The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Joe Shearer]

I deeply appreciate this post, even though I believe so strongly that we are a peaceful nation that has been let down again and again by our neighbours.

I am here because I hope - I had hoped - to build bridges between well-meaning people and the well-intentioned on both sides; it was not a direct trip, but through Adil Najm's All Things Pakistan and Raza Rumi's PakTeaHouse. I know that there are millions of us who want peace with Pakistan, but not peace at the point of a gun in Pakistani hands, which is what is on offer at the moment. And not peace on unacceptable terms as the only alternative to nuclear holocaust. I also have proof, in several dear friends, none of whom I have ever met in the flesh, that goodwill exists on both sides.

Where do we go from here? As an atheist, I can only say,"Providence has the answer."

 

[Hellfire]

please elaborate your statement

With reference to previous posts and subsequently quoted post. When I say there is nothing known as a tactical nuclear weapon - I mean exactly that. What do you imply by a tactical or strategic nuclear weapon? I have never ever understood the concept that so called experts have applied here (and someone was wanting to give me classes on Nuclear Warfare a couple of posts back - thanks a tonne for the offer) as the simple premise of being able to deploy a nuclear weapon at a 'tactical' level and not inviting a retaliation which will be at a 'strategic' level is flawed in view of the declared nuclear weapons employment policy as enunciated by all the nuclear countries. The only distinction in using a tactical/strategic is being made by countries which have not declared a no first use policy namely Pakistan and China. Either they are daft to think that retaliation will not come or pure psycho-delusive. In either case, they are wrong if this is the premise the rely on. In any case, a 'tactical' nuclear deployment has highest probability to invite a 'strategic' retaliation. So its an absurd concept at best in all politeness.

Additionally, when you consider the density of population in Indian subcontinent - a low yield nuclear device of sub-kiloton yield will cause long term radioactive fallout with additional impact on local population some distances off. So you will be quite wrong on assuming Pakistan can get away with an isolated strike on any hypothetically advancing IBG. Remember my posts have been in response to some member of Pakistan here suggesting a tactical strike PA on advancing IBG. Again I along with a few other members have highlighted the aim of IBG to be to hold ground of say 40-50 kms in depth in multiple points to force a diplomatic solution to problem of the day. I am sure you shall agree that even in a conventional war scenario, a breach and a breakout at a division level will, in best case be limited to max 50 kms before PA able to check it by getting additionally reinforcements. So the scenario that PA will strike with nuclear warhead is absurd and that's what I said and the whole response is with respect to persistence that PA will still strike.

Additionally with declared US intents to 'secure' Pakistani nuclear weapons in case of conditions deteriorating in sub-continent, and Russia also indicating same, situation I slightly more complex. In either case our response will be on premise that if you use once - you may use second time. So upon first indication of your preparation/process of strike we launch. Simple.

are you saying that there is no diffrence between a tactical nuke and a strategic nuke?

Yes. Simple cause and effect equation with background knowledge of nuclear doctrines.

but incase of Pakistan i can imagine a few possible scenarios where Tactical nuclear weapons can do the job they are intended to do..
Match conventinal superiority with awesome firepower

Really? Its a fantastic thought at best.

Not likely in Kashmir too. Too densely populated along the LC. Only place you get away is at say - Bila Fond Glacier!!!!! Then maybe PA can hope to finally not lie about being on Siachen Glacier (instead of sitting even west of Saltoro)

 

[Hellfire]

The problem is the ambiguity of thresholds , I mean what do you know about it ? Are they clearly defined by the SFC ? What are the red lines which shouldn't be crossed first of all ? I know the interview which hints at various spectrum but its vague to say the least . I am not even sure if they remain static , in such case and adding the fog of war , how exactly is the Indian army planning to fight a war in the country with a supposed intent of not crossing the thresholds , not putting the country's existence and integrity in danger when it cant anticipate/not know it ? There's no way , I will repeat again , that Pakistan will take any assurance/guarantee from the Indians to not do it , intentions aren't known . Dilemmas are to be faced by both sides but first its India's turn to face it , because it has to cross the border to start the whole chain reaction , in the first place , knowing that it might cross the threshold in any way and invite a strike . The rest , I explained above .

The thresholds are being defined by the conventional war fighting. What is the aim of IBG - to achieve a break through and subsequent breakout behind opposing forces in order to hold ground and consolidate position at multiple points across IB. Typical Clausewitz - total war along IB with multiple ingresses. Few will fail no doubt to achieve breakout. But few will achieve the same too. Also maneuverability in terms of mobility of resource/troops to be augmented - done. Classical maneuver warfare by large armoured formations is very severely limited, am sure you shall agree, due to the high density of population centers now in the region. Any ingress by IBG will not be having physical frontage/troops to be able to go too deep or hold too much ground as additional shifting of reinforcements by PA will have to be catered for. In either case, we will not be having depth to our attack and subsequent hypothetical breakthrough. So where is the threshold being crossed in this scenario where PA feels that it needs to employ Nukes as Pakistan is in peril?

