The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[Developereo]

Why are you bringing in the US and Israel?

Because the whole premise behind Cold Start is that India can launch a limited campaign without fear of serious reprisals. The only countries who have demonstrated such a capability are the US and Israel.

The US and Isreal are more used to figting rag-tag militias not full scale wars against sizable militaries with nukes!!

Israel can launch campaigns against neighborhood countries of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq knowing full well that those countries can respond with little more than comical condemnations.

The US enjoys the same superiority against all but a handful of countries on the planet. Even Pakistan can do nothing against the US mainland.

 

[somebozo]

Israel can launch campaigns against neighborhood countries of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq knowing full well that those countries can respond with little more than comical condemnations.

The US enjoys the same superiority against all but a handful of countries on the planet. Even Pakistan can do nothing against the US mainland.

US convential warfare capability in unmatched.
Only Russia can face USA in an event of nuclear outbreak but not a high tech war featuring aircraft, ships and tanks.

 

[Slayer786]

someone talking about kagil (stabbing back) and loosing kashmir, then bangaldesh. oh mean i don't understand what they teaches in pak text book about pakistan .....why dont they teach pak reality.

U failed to mention Siachen where India sneakily captured the heights(talk about stabbing in the back).
LOL. And what do you mean loosing Kashmir, we never had Kashmir, the hindu raja gave it to india, we actually took back one-third callede Azad kashmir. And Bangladesh mainly happened because the people overthere wanted independence and quite frankly it is good(too many floods overthere).

The reality is that we will have a war in the future. No one can stop it. Just wait for it............

 

[muse]

U failed to mention Siachen where India sneakily captured the heights(talk about stabbing in the back).
LOL. And what do you mean loosing Kashmir, we never had Kashmir, the hindu raja gave it to india, we actually took back one-third callede Azad kashmir. And Bangladesh mainly happened because the people overthere wanted independence and quite frankly it is good(too many floods overthere).

The reality is that we will have a war in the future. No one can stop it. Just wait for it............

There is just something about this forum, I don't know what it ism but we continue to attract Pakistanis who are or seems terribly immature and who seem to delight in expressing the most base of notions as if it was as simple as a cup of tea --and of course they are defeated before they ever get a chance to fight.

 

[third eye]

There is just something about this forum, I don't know what it ism but we continue to attract Pakistanis who are or seems terribly immature and who seem to delight in expressing the most base of notions as if it was as simple as a cup of tea --and of course they are defeated before they ever get a chance to fight.

This I may add has increased in the recent past.

There was a time when one had intelligent , informed and enabled discussions with posters.

Now its quite childish.

One has to keep scanning topics for their relevance and look at names of posters upon which one knows what to expect.

 

[muse]

I had mentioned the same "radicalism" to Webmassa - lets see if instead of closing gown threads, they will choose to deal with this element

 

[surya kiran]

I had mentioned the same "radicalism" to Webmassa - lets see if instead of closing gown threads, they will choose to deal with this element

It makes more sense that they post and they are replied to with valid arguments. Hopefully, in the 100 even if 10 form informed decisions the purpose of debate has been solved. And this goes for participants from both sides.

 

[Luffy 500]

PAK should go for a separate set of conventional tipped ballistic and cruise missiles arsenal, it will be much more cost effective I think. May be design a whole different missile with greater accuracy. Chinese second artillery corps. have a large no. of conventional missiles to lead the strategic strikes in the initial phase of any war scenario. PAK should emulate it, off course if their wallet allows it.

 

[Slayer786]

There is just something about this forum, I don't know what it ism but we continue to attract Pakistanis who are or seems terribly immature and who seem to delight in expressing the most base of notions as if it was as simple as a cup of tea --and of course they are defeated before they ever get a chance to fight.

Ofcourse u r the expert here in judging members here as you have so many more posts than us. So obviously whatever you may write should be taken as 'Muse Commandments', and when we write we are written off as immatures.

Wow! Now instead of staying with the topic, the mighty feel like they dont have to write anything regarding the topic to refute us, but to write comments belittling us newer members.

