What's new

The Problem From Hell: South Asia’s Arms Race

arp2041

BANNED
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
-9
Country
India
Location
India
India has responded to Pakistan's nuclear build-up by innovating and adopting a controversial concept called "Cold Start."


South Asia is going through what can be called the first bounce of the nuclear ball, an arms buildup. This is a time when Pakistan and India focus on acquiring fissile material and building weapons. This drives Pakistan’s plutonium mills and India’s commercial nuclear power deal with the United States.

The second bounce of the ball may be quite different than the first. For example, it may see intense crises and shocks – aggravated by the enlarged nuclear forces. So it would be a mistake to assume the current environment will be the environment of the future. Like the first nuclear age, the Cold War, there are likely to be ebbs and flows in competition, with different problems and shocks developing over time, interspaced with periods of relative calm.

India has mainly responded to Pakistan’s nuclear buildup not with one of its own, at least not yet anyway, but with strategy innovation, improved intelligence, missiles, and a nuclear triad. Strategy innovation is especially important because it is one of the great drivers of competition, and may transcend the political issues that are the original source of rivalry.

In the first nuclear age innovation – technological and strategic – was a major factor in the arms buildup. The appearance of strategic innovation in South Asia is important, therefore, in a way that goes beyond the particulars of any one innovation. An example of India’s strategy innovation involves new ways of using conventional forces in a nuclear environment. India’s “Cold Start” strategy, for example, calls for prompt mobilization of fast-moving battle groups made up of armor, helicopters, and mechanized forces to thrust into Pakistan as punishment for a Pakistani attack or a terrorist outrage.

Cold Start’s subnuclear option recognizes the nuclear threshold explicitly. The concept behind it is to fight below this threshold, if possible. But Cold Start has a nuclear element, too. Should Pakistan fire nuclear weapons at this Indian force, India can escalate with nuclear strikes of its own.

Cold Start provides fascinating insight into the dynamic interactions of the two military systems on the subcontinent. It shows how both countries have shifted from conventional war-fighting to escalation strategies. I do not believe this is a matter of a conscious choice by either country. Rather, it is an emergent property of the interacting nuclear systems in South Asia. They have little choice but to play the game this way, short of a sweeping arms control or disarmament initiatives.

Escalation as a strategy has come into being not because anyone wanted it too, but from the mutual interaction of both sides having nuclear weapons. While escalation strategies have always existed in South Asia, they are now front and center. This marks a fundamental change from the conventional attrition strategies of previous wars.

Cold Start shows something else, too. The dynamics in the region go beyond nuclear weapons in the narrow sense. There is no rigid arms race with each side matching the other in atomic bombs. If this were the case it would actually be easier to control. But the arms race is more complicated because it involves parallel changes in other key subsystems, and these have their own momentum.

If the arms race in South Asia was limited merely to nuclear weapons, which is the way many observers look at it, it would be one thing. But the competition is broadening, with India tightening linkages among intelligence, command and control, cyberwar, and strategy innovations like Cold Start. For example, the “front end” of Cold Start is better intelligence to determine exactly what Pakistan has done and the readiness of its conventional and nuclear forces. India has invested heavily in satellites, advanced radars, signals intelligence, and reconnaissance to give its commanders an accurate picture of what Pakistan is up to. The “tight coupling” of these elements, in turn, is linked to a rapid mobilization of India’s army and air force. Any delay in mobilization would undermine the entire strategy of counter-escalation against Pakistan.

Cold Start is controversial for good reason. The United States, in particular, has tried to discourage India away from it because it looks like a fast way to produce a nuclear war in South Asia. This is especially true if Pakistan, as many suspect it is in the process of doing, deploys tactical nuclear weapons on its border with India in response to Cold Start.

I wouldn’t be surprised if India changed the name, Cold Start, because it connotes going to war quickly, from a cold start. But while the name may change, the broader strategic concept probably won’t, because India has to come to grips with nuclear realities of South Asia in some way, and because its army and navy want to play a role in the defense of India – even in a nuclear context.

As to where the arms race in South Asia is headed, there are several different possibilities. There is a tendency for some analysts to use the past and simply extrapolate it into the future. But this straight-lining of past trends into the future can be misleading. India is a much richer country than it was in the past, and much of this wealth comes from technological and business innovation.

