The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[FaujHistorian]

You are merely sugar coating.
I said we have fought them before, we have defeated them before. Not once, not twice, repeatedly.

If they choose to fight India, or if India chooses to fight them..they will lose like they always do.

When your cousin fights with you, and you hurt him, chop off his arm, you go home and mourn. you don't jump up and down and say kaat diaa Kaat dia salay ko.

You can always say, cousin! you started it, so I had to fight with you. But in my heart of hearts, i am sad that it came to this. and I am hurting to see you getting hurt.


Peace

 

[Contrarian]

When your cousin fights with you, and you hurt him, chop off his arm, you go home and mourn. you don't jump up and down and say kaat diaa Kaat dia salay ko.

You can always say, cousin! you started it, so I had to fight with you. But in my heart of hearts, i am sad that it came to this. and I am hurting to see you getting hurt.


Peace

Now you made me feel guilty!

 

[MilSpec]

When your cousin fights with you, and you hurt him, chop off his arm, you go home and mourn. you don't jump up and down and say kaat diaa Kaat dia salay ko.

You can always say, cousin! you started it, so I had to fight with you. But in my heart of hearts, i am sad that it came to this. and I am hurting to see you getting hurt.


Peace

Few times in your life some lines you read sticks in your conscience... this is one of those moments.... thanks a ton!!!!

 

[Hellfire]

It is your best decision to date because you try to rationalize speculations.
And since your rhetoric is based on numbers only , you already had your answer.

Wow! What a great rejoinder! So speculations? Really? I don't think you will get any more concrete position than this. My 'rhetoric' is based on numbers ..... exactly: because unlike the 'west' and USSR, which believed technological superiority is paramount - we understand that mountain warfare is a different ballgame where in the axes of any advance/attack are limited due to the terrain itself and maneuvering is sluggish, painfully slow at best. We also understand the need to sanitize the ground by putting more 'numbers' on ground in order to develop operational and intelligence grids which are significantly maneuverable due to the reduction in areas to be covered.

Sir you do not get away by your own rhetoric. The fact of things are what they are!

 

[Hellfire]

All available information states that India is trying to keep up qualitatively with Pakistan while the latter is aiming to match India's quantity with high-tech solutions

All available information which is being spewed out by news agencies which are based on increasing a readership base. Your logical counter is as enunciated by you? My dear sir, I reiterate - numbers a cause of worry in case of two front war. Simple example - AWACS - you also have them and so do we. The difference is that while our AWACS cover whole of Pakistani airspace (and more) you do not cover whole of Indian airspace. So you do not know in real time where exactly an air attack may be generating until its within your coverage area by which time you loose crucial few minutes to react. Especially in the scenario where new and more longer range BVR AAMs are being inducted.
The Indian posturing is with respect to that possibility wherein Pakistan piggy backs on Chinese actions. And do analyze in that context. Because your armed forces do analyze in that scenario (which causes them to rightly analyze in case of the whole of posturing is directed at a particular time specifically on Pakistan and China your "natural BFF" refrains from acting in your support, as is most likely)!

You are right about Muslims can die as easily as others, the difference is for what reason are you ready to die, is it for justice or unjustice. So what I mean, is when they take the decision to fight (after all diplomacy fails) for a just cause they have been very rarely defeated if at all.
Just remember that they have conquered India for centuries, that is an example of boots on the ground if you choose that option, the only difference is that, whenever they have been called upon to reestablish order or to fight injustice in other people's lands, they never splited those lands nor that they've boosted about their might, they had a positive objective to establish justice and call upon wrong people to spouse the right path, and when it was attained, either they left or they were invited to stay, so they never had occupation as an objective, only when muslim land itself was treatened by occupation that they went for occupation too and in the most civilized way humanity has ever known. India itself is but one of those numerous examples.

I see you have taken care of our offensive and defensive formations with this superstrategy of yours. I am all for it. Please tell PA not to waste good money buying all the good gadgets for yourselves and instead use it for Pakistan itself!

The main issue here is about some frontiers definitions, and that is a remanent of European colonialism all over the places they have occupied. So people should get over that and understand that it was done on purpose to ignite wars so that the ex-occupiers can sell arms to both sides of the conflict and hence boost their economies and war machines while weakening everybody else.
If you like to play that game, it means that you didn't undestand the lessons of history.

Hahahaa!! For once I agree with you. I have said it a number of times (and here Vajpayee and Musharraf were pragmatic) - make LC an IB - and move on. We cant and should not be held hostage to Jinnah - Nehru - Gandhi difference of opinions. They had intellectual difference which we are paying for in blood and abject poverty inspite of "freedom".

 

[Secur]

Our approach is very clear. In any case of CBRN usage, India reserves the right (and here the line in our nuclear doctrine is clear) to respond massively to cause unacceptable damage with a weapon of own choice. Means, even a chemical attack on a platoon size unit of IA may result in a massive nuclear strike at targets which have strategic value.
So the risk of escalation is there for Pakistan too.

Its impractical actually to say the least . Because , it is India's turn first to face the dilemma starting the whole thing , in the first place . Because if Pakistani nuclear thresholds are stepped over by Indians crossing the border and implementing the Cold Start and if in any way , the country's existence and integrity is in danger , then the country's strategic forces command will not hesitate - not for a second to lob a nuke or two at the invading troops/IBG's , whilst the rest of SPD gets ready for a massive strategic strike at a " moment's notice " by then , wait for enemies response to turn back or continue and then decide accordingly what to do . Retreat , save a billion or continue , lose a billion , the equation becomes at that time for New Delhi . If your doctrine asks you to endanger the lives of billions of Indians and that of India's existence as a state because a ten to twenty thousand invading troops have been nuked in another country even though your existence and integrity isn't threatened and no red lines have been crossed , nothing can be described as more suicidal . Looks good on paper , but doesn't appear practical/realistic . For the time being , though , the Cold start has gone cold because you remain constrained by your own doctrine . Ironically , the Indian nuclear doctrine of " Massive Retaliation " is contributing to the success of the Pakistani deterrent .

In addition, you are mistaken if you think we will not win. Costs will be tremendous but I assure you, a small CBRN attack at tactical theater will result in a retaliation that shall obliterate your nation (you may do us damage too in return but it shall be lesser and later and too small in comparision).

Can you please enlighten us all , how do you envision any victory in a massive nuclear exchange for your country ? Because the last time I saw , the effects of nuclear weapons aren't limited to ground zero nor are we falling short of warheads ( around 100-120 and ever increasing ) to make sure that the adversary is done-with . Lets read again on Mutually Assured Destruction and the long term effects of nuclear fallout , shall we ?

 

[Bang Galore]

Its impractical actually to say the least . Because , it is India's turn first to face the dilemma starting the whole thing , in the first place . Because if Pakistani nuclear thresholds are stepped over by Indians crossing the border and implementing the Cold Start and if in any way , the country's existence and integrity is in danger , then the country's strategic forces command will not hesitate - not for a second to lob a nuke or two at the invading troops/IBG's , whilst the rest of SPD gets ready for a massive strategic strike at a " moment's notice " by then , wait for enemies response to turn back or continue and then decide accordingly what to do . Retreat , save a billion or continue , lose a billion , the equation becomes at that time for New Delhi . If your doctrine asks you to endanger the lives of billions of Indians and that of India's existence as a state because a ten to twenty thousand invading troops have been nuked in another country even though your existence and integrity isn't threatened and no red lines have been crossed , nothing can be described as more suicidal . Looks good on paper , but doesn't appear practical/realistic . For the time being , though , the Cold start has gone cold because you remain constrained by your own doctrine . Ironically , the Indian nuclear doctrine of " Massive Retaliation " is contributing to the success of the Pakistani deterrent .

Let me point out something more impractical & unrealistic. The notion that India, after facing a nuclear attack, will simply withdraw. Even if your assumption of a massive retaliation being unrealistic is assumed to be correct, retaliation will still follow. It will almost certainly be a retaliatory nuke attack against a substantial Pakistani target. At the minimum.There will never be any scenario where you will come out on top.

 

[SQ8]

There will never be any scenario where you will come out on top.

Just as there will never be any scenario where you come out on top. You are talking about weapons that level entire square kilometers..and then to add further misery.. spread death for ten(if not hundreds) of surrounding miles for years to come.

 

[Secur]

Let me point out something more impractical & unrealistic. The notion that India, after facing a nuclear attack, will simply withdraw. Even if your assumption of a massive retaliation being unrealistic is assumed to be correct, retaliation will still follow. It will almost certainly be a retaliatory nuke attack against a substantial Pakistani target. At the minimum.There will never be any scenario where you will come out on top.

I am not suggesting in any way that any country will come out on top in a nuclear exchange , that gross underestimation of the adversary is what I leave to the Indians - the member I quoted for one . If India doesn't withdraw and strikes a target next , the same nuclear escalation ladder is climbed further and we get closer to MAD , enough to turn an Indian misadventure into a catastrophic disaster . The end result and the equation is same . Which is why the border wont be crossed in the first place , the implication from my post when I said that Indians themselves contribute to the success of Pakistani deterrent by adopting massive retaliation .

 

[Slav Defence]

I am astonished to see this perception assumed by some mindsets that chances of survival are directly proportional to victory ie greater chances of survival for a nation,greater chances of victory.
We must keep in mind that when nations with nuclear capable technology face each other during warfare,there is absolutely no chances of victory,the only term which is discussed here is 'amount of damage impacted'
If we really want to finish this for once and for all,then the best strategy here is to work on cold wars to disarm each other,if anyone of us win to do so,then she will be declared 'victorious'

 

[Alpha1]

In addition, you are mistaken if you think we will not win. Costs will be tremendous but I assure you, a small CBRN attack at tactical theater will result in a retaliation that shall obliterate your nation And its all hot air if you think Indian nukes will come from BARC then be assembelled and so on ............ you need not believe it. No country is that foolish that it does not have its nukes in ready condition.

That simply does not make any sense
a single or some small tactical nuclear bombs subkiloton- 5kt yeild detonated inside our territory against the conventional forces of India that are invading our land
New delhi will not simply risk millions of civilian lives because of the destruction of an/some IBGs

(you may do us damage too in return but it shall be lesser and later and too small in comparision).

what if i told you Pakistan has enough Nuclear arsenal to destroy the infrastructure of India.
Transport, communications , public services
what if i told you 50 detonations of rather trivial 50kt yeild at 50 largest indian cities is all it takes?
you know what , Pakistan's arsenel Is larger than that.
And this is the least you should expect in a full scale nuclear exchange.

 

[Bang Galore]

Just as there will never be any scenario where you come out on top. You are talking about weapons that level entire square kilometers..and then to add further misery.. spread death for ten(if not hundreds) of surrounding miles for years to come.

I'm not the one advocating the use of nuclear weapons. I have always maintained that there are no winners in a war gone nuclear but in the argument that I quoted, there was the suggestion that Pakistan could use nuclear weapons to blunt a shallow Indian attack. Those who use nuke as a quasi-conventional weapons will bear the responsibility of explaining their reasoning. If you use a nuke first only to be damaged badly, supporting reasoning for that use should be made by the persons advocating such a tactic. Whether or not there is damage also caused to the other side, the one starting such an exchange will still be the one responsible for the escalation.

 

[Bang Galore]

I am not suggesting in any way that any country will come out on top in a nuclear exchange , that gross underestimation of the adversary is what I leave to the Indians - the member I quoted for one . If India doesn't withdraw and strikes a target next , the same nuclear escalation ladder is climbed further and we get closer to MAD , enough to turn an Indian misadventure into a catastrophic disaster . The end result and the equation is same . Which is why the border wont be crossed in the first place , the implication from my post when I said that Indians themselves contribute to the success of Pakistani deterrent by adopting massive retaliation .

My point is limited to a hypothetical scenario. You were the one assuming that a rational response expected by you to a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian forces would be for Indian forces to simply withdraw. I pointed out that overwhelming retaliation is not the only Indian option. You also seem to ignore that any Indian attack would have both considered the possibility of a Pakistani nuclear attack on its forces and still moved ahead. The Pakistani nuclear bluff essentially having been called, no planner in Pakistan can discount a readiness of Indian forces to retaliate with nuclear weapons. In such a scenario, another line of logical reasoning would suggest that Pakistani forces be very way of a nuclearisation of the conflict. If Pakistan is not yet in danger of being completely overrun, what logic would put the very existence of the state at risk by using nuclear weapons knowing fully well that such an outcome and a possible response has been factored into the scenario.

That simply does not make any sense
a single or some small tactical nuclear bombs subkiloton- 5kt yeild detonated inside our territory against the conventional forces of India that are invading our land
New delhi will not simply risk millions of civilian lives because of the destruction of an/some IBGs

The minimum response would still be a nuclear response of atleast a similar scale against Pakistani forces. How does that leave Pakistan better placed?

 

[Hellfire]

Its impractical actually to say the least . Because , it is India's turn first to face the dilemma starting the whole thing , in the first place . Because if Pakistani nuclear thresholds are stepped over by Indians crossing the border and implementing the Cold Start and if in any way , the country's existence and integrity is in danger , then the country's strategic forces command will not hesitate - not for a second to lob a nuke or two at the invading troops/IBG's , whilst the rest of SPD gets ready for a massive strategic strike at a " moment's notice " by then , wait for enemies response to turn back or continue and then decide accordingly what to do . Retreat , save a billion or continue , lose a billion , the equation becomes at that time for New Delhi . If your doctrine asks you to endanger the lives of billions of Indians and that of India's existence as a state because a ten to twenty thousand invading troops have been nuked in another country even though your existence and integrity isn't threatened and no red lines have been crossed , nothing can be described as more suicidal . Looks good on paper , but doesn't appear practical/realistic . For the time being , though , the Cold start has gone cold because you remain constrained by your own doctrine . Ironically , the Indian nuclear doctrine of " Massive Retaliation " is contributing to the success of the Pakistani deterrent .

Quite surprised actually at your approach. A feint - the incredulity or ignorance apparent here? If you have read the earlier parts of the thread itself - its a continuation of the fact that the whole notion that Pakistan will employ nuclear weapons at tactical level even on an ingress of 50 kms or thereabouts at multiple points without first conventionally trying to contain/reverse it, is absurd! If so why the hell are you even bothering with smarter and more lethal weapon acquisition? Just build tactical weapons and sit!!!! The whole idea is ridiculous. Either you are at it (the baiting here) for the heck of it or simply too inertia prone to bother to follow it correctly - that's your problem.

Additionally I like your rejoinder. Continue on it. Lob a nuke or two - invite a massive retaliation across the whole front - not at specific target. Employment will be at strategic level forget your field formations. It shall be a strike for targeting your second strike capability too - period. Nothing will be spared. Yes you will be able to lob a few on us too - and that shall cause terrible losses - but the end result is not changed. Wont even bother about your second part.

I am not suggesting in any way that any country will come out on top in a nuclear exchange , that gross underestimation of the adversary is what I leave to the Indians - the member I quoted for one . If India doesn't withdraw and strikes a target next , the same nuclear escalation ladder is climbed further and we get closer to MAD , enough to turn an Indian misadventure into a catastrophic disaster . The end result and the equation is same . Which is why the border wont be crossed in the first place , the implication from my post when I said that Indians themselves contribute to the success of Pakistani deterrent by adopting massive retaliation .

Oh the classical IBG deployment is envisaged in coercive diplomacy - who the hell is even talking about going to full fledged war! Its not since today I have been clarifying it. And the equation stands. The logic stands too - until and unless PA is full of idiots (which I don't think even for a second) and is actually suicidal. If you push things hard - max is India pushes troops for holding some territory which does not allow you to cross nuclear threshold (in sanity atleast) and allows pressure to be mounted to politically solve whatever the pain of the day is - some of your enlightened members have said repetitively (inclusive of your self) of employment of a couple of nukes at tactical level ...... the answer to that has been explained by me ... what India shall do.

 

[Secur]

My point is limited to a hypothetical scenario. You were the one assuming that a rational response expected by you to a Pakistani nuclear attack on Indian forces would be for Indian forces to simply withdraw. I pointed out that overwhelming retaliation is not the only Indian option. You also seem to ignore that any Indian attack would have both considered the possibility of a Pakistani nuclear attack on its forces and still moved ahead. The Pakistani nuclear bluff essentially having been called, no planner in Pakistan can discount a readiness of Indian forces to retaliate with nuclear weapons. In such a scenario, another line of logical reasoning would suggest that Pakistani forces be very way of a nuclearisation of the conflict. If Pakistan is not yet in danger of being completely overrun, what logic would put the very existence of the state at risk by using nuclear weapons knowing fully well that such an outcome and a possible response has been factored into the scenario.

I am quite sure whatever we are discussing here is hypothetical and one that should never happen . I wasn't assuming a rational response from the Indians , hell no , I was just saying that it gives a final warning to the adversary that the " red line " or " threshold(s) " has been crossed/being crossed/in the danger of being crossed and warns them to withdraw , before it all gets to the " Mutually Assured Destruction " , that is something Pakistan places its bet on and something which deters India from crossing the border . Because , if a threshold is to be crossed and the country's existence and integrity is in danger , you cant assume us to play by your rules neither you can assure/guarantee that the Cold Start doesn't cross any thresholds - that is the whole problem in itself . I again pointed out that the retaliation by Indians only result in stepping up on the nuclear escalation ladder and the equation remains the same - we all get closer to MAD . You seem to read too much into the rationality/perfectness of the military planners , I can argue likewise that even Pakistani military planners would have considered the possibility of a counter Indian attack after their initial TNW strike - this Nash equilibrium is no good and not practical since one cant anticipate everything . Well there's no bluff to speak of , in the first place , otherwise the Indians would have crossed it in the previous four close encounters and called it , at least one time , they didn't . Simple thing , the Pakistan Army will only decide to go that way if it cant deter the invasion by conventional means and a threshold is crossed by that , not before . At that time , everything would already be at stake .