 

[muse]

Dangerous deterrence
Munir Akram


THE speech made by the chairman of India’s National Security Advisory Board and former foreign secretary, Shyam Saran, at India’s Subu Centre on April 24 should be required reading for those Pakistanis who believe that relations with India can be “normalised” through trade and people-to-people exchanges even if security issues remain unresolved.

Shyam Saran — a friend and respected adversary — has been consistent and candid in his view that Indo-Pakistan relations will remain adversarial for the foreseeable future and the realistic aim should be to construct ways to manage their rivalry.

The Subu speech was designed to refute foreign and Indian critics who have asserted that India’s nuclear programme is driven by prestige and its quest for great power status whereas Pakistan’s programme has strategic clarity — deterrence against India — and has been better managed.

Some of the events cited by Saran, in fact, confirm, rather than refute, the critics. Thus, prime minister Nehru did say when inaugurating India’s civilian programme that its nuclear capability could be also used for India’s “protection”. But this was in the early 1950s, when India faced no threat from Pakistan, China or elsewhere. Mr Nehru’s assertion was inspired by pride rather than strategic requirement.

Likewise, India’s 1974 “peaceful nuclear explosion” was not in response to China’s 1964 explosion and the American deployment of the Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal during the Bangladesh war. If it was indeed such a response, the explosion shouldn’t have been described as “peaceful”. If anyone should have felt the compulsion to acquire nuclear deterrence at the time, it was Pakistan which had been recently dismembered by India’s military aggression.

Similarly, in 1998, India justified its nuclear explosions by asserting that it was threatened by China, despite significant improvement in Sino-Indian relations preceding the explosions. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party had declared it would conduct the explosions if elected. The timing of the tests, as Saran admits, was dictated by the impending adoption of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which India had so far championed.

Such hypocrisy has been the hallmark of India’s nuclear narrative. The plutonium for its 1974 and 1998 tests was diverted from its “civilian” nuclear facilities. After 1974 India continued to claim its explosion was “peaceful” and advocated global nuclear disarmament, even as it rejected initiatives to denuclearise South Asia and developed nuclear weapons and missile capabilities.

Saran has argued that Pakistan’s programme was helped by China. In fact, India has been the principal beneficiary of external assistance. Its plutonium came from the reactor provided by Canada without IAEA safeguards and uranium supplied by the US and France; its early missiles utilised the US Apache and other missile technologies; its current missiles are based on prototypes and technologies acquired from Russia and the US (ostensibly for its space programme).

After its 1998 nuclear tests, India’s nuclear doctrine was hastily put together, in a ‘draft’ form. It mimicked the US-Soviet doctrines of seeking a ‘triad’ of land, air and sea nuclear deployments.

Such a vast programme was not needed for Pakistan-India deterrence. The demonstration of their respective nuclear capabilities was sufficient for the purpose. Indeed, in a 2001 joint communiqué, Pakistan and India declared that a stable deterrence existed between them.

However, India rejected Pakistan’s call for a “strategic restraint regime” in South Asia. It proceeded, even if in a haphazard manner, to develop and deploy its nuclear ‘triad’. As in the past, Pakistan is being compelled to respond and preserve stable deterrence.

India has been enabled by the US and others to pursue its nuclear ambitions in the belief that India’s capabilities can serve to ‘contain’ an increasingly powerful China. They will rue this strategic miscalculation at some future date.

India’s capabilities are unlikely to overly trouble China for the foreseeable future. India will pursue its own priorities, principal among which is to neutralise Pakistan’s military and political power and influence in the region.

Shyam Saran’s speech sought to build the case for the continued discrimination and greater restrictions against Pakistan in the nuclear and missile arenas. To this end, he repeated the familiar allegations about Pakistan’s “proliferation” and the fantasy of a terrorist takeover of its nuclear weapons.