India’s military in the past was a gigantic, inefficient, sluggish infantry with bloated headquarters and support staffs. But there are more dynamic possibilities for the future, ones that do not involve across the board modernization of every single element of the Indian armed forces. In fact, India is currently in the process of reallocating its defense capital from “old” programs to “new” ones, including nuclear weapons, missiles, submarines, intelligence, stealth, cyberwar, and satellites. One reason for this shift is that India already has a large edge over Pakistan in the old military programs of tanks, artillery, and aircraft, and investing more capital in these capabilities results in diminishing marginal returns. The greater opportunity for India lies in the new program areas, especially in a nuclear context and with respect to China.

The arms race in South Asia now underway is only the first act of a longer drama. Acts two and three could look quite different than the current situation does. For this reason, new, additional frameworks are needed to understand what is taking place. At the moment, the deterrence and nonproliferation are the frameworks most often used to understand the subcontinent. Both put the spotlight on the number of nuclear weapons in each country’s respective arsenals. But future acts require new, different frameworks. The two discussed here are escalation and counterescalation, and the tight coupling that develops among key subsystems like intelligence, cyberwar, and nuclear weapons. In order to understand the nuclear dynamics of South Asia a wider set of frameworks are needed, ones that go beyond traditional approaches.

The Problem From Hell: South Asia's Arms Race - The Diplomat
 
.
Oppps Cold Start...I fed up with it. Now there will be counter strategies here and counter-counter attacks from PDF warriors here.
 
.
Cold-Start is 'innovative'? It is just an Indian version of Blitzkrieg and that too , a failed one.

Get 10,000 bucks from me on the day India actually dares to deploy cold-start against an adversary like Pakistan. Pakistan Military will either utterly destroy Indian invasion OR in case of an Indian success , the war will escalate into an all out war on all fronts. In both of these cases , India comes out as a big loser. So what is the point of even having such useless doctrine?

Cold start is very good against countries like Sri Lanka though....
 
.
Cold-Start is 'innovative'? It is just an Indian version of Blitzkrieg and that too , a failed one.

Get 10,000 bucks from me on the day India actually dares to deploy cold-start against an adversary like Pakistan. Pakistan Military will either utterly destroy Indian invasion OR in case of an Indian success , the war will escalate into an all out war on all fronts. In both of these cases , India comes out as a big loser. So what is the point of even having such useless doctrine?

Cold start is very good against countries like Sri Lanka though....

Please contradict the Indian Policy with good logical points rather than usual trolling, do u even know the details of the Cold Start?? Indian armed forces have tested it in number of war games (ofcourse they don't acknowledge it in open) with success. Plus, don't u think if this policy was against the Indian interests, it would have not formed in the first place??
 
.
Please contradict the Indian Policy with good logical points rather than usual trolling, do u even know the details of the Cold Start?? Indian armed forces have tested it in number of war games (ofcourse they don't acknowledge it in open) with success. Plus, don't u think if this policy was against the Indian interests, it would have not formed in the first place??

Iraq policy was not in our favor but yet Iraq saga happened. Hawks are in every establishment. The problem is , we could afford Iraq but India can't afford any misadventure with Pakistan. Cold-Start is a doctrine based on assumption. An assumption that India will not cross the 'threshold' of Pakistan. That is a tricky businesses right there.

I don't need logical points to debunk cold-start. It debunks itself. Since when nations' doctrine are based on an "assumption" about enemy's unknown response? lol Is Indian military that junkard?

I don't believe cold-start even exists in real life. If it does , then may Lord protect your country from your mentally handicap generals.

Lastly , cold start was 'tested' in war-games? how so? how did Indian planners determine the response of Pakistan military? :rolleyes:

One more thing : Can India mobilize its military faster than Pakistan? Not a chance! (Unless offcourse you believe in fairy tales).

Pakistan can mobilize its entire military to Indian border in a matter of hours. India just can't do that.
 
.
Iraq policy was not in our favor but yet Iraq saga happened. Hawks are in every establishment. The problem is , we could afford Iraq but India can't afford any misadventure with Pakistan. Cold-Start is a doctrine based on assumption. An assumption that India will not cross the 'threshold' of Pakistan. That is a tricky businesses right there.

I don't need logical points to debunk cold-start. It debunks itself. Since when nations' doctrine are based on an "assumption" about enemy's unknown response? lol Is Indian military that junkard?

I don't believe cold-start even exists in real life. If it does , then may Lord protect your country from your mentally handicap generals.