Additionally, in any event, PA shall conventionally try to contain the ingress and can achieve it. Aim of war by India - to force Pakistan to settle diplomatically. International intervention and pressure (especially in nuclear backdrop) will entail US et al applying pressure on GoP and GoI to negotiate/settle things peacefully. So its ceasefire time within a couple of days. Aim of India achieved. War, after all, is a mean of diplomacy.

Additionally, when we cross, we have already taken into account into the possibility that some nut in your establishment might trigger a nuclear exchange, but the very same nut will do so even without a cross over. Additionally, we do not think that the day has come that PA and GoP has become a crazy set up like al-Q & Co. And as your previous post says, you are conventionally well prepared. Need I explain anymore?

 

[Hellfire]

Of course , this is what happens when you start considering arguments in isolation and not read it in full . I said that Pakistan will opt for a tactical nuclear strike only when its threshold(s) are crossed , it will fight conventionally before . Though , retaliatory nuclear strikes after the initial Pakistani one will just keep upping the escalation ladder for both countries until the worst happens , isn't it simple ? Not the doctrine again , we are all past that here ! Whatever appears impractical/unrealistic is difficult to swallow . Otherwise you can start by explaining me the logic of sacrificing Indian citizens to implement any Cold Start because of a piece of paper on which the doctrine is written or just understood in the mind of strategists - tactical nukes exists , you just have to chose your response .

Even today both country's missiles are ready to go at 15 minutes notice by expert estimations according to what I have read @Oscar . During the crisis time , the time to " prepare to launch " will significantly come down . Think of it now , this information is available in the public domain . Now what is hard to understand about that the SPD can order its strategic nukes to be ready to " go hot " whilst launching a tactical one and checking Indian response , you have the same intelligence now/then of course , what advantage does it give you ? You had the same intelligence in the previous four encounters where we would have gone nuclear . You know the adversary is going nuclear , can you prevent it ? No , you can just retaliate but it results in lose-lose situation at its logical end . I told you about the unanswered thing . Regardless of what you believe , the Indian forces are going to face a massive dilemma before even crossing the border , not knowing the vague thresholds and hoping to fight a war inside it . What gives them the guarantee that the thresholds remains static and it cant be crossed by mistake and in the fog of war or both . Not a thing . The sole premise of Cold Start to fight a war without giving an adversary a chance/reason to go nuclear is flawed , since that variable keeps changing or remains unknown except for the boys at SPD . Pakistan will be at risk ( threshold crossed and nothing more to lose ) when its forces decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon and expect India to withdraw or keep continuing until there is no more India or Pakistan . Indian ABM is a decade or two away from going operational and Pakistan's MIRV has been in development ( according to the reports ) since 2004 , that is really not going to be a major headache . The effectiveness of such systems even for technologically advanced nations is well known ( 50% for low tech enemies like North Korea with limited resources and launch points ) , read about it .

Why cross the border and risk crossing the red lines in the first place is in the Indian hands actually . You are going to start the whole thing in the first place . Not to do anything that might cross a threshold (s) and cause Pakistan to retaliate .

That is exactly what PA and GoP are planning on - create the uncertainity and confusion as to likelihood of Pakistani response to a conventional crossing. It does not hold any merit with us. The simple rationale is that by refusing to declare a no first use policy Pakistan has put itself at the perils end. India shall only go to war when it has been pushed too far - and that means if it goes to war it goes with full knowledge that the other side is a loose canon and not at all a responsible power (as underlined by their public actions) and in all likelihood ready to use a nuke. Your own clowning has created a strange situation for you. For you are banking on the so called "fog of policy" for inaction by India at a military front. So my dear sir, when and if we move, it shall be with clarity of mind about your likeliness of lobbing a couple of nukes. Rest assured - nothing is foolproof. But we have our own policy/plans for ensuring that you do not get to cross your thresholds so easily or rampantly. A worst case scenario - we take a hit and then we retaliate. That is what we have been talking about for sometime now.

Additionally, as far as ABMs, P300s have been in Delhi for sometime (as per public sources). Akash is being inducted in pretty large numbers (as per public sources; although unconfirmed reports of deployment since past 3 years by units of Airforce and Army AD in substantially significant number float around) which is serving as an ancillary ABM system too with missile groups in Army AD and AD units of AF. PAD is a much more complicated system with capability like US THAAD - Israeli Arrow being incorporate on a national level for multi directional and multi target interception for exo-endo atmospheric interception (read Chinese/non-Pakistani systems). As far as Pakistan, we need more reliance on cruise/close in defensive capability so being taken care of by Akash et al. PAD no doubt, is some time off but then we have target acquisition/interception capability for anything lifting off/being fired from Pakistani airspace in-situ already.

Isn't cold start about destroying Pakistan's conventional capability rather than taking and holding territory . or are you saying Pakistan has set the threshold so low that it would use nukes in the event of a break through in your lines , in that case that would be irresponsible ..

No cold start is not about destruction of Pakistani Conventional Capability. That shall trigger a nuke response for sure. Its about capturing certain small pockets of Pakistani territory to demonstrate capability to capture and hold ground to exert pressure on Pakistan to negotiate diplomatically to point of contention. Loss of territory will not be acceptable in national perception to any nation (except India as government hides the fact about Chinese occupying territories slowly in remote parts in north!!!)

 

[Alpha1]

With reference to previous posts and subsequently quoted post. When I say there is nothing known as a tactical nuclear weapon - I mean exactly that. What do you imply by a tactical or strategic nuclear weapon? I have never ever understood the concept that so called experts have applied here (and someone was wanting to give me classes on Nuclear Warfare a couple of posts back - thanks a tonne for the offer) as the simple premise of being able to deploy a nuclear weapon at a 'tactical' level and not inviting a retaliation which will be at a 'strategic' level is flawed in view of the declared nuclear weapons employment policy as enunciated by all the nuclear countries. The only distinction in using a tactical/strategic is being made by countries which have not declared a no first use policy namely Pakistan and China. Either they are daft to think that retaliation will not come or pure psycho-delusive. In either case, they are wrong if this is the premise the rely on. In any case, a 'tactical' nuclear deployment has highest probability to invite a 'strategic' retaliation. So its an absurd concept at best in all politeness.

This doesn't make sense, Incase a 1-5 kt device is used against an Indian IBG which is Invading Soverign Pakistan, And if we use a tactical nuke over our own territory to finish or reduce disparity of conventional power between the two armies. where is it inviting Strategic retalliation?
And New Delhi will risk A billion Plus people or back off? After a single nuclear strike on its IBG . @Secur

Additionally, when you consider the density of population in Indian subcontinent - a low yield nuclear device of sub-kiloton yield will cause long term radioactive fallout with additional impact on local population some distances off. So you will be quite wrong on assuming Pakistan can get away with an isolated strike on any hypothetically advancing IBG. Remember my posts have been in response to some member of Pakistan here suggesting a tactical strike PA on advancing IBG. Again I along with a few other members have highlighted the aim of IBG to be to hold ground of say 40-50 kms in depth in multiple points to force a diplomatic solution to problem of the day. I am sure you shall agree that even in a conventional war scenario, a breach and a breakout at a division level will, in best case be limited to max 50 kms before PA able to check it by getting additionally reinforcements. So the scenario that PA will strike with nuclear warhead is absurd and that's what I said and the whole response is with respect to persistence that PA will still strike.

Not quite true.
I will discuss two types of fallout
remember the detonation will be an airburst

Worldwide Fallout: After an air burst the fission products, residual unfissioned nuclear material and weapons, will be vaporized by the heat of the fireball and will condense into a fine particles, suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles have high probability to be drawn up to the atmosphere IF THE EXPLOSIVE YEILD EXCEEDS 10KT of TnT

Local fallout: Local Fallout. In a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the fireball and drawn up into the radioactive cloud. This material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or has become neutron-activated. and the large particles will settle to earth within about 24 hours as local fallout
but in this case the detonation will be intentionally an airburst to minimize the local fallout because in an air burst the fireball doesn't touch the ground actually it is at a hieght which maximizes Blast effects and minimizes fallout and very little if none material will be drawn upto the atmosphere
This is a fact,
The southern desert area is not populated, and is mostly barren , little fear of collateral damage too

Really? Its a fantastic thought at best.
Not likely in Kashmir too. Too densely populated along the LC. Only place you get away is at say - Bila Fond Glacier!!!!! Then maybe PA can hope to finally not lie about being on Siachen Glacier (instead of sitting even west of Saltoro)

answered above

 

[notorious_eagle]

@notorious_eagle,

I have never concealed my own great respect for you and your views, which are always temperate and carefully thought through, and based on real professional knowledge.

Sir the respect is mutual, you are by far one of my favourite members here.

However, I am not sure about your first two assertions, about the balance of numbers not having changed due to India spending billions of dollars, and about Pakistan still being able to match India's corps level deployment strength.

Sir

If you look at the balance of forces, its still roughly the same. In fact, in the last 10 years the balance has been reduced in favour of equilibrium. If Pakistan did not counter India's recent acquisitions, the balance would have continued in India's favour. India still is not in a position to deliver the knock out punch against Pakistan. PA still maintains overwhelming firepower, it will do far more damage above its weight before it dies.

First, in the same vein for which I criticised some armchair pundits a few posts earlier, India's military suffers from feast and famine. You forget that unlike Pakistan, India has always been regarded as an awkward customer by the leader of the free world, the US, and its minions. You forget that there was a crushing embargo enforced on us, even on civilian institutions, due to the punishment that was deemed appropriate. You forget that even high-end Mac computers were on the banned list when Pakistan was awash with them. You forget that some of us have been through this ourselves, personally; I have been made to stand cap in hand for an entry-level Silicon Graphics machine, and my foreign partner, BAE, no less, could do nothing about it. That is one machine, not a set, not a lab, not a facility. Remember what nuclear engineers were doing in exactly that time slot? You forget that our entire Sea King fleet was grounded, that our Sea Hawks were grounded because that same partner, one phase earlier, under Dept. of Commerce admonition, had cut off spares. You forget that no simulators were allowed except those that had earlier come in with the original fleets sold, and that CA, Reflectone and Thomson kept us right out where we belonged. That was while Pakistani air force pilots had free access to the latest planes available in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia. And you forget that these billions were spent to replenish the years of neglect that the Indian military went through till Bush and Manmohan Singh built a rapport.

We are quite well aware of the hiccups and handicaps that India faced early on. But Sir, i can assure you Pakistan did not have it as easy as you are making it out to be. After the 1965 war, Pakistan was largely cut off from Western Military Equipment. While the Soviets poured India with military hardware, Pakistan was largely cut off from Western Arms.

That was than, lets look at the present. India is slushed with Military Equipment from multiple sources. If China's military machine had not modernized in the last 2 decades, the disparity between India and Pakistan would have exponentially grown in the last 2 decades. This was perfectly demonstrated in the confrontation in 2002, when India was awash with all kinds of weapons systems while on the other hand Pakistan's defences were barely adequate to hold on to its fortifications.

And please let us not argue about the countervailing influence of Soviet technology. My organisation was responsible for rewriting the IAF's manuals and I know personally what state the Russian manuals were in, and what problems a 100 flying hour design posed when flown for several times that mark. I could go on like this for every other technology that we got; we got it from them and fought wars with them, against the latest, shiny new stuff that we were faced with, because nobody else would sell it to us at the time.

You do have a point that Pakistan benefitted immensely during the 50's and early 60's from American generosity. American training went a long way in instilling discipline into PAF.

You mentioned the parity in corps level deployment strength. I just don't understand what you mean: corps to corps, mano a mano? Somehow I thought the days of the phalanx were long over, and even a weak, undernourished Bengali like me can pull a trigger. But what did you mean? I shall wait for an answer.

At the end of the day, IA is still training to fight a war on Corps Level Strength. As the old saying goes 'You fight as you train and train as you fight'.

Cold Start or whatever is still on paper, it still has not been implemented on field. IA Generals are still thinking on fighting at Corps Level, the recent literature and battle manoeuvres performed by Indian Armoured and Mechanized are a testament to that. Although you have warned me to not use Kargil or Operation Parakram as an example, but the IA mobilized its Corps to fight Pakistan. Kargil War was pretty much over in India's favour when India mobilized a Corps to evict the invaders.

By the way, why select a corps to be the basis of comparison? Has there been a successful corps-level action fought in the unhappy history of India-Pakistan rivalry, except in 71?

As i stated before, Indian training does suggest that India is still thinking of mobilizing a Corps to fight Pakistan. Now you off course are operating on more information than i do due to your background, thus your more than welcome to share any bits and pieces about India's New Order of Battle.

Instead, let us look at where your order of battle is located, where the opposing order of battle is located, and ask yourself if any holes exist.
You have been warned.

There are some pockets of holes that do exist but most of them have been heavily fortified. Punjab is static due to topography and canals, Sindh is where the order of battle will be due to the fluid nature of the Thar Desert.

I deeply appreciate this post, even though I believe so strongly that we are a peaceful nation that has been let down again and again by our neighbours.

Sir

There lies the problem. You feel that India has been let down by its neighbours while we feel that Pakistan has been let down by India. While we Pakistanis have acknowledged Indian grievances, India is yet to do the same with Pakistan. Indian support of weapons and money for Anti Pakistani Elements have left a very sour taste on our mouths. And i can assure you, if these intransigences don't stop, there are many in Pakistan's Establishment whom are pushing an agenda to extract revenge against India.[/quote]

 

[Secur]

The thresholds are being defined by the conventional war fighting. What is the aim of IBG - to achieve a break through and subsequent breakout behind opposing forces in order to hold ground and consolidate position at multiple points across IB. Typical Clausewitz - total war along IB with multiple ingresses. Few will fail no doubt to achieve breakout. But few will achieve the same too. Also maneuverability in terms of mobility of resource/troops to be augmented - done. Classical maneuver warfare by large armoured formations is very severely limited, am sure you shall agree, due to the high density of population centers now in the region. Any ingress by IBG will not be having physical frontage/troops to be able to go too deep or hold too much ground as additional shifting of reinforcements by PA will have to be catered for. In either case, we will not be having depth to our attack and subsequent hypothetical breakthrough. So where is the threshold being crossed in this scenario where PA feels that it needs to employ Nukes as Pakistan is in peril?

Additionally, in any event, PA shall conventionally try to contain the ingress and can achieve it. Aim of war by India - to force Pakistan to settle diplomatically. International intervention and pressure (especially in nuclear backdrop) will entail US et al applying pressure on GoP and GoI to negotiate/settle things peacefully. So its ceasefire time within a couple of days. Aim of India achieved. War, after all, is a mean of diplomacy.

Additionally, when we cross, we have already taken into account into the possibility that some nut in your establishment might trigger a nuclear exchange, but the very same nut will do so even without a cross over. Additionally, we do not think that the day has come that PA and GoP has become a crazy set up like al-Q & Co. And as your previous post says, you are conventionally well prepared. Need I explain anymore?

Nyet . The argument to consider again is that the thresholds do not remain as static and properly defined as the Indians would like to believe due to obvious reasons because they are evolving with time/threat perception/ground realities . You cant answer this question with your own ' Alright , this much is enough ' . I can understand being not able to fight an all out war and thus opting for a limited scale conflict , if need arises in the future , but this is nothing you can take for granted . The aim of Integrated Battle-group is somewhat understood . The real question is " Does India today has the capability to mobilize such number of troops to achieve a surprise over enemy and achieve a blitzkrieg through enemy lines whilst remaining under the threshold(s) ? " . I for one , do not think that Indian Army has acquired the weapons/logistics and the mobilization needed to bring troops on the border and pursue that strategy in the envisioned relatively " short time " minus the honoring red-line(s) part , which is a different thing altogether . I do not intend to overestimate or underestimate anything here , but I believe that is some area where the Pakistanis will enjoy parity ( or close to it ) over their enemy . Because if the IA has evolved for such warfare , so has its counterparts . If IA has made acquisitions for Cold Start , more or less they have been countered . Because , I understand the pattern employed by the opposition after the Op.Parakram in subsequent war games/exercises afterwards to cut down the mobilization time , but so has the adversary in Azm Nau exercises and if officials are to be believed , it still remains faster than the other side . What we routinely miss is that the Pakistan Army ( seventh largest in the world ) is the strongest service branch of Pakistan Armed forces , is well capable of deterring/fighting the adversary even when its acquisitions/projects are mostly on hold due to the economy . However one should always have a back-up plan to fall on , the nukes thus remain the ultimate guarantor of Pakistani security . Because in either case , assuming errors/mistakes/blunders of course on the part of mortals , there is no absolute guarantee that Pakistan Army will be able to contain/stop its counterparts conventionally and vice versa , the thing here is that the major population centers/important infrastructure/defense sites are so close to Indian border that it isn't long before the decision makers at SPD start to feel vulnerable and take into serious consideration - a tactical nuclear response to let the enemy know clearly and which is why , I said that there is no room for such limited intensity conflict even in the first place now .

You see you aren't able to even guess/estimate the kilometer to be ingressed/territories to be held before non conventional response kicks in - what does that tell you about the overall plan ? So how much is enough ? How small/little are your " small pockets of lands " you want to capture before any ceasefire ? Make sure , that they satisfy all these conditions - force Pakistan to come on the negotiating table to get the " territories " back and second and most important , do not make it feel threatened by crossing threshold(s) and third , do no harm to its conventional power to retaliate/fight/deter the enemy . Looks practical and possible ? For me , it doesn't . Actually , its laughable even writing all that , mate because it appears that Cold Start crosses a red line(s) by its design - no victory is possible without significantly damaging conventional capability of the adversary otherwise the forces are more than capable of reacquiring what is theirs . Alright , if going by your posts , the Pakistan Army is successfully able to contain Indian progress/check ingress ( which I believe that it presently is ) , then it is also very likely that its able to retake the captured territories , do not you think ? Also the fifty kilometer area hold figure you so easily and occasionally cite isn't realistic , because of the shallow geography of the country , Pakistan can ill afford to lose such large territories to India as you think . In such case , when the risk is looming large over the integrity and existence , what negotiations do you think are to be held by our side ? Diplomacy isn't the way forward for Islamabad then , no demands are to be accepted . That is where the Nasr comes in , to deliver a warning to retreat because the threshold has been crossed . The aim of India in such case isn't achieved , its misadventure has a extremely high risk of turning into a catastrophic failure . Why expect us to play by your rules in our own soil when you are the invader ? International pressure can come in earlier even , not allowing the Indians to cross in the first place . Why wouldn't they like to stop it , before it even starts ?

When you cross ? . abundans cautela non nocet . The problem here is I do not see you crossing . The very fact that you haven't been able to cross long since we went nuclear , points to the fact that the nuclear response cant be factored in . Assume the rationality , we all do , but it doesn't come at the expense of national security . How is the same deterrent being affected in the near future ? Please , do not say the ABM shield is coming in , I know it is , but its effectiveness and record around the world is a big question mark - not something I would put my faith in , it might allow some more room and political advantage , but that is assuming the enemy isn't developing new sophisticated missiles or equipping the current ones with counter-measure(s) . You can start by checking the unsolved problem of MIRV for such a shield , rendering it almost useless and this isn't my opinion/conclusion .

 

[Secur]

That is exactly what PA and GoP are planning on - create the uncertainity and confusion as to likelihood of Pakistani response to a conventional crossing. It does not hold any merit with us. The simple rationale is that by refusing to declare a no first use policy Pakistan has put itself at the perils end. India shall only go to war when it has been pushed too far - and that means if it goes to war it goes with full knowledge that the other side is a loose canon and not at all a responsible power (as underlined by their public actions) and in all likelihood ready to use a nuke. Your own clowning has created a strange situation for you. For you are banking on the so called "fog of policy" for inaction by India at a military front. So my dear sir, when and if we move, it shall be with clarity of mind about your likeliness of lobbing a couple of nukes. Rest assured - nothing is foolproof. But we have our own policy/plans for ensuring that you do not get to cross your thresholds so easily or rampantly. A worst case scenario - we take a hit and then we retaliate. That is what we have been talking about for sometime now.

Yes it is kept vague and blurry intentionally of course but it also is largely true , you cant deny that because its dynamic . Trust me , you Indians have contributed more to the success of Pakistani deterrent than any other thing . You see the threshold(s) of Pakistan aren't low , because of some suicide mentality on this side of the border , as many Indians seem to believe , but because of the conventional disparity and geographical vulnerability - the two prime factors amongst others . They cant be free of uncertainty or confusion because they evolve with time/ground realities for obvious reasons . They do not remain static nor are they false , meaning the Pakistan will not attempt to go to nuclear escalation unless it senses/perceives a clear danger to the country's existence and integrity . When and under what circumstances , is the real question for New Delhi . Actually , if the past is any indication , it more than holds merit for you because you haven't attempted/dared to cross the border despite wanting to , this is something in which regard , I see nothing changing in the immediate/foreseeable future . Think of the Nash Equilibrium , the Indians have nothing to get by changing only their own strategy ( assuming you know the enemy's ) . You cant dictate or predict our red line(s) . I would say again , once you cross the border , there is nothing you can bank on for certainty for the conflict to progress in a controlled manner ( even desired as some envision ) , because war follows no rules/logic(s) , the adversary's response is to be assumed/predicted at one own's risk , specially when the stakes are so high and there's more to lose and astronomically tinny little to be gained ( which I think is nothing but satisfaction of some egos and revenge ) to the extent that the victory might not even be worth it . Who's to guarantee that in the fog of war and the war itself , the Indians aren't going to cross a red line(s) mistakenly/accidentally/intentionally/by design ? Pakistan will not take any guarantees/assurances from the enemy nor will it make a foolish prediction on the adversary's intentions . There exists no such thing as controlled war . Monsieur , this is where the problem lies , there is little if anything you can do in that regard . In worst case scenario , you retaliate and get the ball rolling and we all know what it results into . The only way to ensure that you do not lose is to not play which is why we haven't played in a long time . The world , bon ami , is today a very safe place

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.-Churchill speaking at a time when nuclear weapons didn't exist .

 

[notorious_eagle]

What is the aim of IBG - to achieve a break through and subsequent breakout behind opposing forces in order to hold ground and consolidate position at multiple points across IB. Typical Clausewitz - total war along IB with multiple ingresses. Few will fail no doubt to achieve breakout. But few will achieve the same too.

Okay you break through, take some severe beating from PA's Frontier and Mechanized Troops but manage to advance forward and hold 50 km of territory. Every km you advance forward, you have to peel of a tank from your frontal formations to guard your flank reducing the firepower of your advancing columns. After you stop, your tired and bruised from the beating you have received from PA's Frontier and Mechanized Troops. They have done far more damage above their weight before they died out. PA's artillery and MBLRS are raining some serious steel on your positions and your vulnerable supply lines. Now PA's Armoured Columns who have missed the action have come out to play, they know exactly where you are but you don't know where they are. They are fresh and ready for some action compared to your IBG's whom are exhausted from the battle. Who do you want to place your money on?

Also maneuverability in terms of mobility of resource/troops to be augmented - done. Classical maneuver warfare by large armoured formations is very severely limited, am sure you shall agree, due to the high density of population centers now in the region. Any ingress by IBG will not be having physical frontage/troops to be able to go too deep or hold too much ground as additional shifting of reinforcements by PA will have to be catered for. In either case, we will not be having depth to our attack and subsequent hypothetical breakthrough.

Than whats the point? These are punitive measures at best, not destroying the capability of the enemy. In order to be effective, you have to find the enemy, force him to engage you and destroy him. If you let the enemy regroup, you are effectively throwing away the battle. Don't believe me, ask the Germans during Operation Braunschweig.

So where is the threshold being crossed in this scenario where PA feels that it needs to employ Nukes as Pakistan is in peril?

No where, PA is confident that it will encircle your IBG's and destroy them.

Additionally, in any event, PA shall conventionally try to contain the ingress and can achieve it. Aim of war by India - to force Pakistan to settle diplomatically. International intervention and pressure (especially in nuclear backdrop) will entail US et al applying pressure on GoP and GoI to negotiate/settle things peacefully. So its ceasefire time within a couple of days. Aim of India achieved. War, after all, is a mean of diplomacy.

What aim has been achieved? I am confused. PA has not been destroyed, Pakistan as a nation is still intact so pray tell me what objective has been achieved?

 

[Secur]

The moment you use a nuke as a tactical weapon - the existing known nuclear countries will retaliate at a strategic level. So in either case the ball is out of your hands . In addition in a scenario where Pakistan uses a nuke - forget what happens to us. Because you cant be allowed to get away with it - India will employ. Let the cost be what they be.

Additionally with declared US intents to 'secure' Pakistani nuclear weapons in case of conditions deteriorating in sub-continent, and Russia also indicating same, situation I slightly more complex. In either case our response will be on premise that if you use once - you may use second time. So upon first indication of your preparation/process of strike we launch. Simple.

Back to the Square One ! You speak of launching tactical/strategic nuclear weapons and escalating the situation to a point of no return even when no Indian threshold(s) are crossed and there is no danger to the country's existence and integrity . Why are some 1.2 billion+ Indians being risked for a couple IBG's in Pakistan's territory , keeping aside the impractical nuclear doctrine for a second ? Interesting is the fact , that you assume rationality on the part of our decision makers but do not do the same for your own , why is that ? As for " securing " the nukes hypothetical plan , its little practical and well if it ever happens , the country that should be concerned most is our dear Eastern neighbor because it comes to " use em or lose em " , we might as well lose em taking a leaf out of Samson's book .

 

[Hellfire]

We only came to know much later - but then by that time our only objective was to take back the heights

Few points mate:

a. Indian army was aware as also the political class in India that occupation of heights was by Pakistani troops (albeit the militia as they were at the time - Northern Light Infantry). It was to cover own *** by local commanders that the situation was slowly opened up to public. The fact was that winter ADPs/LRPs were run on paper only as was the norm till then. There was no actual verification done of positions physically due to mutual disengagement and withdrawal from areas as was practice and hence complacency set in.

b. Although we had the requirement to cross the LC in order to be able to effectively launch attacks and reducing expected casualties, the same could not be undertaken due to the very basic fact that Indian army was not in a position to fight a conventional war with a better equipped (at the time) Pakistani Army which had the support of US and allies at the time. Remember the fact that post-1991 the 90s saw severe curtailing of procurements of any kind as Indian economy opened up and restructured itself. Insofar, Indian army was being given money enough only for payment of pay and allowances without any catering for capital infrastructure (inclusive of houses for men/officers;weapons acquisition etc) and even armored units were mothballed and troops sent into valley for counter-insurgency operations. In spite of Russia and Israeli meeting our requirements as the operations progressed (inclusive of Russia willing to supply large number of aircrafts and ships immediately and Israel, all kinds of hi-tech weapons) they were not sufficient enough to grant India a success which could result in any meaningful gains at negotiations with GoP after disengagement. Ignore the nuclear innuendo being passed around. Probably, 1999 was the last year in which India could have struck Pakistan without much concerns in that field. Op Parakaram was a different picture with credible threat of employment of nuclear weapons by Pakistan which was badly off conventionally due to outright purchases by NDA government (which Congress was digging up as corruption to bury them with) correcting some of the situation.

 

[Hellfire]

That is just not true, it is pakistan who got more land at least in Kashemir, so please go revise your history, and do not talk about 1100 AD, because you canont take on Pakistan alone, so do not talk about the Muslim world, that is by far too powerful for you or even for your thoughts

Really? So how is it that 70% of erstwhile J&K Kingdom even now shown to be under India physically? Oh wait. You guys have grown up studying your own version of history!!! As per your army you are at Siachen Gacier too (forget the fact that the nearest you got to Siachen was when you had Qaid post at Bila FondLa in Saltoro's western face which you lost and are now west of Saltoro ranges). Keep on getting a high and live in your own la-la land!
And your line about MUSLIM world - there is nothing more divisive or more undying than Shia-Sunni enemity .... glimpses of which we see in Mid-East today. Keep deluding yourself on the so-called invincibility of Muslim world. As if all muslim nations will come to fight for you when your *** is being kicked!

Happily for you they do not want to invade you again, but if need be...

Hey are you an OBL stooge? Or Al-Q incarnate? First go an unite the "MUSLIMS" of this world and prevent them from fighting each other from Africa to middle east to south east.

Anyhow, this is small talk, since the first war was with an already split army, with one part on your side plus the the majotrity of people, and also Western Pakistan has a long and no direct supply route for its army in Bangladesh

Stop giving pathetic excuses.

In direct confrontations on the western side you never won any war or battle, the most powerful weapon in pakistan's navy arsenal a US submarine sank by it own mine laying or a mechanical failure, and before that your navy was totally paralysed by this single submarine, I am not even mentioning all the technical help you had had from the commonwealth nations like England or Australia for instance.

As for the navy - no wonder our navy got paralysed in Bay of Bengal and pounded your *** there day after day and your dear Uncle Sam had to maneuver his CBG to threaten us! Hmmm thanks to Pak Navy!!! Who was paid off by us? Where is MBI Munshi? He will definitely cry RAW paid off your Naval chief to send the sub to "paralyse" us! And elaborate on your last line in above quoted text.

You are definitely a breath of fresh air. A good laugh!

after that your navy could attack a Pakistani port and sink a ship or two, but not before you have lost a destroyer too. On land the Indian army never won an inch of land.

Yeah yeah 3rd Battalion Rajputana Rifles captured Fort Bhinwar of Islamgarh (Rahim Yar Khan, Bhawalpur, Sukkur) in Pakistan with 01 x OR wounded in their dreams only eh? Wonder if it was one millimeter from IB!!!!!!!

 

[Hellfire]

This doesn't make sense, Incase a 1-5 kt device is used against an Indian IBG which is Invading Soverign Pakistan, And if we use a tactical nuke over our own territory to finish or reduce disparity of conventional power between the two armies. where is it inviting Strategic retalliation?

First the figure you have quoted - 1-5kt. I would have thought you would have been slightly more pragmatic and quote a very low yield sub-kiloton category of say 0.2 - 0.3 kt vide a miniaturized device of 155mm upwards mating (delivery by your Medium Artillery/Rocket Regiments). Looking at it in a neutral manner - the prevailing wind patterns in Subcontinent are west to east for majority of year except for sometime in April-June period. So in either case a tactical use against Indian troops even on own territory will have fallout over India.

Additionally am sure you shall agree that it shall be an air burst and not an impact mechanism that shall be used for a tactical deployment. In that case wind itself is biggest factor. Lets not get into the details as I am sure you know what I am talking about.

In any event, the premise of achieving a conventional parity/finishing-reducing disparity with tactical employment is flawed as I have told you what Indian Defence establishment is postured for today. I mean this forum is about analyzing .... you and I don't know till last what will happen. But then its general appraisal of situation. And here we have been talking about Cold Start and why and what of it. Not fighting the damn war - lets leave it for war games and exercise for Command Course and Staff College types to do - the paper war!

And New Delhi will risk A billion Plus people or back off? After a single nuclear strike on its IBG . @Secur

See any political class on either side of border can not afford to not respond to a nuclear strike by either side. So its MADness! I know its stupid - but then that's the fact of life. Pakistan cant expect India to act rationally if pushed to the wall. We both know that Pakistan is creating more trouble in Kashmir (especially with descaling of effort against NATO by Pak based groups) as it cant help it. Some fringe margin in Pakistani army may actually believe the 'mujahids' will achieve something but by and large the truth is that if you don't push them across into Kashmir then they will create problems for you. As long as level of violence remains within firm control of India in valley, we both know India is too complacent and too soft to do anything about it. Oh sure we both do BAT actions and sure we do strike across LC to eliminate launch pads which are too active but then its normal for both sides. Big Deal. But at the end of the day - if (and here its a very big if) India finds violence spiraling out of control and dangerously high in Kashmir or blatant up gradation of military effort by Pakistan then there may be some activity on Cold Start basis to force a political resolution. We just are not interested in 'destroying' Pakistan for two reasons - a. We don't have the will and interest. b. We are pragmatic and not high on cocaine - Its not possible with nuclearisation!

 

[Hellfire]

Cold start and his son, i talk to both of you & hope as well to see if your heart gets melted with the love for your own nation.

Oh its melted sir!!!! Only I consider Pakistan as a part of my nation existing separately due to confusions of a few idiots.

What sort of a heritage you both are trying to leave for the little Abdullah and Adiya of our future?

Of hate, poverty and mutual distrust - of inequality and suppression/oppression of people on both sides by fanning hatred and fear ensuring generations of poverty so that few can rule and rob the nations!!!!

Why does one feels the need to fire a bullet and why is that the other kid have to wear a BP vest for his whole life?

Yeah! To protect yourself. Damn effective at times they are. Mighty cumbersome too. Bu saves your ***!!!

Can we not deflect or redirect a major part of our economies towards the nation building, progress and prosperity of our people?

Nope. Too boring and mundane sir!

Instead of learning something from the mistakes that others had committed ,we preferred to open up our own fronts ,our own versions of WW-1 and WW-2.And to date we are there ready for the WW-3.That will be a WW-3 infact.

Always the fatalists we are. Afterall common blood line eh?

Do you generals…old folks of our time know that how torturous is it for a sane young man standing on this side of the border to take the life of another human who may be almost of the same age ,if he has some conscience left?

OLD GENERAL's reply: Young man, remember the thrill of the kill is one you will remember and cherish all your life. Do your duty to your motherland and kill the other bastard for his country.

Poor Soldier along LC in December: Bugger that old general sitting in his warm office with heaters and hot food and tea (and scotch on the side) talking like that while we freeze our butts here doing nothing. Its -40'C and 36 feet of snow here and i cant see my own bunker let alone the other side's soldier to shoot at!!! And where is the kerosene that was promised for the heaters? Brrrrr!!!!!

Can you read the mind of your soldier when he's about to push the trigger and end the dreams / life of another young man sitting across who’s aim is to save his motherland and society from the wrath that you guys have asked your men to inflict on them?

Yes. Emptiness. A Serene calm as you empty the brain when you have acquired your target for you convince yourself that if it was the other way round, you would already be dead. And hence you satisfy yourself with the knowledge that you hesitated a fraction of a second before gently squeezing - there is some insaniyat still left in you!!!

 

[illusion8]

Few points mate:

a. Indian army was aware as also the political class in India that occupation of heights was by Pakistani troops (albeit the militia as they were at the time - Northern Light Infantry). It was to cover own *** by local commanders that the situation was slowly opened up to public. The fact was that winter ADPs/LRPs were run on paper only as was the norm till then. There was no actual verification done of positions physically due to mutual disengagement and withdrawal from areas as was practice and hence complacency set in.

If one goes by news that used to come in during the whole fiasco - IA was caught sleeping and were in two minds as to who were the actual intruders - sure, they had a doubt that it was PA regulars but then Pakistan's complete refusal that it was their personnel made it also seem that they were terrorists, they weren't aware of the numbers or of the level and depth of the intrusion for quite a while because a few innocent fact finding patrols were shot at and a few did not return back. IA was completely confused for a fact. Sure a red faced IA reluctantly trickled in information to the media, but the information everyday swung from one extreme end to the other.