India’s non-proliferation record is not unblemished. Its chemical weapons assistance to Saddam’s Iraq and others is an open secret. And, as some analysts have pointed out, Pakistan’s strategic assets are more tightly controlled by the military, as in other nuclear weapon states, than India’s ‘civilian’, in reality bureaucratic, control.

While India’s capabilities hardly serve as credible deterrence against China, they do pose a serious threat to Pakistan. Declarations of non first-use of nuclear weapons are convenient for a larger conventional power and are never credible. Nato rejected such assurances from the Soviet Union. What counts is capabilities not intentions.

The danger is that India may believe that its nuclear triad, together with the acquisition of anti-ballistic missile systems and advanced conventional weapons, will enable it to pursue a conventional war against Pakistan. The Cold Start strategy has not been disavowed. This danger is magnified by the endorsement of India’s ambitions by the US and its allies.

There is no assurance that a ‘limited’ war is possible between nuclear-armed states. Rapid escalation is likely. There is no assurance that while Kashmir and other Pakistan-India disputes fester, there will be no war in the future.

It is thus in the vital interest of both countries, and their people, to construct a regime for mutual strategic restraint, nuclear and conventional, and to resolve their outstanding disputes, first and foremost, Kashmir.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who authorised Pakistan’s nuclear tests after India’s in 1998, and negotiated the Lahore Declaration, will be required to address India’s nuclear threat again in his third term in office.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

 

[Kompromat]

@muse

Some 'friends' have suggested,that the point of invasion by Indian IBGs, will be Rahim Yar Khan.

Following countermeasures are under discussion.

1: Expanding the capability of Rocket artillary. Rockets capable of carrying 'HE bomblets', with limited area precision for attacking, armored thrusts.A-100 procurement is an inducation of that. These systems are being produced in Pakistan now.

2: Pakistan has a stockpile of around 30000. ATGMs and growing.

3: Mass producing, advanced MANPADs to take out armor support helos,which India will acquire in numbers. Existing systems will get sensor upgrades.

4: Air launched cruise missiles to be upgraded,in order to deliver anti armor bomblets from the air. Which also gives a stand off capability.

We are talking about a JSOW type weapon. Babur on the other hand with its range can blow up any strategic target,C&CCs located in morethan half of the entire Indian land mass.

5: Chinese are working on tactical EMP technology. It will be incorporated in stand off systems like SY-400. Or in our case BABUR if we get that technology in our hands.

6: Acquiring multiple types of mid and long range SAMs,both mobile and stationary.

Pakistan has ground based AESA and Pulse doppler radars. Along with AEWC air crafts, it will provide a formidable line of defense, to suppliment the air force.

7: Coastal defense batteries have been bought to deter the Indian navy and to help establish 'sea area denial.'

8: Use of other means to kill Indian infantry, ie Thermobaric/Chemical warheads.

9: All of the above to suppliment Pakistani armor. 80% of which is NVG capable. Covered by 40 or so Cobra gunships.

10: Infrastructure changes to the most endangered points, ie land mines,hidden pits vehicle arresting nets, wires etc.

The best ace in hole we have is that India wont be able to delegate all assets to our border,while Chinese are building up potent infrastructure under Indian noses.

Our mobilization time is still faster than the Indians, and while at home turf, reinforcements of machine and men are easier to access.

If 50% of the Indian IBG capability is neutralized, the rest wont achieve its objectives, and unless Bharat wishes to start a full scale war, it would have to witdraw.

Best Regards.

 

[muse]

@muse

Some 'friends' have suggested,that the point of invasion by Indian IBGs, will be Rahim Yar Khan.

Following countermeasures are under discussion.

The best ace in hole we have is that India wont be able to delegate all assets to our border,while Chinese are building up potent infrastructure under Indian noses.
Our mobilization time is still faster than the Indians, and while at home turf, reinforcements of machine and men are easier to access.

If 50% of the Indian IBG capability is neutralized, the rest wont achieve its objectives, and unless Bharat wishes to start a full scale war, it would have to witdraw.
Best Regards.

The Chinese eh? -- Ok if you say so, but privately, I'm not buying it - and we don't need that ---- Look, cold star or son of cold start (proactive defense) is inherently aggressive and reckless to the point that it has raised eyebrows internationally, Pakistan is getting it's lunch handed to it by the Talib and Wahabi terroists but that does not make it Balestine or lebanon.

Cold start and Son of cold start represent a mind set in India --- it is in India that this policy needs to to be openly discussed and debated -- I have faith that the good sense and self respect of educated and concerned Indians will see to it that this policy is arrested (and I in the meantime would welcome an ideological return to "Pakistani" value system, greater training, lethality and firepower in the Pakistan )

 

[Kompromat]

For some reason, i see that CSD will look like a 21st centuary version of the Battle of Chawindah.

Youre right in saying that it represents a mindset in India. I have been discussing CSD with a friend at NDU for some time, now.

Pakistan is weak and exausted by fighting these Takfiris. Should the Umreeki and Farangi draw down allow us a breather from their proxies, we need to share the lunch with the Indians.

There are plenty of useful idiots up for sale in Indian Naxal belt and beyond. Forget Kashmiris for a moment,even Afghanistan. Our first transaction in India post 2014 has to be with Naxals as they will bring good return on investment.

Naxals should be our new friends as they can be made to hide our footprints. I don't see CSD coming
into play,however i do see the Terrorism trade thrive for the forseeable future in the S.Continent.


@muse @Icarus @Irfan Baloch @Xeric

 

[muse]

The Us draw down was once a welcome development - but now it's clear that what matters is what kind of Afghanistan is left behind and what kind of ANA - because if the **** hits the fan in A'stan, things will be a lot worse in P'stan -- and I don't see this poxy business as having intl acceptance

 

[notorious_eagle]

For some reason, i see that CSD will look like a 21st centuary version of the Battle of Chawindah.

Youre right in saying that it represents a mindset in India. I have been discussing CSD with a friend at NDU for some time, now.

Pakistan is weak and exausted by fighting these Takfiris. Should the Umreeki and Farangi draw down allow us a breather from their proxies, we need to share the lunch with the Indians.

There are plenty of useful idiots up for sale in Indian Naxal belt and beyond. Forget Kashmiris for a moment,even Afghanistan. Our first transaction in India post 2014 has to be with Naxals as they will bring good return on investment.

Naxals should be our new friends as they can be made to hide our footprints. I don't see CSD coming
into play,however i do see the Terrorism trade thrive for the forseeable future in the S.Continent.


@muse @Icarus @Irfan Baloch @Xeric

To be perfectly honest with you, there is a genuine desire among the leadership of PA to improve relations with India. The General Staff has encouraged the Government to improve relations with India and expand trade ties. Gen Kayani is on record encouraging the ex PPP led Government to improve ties with India and try to solve outstanding issues in an amicable manner.

This is why PA has used her influence to put a leash on Anti Indian Groups that are operating on Pakistani soil. But if the Indians continue with their support of weapons and money to Anti Pakistan Groups sheltered in Afghanistan, PA might decide to draw a line and restart its support for Anti Indian activities. Indian influence and support is naturally going to come to a halt as the Americans withdraw and start to implement stabilizing mechanisms.

So far the Indians have been lucky to piggy back on American efforts, but as the Americans start winding up, both Indian and American interests are beginning to diverge because Indian activities will sooner or later invite a response from Pakistan which will be a destabilizing factor for Afghanistan. To sum it all up, the ball is in India's court whether she wants to continue supporting terrorist activities against Pakistan or improve relations with Pakistan.

Our mobilization time is still faster than the Indians, and while at home turf, reinforcements of machine and men are easier to access.

You have hit the nail there

The entire premise behind CSD is to beat Pakistan to the border and mobilize faster. A very noble goal indeed, but in the foreseeable future for at-least 10 years, IA is nowhere close to matching PA's mobility. There are still many gaps in the CSD, although it has been thoroughly studied by IA on paper it has not been implemented on the field. IA is still training to fight on Corps Level, you train as you fight and fight as you train.