Lastly , cold start was 'tested' in war-games? how so? how did Indian planners determine the response of Pakistan military? :rolleyes:

One more thing : Can India mobilize its military faster than Pakistan? Not a chance! (Unless offcourse you believe in fairy tales).

Pakistan can mobilize its entire military to Indian border in a matter of hours. India just can't do that.

:undecided: dude u do know that 60% of indian military facing pakistan? we dont have to mobilize entire military. that 60% is already greater then pakistan. with more fire power and more better euipment then ever.
 
.
Iraq policy was not in our favor but yet Iraq saga happened. Hawks are in every establishment. The problem is , we could afford Iraq but India can't afford any misadventure with Pakistan. Cold-Start is a doctrine based on assumption. An assumption that India will not cross the 'threshold' of Pakistan. That is a tricky businesses right there.

I don't need logical points to debunk cold-start. It debunks itself. Since when nations' doctrine are based on an "assumption" about enemy's unknown response? lol Is Indian military that junkard?

I don't believe cold-start even exists in real life. If it does , then may Lord protect your country from your mentally handicap generals.

Lastly , cold start was 'tested' in war-games? how so? how did Indian planners determine the response of Pakistan military? :rolleyes:

One more thing : Can India mobilize its military faster than Pakistan? Not a chance! (Unless offcourse you believe in fairy tales).

Pakistan can mobilize its entire military to Indian border in a matter of hours. India just can't do that.

brainiac , you think you need an overwhelming numerical superiority for taking on a country. if u were actually a US citizen , you would know better.

INDIA has technological superiority to PAK (if not china ), and a cold start will nip pak millitary in bud. but i think a war against a nuclear country has and will never happen . if it happens between INDIA-PAK , i don't think even US will survive as the world will enter apocalypse .
 
.
Cold-Start is 'innovative'? It is just an Indian version of Blitzkrieg and that too , a failed one.

Get 10,000 bucks from me on the day India actually dares to deploy cold-start against an adversary like Pakistan. Pakistan Military will either utterly destroy Indian invasion OR in case of an Indian success , the war will escalate into an all out war on all fronts. In both of these cases , India comes out as a big loser. So what is the point of even having such useless doctrine?

Cold start is very good against countries like Sri Lanka though....

Give me 10000 bucks on the day, when u put ur real flags.
 
.
:undecided: dude u do know that 60% of indian military facing pakistan? we dont have to mobilize entire military. that 60% is already greater then pakistan. with more fire power and more better euipment then ever.

"Facing" Pakistan?

War-time deployment is a whole different concept "dude"....


brainiac , you think you need an overwhelming numerical superiority for taking on a country. if u were actually a US citizen , you would know better.

INDIA has technological superiority to PAK (if not china ), and a cold start will nip pak millitary in bud. but i think a war against a nuclear country has and will never happen . if it happens between INDIA-PAK , i don't think even US will survive as the world will enter apocalypse .

A bit of technological superiority is one thing.

A "decisive" technological superiority is another thing.

We have a "decisive" technological superiority against your junkard , backward military and if we to face-off , we will bury you in the ground disgracefully. On the other hand , you don't enjoy "decisive" technological superiority over Pakistan.

Get it this way , during cold-war , US enjoyed a bit of technological superiority over Soviets but it was no way near being a 'decisive' technological superiority. So in a case of a conventional war , both of us would've bled very badly.

Same goes to your scenario with Pakistan.

At its core , cold-start is a failed doctrine that is never put to test and will never be because it is big fail.

Give me 10000 bucks on the day, when u put ur real flags.

Just now , a Pakistani was calling me an "Indian-American". You third-world people are fun to be around. Always looking for conspiracy theories and what not.

FYI , if I was not an American , Americans on this forum would've spotted me at once. ;)
 
.
"Facing" Pakistan?

War-time deployment is a whole different concept "dude"....




A bit of technological superiority is one thing.

A "decisive" technological superiority is another thing.

We have a "decisive" technological superiority against your junkard , backward military and if we to face-off , we will bury you in the ground disgracefully. On the other hand , you don't enjoy "decisive" technological superiority over Pakistan.

Get it this way , during cold-war , US enjoyed a bit of technological superiority over Soviets but it was no way near being a 'decisive' technological superiority. So in a case of a conventional war , both of us would've bled very badly.

Same goes to your scenario with Pakistan.

At its core , cold-start is a failed doctrine that is never put to test and will never be because it is big fail.



Just now , a Pakistani was calling me an "Indian-American". You third-world people are fun to be around. Always looking for conspiracy theories and what not.

FYI , if I was not an American , Americans on this forum would've spotted me at once. ;)

do they not teach ''history'' in pakistan ?
 
.
Cold-Start is 'innovative'? It is just an Indian version of Blitzkrieg and that too , a failed one.

Get 10,000 bucks from me on the day India actually dares to deploy cold-start against an adversary like Pakistan. Pakistan Military will either utterly destroy Indian invasion OR in case of an Indian success , the war will escalate into an all out war on all fronts. In both of these cases , India comes out as a big loser. So what is the point of even having such useless doctrine?

Cold start is very good against countries like Sri Lanka though....

At least you should take a cue on the below sentence specially the bold part.

For example, the “front end” of Cold Start is better intelligence to determine exactly what Pakistan has done and the readiness.
 
.
Cold-Start is 'innovative'? It is just an Indian version of Blitzkrieg and that too , a failed one.

Get 10,000 bucks from me on the day India actually dares to deploy cold-start against an adversary like Pakistan. Pakistan Military will either utterly destroy Indian invasion OR in case of an Indian success , the war will escalate into an all out war on all fronts. In both of these cases , India comes out as a big loser. So what is the point of even having such useless doctrine?

Cold start is very good against countries like Sri Lanka though....

Say what you might, when it comes to Indo-Pak wars, Pakistan always ends up with less land than before the war, whether it was 65 or 71.

Whether Cold Start will be more effective than whatever the hell we used before to invade into Pakistani territory is another question altogether, which one cannot know unless a war actually breaks out and the Doctrine is actually used.

What you have done is simply very emotional and biased analysis... when all the facts from before in Indo-Pak wars when India was in a much worse situation Economically and Militarily still played out in India's favour.
 
.
Say what you might, when it comes to Indo-Pak wars, Pakistan always ends up with less land than before the war, whether it was 65 or 71.

Whether Cold Start will be more effective than whatever the hell we used before to invade into Pakistani territory is another question altogether, which one cannot know unless a war actually breaks out and the Doctrine is actually used.

What you have done is simply very emotional and biased analysis... when all the facts from before in Indo-Pak wars when India was in a much worse situation Economically and Militarily still played out in India's favour.

Emotional analysis? That is what you are doing by claiming that India somehow had upper hand in previous wars (except E.Pakistan debacle). The fact is that all of you guys' wars were waste of time. You both countries got nothing out of those wars. Some chest thumping from both sides and thats it.

My point is that cold-start can not be implemented against Pakistan because it can lead to an all out war. Anyways , you have every right to disagree.
 
.
Just now , a Pakistani was calling me an "Indian-American". You third-world people are fun to be around. Always looking for conspiracy theories and what not.

FYI , if I was not an American , Americans on this forum would've spotted me at once. ;)

Dude, that line itself gives you away. I don't have to be American to know this. An American wouldn't say things like "you third world people", just like he wouldn't say "you Africans" or "you undeveloped losers" about anybody with such condescension.

That's what a not-too-intelligent person from the subcontinent would think about how americans think. In other words, it is typical of a shallow person trying to put himself into a person from another place's shoes, unsuccessfully.

Any American would know that it is condescending to say "you third world people". Nobody would say that, since americans think in terms of individual capabilities, and don't collectively label people.

Show your real flag, there is no shame in that. Most people won't judge you for being from the third world. Your opinions will be judged on their own merit, not depending on whether you are from the first or second or third world.
 
.
Dude, that line itself gives you away. I don't have to be American to know this. An American wouldn't say things like "you third world people", just like he wouldn't say "you Africans" or "you undeveloped losers" about anybody with such condescension.

That's what a not-too-intelligent person from the subcontinent would think about how americans think. In other words, it is typical of a shallow person trying to put himself into a person from another place's shoes, unsuccessfully.

Any American wuodl know that it is condescending to say "you third world people". Nobody would say that, since americans think in terms of individual capabilities, and don't collectively label people.

Who told you that I'm telling you how "Americans" think? I just joined this forum to comment on Gaza situation. Now , I just play around with Indians , Pakistanis , and one Chinese dude. Obviously no American will say such things IF he was having a serious conversation with someone.

Juice , Gambit are your typical Americans in this forum.

Also , if you so doubt me why don't tell mods to check my location? :rolleyes:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom