dont disagree as such with the rest of your post, it is the matter of opinion and perception. Response would take considerable time so may be later tonight.
 
Last edited:
War shouldn't be taken likely. You can win a thousand wars, but all it takes is one war to lose everything.
 
The most critical component of modern military power is undisputedly air power. Instead of enhancing our airpower, our air force is perilously down from the sanctioned strength. We as country are plagued by a fleet of old aircrafts and modernization plans which are slow. The grim reminders of acquisition like MMRCA to delay in LCA program to helos fleet are already there.

In a conventional role, indeed holds true, and nothing could be more perilous than the present state of affairs in IAF. But for the context of the thread, armed drones will significantly increase the effectiveness in force projection as also enable battle space domination. I, of course, include the increasing absorption of Harpy and Harop UCAVs in Indian ORBAT and war fighting doctrines.


Air power alone, however, can pave way for victory in such conflicts.

The good general has a tendency to go overboard at times with such kind of assertions. Air power is practically useless against dispersed forces in a mountainous terrain. However, this statement can be taken in the context of your assertions above as mentioned.

Innovative strategies in land conflicts will require
India to exploit the operational manoeuvre from the sea.

Will somebody please tell me what is actually meant by the underlined and bold portion? It is a rage in any fora and any publication by the forces. What is the quantifiable yardstick for the same?

At best, an ambiguity, I would say. Maybe a more suave term for adaptability to situation?

A beach assault can only proceed on specified parameters which are same for every amphibious assault. Difference comes not in innovation or 'manoeuver' but in plain and simple terms - the quantum of force one can apply to establish a beach head and consolidate to launch offensive ops into depth area with adequate force structure intact from there under fire.

In domain of the bold portion, even Pakistan has appreciated the viability of a possible amphibious assault especially in light of the RAMFOR being touted, indeed on this very forum.

What is essential, is for a pragmatic appreciation of the force structure and capability to undertake the said Ops ( minimum a division sized force will be required to make an effective amphibious assault a success). Such a scenario can only be assured with relative to complete air superiority being ensured either by CBG in support of the amphibious assault with its inherent air element in conjunction with the AAD component of both the CBG and the assault forces, or by the Air Force/Missile Regiments.


I for one will infact love to see a proper 5 CBG formation and placement of CBGs in different spheres of IOR. Like one in Seychelles - - Iran route, One in Andaman to Vietnam route. One in Arabian Sea and One in Bay of Bengal. but having such needs of power projection is cost intensive as well.

Nail on the head!!!! MoD just wet their pants reading your post here!!!!;)

A cheaper but really good way can be using Rashtriya Rifles and deploying them in Afghanistan. They are tailor made folks for Counter Insurgency and Counter Terrorism ops. Also deploy them in Naxalite zones for irregular warfare experience.

I disagree here. RR are required to keep the grid intact in valley. Instead, a leaf can be taken out of the SHBO teams which Indian Army has evolved and the same can either be replicated and given to SFF units (VIKAS regiments) or a combination of troops of LADAKH SCOUTS and SFF.

I am totally against deployment of any armed forces in anti-naxalite ops. You maybe aware that peacetime Infantry units in rotation head to the area for training the personnel of CAPFs.



Deploy such battalions near Myanmar border and see how they take out NSCNs.

AR is doing an excellent job. SFs and ghataks of regular units as also the MOSTs are doing adequately well.

A CAS mission by IAF for Afghanistan bound RRs providing Laser designation for MKI and Jags bombarding would have been awesome. Send in a small flotilla of just 6-8 aircrafts + helos to be stationed in Afghanistan. Heck better send Tejas there for getting best exposure.. and the experience we gain is mind boggling. Deploy Akash SAM and lets do some precision guided bombings at such locations for helping Afghanistan and we do a big force projections..

You do know the practicality of these suggestions.;) Air assets at Ayani in Tajikistan have been discussed earlier in the forum.

The annual live fire exercise is actually more of a demonstration.. Lets do it in Afghanistan for Afghanistan and our force projection will change overnight..

How true!

But be ready for repercussions as well..

Yes.....!Exactly
 
Last edited:
What proportion is used as training ammo? Remember we have have huge stocks, not possible to use even 50% as training material. Rest are disposed off (sometimes dangerously w/o following protocol). Often times neither re-purposing or disposal takes place leading to situations where we have fires in our depots due to deteriorating nature of unstable expired stocks.


Yeah .. long discussions ..

What proportion ... won't discuss. Your contention as bold, reasons of why won't be discussed. But there is a logic for the same.

This, I don't see why we can't send a squadron of Su-30 to Afghanistan, along with enough troops and armor to secure the base from hostile elements.

What benefits from the same?
 
Two points

- They dont need to be based in Afghan. That is the beauty of Afghanistan. There are neighboring countries who are friendly to us which would provide us bases.

Incorrect. Iran wont allow. Tajikistan - Russia wont allow.

Repercussions of not doing it is that we face them in Kashmir - next decade or so. Better to fight them and kill them in their homes. If some survive, they would be busy fighting ANA and IA

That is why Pakistan has to be engaged. They are doing a great job in FATA et al. The moment you induct troops, it becomes the takfiri narrative of kafir versus the mussalman

@Roybot - We can use Iran as a base. Russia is doing so for Syria, Iranians are against Talis so why not?

Dealt earlier
 
What benefits from the same?

Supporting ANA against the Taliban, strengthening the Afghan Government's rule. Securing our current and future investments in Afghanistan. Giving the PAF one more thing to worry about. Keeping the Chinese naval assets in Gwadar covered.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom