PDA

View Full Version : Frankly! WHAT WAS SOUTH ASIA'S WWIII SCENARIO?



Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 13,, 07:21
Ok, nukes have been flying. Soviet divisions are clashing with Chinese and NATO divisions. The world is going to hell storm whatever!

What was India and Pakistani plans? Twiddling their thumbs for the winner? I'm being serious.

Tronic
09 Jan 13,, 09:00
I'm guessing it would depend on whose leading India at the time. If Nehru, than watching the show from the sidelines. If Indira, an intervention in Tibet? looking for a chance to snatch Diego Garcia? :tongue: Who knows?

Doubt if Pakistan would be interested in anything. Their sole focus is and always has been Kashmir and they've failed consistently at it. I wonder though if seeing the US busy with the Soviets, the Indian leadership would've been more open to smashing the Pak army post-70s.

Skywatcher
09 Jan 13,, 20:34
Which, WWIII scenario, sir? (Especially with regards to timeframe)

cataphract
09 Jan 13,, 20:55
Ok, nukes have been flying. Soviet divisions are clashing with Chinese and NATO divisions. The world is going to hell storm whatever!

What was India and Pakistani plans? Twiddling their thumbs for the winner? I'm being serious.

Twiddling thumbs sounds like a good idea, since the neighborhood was never threatened by Soviets, Americans or Chinese. At best a buildup along the India-China border?

Deltacamelately
10 Jan 13,, 13:15
Sir,

IA couldn't get a better opportunity than this to dismantle the PA, while I am confident that howsoever the Paks would have wanted, the Chinese wouldn't have opened the southern theatre.

kuku
10 Jan 13,, 18:37
Would the goal for the Government of India not be to be neutral and to ensure that the Republic of India survived? Supporting either side sounds like an invitation for the opposite.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 13,, 04:10
Which, WWIII scenario, sir? (Especially with regards to timeframe)Any scenario. The thing is EVERYONE EXPECTED INDIA to be involved. More specifically challenging the USN in the Indian Ocean and harassing China's Tibet's MR. At the very least tying down those USN and PLA assets from re-enforcing the actions against the Soviets. That was before India opened up her views to the world.

The thing is that Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers could not have escaped notice of WWIII participants' expectations. China and the US would have targeted Indian assets just in case. We know today that Moscow could not have counted on the Indian Navy to do anything but that did not stop American plans from sinking the Indian Navy. The same with Tibet. The Indian Army was not going to march north to relieve the Soviets but the Chinese kept four armies in the region.

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

cataphract
11 Jan 13,, 04:25
Any scenario. The thing is EVERYONE EXPECTED INDIA to be involved. More specifically challenging the USN in the Indian Ocean and harassing China's Tibet's MR. At the very least tying down those USN and PLA assets from re-enforcing the actions against the Soviets. That was before India opened up her views to the world.

The thing is that Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers could not have escaped notice of WWIII participants' expectations. China and the US would have targeted Indian assets just in case. We know today that Moscow could not have counted on the Indian Navy to do anything but that did not stop American plans from sinking the Indian Navy. The same with Tibet. The Indian Army was not going to march north to relieve the Soviets but the Chinese kept four armies in the region.

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

Sir, I am going to assume your timeframe is 1962+. IMO, your scenario is unlikely before 62 for several reasons:

1. Sino-Soviet split was not serious enough for China to declare war against Soviet Union. Plus China did not have the resources to go to war with the Soviets before 62. They were busy recovering from the GLF and Korean War.

2. India was not pro-Soviet before Indira Gandhi, and not perceived as such. JFK even visited India in the early 60s. After the 62 war, Nehru turned to the Americans for help, not the Soviets. Nehru collaborated with the CIA to aid the Tibetan resistance.

3. The Indian navy was minuscule and incapable of even harassing the US navy in the Indian Ocean.

Therefore, if WWIII happened as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, India would be insignificant in the picture.

If we're looking at 1969 - 73, your scenario is very much plausible. I'm guessing India's primary focus would be the Tibetan border and any offensive into Tibet would be contingent upon the success of Soviets in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 13,, 04:41
If we're looking at 1969 - 73, your scenario is very much plausible. I'm guessing India's primary focus would be the Tibetan border and any offensive into Tibet would be contingent upon the success of Soviets in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.That just it. There were no plans of doing so. Dehli had no plans of marching into that meat grinder.

YellowFever
11 Jan 13,, 05:40
I think the operative word(s) here is, "Ok, nukes have been flying"....

I can see India and Pakistan jockeying for positions and making contingency plans if the war was strictly conventional.

But if nukes were flying and continue to fly between the Soviet Bloc and NATO, most likely every other country not involved would try to look as inconspicuous as possible and bury their heads in the sand.

I would imagine the last thing India/Pakistan would want to do is piss off one side or the other, especially since both sides had nukes to spare by the thousands....

lemontree
11 Jan 13,, 05:49
So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

I did'nt realise that Nixon policy had such a decisive impact on relations towards India!
I guess we would have stayed "non-aligned" till the Big five had bombed the hell out of each other, then we would have bled Europe, US and the Chinese dry selling non contaminated rice and bread....Lol

Tronic
11 Jan 13,, 05:50
So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

Sir, India was one of the founding fathers of the non-aligned movement, and we strongly felt so. India was never so closely aligned with the Soviets as Pakistan was with the Americans. America had military bases in Pakistan since inception, yet, not a single Soviet boot was ever allowed on Indian territory. Heck, we didn't even provide the Soviets with any dedicated naval facilities for the IOR. Non-alignment has always been, and continues to be, the core guiding philosophy of Indian foreign policy. (It's also one of the reasons India continues to be vary of buying weapons from the US, as they come with many clauses and strings attached).

There was a very strong tilt towards the Soviets in the early 70s, but even that was reactionary to America's support of Pakistan, rather than on India's own accord. We were never communist enough to fight on behalf of the Soviets, and never trusted the Americans enough to tilt towards them. India was truly non-aligned.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 13,, 06:01
India was truly non-aligned.Yes, we know that now but the fact remained that India was considered part of the Soviet bloc. Now, whether true or not is not what I am asking. I am asking when the fan gets dirty with the fertilizer, what were Indian and Pakistani plans? Would the Indian Navy stay in port? Would the Indian Army stay in barracks?

We discussed this before, not with regards towards India, but China had absolutely no choice but to take on the Soviets if the Soviets and NATO clashed. They were next.

I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.

India was also viewed in the same vein but the natural barriers gave her some protection against the Chinese and her posture was not as threatening as Vietnam was ... and China would not be looking to open a third front if India could stay quiet ... but again, there were 4 armies in the region.

And I have not even started on Pakistan yet.

But the point is none of this is absent from view to the Indian strategic thinkers. They must have known all this. I am truly curious what they had planned out.

cataphract
11 Jan 13,, 06:06
Sir, India was one of the founding fathers of the non-aligned movement, and we strongly felt so. India was never so closely aligned with the Soviets as Pakistan was with the Americans. America had military bases in Pakistan since inception, yet, not a single Soviet boot was ever allowed on Indian territory. Heck, we didn't even provide the Soviets with any dedicated naval facilities for the IOR. Non-alignment has always been, and continues to be, the core guiding philosophy of Indian foreign policy. (It's also one of the reasons India continues to be vary of buying weapons from the US, as they come with many clauses and strings attached).

There was a very strong tilt towards the Soviets in the early 70s, but even that was reactionary to America's support of Pakistan, rather than on India's own accord. We were never communist enough to fight on behalf of the Soviets, and never trusted the Americans enough to tilt towards them. India was truly non-aligned.

Tronic,
It's not a question of being communist or pro-Soviet, but one of securing India's regional interests. In 1971, flush with success in East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi would've moved against West Pakistan and then China given the opportunity. And China's fixation on their northern borders would have given her the opportunity. At the end of the day, she still would not be subordinated to the Soviets.

I imagine we would be like Finland in WWII - co-belligerents, but not allies. Well, I at least wish we were so :)

cataphract
11 Jan 13,, 06:08
I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.


Sir, could North Vietnam afford such a strident anti-Chinese posture in 1971, with South Vietnam still existing and American troops in their backyard? More importantly, there were Chinese troops in North Vietnam itself!

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 13,, 06:24
The Chinese were fully gone by end 1971, preparing for their upcoming war in the north. However, I was speaking of 1977 onwards when Vietnam openly adopted a hostile attitude towards China.

lemontree
11 Jan 13,, 07:42
I am asking when the fan gets dirty with the fertilizer, what were Indian and Pakistani plans? Would the Indian Navy stay in port? Would the Indian Army stay in barracks?.......

But the point is none of this is absent from view to the Indian strategic thinkers. They must have known all this. I am truly curious what they had planned out.

Sir,

In the post 1977 era, assuming the Soviets were in Afghanistan, when WW3 broke out. The maximum India would have done would be some posturing to force Pakistan to divide its forces along the Afghan and Indian borders.

We did not have any air superiority fighters at that time, hence the IAF would have had very little to counter the the F-16s in the PAF. This would have played a big part in keeping the tempers sane. (The Mirage-2000's came in the mid-80's).

The Sikh insurgency would never have taken place if WW3 would have broken out.

The Indian Navy would be on alert but would not attack the US Navy if it was in the Karachi harbour. They just did not have the reach or the capability to do so.

The NATO-Warsaw battle grounds would be in Europe, we would have been fence sitters.

Tronic
11 Jan 13,, 07:54
Yes, we know that now but the fact remained that India was considered part of the Soviet bloc. Now, whether true or not is not what I am asking. I am asking when the fan gets dirty with the fertilizer, what were Indian and Pakistani plans? Would the Indian Navy stay in port? Would the Indian Army stay in barracks?

We discussed this before, not with regards towards India, but China had absolutely no choice but to take on the Soviets if the Soviets and NATO clashed. They were next.

I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.

India was also viewed in the same vein but the natural barriers gave her some protection against the Chinese and her posture was not as threatening as Vietnam was ... and China would not be looking to open a third front if India could stay quiet ... but again, there were 4 armies in the region.

And I have not even started on Pakistan yet.

But the point is none of this is absent from view to the Indian strategic thinkers. They must have known all this. I am truly curious what they had planned out.

It's an interesting question, sir. Though I am still not too sure if Indian strategic thinkers considered this a threat. India's capabilities back than were not what they are today, and neither did India start to develop it's military until forced by the Chinese after '62. Also, I am sure that had Indian planners been considering to take on the US, the hardware and the composition of the Indian military would be a whole lot different than what it was.

One example of this; Instead of spending money on buying aircraft carriers, Sea Harriers and Jaguars from the UK, assets which it would be incapable of defending against the USN, India would rather have procured Tu-22Ms equipped with ASMs to be somewhat of a threat for the USN. I just don't see any hardware buildup aimed at taking on the USN.

Indian intervention in Tibet was plausible, and even there, India's strategy in Tibet can be seen through it's military development with respect to that area. India raised specialized military units, such as the SFF, composed entirely of ethnic Tibetans, with the main goal of dropping deep within enemy lines, rallying up and organizing an armed insurgency against the Chinese, and to relieve the Indian military units by cutting off Chinese lines of communications and logistic routes.

These units were independent units from the rest of the Indian army.

31557
Dalai Lama inspecting the Tibetan SFF.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 13,, 09:16
Are you gentlemen ready to play?

1977-1981, Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The strategic initiative clearly belonged to Moscow. The Americans were reeling from Vietnam. The Soviets at least was viewed to have reach military technological parity and in some cases, superiority with the US. When the Soviets took Afghanistan, there was a fear that they would also take Pakistan or even Iran.

Scenario. The Soviets were going to take Pakistan with or without Indian help. The Chinese mobilize to intervene. They have to. They cannot afford a Soviet army in their rear ... but looking at the map, their best chances is through disputed J&K territory.

Are you gentlemen putting on your game goggles?

Tronic
11 Jan 13,, 10:05
Are you gentlemen ready to play?

1977-1981, Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The strategic initiative clearly belonged to Moscow. The Americans were reeling from Vietnam. The Soviets at least was viewed to have reach military technological parity and in some cases, superiority with the US. When the Soviets took Afghanistan, there was a fear that they would also take Pakistan or even Iran.

Scenario. The Soviets were going to take Pakistan with or without Indian help. The Chinese mobilize to intervene. They have to. They cannot afford a Soviet army in their rear ... but looking at the map, their best chances is through disputed J&K territory.

Are you gentlemen putting on your game goggles?

Sir, that is quite some scenario. The interesting part here is that there is a popular misconception that India would actually sit back and/or support the Soviet invasion of Pakistan. Truth is, India would be just as, if not more, uncomfortable than China seeing the Soviets end up on it's borders.

India actually condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on all levels. The Indian PM at the time, Charan Singh, openly condemned the Soviets, while the Indian ambassador to Moscow, IK Gujral, made it personally known to the Soviets that India did not approve of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Even after Indira Gandhi, a pro-Soviet leader, assumed power in 1980, she refused to support the Soviet war. Brezhnev paid a visit to India in 1980 to secure it's support for Afghanistan, yet he went back empty handed. (The Bulletin - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=evtXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6840,1286312&dq=india+denies+afghan+war+support&hl=en)).

To see the Soviets rolling into Pakistan would be a nightmare for Indian strategic planners, I'd imagine. India's non-aligned stance and mistrust of America stems from the fact that it does not wish to see foreign powers enter the Indian subcontinent. Be it China trying to enter Nepal, America in Sri Lanka, or Soviets in Pakistan; India's response would likely be the same in each case. Unwelcoming, if not hostile.

Taking that into account, I wonder then, would India be willing to fight the Soviets down to the last Chinese? ;)

cataphract
11 Jan 13,, 10:05
Are you gentlemen ready to play?

1977-1981, Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The strategic initiative clearly belonged to Moscow. The Americans were reeling from Vietnam. The Soviets at least was viewed to have reach military technological parity and in some cases, superiority with the US. When the Soviets took Afghanistan, there was a fear that they would also take Pakistan or even Iran.

Scenario. The Soviets were going to take Pakistan with or without Indian help. The Chinese mobilize to intervene. They have to. They cannot afford a Soviet army in their rear ... but looking at the map, their best chances is through disputed J&K territory.

Are you gentlemen putting on your game goggles?

That's a really juicy one sir :).

Soviets are moving on from Afghanistan and into Pakistan and Pakistan appeals for Chinese help.
The Karakorum highway won't be built until 1979, and it is the only way for China to put troops into Pakistan. The alternative is through Indian Kashmir. Either way, Chinese presence in Kashmir is unacceptable to India, which orders full mobilization. To prevent transit of Chinese troops, India must either knock out the K highway or eject Pakistani troops from their Kashmir.
Full mobilization along the Pakistani and Chinese borders leaves the Indian coast and ports relatively undefended. The USN swoops in and destroys much of the IN in port. Meanwhile, the Soviets march into Pakistan.

anil
11 Jan 13,, 13:16
india's defensive posture will not change into an offensive posture till it modernises its military at par with ruling powers which is only possible through indigenization because it solely can guarantee autonomy.

if ww3 occurs in 2015, india will not participate and if it gets attacked only defensive posture

Dante
11 Jan 13,, 15:42
I always thought that in that time frame NATO would nuke India and the Soviets China from the start, no questions asked? :confu:
Really can't see how NATO/Soviets would allow any of this countries to emerge unscathed form ww3, as they would be in a far to strong position versus the "winner" from the big two..

Edit: In the above position India either fights along side the soviets, or they fight alone, but fight they will...and they can't afford a soviet defeat.

Albany Rifles
11 Jan 13,, 17:56
Colonel,

Does this fight stay conventional (no nukes, LIMITED battlefield chem, no bio)?

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 13,, 03:36
Colonel,

Does this fight stay conventional (no nukes, LIMITED battlefield chem, no bio)?Good question. This was one of our scenarios and I suspect Pakistanis when the Soviets marched on Kabul. I recalled plans to rush the 101st and the 802nd to Pakistan in case the Soviet 58th rushed the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Against the Pakistanis, I doubt the Soviets would resort to nukes. The Pakistani canals were dug the wrong way and the north south corridors created by the canals would be a god send to Soviet tanks.

However, the second they encounter American resistance, all bets are off.

This being all said, I wanted our gentlemen to think things through. There are WWIII scenarios that India cannot sit on the fence to.

One thing I love about this forum. All I have to do is to offer a tibit and I can see wheels spinning in their heads.

cataphract
12 Jan 13,, 03:54
Good question. This was one of our scenarios and I suspect Pakistanis when the Soviets marched on Kabul. I recalled plans to rush the 101st and the 802nd to Pakistan in case the Soviet 58th rushed the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Against the Pakistanis, I doubt the Soviets would resort to nukes. The Pakistani canals were dug the wrong way and the north south corridors created by the canals would be a god send to Soviet tanks.

However, the second they encounter American resistance, all bets are off.

This being all said, I wanted our gentlemen to think things through. There are WWIII scenarios that India cannot sit on the fence to.

One thing I love about this forum. All I have to do is to offer a tibit and I can see wheels spinning in their heads.

Was there anything India could have done to prevent a Soviet attack on Pakistan?

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 13,, 04:01
I don't know. Was there? All I can tell you is that we did not count on India to defend Pakistan against the Soviets.

You're a smart lad. Why don't you read up on the orbats during the time period and tell me what India could have done.

Blademaster
12 Jan 13,, 21:19
Any scenario. The thing is EVERYONE EXPECTED INDIA to be involved. More specifically challenging the USN in the Indian Ocean and harassing China's Tibet's MR. At the very least tying down those USN and PLA assets from re-enforcing the actions against the Soviets. That was before India opened up her views to the world.

The thing is that Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers could not have escaped notice of WWIII participants' expectations. China and the US would have targeted Indian assets just in case. We know today that Moscow could not have counted on the Indian Navy to do anything but that did not stop American plans from sinking the Indian Navy. The same with Tibet. The Indian Army was not going to march north to relieve the Soviets but the Chinese kept four armies in the region.

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

It largely depends on the crop of leaders in power at that time. If it was Dr. Manmohan Singh and his chickenshit cadre of supporters, absolutely nothing. He would be just shivering in his dhoti with his thumb up his ass.

Blademaster
12 Jan 13,, 21:29
Yes, we know that now but the fact remained that India was considered part of the Soviet bloc. Now, whether true or not is not what I am asking. I am asking when the fan gets dirty with the fertilizer, what were Indian and Pakistani plans? Would the Indian Navy stay in port? Would the Indian Army stay in barracks?

We discussed this before, not with regards towards India, but China had absolutely no choice but to take on the Soviets if the Soviets and NATO clashed. They were next.

I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.

India was also viewed in the same vein but the natural barriers gave her some protection against the Chinese and her posture was not as threatening as Vietnam was ... and China would not be looking to open a third front if India could stay quiet ... but again, there were 4 armies in the region.

And I have not even started on Pakistan yet.

But the point is none of this is absent from view to the Indian strategic thinkers. They must have known all this. I am truly curious what they had planned out.


If it was Indira Gandhi, she would have taken this opportunity to seize Kashmir and some parts of Tibet back. China would not have repeated its success in the 1962 war. The logistics lines just simply do not allow it. US does not even have enough nukes to go after India especially when facing USSR and the Warsaw pact.

Pakistan would fight but it would lose in the end because despite USN keeping supply lines open for Pakistan, Pakistan would be cut off in half by the fact with the capture of a certain town ( I forget the name), most of the supply lines would be reduced to a single line running in the mountains and that is not easy to bring supplies on that line.

As for Tibet, with most of its troops facing the Soviet might, China has nothing to spare for Indian armies and I am sure China would give up Askin Chin and the other small territories that it captured from India in 1962 and an agreement to not do anything to the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Indira Gandhi would be content with it and the return of the rest of Kashmir and then bug out.

I am sure that US warplanners would realize the very limited impact of the South Asia theater it brings to the global level and leave India alone if India lets Pakistan live minus its Kashmir, which it would do when India returns the vital town and Lahore. But India cannot march on to Islamabad, otherwise it would be seen by western powers as standing with the Soviet bloc.

Blademaster
12 Jan 13,, 21:32
Are you gentlemen ready to play?

1977-1981, Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The strategic initiative clearly belonged to Moscow. The Americans were reeling from Vietnam. The Soviets at least was viewed to have reach military technological parity and in some cases, superiority with the US. When the Soviets took Afghanistan, there was a fear that they would also take Pakistan or even Iran.

Scenario. The Soviets were going to take Pakistan with or without Indian help. The Chinese mobilize to intervene. They have to. They cannot afford a Soviet army in their rear ... but looking at the map, their best chances is through disputed J&K territory.

Are you gentlemen putting on your game goggles?

India would have to capture the rest of Kashmir and Askin Chin to prevent China from coming into Pakistan. With Indira Gandhi at the helm, she would do it. With Dr. Manmohan, he would be just shivering and do nothing.

Skywatcher
12 Jan 13,, 21:48
If it was Indira Gandhi, she would have taken this opportunity to seize Kashmir and some parts of Tibet back. China would not have repeated its success in the 1962 war. The logistics lines just simply do not allow it. US does not even have enough nukes to go after India especially when facing USSR and the Warsaw pact.

Pakistan would fight but it would lose in the end because despite USN keeping supply lines open for Pakistan, Pakistan would be cut off in half by the fact with the capture of a certain town ( I forget the name), most of the supply lines would be reduced to a single line running in the mountains and that is not easy to bring supplies on that line.

As for Tibet, with most of its troops facing the Soviet might, China has nothing to spare for Indian armies and I am sure China would give up Askin Chin and the other small territories that it captured from India in 1962 and an agreement to not do anything to the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Indira Gandhi would be content with it and the return of the rest of Kashmir and then bug out.

I am sure that US warplanners would realize the very limited impact of the South Asia theater it brings to the global level and leave India alone if India lets Pakistan live minus its Kashmir, which it would do when India returns the vital town and Lahore. But India cannot march on to Islamabad, otherwise it would be seen by western powers as standing with the Soviet bloc.

But in the long run, that would leave China and Pakistan to plot revenge, with western backing.

cataphract
12 Jan 13,, 21:50
I don't know. Was there? All I can tell you is that we did not count on India to defend Pakistan against the Soviets.

You're a smart lad. Why don't you read up on the orbats during the time period and tell me what India could have done.

Orbats won't matter, because the solution cannot be military. The impression I get from the discussion so far is that India would not have liked any Soviet advances into Pakistan because it brought the cold war onto her doorstep. If so, how would she go about preventing the Soviets from invading?

There is no question of a military confrontation between the IA and Soviets because the Pakistanis would never allow Indian troops on their soil. Even with the Soviets breathing down their neck. This is disregarding the obvious Soviet military superiority should any confrontation occur.

Blademaster
12 Jan 13,, 21:59
But in the long run, that would leave China and Pakistan to plot revenge, with western backing.

Not really because US and USSR would be too exhausted and China would be too exhausted from fighting. The terrain does not favor China. And Pakistan has no strategic depth.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jan 13,, 06:39
It largely depends on the crop of leaders in power at that time. If it was Dr. Manmohan Singh and his chickenshit cadre of supporters, absolutely nothing. He would be just shivering in his dhoti with his thumb up his ass.1977-1981. You would know better than me the steel of your leaders.


If it was Indira Gandhi, she would have taken this opportunity to seize Kashmir and some parts of Tibet back. China would not have repeated its success in the 1962 war. The logistics lines just simply do not allow it.The Chengdu Military Region had 4 armies and you know they were static defenc


US does not even have enough nukes to go after India especially when facing USSR and the Warsaw pact.Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact expects to toss all their nukes in the first go. A lot is kept in reserves, including boomers with full loads. So, yes, both the US and the USSR had more than enough nukes to go around. We're talking 60,000+, the sheer insanity of finding suitable targets, including empty silos (so that they can't be reloaded).


Pakistan would fight but it would lose in the end because despite USN keeping supply lines open for Pakistan, Pakistan would be cut off in half by the fact with the capture of a certain town ( I forget the name), most of the supply lines would be reduced to a single line running in the mountains and that is not easy to bring supplies on that line.So you expect both Pakistan and India to join the fray?


As for Tibet, with most of its troops facing the Soviet might, China has nothing to spare for Indian armies and I am sure China would give up Askin Chin and the other small territories that it captured from India in 1962 and an agreement to not do anything to the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Indira Gandhi would be content with it and the return of the rest of Kashmir and then bug out.You forget the Chinese setup. Seven Military Regions (down from 11) with its own armies and their own commands.


I am sure that US warplanners would realize the very limited impact of the South Asia theater it brings to the global level and leave India alone if India lets Pakistan live minus its Kashmir, which it would do when India returns the vital town and Lahore. But India cannot march on to Islamabad, otherwise it would be seen by western powers as standing with the Soviet bloc.Ok, I'm lost. A few lines ago, you were saying that India and Pakistan would join the fray.


There is no question of a military confrontation between the IA and Soviets because the Pakistanis would never allow Indian troops on their soil. Even with the Soviets breathing down their neck. This is disregarding the obvious Soviet military superiority should any confrontation occur.I don't think the InA would be more than a speed bump for the Soviets but they would buy time for the Americans to arrive. That being said, are you saying that Islamabad is in a position to refuse help?

cataphract
13 Jan 13,, 07:25
I don't think the InA would be more than a speed bump for the Soviets but they would buy time for the Americans to arrive. That being said, are you saying that Islamabad is in a position to refuse help?

If I were Zia in 1977, I'd rather get steamrolled by the Soviets and then expect Chinese and American help (which would definitely be forthcoming), than allow Indian troops in Pakistan. Because once the Indian troops arrive, they might never leave. Especially from Pakistani Kashmir.

Skywatcher
13 Jan 13,, 08:22
Not really because US and USSR would be too exhausted and China would be too exhausted from fighting. The terrain does not favor China. And Pakistan has no strategic depth.

Not in twenty year's time, Pakistan and the PRC will have all the western backing they need to make India's life very miserable in the neighborhood.

anil
13 Jan 13,, 10:17
^Groupism is very common, it happens in mumbai local trains, it is that common.

Just like the groups in local trains, there are groups in the wide world also in the form of UN, IAEA, NSG, NATO etc.

India's problem isn't limited to terrorism but also global trade and economics. Even black money is swizz banks come under the security blanket of these groups. In simple words, india needs a breakthrough in defence technology to account for all these groups.

snapper
13 Jan 13,, 11:54
I think the Colonels scenario still ends in a defeat for the Red Army in Northern Pakistan - Southern Afghanistan. Western 'boots on the ground' and aid to Mujaheddin would cut the Red Army supply lines and those that made into southern Pakistan and the delta areas would be stranded. USN checks any Indian naval moves and China and India make faces at each other.

zraver
13 Jan 13,, 19:05
If it was Indira Gandhi, she would have taken this opportunity to seize Kashmir and some parts of Tibet back. China would not have repeated its success in the 1962 war. The logistics lines just simply do not allow it. US does not even have enough nukes to go after India especially when facing USSR and the Warsaw pact.

Not so sure, any overt move against either China or Pakistan could be construed by a jittery American military establishment as throwing in with the Soviets. That might well bring the USN a calling, hunting India's navy.


Pakistan would fight but it would lose in the end because despite USN keeping supply lines open for Pakistan, Pakistan would be cut off in half by the fact with the capture of a certain town ( I forget the name), most of the supply lines would be reduced to a single line running in the mountains and that is not easy to bring supplies on that line.

As for Tibet, with most of its troops facing the Soviet might, China has nothing to spare for Indian armies and I am sure China would give up Askin Chin and the other small territories that it captured from India in 1962 and an agreement to not do anything to the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Indira Gandhi would be content with it and the return of the rest of Kashmir and then bug out.

maybe against China, but against Pakistan it might well risk a US nuclear release on Indian penetrations. The Soviets won't burn their own cities with American nukes to keep American nukes from burning Indian spearheads.


I am sure that US warplanners would realize the very limited impact of the South Asia theater it brings to the global level and leave India alone if India lets Pakistan live minus its Kashmir, which it would do when India returns the vital town and Lahore. But India cannot march on to Islamabad, otherwise it would be seen by western powers as standing with the Soviet bloc.

The straits of Malacca and the regions close proximity to Middle East Oil makes the area of huge strategic importance for the US and NATO. An India that appears to have jumped in on the side of the Soviets presents American military planners with the threat of Soviet submarines operating out of Indian ports with missions to sink western tankers...

Washington would likely send India some very strongly worded messages that NAM had better sit it out.

Blademaster
13 Jan 13,, 19:16
1977-1981. You would know better than me the steel of your leaders.
Then India would take the opportunity to seize back Kashmir and Askin Chin if opportunity present itself and nothing more.




The Chengdu Military Region had 4 armies and you know they were static defenc

Which tells me that they were not gonna be supplied for a while. Look at the logistics line and ability to manufacture necessary war supplies and sustain 4 armies in the field.



Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact expects to toss all their nukes in the first go. A lot is kept in reserves, including boomers with full loads. So, yes, both the US and the USSR had more than enough nukes to go around. We're talking 60,000+, the sheer insanity of finding suitable targets, including empty silos (so that they can't be reloaded).


Aw come on, as long as there are nukes out there in your enemy, you have to keep yours available to counter those nukes. NATO can't afford to spare any nukes for anything else except for Warsaw Pact and USSR.



So you expect both Pakistan and India to join the fray?

I would expect Pakistan to be stupid enough to join the fray first and then drag India into the conflict. Indira Ganhdi would have no problem obliging that request and get its pound of flesh.

You forget the Chinese setup. Seven Military Regions (down from 11) with its own armies and their own commands.



Ok, I'm lost. A few lines ago, you were saying that India and Pakistan would join the fray.

I don't think the InA would be more than a speed bump for the Soviets but they would buy time for the Americans to arrive. That being said, are you saying that Islamabad is in a position to refuse help?

If taking on NATO and China at same time, the USSR don't have enough resources to make InA more than speed bumps. Especially in that mountainous regiion in Pakistan. The Kyhber pass is a very hard area to seize and defend and put in supplies without a very bloody fight.

Blademaster
13 Jan 13,, 19:17
Not in twenty year's time, Pakistan and the PRC will have all the western backing they need to make India's life very miserable in the neighborhood.


Don't buy it.

Blademaster
13 Jan 13,, 19:35
Not so sure, any overt move against either China or Pakistan could be construed by a jittery American military establishment as throwing in with the Soviets. That might well bring the USN a calling, hunting India's navy.


If war breaks out between USN and USSR, there is a time of window there because USN would be busy keeping its sea lanes open for its REFORGER operation and busy contending with Soviet Backfires and a possible airborne invasion of Iceland (yes I am taking a page out of Red Storm Rising)



maybe against China, but against Pakistan it might well risk a US nuclear release on Indian penetrations. The Soviets won't burn their own cities with American nukes to keep American nukes from burning Indian spearheads.

That sounds a lot like similar to empty talk from PRC regarding Taiwan. No I do not buy it. US has to husband its nukes regarding Warsaw Pact and its nukes. The South Asian theater has no bearing on the global stage and cannot influence events further than the South Asia theater.




The straits of Malacca and the regions close proximity to Middle East Oil makes the area of huge strategic importance for the US and NATO. An India that appears to have jumped in on the side of the Soviets presents American military planners with the threat of Soviet submarines operating out of Indian ports with missions to sink western tankers...

Washington would likely send India some very strongly worded messages that NAM had better sit it out.

And if Indira was in power, she would basically tell Washington off like she did in 1971.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jan 13,, 19:53
Which tells me that they were not gonna be supplied for a while. Look at the logistics line and ability to manufacture necessary war supplies and sustain 4 armies in the field.The point is that Tibet was garrisoned up. It was garrisoned up since the 60s.


Aw come on, as long as there are nukes out there in your enemy, you have to keep yours available to counter those nukes. NATO can't afford to spare any nukes for anything else except for Warsaw Pact and USSR.You mean countries like Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, all non-nuclear weapons states?

You're forgetting that India was viewed militarily as part of the Soviet bloc. Nukes were tasked and assigned to Indian targets, just as they were to Canadian, Japanese, Mexican, Australian, New Zealand, Taiwanese, Egyptian, Syrian, etc targets.


I would expect Pakistan to be stupid enough to join the fray first and then drag India into the conflict. Indira Ganhdi would have no problem obliging that request and get its pound of flesh.Keep this thought.


If taking on NATO and China at same time, the USSR don't have enough resources to make InA more than speed bumps.Are you siding with or against the USSR?


Especially in that mountainous regiion in Pakistan. The Kyhber pass is a very hard area to seize and defend and put in supplies without a very bloody fight.You're forgetting 1979 Invasion of Afghanistan. Soviet engineers made short work of those mountains ... and one of the reason why the Chinese was so scared afterwards. Their mountains were going to stop nothing.

The collary would not have been the same. Indian and Pakistani engineers would not have been able to overcome those mountain obstacles as easily as the Soviets. Hell, I don't think NATO engineers could have matched them.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jan 13,, 20:00
If war breaks out between USN and USSR, there is a time of window there because USN would be busy keeping its sea lanes open for its REFORGER operation and busy contending with Soviet Backfires and a possible airborne invasion of Iceland (yes I am taking a page out of Red Storm Rising)I like Hackett better.


That sounds a lot like similar to empty talk from PRC regarding Taiwan. No I do not buy it. US has to husband its nukes regarding Warsaw Pact and its nukes. The South Asian theater has no bearing on the global stage and cannot influence events further than the South Asia theater.Except to draw forces away from the main theatre. India was expected by the West and the Chinese to open a third front against China (the other two are Sino-Soviet and Sino-Vietnam).

The Soviet penetration into Pakistan is seen to draw the 7th Fleet (or a large portion) away from Vladivostok.


And if Indira was in power, she would basically tell Washington off like she did in 1971.This is WWIII we're speaking of. India would have to make it very plain to all belligerent, including China exactly what her goals are. Escalation would be very uncontrollable at this point.

n21
13 Jan 13,, 22:23
Just some questions,

1. What effect did 1971 war have on US & Soviet planners? InA capturing Bangladesh in 14 days would have left some impression.

2. Why did the Chinese think India might attack through Tibet? Why not through Burma? Much easier compared to keeping roads open in Himalayas.

3. India and Pakistan had one important assest. Population. The Soviets would know having a larger population helps win war, like they did with Germany. Both side would want to have
this large source of men, fighting for them.

If India's intentions were to keep the powers away from the sub-continent and the nearest being the Soviets, it could have been possible that India asked Pakistan to join hands to keep the
Soviets away. Pakistan would prefer to fight the Soviets with India on it's side, rather than on it's behind. The Soviets would have to assign considerable resources to take on heavily populated countries.

They might nuke the entire place up, however it would require lot of nukes to do it.

cataphract
13 Jan 13,, 23:48
Just some questions,

1. What effect did 1971 war have on US & Soviet planners? InA capturing Bangladesh in 14 days would have left some impression.

2. Why did the Chinese think India might attack through Tibet? Why not through Burma? Much easier compared to keeping roads open in Himalayas.

Because the Burmese jungle is even more inaccessible than Tibetan Himalayas. Plus it would've drawn Burma into the fight.

3. India and Pakistan had one important assest. Population. The Soviets would know having a larger population helps win war, like they did with Germany. Both side would want to have
this large source of men, fighting for them.


If India's intentions were to keep the powers away from the sub-continent and the nearest being the Soviets, it could have been possible that India asked Pakistan to join hands to keep the
Soviets away. Pakistan would prefer to fight the Soviets with India on it's side, rather than on it's behind. The Soviets would have to assign considerable resources to take on heavily populated countries.

They might nuke the entire place up, however it would require lot of nukes to do it.

See, I'm having difficulty imagining Zia teaming up with India in 1977 (this is the scenario being considered).

1. It's Zia.

2. This is 1977, just six years after 1971, Pakistan's greatest humiliation till date.

zraver
14 Jan 13,, 00:58
If war breaks out between USN and USSR, there is a time of window there because USN would be busy keeping its sea lanes open for its REFORGER operation and busy contending with Soviet Backfires and a possible airborne invasion of Iceland (yes I am taking a page out of Red Storm Rising)

In the late 70's the US had as many as 15 conventional carriers and 3 nuclear powered carriers. 2 US carrier battle groups pack more modern aircraft and firepower than all of India at the time. This isn't jingoism its a simple statement of fact. Because what the US did not have was a capable army. Air, Sea and Armageddon where what the US had to work with.


That sounds a lot like similar to empty talk from PRC regarding Taiwan. No I do not buy it. US has to husband its nukes regarding Warsaw Pact and its nukes.

Although the US refuses to confirm or deny that US carriers carry nukes, the smart money says they do. I've watched A-6 intruders do mock penetration runs. US Carriers in the Indian Ocean already have all the nukes they need to flash fry the Indian Army.


The South Asian theater has no bearing on the global stage and cannot influence events further than the South Asia theater.

Proximity to Mideast oil, staging area for Soviet subs (which combined with African ports would let them do high speed transits to cripple tanker traffic), threat to US allies China and Pakistan, Straits of Malacca... Nope no bearing on the global stage.


And if Indira was in power, she would basically tell Washington off like she did in 1971.

She might say that on Indian TV, but when faced with the prospect that if she did not sit quietly and behave herself, then millions or tens of millions of Indians might pay the price. I think she'd do a very effective impersonation of an unmoving rock as far as concrete actions are concerned.

If the US is seriously worried about the balloon going up with the Soviets, with its army in disarray after Vietnam, and equipped with equipment a generation behind the Soviets and only a few of the teen series fighters.... Nukes and carriers are the only sticks in town.

lemontree
14 Jan 13,, 05:13
Are you gentlemen ready to play?

[QUOTE]1977-1981, Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The strategic initiative clearly belonged to Moscow. The Americans were reeling from Vietnam. The Soviets at least was viewed to have reach military technological parity and in some cases, superiority with the US. When the Soviets took Afghanistan, there was a fear that they would also take Pakistan or even Iran.
Would the US send in troops to Pakistan??...
As you mentioned that the Soviets has military parity with the US. Karachi harbour would have been out of reach to the US. Iran had fallen to the Mullahs. Indian assistance was out of question.
The US did not have a single country to use as a launch pad, unless China invited them, then again the US axis of operations would have been along Kyrgystan-Kazakhistan, and not the mountains of J&K due to the paucity of road communications in that region.


Scenario. The Soviets were going to take Pakistan with or without Indian help. The Chinese mobilize to intervene. They have to. They cannot afford a Soviet army in their rear ... but looking at the map, their best chances is through disputed J&K territory.
Sir,
(a) How is a Soviet army in Afghanistan, any different from the Soviet units in Kyrgystan and Kazakhistan on the western borders of China?
(b) The second assumption is Chinese intervention - history has shown that they would never interven. The PLA did not come to Pakistan's help when East- Pakistan was falling in Dec 1971.
(b) The terrain in J&K and for a Sino-Soviet clash would have taken months and land based - no rolling tanks. The action would be very, very limited (if any).

(c) The possible Indian intervention would have been to capture Pakistani held positions in PoK and leaving the Chinese occupied areas un-touched.
(d) The Indian specialised SF units would have kept a hard watch on the situation in Tibet, and would have been activated only if the ground situation appeared favourable, and that too.. at much later stages of the conflict.

lemontree
14 Jan 13,, 05:22
She might say that on Indian TV, but when faced with the prospect that if she did not sit quietly and behave herself, then millions or tens of millions of Indians might pay the price. I think she'd do a very effective impersonation of an unmoving rock as far as concrete actions are concerned.

Would'nt have happened, 'coz the US would be too busy preventing North America from becoming a nuclear wasteland from Soviet nukes.

Call Indira what you may, but she had coolly nutered Nixon in Dec 1971, and the 7th Fleet could do didly squat....the presence of 6 Soviet subs seemed to have stumpted the fleet from any action.

Deltacamelately
14 Jan 13,, 15:15
In the late 70's the US had as many as 15 conventional carriers and 3 nuclear powered carriers. 2 US carrier battle groups pack more modern aircraft and firepower than all of India at the time. This isn't jingoism its a simple statement of fact. Because what the US did not have was a capable army. Air, Sea and Armageddon where what the US had to work with.
I can't agree here. With the US Nuclear/Conventional Forces glaring down the barrel, with the Soviet forces eyeing CONUS, an attack on Pakistan or Tibet hardly provides the incentive for the US to nuke India, with the prospect of a possible Soviet nuclear retaliation not quite illusionary.


Although the US refuses to confirm or deny that US carriers carry nukes, the smart money says they do. I've watched A-6 intruders do mock penetration runs. US Carriers in the Indian Ocean already have all the nukes they need to flash fry the Indian Army.
Highly doubt again. Imagine, without a WW3 ongoing, while watching its ally getting whacked in two, with the Big E already sailing in the Bay, the USN did a Big NOTHING.

I doubt that the USN would do any better while fighting a full fledged WW3 with the Reds, with a limited Indian operation confined just in PoK and say, Aksai Chin, the USN would risk a nuclear escalation on its mainland because the InA was busy retaking PoK and Aksai Chin. I say this because the good Colonel says that the US percetion believes India to be in the Soviet camp. The very idea that the US doubted the Soviet's resolve to retaliate to an US nuclear strike in mainland India, contradictory to the Colonel's argument.

Proximity to Mideast oil, staging area for Soviet subs (which combined with African ports would let them do high speed transits to cripple tanker traffic), threat to US allies China and Pakistan, Straits of Malacca... Nope no bearing on the global stage.
Again, you either believed India to be in the Soviet caamp or against it.

She might say that on Indian TV, but when faced with the prospect that if she did not sit quietly and behave herself, then millions or tens of millions of Indians might pay the price. I think she'd do a very effective impersonation of an unmoving rock as far as concrete actions are concerned.
She called the US bluff in 1971. If the Colonel's scenario is post 71, I doubt that she would back down. She would rather cozy up big time with the Reds if she believed even for a second that the USN would back the nuclear threat with action. She showed no qualms in planning a Diego Garcia with any overt nuclear threat from the USN.

If the US is seriously worried about the balloon going up with the Soviets, with its army in disarray after Vietnam, and equipped with equipment a generation behind the Soviets and only a few of the teen series fighters.... Nukes and carriers are the only sticks in town.
Its your call. I doubt the US would care more about PoK or Aksai Chin falling to the InA than caring about American citizen burning in Soviet nuclear fire.

hammer
14 Jan 13,, 15:29
I have a hard time imagining India or even Pakistan participating in WWIII during the 70's time frame. Especially when nukes are flying. I kinda agree with YellowFever. There might be some limited shelling in the border regions but I have serious doubts about full fledged participation by any country in South Asia.

Indira Gandhi was brave but not stupid. China and Nato on one side and Russia and warsaw pact countries on the other. Where does South Asia come into this equation? Once nukes start flying, everyone except the big five would be trying to survive it rather than enter the fray and become a nuclear target.

OOE sir,
Would the US start targeting Indian assets as soon as the WWIII starts or would it wait till India joins the soviet side?

zraver
14 Jan 13,, 15:47
I can't agree here. With the US Nuclear/Conventional Forces glaring down the barrel, with the Soviet forces eyeing CONUS, an attack on Pakistan or Tibet hardly provides the incentive for the US to nuke India, with the prospect of a possible Soviet nuclear retaliation not quite illusionary.

Think what you want, but US forces in the region have the capability and India was not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella.


Highly doubt again. Imagine, without a WW3 ongoing, while watching its ally getting whacked in two, with the Big E already sailing in the Bay, the USN did a Big NOTHING.

Not already sailing, she sailed into the area and the Indian Navy learned the truth, the Indian Ocean is an American Lake.


I doubt that the USN would do any better while fighting a full fledged WW3 with the Reds, with a limited Indian operation confined just in PoK and say, Aksai Chin, the USN would risk a nuclear escalation on its mainland because the InA was busy retaking PoK and Aksai Chin. I say this because the good Colonel says that the US percetion believes India to be in the Soviet camp. The very idea that the US doubted the Soviet's resolve to retaliate to an US nuclear strike in mainland India, contradictory to the Colonel's argument.

India was in the Soviet camp but not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella.


Again, you either believed India to be in the Soviet caamp or against it.

In, but not a part of the WP.


She called the US bluff in 1971. If the Colonel's scenario is post 71, I doubt that she would back down. She would rather cozy up big time with the Reds if she believed even for a second that the USN would back the nuclear threat with action. She showed no qualms in planning a Diego Garcia with any overt nuclear threat from the USN.

The talk of the raid on DG was a joke, a 1 way suicide mission that had no chance of success. Its the fact that she is seen as cozy to the redss that forces the US had to action. Soviet subs can't be allowed to use India to raid the tanker traffic coming out of the Persian Gulf.


Its your call. I doubt the US would care more about PoK or Aksai Chin falling to the InA than caring about American citizen burning in Soviet nuclear fire.

The Soviets are not going to go nuclear for India, they didn't for the Cubans or the Arabs in 67 and 73. The Soviet's called the American's cowboys because they perceived us as risky, willing to get into a nuclear shootout with them over the slightest provocation. The Soviets might have gone nuclear for the Pact, though more likely for the Bulgarians than anyone else. The idea that the Politburo would consign 100 million citizens to immolation to defend 10 million GERMANS is hard to swallow. The Soviets would most likely go nuclear to protect or avenge Soviet spear heads destroyed in NATO nuclear fire. But thats it, they are not going nuclear for India.

Plus India is a non-NPT NWS and had been since 74 which put her squarely in side the targeting reticule of the US nuclear release policy.

At the end of the day protecting the tanker traffic and Iran (until 79) to the US is worth more to America than Kashmir is to India.

zraver
14 Jan 13,, 15:49
I have a hard time imagining India or even Pakistan participating in WWIII during the 70's time frame. Especially when nukes are flying. I kinda agree with YellowFever. There might be some limited shelling in the border regions but I have serious doubts about full fledged participation by any country in South Asia.

Indira Gandhi is brave but not stupid. China and Nato on one side and Russia and warsaw pact countries on the other. Where does South Asia come into this equation? Once nukes start flying, everyone except the big five would be trying to survive it rather than enter the fray and become a nuclear target.

OOE sir,
Would the US start targeting Indian assets by as soon as the WWIII starts or would it wait till India joins the soviet side?

Depends, if India declares nuetraility ad initio she would survive, if she doesn't US forces in the region will begin prepping for strikes to prevent India becoming a Soviet sub and bomber base to raid the Middle East. Then as soon as the first Soviet sub is confirmed via elint or key hole India gets hit.

kuku
14 Jan 13,, 16:55
Depends, if India declares nuetraility ad initio she would survive, if she doesn't US forces in the region will begin prepping for strikes to prevent India becoming a Soviet sub and bomber base to raid the Middle East. Then as soon as the first Soviet sub is confirmed via elint or key hole India gets hit.

I think the first step, in terms of India would be to contact the USofA and tell them we are neutral, then call on the Soviets and wish them good luck.

Because that is the political goal, to remain neutral and survive. The reason behind Indian lean towards the Soviets was survival and not any ideological yearning for a red world.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jan 13,, 20:53
Gentlemen,

Being right is not the issue here. So, let's examine the details instead of trying to prove wrong the other guy. There is a lot of good brainstorming here. Some points may be wrong but they are useful in both indicating thought and errors. If we made errors right now examining this unknown, then why could not the decision makers back then made similar or bigger errors?

We're exploring a historic unknown, just like we much did the Diego Garcia scenario. We know both the Pakistani and Indian strategic thinkers cannot be ignorant of the world situation. The question that I asked was what were their thoughts?

Pakistan MUST have thought that they were next after the Soviets went into Afghanistan. Both they and the Chinese knew that the PLA could not come to the rescue, especially after their dismal performance earlier in the year against Vietnam ... and the Soviet engineers demonstrated that they could make short work of the Khyber Pass.

India, also, could not have ignored the obvious implications of the 58th Army in Afghanistan. The thought the Soviets might march down south must have crossed their minds. In fact, I dare say, only the decision makers in Moscow did not consider marching south but it must have crossed the 58th Army's HQ's planning exercises.

Now, I bring up this scenario because it was an active American scenario. How to re-enforce Pakistan in case of the 58th crossing the border? Soviet TU-22Ms and boomers operating out of Pakistan posed a direct threat to the 7th Fleet's AO ... and consequently would keep the 7th Fleet from re-enforcing both NATO and the Chinese.

With the time period in question, there was a perception that the Soviets had parity if not superiority in a lot of fields. They certainly had more nukes than we did ... and we had Jimmy Carter sitting in the White House. Some things are automatic. The forces committed to REFORGER and NATO fighting for its life demanding all available resources and re-enforcements. The 7th Fleet would be desperate to keep the Soviet Siberian divisions in Siberia. The Chinese would be desperate to fix them long enough for NATO to win.

However, Jimmy Carter was no wartime President nor had the USArmy fully recovered from Vietnam. Militarily speaking, this does not leave a lot of ground forces to spare but again Jimmy Carter is no wartime President. He may decide Pakistan is worth fighting for and send the only forces capable of reaching Pakistan in time, the 101st and the 82nd.

Now, what is the Indian reaction? Taking Askin Chin will invite full Chinese retaliation, simply because they would not know any better. Yeah, right, Indira Ghandi just sucker punched the Chinese and then said she is not going any further. Would you believe her?

Gentlemen, there is a lot of good brainstorming here. Do not worry about who is right or wrong. We're just trying to find out what Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers actually thought ... and do keep in mind that what they had thought might be wrong.

I will answer individual questions later. I need some rest for the moment.

zraver
15 Jan 13,, 00:12
Gentlemen,

Being right is not the issue here. So, let's examine the details instead of trying to prove wrong the other guy. There is a lot of good brainstorming here. Some points may be wrong but they are useful in both indicating thought and errors. If we made errors right now examining this unknown, then why could not the decision makers back then made similar or bigger errors?

We're exploring a historic unknown, just like we much did the Diego Garcia scenario. We know both the Pakistani and Indian strategic thinkers cannot be ignorant of the world situation. The question that I asked was what were their thoughts?

Pakistan MUST have thought that they were next after the Soviets went into Afghanistan. Both they and the Chinese knew that the PLA could not come to the rescue, especially after their dismal performance earlier in the year against Vietnam ... and the Soviet engineers demonstrated that they could make short work of the Khyber Pass.

India, also, could not have ignored the obvious implications of the 58th Army in Afghanistan. The thought the Soviets might march down south must have crossed their minds. In fact, I dare say, only the decision makers in Moscow did not consider marching south but it must have crossed the 58th Army's HQ's planning exercises.

Now, I bring up this scenario because it was an active American scenario. How to re-enforce Pakistan in case of the 58th crossing the border? Soviet TU-22Ms and boomers operating out of Pakistan posed a direct threat to the 7th Fleet's AO ... and consequently would keep the 7th Fleet from re-enforcing both NATO and the Chinese.

With the time period in question, there was a perception that the Soviets had parity if not superiority in a lot of fields. They certainly had more nukes than we did ... and we had Jimmy Carter sitting in the White House. Some things are automatic. The forces committed to REFORGER and NATO fighting for its life demanding all available resources and re-enforcements. The 7th Fleet would be desperate to keep the Soviet Siberian divisions in Siberia. The Chinese would be desperate to fix them long enough for NATO to win.

However, Jimmy Carter was no wartime President nor had the USArmy fully recovered from Vietnam. Militarily speaking, this does not leave a lot of ground forces to spare but again Jimmy Carter is no wartime President. He may decide Pakistan is worth fighting for and send the only forces capable of reaching Pakistan in time, the 101st and the 82nd.

Now, what is the Indian reaction? Taking Askin Chin will invite full Chinese retaliation, simply because they would not know any better. Yeah, right, Indira Ghandi just sucker punched the Chinese and then said she is not going any further. Would you believe her?

Gentlemen, there is a lot of good brainstorming here. Do not worry about who is right or wrong. We're just trying to find out what Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers actually thought ... and do keep in mind that what they had thought might be wrong.

I will answer individual questions later. I need some rest for the moment.

Sir, President Carter was a submariner, hence my focus earlier on the threat Indian ports could pose to tanker traffic if they were used by Soviet subs.

I doubt the 82nd and 101st are going to Pakistan. No transport, all of the heavy lift is flying out heavy units for reforger. Before July 78 the situation you are talking is a nightmare for the US. Somalia and Ethiopia were "marxist" and created the threat of a western base of operations and India created the threat of an eastern base of operations for Soviet attack subs that could seriously threaten the tankers carrying oil. Add to this threat the recent memory of the oil embargo on US planners.

If WWIII kicks off before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Shah, any Indian attack into Pakistan may be taken as the first move to isolate and then seize Iran, and knock out CENTO.

In the Indian Ocean the navy has to carry the fight. There isn't any airlift for the 82/101 it is all tasked to Europe. Plus, all of the regions USMC forces along with the Army's 7,9,25 ID (mech) are tasked to Korea to back stop the 2ID (mech) and I corps (Team Spirit).

The 7th Fleet's missions will be taking out Camn Rahn Bay in Vietnam, protecting Japan and the Philipines and preparing to hit its assigned targets on the Asian Mainland (Valdivostock), hunting Soviet boomers, masking American boomers, protecting the US Coast and Alaska, supporting Korea, confronting the Soviet Pacific Fleet and protecting the tanker trade. They will have 3-5 carriers to do this with. That is a thin margin for the number of tasks. In 1980 per wiki the Soviet 8th Squadron (Indian Ocean) had 10 surface warships and a number of submarines. The US had about 70 but this may be lower before the loss of Iran. Regardless, any Indian action that looks like it will benefit Soviet war aims has to be hit hard and fast because there is no slack to take care of a situation that is allowed to fester.

zraver
15 Jan 13,, 02:54
In 1978 the US had 1283 total transport aircraft among the active, reserve and guard components of the USAF. Only 645 of them were 4 engined platforms

77 C-5
276 C-141
292 C-130

To this the USAF can add between 300-600 long range civil jet aircraft, mostly passenger but some cargo. This maximum of 1200 or so air craft is all the US has to work three oceans and CONUS.

With a specific date of 1978 the US has 15 fleet carriers; 12 conventional and 3 nuclear. Of these roughly a third will be unable to surge leaving the US with 9-11 carriers to fight WWIII.

Tronic
15 Jan 13,, 04:47
Depends, if India declares nuetraility ad initio she would survive, if she doesn't US forces in the region will begin prepping for strikes to prevent India becoming a Soviet sub and bomber base to raid the Middle East. Then as soon as the first Soviet sub is confirmed via elint or key hole India gets hit.

India declares neutrality? She had already declared so. You forget that it was Nixon who branded India the enemy, not the other way around.

Tronic
15 Jan 13,, 05:46
The posts here are actually quite intriguing to read and help to better understand India's policies during the Cold War.

I am surprised as to the extent of the hostility with which the US viewed India and it illustrates the circumstances in which India started it's tilt towards the Soviets in the early 70s. It was the logical thing to do.

That said, I still don't see anything that shows that India built up, or even planned, to fight the Americans. I believe the reasoning for Indian strategists was simple. Counter the American political (and possibly conventional) hostility by eliciting Soviet support, while not fully joining the camp which would see the Soviets enter the subcontinent.

I don't think that the West understands the reasoning behind India's stance here. India has always sought to establish a hegemony in South Asia. It is for this reason that it could not allow a foreign power, be it the Americans or the Soviets, to establish a presence which would counter India's dominance in what it considers it's backyard. When the Sri Lankans were contemplating to allow American naval facilities on the island, India played dirty, destabilized Sri Lanka to thwart any such plans, and than eventually sent in its army into that country as a form of force projection. It was a terrible plan which backfired, but it shows the intention. Than there is Maldives; where Indian paratroopers were sent to save that government in the 80s, which resulted in India gaining significant influence over that country. (India is now responsible for Maldive's external security). India has always held significant sway over Nepal and Bhutan (and now, even Bangladesh). With Pakistan, it has refused to allow Pakistan to internationalize the Kashmir dispute and maintained that it must be resolved bilaterally.

In all this, the main goal is to establish an Indian hegemony in South Asia. The Americans became a threat during and after Nixon, and hence the tilt toward the Soviets to counter the political and conventional threat was the logical thing to do. Once things go Nuclear, it is already game over, as far as Indian strategists are concerned.

lemontree
15 Jan 13,, 06:06
Now, what is the Indian reaction? Taking Askin Chin will invite full Chinese retaliation, simply because they would not know any better. Yeah, right, Indira Ghandi just sucker punched the Chinese and then said she is not going any further. Would you believe her?
No India would never take Aksai Chin. Reason - that would be akin to cutting off Xinjiang.
Putting too much at stake for the PLA. India would have had half its army along the Chinese frontiers leaving it with no strategic reserves for any Pak offensive.

So you can forget about any Indo-Chinese conflict.

lemontree
15 Jan 13,, 06:11
If WWIII kicks off before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Shah, any Indian attack into Pakistan may be taken as the first move to isolate and then seize Iran, and knock out CENTO.
CENTO was a failure anyway. It never protected the member countries.

zraver
15 Jan 13,, 14:39
India declares neutrality? She had already declared so. You forget that it was Nixon who branded India the enemy, not the other way around.

The US would still likely demand a clear and definitive statement from India because of the number of ports of call made by Soviet ships and importance of the waters around India. Its a dance of elephants, it doesn't matter if India is neutral or not, if she is on the dance floor she is going to get stepped on.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jan 13,, 16:03
Astonishing! Gentlemen, we have two completely different views here ... and it would have been reflected during the time in question. India had no idea she was in the cross hairs ... or at least did not take it seriously. We did.

Now, I'm thinking India would be dragged into the war against her wishes. A Soviet occupied Pakistan would give the Soviets access to the Indian Ocean and the ability to threaten the 7th Fleet. The Chinese could not afford a Soviet army in her rear, especially backed by the Indian Army ... yes, I know that is not the reality ... BUT IT WAS THE PERCEPTION and we all made plans accordingly.

The Chinese has to attack. In their view. they don't have a choice. They were going to lose Northern China no matter what. Now, a Soviet Army backed by the Indian Army will aim to take Tibet and possibly the entire Chengdu MR.

Astonishing! Extremely astonishing! India was treated as a WWIII power participant and India did not know it ... nor understand why.

The things you learn on WAB ... and I'm willing to bet that we are the first to discuss this issue in depth.

cataphract
16 Jan 13,, 01:17
Astonishing! Gentlemen, we have two completely different views here ... and it would have been reflected during the time in question. India had no idea she was in the cross hairs ... or at least did not take it seriously. We did.

Now, I'm thinking India would be dragged into the war against her wishes. A Soviet occupied Pakistan would give the Soviets access to the Indian Ocean and the ability to threaten the 7th Fleet. The Chinese could not afford a Soviet army in her rear, especially backed by the Indian Army ... yes, I know that is not the reality ... BUT IT WAS THE PERCEPTION and we all made plans accordingly.

The Chinese has to attack. In their view. they don't have a choice. They were going to lose Northern China no matter what. Now, a Soviet Army backed by the Indian Army will aim to take Tibet and possibly the entire Chengdu MR.

Astonishing! Extremely astonishing! India was treated as a WWIII power participant and India did not know it ... nor understand why.

The things you learn on WAB ... and I'm willing to bet that we are the first to discuss this issue in depth.

Could India have not simply condemned the Soviet invasion publically in UN and explicitly declared neutrality? Hopefully an armed neutrality, with full mobilization ;)

zraver
16 Jan 13,, 02:32
Could India have not simply condemned the Soviet invasion publically in UN and explicitly declared neutrality? Hopefully an armed neutrality, with full mobilization ;)

Yes to all but last, as that would seem like she was preparing to pearl harbor China, and or Pakistan and we are back to square 1. In which case the US takes pre-emptive nuclear war for $800 Alex.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jan 13,, 03:53
Could India have not simply condemned the Soviet invasion publically in UN and explicitly declared neutrality? Hopefully an armed neutrality, with full mobilization ;)They could have but the question is would they have? At this point, I'm guessing that it has never occured to them.

Tronic
16 Jan 13,, 09:10
The US would still likely demand a clear and definitive statement from India because of the number of ports of call made by Soviet ships and importance of the waters around India. Its a dance of elephants, it doesn't matter if India is neutral or not, if she is on the dance floor she is going to get stepped on.

Zrav, what was the number of port calls made by Soviet ships? During the 50s and the 60s, there were almost none. In the 70s, they may have become more frequent visitors, but nowhere close to the amount of port calls made to actual allies in the neighbouring region, such as the Libyans, Egyptians or Syrians. Soviet port calls to India were a token move, and Soviet ships regularly frequented other neutral countries.

I don't see what India could have done to placate the US, short of jumping into the US camp.

lemontree
16 Jan 13,, 09:16
Astonishing! Gentlemen, we have two completely different views here ... and it would have been reflected during the time in question. India had no idea she was in the cross hairs ... or at least did not take it seriously. We did.
True sir, we did not believe that we would be in the cross hairs as we were not communist, neither did we threaten any strategic US interest.

But two questions sir,...:-


Now, I'm thinking India would be dragged into the war against her wishes.
Why would the US want to include the 4th largest army into the fray and increase its own headache?


A Soviet occupied Pakistan would give the Soviets access to the Indian Ocean and the ability to threaten the 7th Fleet. The Chinese could not afford a Soviet army in her rear, especially backed by the Indian Army ... yes, I know that is not the reality ... BUT IT WAS THE PERCEPTION and we all made plans accordingly.
Why would the Soviet Union invade a US stooge country (Pakistan) and CENTO member and invite confrontation with NATO?


The Chinese has to attack. In their view. they don't have a choice. They were going to lose Northern China no matter what. Now, a Soviet Army backed by the Indian Army will aim to take Tibet and possibly the entire Chengdu MR.
Hypothetical sir, the enterprise would be logistical and tactical nighmare for even the best army, without discounting the thousands of armed militia units harassing and organised battles of the PLA.


Astonishing! Extremely astonishing! India was treated as a WWIII power participant and India did not know it ... nor understand why.
Maybe because the population never really saw the US or Britain as enemy, we knew that our governments had different opinions, but then we were democratic in nature so we accepted it. Many US Presidents were/are well respected here. Most Indians had/have a good knowledge of the US, but the same cannot be said for the US citizens. We were viewed through a jaundiced prism influenced by Pakistan and Britain to some extent.


The things you learn on WAB ... and I'm willing to bet that we are the first to discuss this issue in depth.
Totally agree sir.

Tronic
16 Jan 13,, 09:31
Why would the Soviet Union invade a US stooge country (Pakistan) and CENTO member and invite confrontation with NATO?

Long term planning, Captain. The Soviets wanted access to the Indian Ocean. Iran and Pakistan both fit the bill. Sitting on their borders, they could've better influenced a pro-Soviet regime in either country. Besides, CENTO had collapsed by than anyways.

lemontree
16 Jan 13,, 10:58
Understood sir.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jan 13,, 15:41
True sir, we did not believe that we would be in the cross hairs as we were not communist, neither did we threaten any strategic US interest.China was communist and you were a direct threat to American allies, Pakistan and China.


Why would the US want to include the 4th largest army into the fray and increase its own headache?From our view, it was India who had chosen sides. Even the Neutral and Non-Allign blocs were viewed with the same bias. The Neutrals were Europeans who were seen to favour the capitalistic bloc. The Non-Aligns were viewed to favour the socialist bloc.

Or to put it more bluntly. The Neutrals were white and the Non-Aligns were dark. The Whites were rich, ie First World, while the Darks were mostly Third World, ie poor. Naturally, the Communist Manifesto appealled more to the Non-Aligns than the Neutrals. The cynic in me says the Communist Manifesto gave the Non-Aligns the right to rob the Neutrals.


Why would the Soviet Union invade a US stooge country (Pakistan) and CENTO member and invite confrontation with NATO? Aside from the Russian traditional desire for a warm water port, the prize, as you correctly pointed out, is Europe. Anything to keep American assets away from that theatre or to keep from attacking the USSR proper can only be a good thing. As stated, a Soviet occupied Pakistan would allow Soviet Naval Aviation and submarine force to directly challenge the 7th Fleet for control of the IOR and thus keep the 7th Fleet away from both Europe and Vladivostok.


Hypothetical sir, the enterprise would be logistical and tactical nighmare for even the best army, without discounting the thousands of armed militia units harassing and organised battles of the PLA.Tibet is at best a neutral population in the 1970s, 80s but it takes very little to put the Dali Lama at the head of an invading army.

Deltacamelately
16 Jan 13,, 16:06
Think what you want, but US forces in the region have the capability and India was not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella.
Nobody here is questioning the USA's capabilities. The rest is about perception. Feel free to disagree.

Not already sailing, she sailed into the area and the Indian Navy learned the truth, the Indian Ocean is an American Lake.
Your take. I see no signs of the Indian defence forces wagging its tail or shoving it between the legs in face of the mighty USN sailing in the Bay of Bengal.

India was in the Soviet camp but not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella.

...
In, but not a part of the WP.....


All about perception. Feel free to disagree. I doubt your policy makers would run a decision making algorithm with this flamboyant attitude.


The talk of the raid on DG was a joke, a 1 way suicide mission that had no chance of success. Its the fact that she is seen as cozy to the redss that forces the US had to action. Soviet subs can't be allowed to use India to raid the tanker traffic coming out of the Persian Gulf.

Nobody knows. In fact I learnt about this operation here in this forum itself. Might suit to be a joke for you.
However, had I been the USN commander in question, I would be a very perturbed man.


The Soviets are not going to go nuclear for India, they didn't for the Cubans or the Arabs in 67 and 73. The Soviet's called the American's cowboys because they perceived us as risky, willing to get into a nuclear shootout with them over the slightest provocation. The Soviets might have gone nuclear for the Pact, though more likely for the Bulgarians than anyone else. The idea that the Politburo would consign 100 million citizens to immolation to defend 10 million GERMANS is hard to swallow. The Soviets would most likely go nuclear to protect or avenge Soviet spear heads destroyed in NATO nuclear fire. But thats it, they are not going nuclear for India.

Plus India is a non-NPT NWS and had been since 74 which put her squarely in side the targeting reticule of the US nuclear release policy.

At the end of the day protecting the tanker traffic and Iran (until 79) to the US is worth more to America than Kashmir is to India.
No point in flexing muscles here. As I said earlier, it is all about the perception, the crux of the discussion in hand and I for one don't buy this Yankee thingy of cowboy flamboyancy to the extent of nuking an otherwise neutral regional player, busy settling scores with her immediate neighbours, with ZERO impact on the USA's overall WW3 objectives. You are free to bask on your nuclear sunshine.

Deltacamelately
16 Jan 13,, 16:17
The US would still likely demand a clear and definitive statement from India because of the number of ports of call made by Soviet ships and importance of the waters around India. Its a dance of elephants, it doesn't matter if India is neutral or not, if she is on the dance floor she is going to get stepped on.
And Mr. Elephant, are you sure, you still could enjoy sound sleep, assuming that your nukes on mainland India wouldn't warrant a Soviet nuke on CONUS or at least on other US bases? I dare say, I wouldn't be a very confident military commander under such Napoleonic assumptions.

zraver
16 Jan 13,, 22:33
And Mr. Elephant, are you sure, you still could enjoy sound sleep, assuming that your nukes on mainland India wouldn't warrant a Soviet nuke on CONUS or at least on other US bases? I dare say, I wouldn't be a very confident military commander under such Napoleonic assumptions.

and


No point in flexing muscles here. As I said earlier, it is all about the perception, the crux of the discussion in hand and I for one don't buy this Yankee thingy of cowboy flamboyancy to the extent of nuking an otherwise neutral regional player, busy settling scores with her immediate neighbours, with ZERO impact on the USA's overall WW3 objectives. You are free to bask on your nuclear sunshine.


India was not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella.

We can document 4 nuclear and 1 conventional confrontations between the US and USSR, the USSR always backed down. The Soviets were the ones to call us nuclear cowboys. Its not a term I made up.
48 Berlin
62 Cuba
67 Arabs
69 China
73 Arabs

But you are right it is about perception. You have a regional perception. So I am asking you to look at it from a global and American perspective.Short periods of dente aside the US had a very black and white view of the world during the Cold War. The national view was very much if you are not with us, you are against us. While the US was not willing to risk nuclear war over Asians (Korea and Vietnam), in this scenario we are talking about saving Europe and the Middle East.

India with a blue water navy, nukes, good ports to give the Soviet Red Navy's 8th squadron bases at both ends of the oil and a perception of being a Soviet stooge is a threat to the overall US goal of protecting Europe and the middle east oil it depends on. So for the US it is not regional score settling but part of a global war.

Firestorm
16 Jan 13,, 22:51
India with a blue water navy, nukes, good ports to give the Soviet Red Navy's 8th squadron bases at both ends of the oil and a perception of being a Soviet stooge is a threat to the overall US goal of protecting Europe and the middle east oil it depends on. So for the US it is not regional score settling but part of a global war.

Blue water navy? In the 70's? Really? And India did not have weaponized warheads in the 70's and 80's either. Of course, with no long range bombers or missiles in our inventory at the time, the warheads, had they existed, wouldn't be a threat as far as the US was concerned anyway.

With so many confirmed soviet stooges around, the only reason for the US to nuke a "perceived stooge" like India would be some Nixonian desire to "teach those blasted Indians a lesson" I suppose. That and the fact that you had more nukes than you knew what to do with.

Tronic
16 Jan 13,, 23:36
Understood sir.

You mistook me for the Colonel, didn't you? :tongue:

zraver
16 Jan 13,, 23:43
Blue water navy? In the 70's? Really? And India did not have weaponized warheads in the 70's and 80's either. Of course, with no long range bombers or missiles in our inventory at the time, the warheads, had they existed, wouldn't be a threat as far as the US was concerned anyway.

With so many confirmed soviet stooges around, the only reason for the US to nuke a "perceived stooge" like India would be some Nixonian desire to "teach those blasted Indians a lesson" I suppose. That and the fact that you had more nukes than you knew what to do with.

Yes blue water, the Indian Navy with its roots in the Royal Navy was/is a proffesional force capable of fighting far at sea.

USSWisconsin
16 Jan 13,, 23:50
I feel like the Indian Navy is one of the most interesting on the world stage today. It has made great strides, and accomplished much - I admire their ships and their anti-piracy work. Their submarines are unique, their carriers are interesting, their frigates are impresive, in some ways I feel that they have more potential than the PLAN.

From what I know so far, which admittedly isn't a lot - I don't see their status in the 70's as a nuclear blue water navy. Perhaps I have missed some information and look forward to pursuing any that you could share.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 00:07
I feel like the Indian Navy is one of the most interesting on the world stage today. It has made great strides, and accomplished much - I admire their ships and their anti-piracy work. Their submarines are unique, their carriers are interesting, their frigates are impresive in some ways I feel that they have more potential than the PLAN.

From what I know so far, which admittedly isn't a lot - I don't see their status in the 70's as a nuclear blue water navy. Perhaps I have missed some information and look forward to pursuing any that you could share.

Jay, they were not a nuclear blue water navy, but they were a blue water navy with a navy bigger and more capable than many members of NATO.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jan 13,, 01:47
Gentlemen,

We are dealing with historic unknowns from both sides. We from the West are damned surprised that you were not ready for WWIII and you Indian gents are damned surprised to find out we had nukes targeting you.

Instead of trying to alter each perception ... which really is not my intent, let's just find out what the actual thoughts were.

Again, I point to the Soviet Invasion of Pakistan scenario. The Pakistanis must have thought they were next when the Soviets marched into Kabul. And so must have Dehli. Anything pointing to their thoughts in this matter?

Doktor
17 Jan 13,, 01:53
It's naive to think Indian planners were not aware they were targeted.

I'd be surprised if there was no scenario Soviet nukes to be "shared" with India. Would that be a game changer? It would give more headaches to the westerners.

Also, Soviets taking Pakistan by storm would open PLA 3 fronts - USSR, India and Pakistan. Would PLA still invade India?

India could still maintain neutrality, Soviets win in that scenario, whole 7th fleet has more targets then ordnance now. Why would west attack a neutral country?

Officer of Engineers
17 Jan 13,, 02:22
It's naive to think Indian planners were not aware they were targeted.A quick google on "Indian nuclear defence drill" finds notoriously absent any civil preparation to receive nukes. It would appear that the Indian gents here are correct.


I'd be surprised if there was no scenario Soviet nukes to be "shared" with India. Would that be a game changer? It would give more headaches to the westerners.The only country in which Soviet nukes were shared was Czechoslavkia.


Also, Soviets taking Pakistan by storm would open PLA 3 fronts - USSR, India and Pakistan. Would PLA still invade India?Four. You forgot Vietnam.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 02:44
Why would west attack a neutral country?

India was not neutral, not from an American POV, she was a Soviet ally ideally placed to block the transit of USN forces from the Pacific to Indian Oceans [or vice verse], had ports that when combined with East African Ports and concentration in the Red Sea allowed the Soviets to create a credible threat to the oil life line of Europe, was a nuclear power, had border disputes with two anti-Soviet US allies.

Something else that needs to be considered. Depending on NATO success/failure in Europe or the perception of such, or perception of Soviet intent India provides an almost ideal demonstration target. No offense to the boards Indian members intended with where this is going to go. This is written from a cold war mindset. If a conventional war in Europe is going poorly for NATO, say pressure from Soviet spearheads are threatening to breakout into and across the North German Plain. US and NATO planners are going to consider nuclear release, with the implication that if one goes pop, they all get popped. This is something everyone who writes on WWIII has struggled with. Assuming this reflects the thinking on both sides- how does a nuclear power demonstrate its willingness to go nuclear without inviting an instantaneous retaliation?

India as a nuclear weapons state and Soviet ally, but not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella provides a demonstration target for the US to show its resolve to defend Europe. USN assets can deliver the strike without tripping Soviet early warning systems.

lemontree
17 Jan 13,, 05:51
India was not neutral, not from an American POV, she was a Soviet ally ideally placed to block the transit of USN forces from the Pacific to Indian Oceans [or vice verse], had ports that when combined with East African Ports and concentration in the Red Sea allowed the Soviets to create a credible threat to the oil life line of Europe, was a nuclear power, had border disputes with two anti-Soviet US allies.
Noted. But this just confirms why the GOI still does not trust the US Govt.


Something else that needs to be considered. Depending on NATO success/failure in Europe or the perception of such, or perception of Soviet intent India provides an almost ideal demonstration target. No offense to the boards Indian members intended with where this is going to go. This is written from a cold war mindset. If a conventional war in Europe is going poorly for NATO, say pressure from Soviet spearheads are threatening to breakout into and across the North German Plain. US and NATO planners are going to consider nuclear release, with the implication that if one goes pop, they all get popped. This is something everyone who writes on WWIII has struggled with. Assuming this reflects the thinking on both sides- how does a nuclear power demonstrate its willingness to go nuclear without inviting an instantaneous retaliation?
What was the level of popping that was considered?


India as a nuclear weapons state and Soviet ally, but not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella provides a demonstration target for the US to show its resolve to defend Europe. USN assets can deliver the strike without tripping Soviet early warning systems.
What would have been the consequences of such a demonstration?....was that ever considered?

Tronic
17 Jan 13,, 09:47
India was not neutral, not from an American POV, she was a Soviet ally ideally placed to block the transit of USN forces from the Pacific to Indian Oceans [or vice verse], had ports that when combined with East African Ports and concentration in the Red Sea allowed the Soviets to create a credible threat to the oil life line of Europe, was a nuclear power, had border disputes with two anti-Soviet US allies.

Something else that needs to be considered. Depending on NATO success/failure in Europe or the perception of such, or perception of Soviet intent India provides an almost ideal demonstration target. No offense to the boards Indian members intended with where this is going to go. This is written from a cold war mindset. If a conventional war in Europe is going poorly for NATO, say pressure from Soviet spearheads are threatening to breakout into and across the North German Plain. US and NATO planners are going to consider nuclear release, with the implication that if one goes pop, they all get popped. This is something everyone who writes on WWIII has struggled with. Assuming this reflects the thinking on both sides- how does a nuclear power demonstrate its willingness to go nuclear without inviting an instantaneous retaliation?

India as a nuclear weapons state and Soviet ally, but not under the Soviet nuclear umbrella provides a demonstration target for the US to show its resolve to defend Europe. USN assets can deliver the strike without tripping Soviet early warning systems.


Again, you're speaking only on behalf of your own side's perspective, not India's. India was neutral as far as the global CW was concerned. Not a single Soviet ship docked at an Indian port for nearly 2 decades, and by the post-70s, Soviet ships may have increased the number of port calls to India, but than, they did so all over the world to all neutral countries. The practice of making port calls was one started by the USN as a somewhat diplomatic tool to spread their influence. The Soviets only picked up on this practice very late, so I don't buy the very vague argument of port calls.

Furthermore, India had no working doctrine against such a threat, it built no nuclear bunkers, never prepared it's civilians to receive a massive nuclear attack, and it still bought extensively from Western Europe! Indian army, navy and airforce all had major frontline platforms continued to be imported from NATO countries! Also ponder over the reason why India never bothered to pursue a Soviet nuclear umbrella, if it was truly expecting to be hit by US nukes? There is absolutely zilch preparation on the Indian side against such a hit. While we do now see things in hindsight from your perspective, do try to appreciate the Indian perspective here as well. Your strategic planners clearly misread Indian intentions, and ours clearly misread the severity of the threat posed by the US.

hammer
17 Jan 13,, 10:52
I think US obsession with countering USSR/Communism blinded them to the fact that India never intended to participate in WWIII or even pose a threat to Nato/7th Fleet in any way conceivable. And they really believed in "You are with us or against us" policy even back then. They actually planned to blowup every country that they "perceived" to be on the side of the Soviet Union.

lemontree
17 Jan 13,, 11:10
You mistook me for the Colonel, didn't you? :tongue:

Yeah, I though it was the Colonel, I wonder why...lol

Doktor
17 Jan 13,, 11:32
Tronic, Hammer,

It is shared responsibility actually. For USA not to realize India will stay neutral, but also for India, for failing to make it more visible.

hammer
17 Jan 13,, 12:00
Tronic, Hammer,

It is shared responsibility actually. For USA not to realize India will stay neutral, but also for India, for failing to make it more visible.

India was not even expecting to be considered a threat to the Americans much less a nuclear target. It did not host any foreign military force. No nuclear umbrella from either side. It was also fighting its own armed communist guerrilla movement. How much more visible could it get ?

Deltacamelately
17 Jan 13,, 12:14
Yeah, I though it was the Colonel, I wonder why...lol
3163031631

commander
17 Jan 13,, 14:50
I am wondering now. What if India had sided with the Soviet's .. Would India have become a Communist by now ? How would have that affected the current playing field ?

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 14:54
Noted. But this just confirms why the GOI still does not trust the US Govt.

The US tried to be allies with India, but India started the NAM with a very anti-western bias at its core.



What was the level of popping that was considered?


What would have been the consequences of such a demonstration?....was that ever considered?

I borrowed the idea mainly from Sir Hackett. Was it every really considered? I don't know, but a former NATO general in his writings had the Soviets pop Birmingham, and NATO respond by hitting Minsk. This implies a reflection of discussions he had with his peers on the subject. I am just extrapolating, I was just a tanker not a policy maker.

The obvious target is one or more of the 5 or 6 naval bases in the Mumbai area. Probably with one or more B61 sub megaton free fall bombs. Combined with conventional attacks on Indian air and naval assets. Like I said earlier, the US will have between 9-11 carriers to use globally, with the primary missions being the safeguarding of the Atlantic and the defeat or containment of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. However there should still be at least 1 more likely 2 carriers for use in the Indian ocean to take on the Soviet 8th Squadron. There could be three, if a pacific carrier is hustling East but I consider this unlikely. Nuclear or conventional in a WWIII confrontation between the US and India, the US might well be able to launch a 100-120 plane alpha strike. However this is probably the limit of US power projection except for B-52's out of Guam and DG which will probably have other taskings.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 15:03
India was not even expecting to be considered a threat to the Americans much less a nuclear target. It did not host any foreign military force. No nuclear umbrella from either side. It was also fighting its own armed communist guerrilla movement. How much more visible could it get ?

It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.

commander
17 Jan 13,, 18:38
It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.

I just want to understand on what you said.

1. Pakistan was an ally of US at the time.
2. India and Pakistan were not in good terms esp after the 1971 war.
3. US aids and helps Pakistan with all sorts of things from intelligence to aircrafts.
4. Now US thinks for India to be neutral they have to buy from USA or from one of it's allies , otherwise it would consider India as siding with USSR ?
5. Also Indian leaders have condemned what was done in Afganistan by Soviets at the time as per previous posters and still US considers India is not neutral.

Sorry but it just doesn't add up or there is some X factor missing which made the American's think India was an ally of Soviets.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 19:14
I just want to understand on what you said.

1. Pakistan was an ally of US at the time.
2. India and Pakistan were not in good terms esp after the 1971 war.
3. US aids and helps Pakistan with all sorts of things from intelligence to aircrafts.
4. Now US thinks for India to be neutral they have to buy from USA or from one of it's allies , otherwise it would consider India as siding with USSR ?
5. Also Indian leaders have condemned what was done in Afganistan by Soviets at the time as per previous posters and still US considers India is not neutral.

Sorry but it just doesn't add up or there is some X factor missing which made the American's think India was an ally of Soviets.

Yup X factor, US black and white view of the Cold War World. It was one sided, unfair but rational given the circumstances.

cataphract
17 Jan 13,, 19:18
It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?

Firestorm
17 Jan 13,, 20:04
It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.

India only operated the reconnaissance variant (Mig-25R). And very few of those too. India did not have spy satellites. So how were we supposed to spy on Pakistan without our aircraft getting shot down? The Mig-25's speed and altitude provided that option. And we both know that as far as its use as an interceptor was concerned, the Mig-25 wasn't really all it was earlier thought to be by the west.

As, for the Tu-142's, they were the Indian Navy's only maritime reconnaissance aircraft till the smaller Il-38's came. They were bought because of a need for better ASW capabilities in the IN. To say that these few platforms were bought with an eye on an adversary besides China and Pakistan is ridiculous. If that was the case, they would have been bought in a much larger number, and a different configuration.

As for India buying soviet hardware, we bought western hardware as well. In 65 and 71, India used Centurion tanks along with Hawker Hunters, Dassault Mysteres, Folland Gnats and EE Canberras. We bought the Jaguar (after the Brits refused the Tornado) and Mirage 2000 in the late 70's and early 80's respectively and Bofors artillery guns in the late 80's. Our soldiers all used locally produced versions of the FN-FAL. In fact, this alone should have given more than significant hints on India's neutrality. Which other country bought both Soviet and Western hardware in such amounts?

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 21:03
It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?

In the context of an actual WWIII, yes.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 22:02
India only operated the reconnaissance variant (Mig-25R). And very few of those too. India did not have spy satellites. So how were we supposed to spy on Pakistan without our aircraft getting shot down? The Mig-25's speed and altitude provided that option. And we both know that as far as its use as an interceptor was concerned, the Mig-25 wasn't really all it was earlier thought to be by the west.

How did Pakistan spy on you? And no, its abilities as an interceptor were never in doubt. What was revealed was its lackings in the air superiority department. Ask yourself why the US might be nervous about Mig-25's in the Indian Ocean. What US platform did they pose a threat to?


As, for the Tu-142's, they were the Indian Navy's only maritime reconnaissance aircraft till the smaller Il-38's came. They were bought because of a need for better ASW capabilities in the IN. To say that these few platforms were bought with an eye on an adversary besides China and Pakistan is ridiculous. If that was the case, they would have been bought in a much larger number, and a different configuration.

Pakistan had 2 submarines with littoral missions. Chinese boats were clones of Soviet derivatives of the German WWII era Type XXI. The only other blue water navy in the IO besides the IN was the USN. Those TU-142's could very easily provide soviet missile subs with targeting data on US carrier groups.


As for India buying soviet hardware, we bought western hardware as well. In 65 and 71, India used Centurion tanks along with Hawker Hunters, Dassault Mysteres, Folland Gnats and EE Canberras. We bought the Jaguar (after the Brits refused the Tornado) and Mirage 2000 in the late 70's and early 80's respectively and Bofors artillery guns in the late 80's. Our soldiers all used locally produced versions of the FN-FAL. In fact, this alone should have given more than significant hints on India's neutrality. Which other country bought both Soviet and Western hardware in such amounts?

Iraq...

What other non-ally did the Soviets sell such tech to? Even Iraq and Syria didn't get Bears, and Iraq's T-72's were monkey versions, not fully capable. India right or wrong was perceived to be a Soviet ally and had the capability to hurt the US if that perception was right and ignored. Better to smash India's ability to stab the US or its allies in the back, than get stabbed in the back. Realpolitik...

USSWisconsin
17 Jan 13,, 22:16
It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?

Outside military circles, I beleive the public opinion of India was relatively favorable in that period. There was considerable Indian influence in popular music, many musical groups and artists made connections to Indian spirituality in the 1960's and 70's as well as many churches in the US (my family's church included), and India was frequently perceived as an ancient and noble culture by the US public in the 1970's. There would probably have been public protests against attacks on India, particularly right after Vietnam. However in a nuclear exchange with the US recieving nukes, and the media telling us that the Soviets (who presumably had nuked the US) were allied with India - I suppose everything would have been very different - its mind wrenching to imagine the horror of such a conflict. The first 1974 Indian nuclear testing would have weighed in the mix too, I'm not sure when the public became aware that India had successfuly tested a nuclear device, but they probably didn't have a credible weapon for years after the first test, and the US and her allies (besides Pakistan) were certainly well out of reach...

Tronic
17 Jan 13,, 22:51
The US tried to be allies with India, but India started the NAM with a very anti-western bias at its core.

That doesn't make them allies of the Soviets either. NAM was a mixed bag and eventually split into it's own camps.

Tito was more anti-Soviet at that time, than he was anti-West. Under Nehru, India had the best relations with the US during the entirety of the CW. Sukarno played off both the Soviets and the Americans and elicited billions of dollars of aid from both countries. Nasser cracked down against both the Islamists and the Communists, though his socialist policies and pan-Arabism put him at odds with the US. Nkrumah led impoverished Ghana out of colonialism and it was his anti-imperialist and pro-African stance which made him at loggerheads against the West.

At one end, Nehru went to war against China and tied up with the CIA to track China's nuclear weapons, while on the other, Sukarno cozied up with the Chinese and elicited their support.

NAM may have been at odds with a lot of American policies, but it can hardly be described as one working political entity.



It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

India used predominantly British and French tanks, jets and bombers until 1965. It was sanctioned during that war, which resulted in its military coming to a grinding halt. After which, India started its indigenous weapons industry while importing from the Soviets, who promised an uninterrupted steady supply of spares, coupled with the political benefit of keeping in check Pakistan's allies, the US and China. Regardless, a significant portion of India's weapons continued to be sourced from the English and the French post-'65 (Gnat M2s, Mirages, Harriers, Jaguars, Centurians, Sea Hawks).


Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

It's ridiculous to assert that India would buy a maritime reconnaissance aircraft to use as a strategic bomber. As if it was devoid of all other options.

India's Mig-25s were also not interceptor aircraft but the Mig-25R variants, i.e., reconnaissance/spy planes. They regularly flew over Pakistan, out of reach from Pakistan's AD systems, and conducted recon sorties. They were replaced by satellites. Again, it's completely misleading to call them interceptor aircraft.



The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.

You surely haven't presented them as of yet.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 23:06
You surely haven't presented them as of yet.

Re-read what I actually wrote in the last post please.

Firestorm
17 Jan 13,, 23:26
How did Pakistan spy on you? And no, its abilities as an interceptor were never in doubt. What was revealed was its lackings in the air superiority department. Ask yourself why the US might be nervous about Mig-25's in the Indian Ocean. What US platform did they pose a threat to?



Pakistan had 2 submarines with littoral missions. Chinese boats were clones of Soviet derivatives of the German WWII era Type XXI. The only other blue water navy in the IO besides the IN was the USN. Those TU-142's could very easily provide soviet missile subs with targeting data on US carrier groups.



Iraq...

What other non-ally did the Soviets sell such tech to? Even Iraq and Syria didn't get Bears, and Iraq's T-72's were monkey versions, not fully capable. India right or wrong was perceived to be a Soviet ally and had the capability to hurt the US if that perception was right and ignored. Better to smash India's ability to stab the US or its allies in the back, than get stabbed in the back. Realpolitik...

What you are basically saying here, is that just because India operated a few (very few) Soviet built weapon systems that could theoretically be modified to help them against US conventional forces in a region far away from the main battleground of Europe, US strategic planners would have seriously considered pre-emptively nuking India. If you guys really thought like this, then I am astounded. I do not blame Indian strategic planners of the era of not expecting this. Nobody in their right mind would. Perhaps the Soviets were more right than even they knew when they called you reckless cowboys.

I also think that this opinion about a danger from India must have taken root post 1971. Nixon and Kissinger did a real number on the perception of India in US strategic circles. I don't think it ever fully recovered.

P.S: Regarding the Foxbats and Bears, India only operated a grand total of 8 of each of which all the Foxbats are now Museum pieces.

Tronic
17 Jan 13,, 23:34
Re-read what I actually wrote in the last post please.

I did. I don't see any "solid evidence". It's all one sided black and white paranoia.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 23:40
What you are basically saying here, is that just because India operated a few (very few) Soviet built weapon systems that could theoretically be modified to help them against US conventional forces in a region far away from the main battleground of Europe, US strategic planners would have seriously considered pre-emptively nuking India. If you guys really thought like this, then I am astounded. I do not blame Indian strategic planners of the era of not expecting this. Nobody in their right mind would. Perhaps the Soviets were more right than even they knew when they called you reckless cowboys.

Come on, own the rest of it, it was more than a few weapons systems, it was a host of reasons that when viewed through the colored lenses of the Cold War made India look like a Soviet ally or potential ally. In this thread there are Indians who claim India would have brought out the knives to get some of Pakistan and China- US allies against the Soviets. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the friend of mine enemy is mine enemy also.


I also think that this opinion about a danger from India must have taken root post 1971. Nixon and Kissinger did a real number on the perception of India in US strategic circles. I don't think it ever fully recovered.

More than just 1971, though that is the seed of the break. NAM plays a much bigger role as does the development of nuclear arms and the existence of the Indian Navy. Neither Pakistan nor China had a blue water navy, India lacked a large robust merchant marine, why exactly did India need a blue water navy? Why exactly did India need a nuke?

I don't really care about your answers from an Indian POV, its the what-ifs from the American POV that the US has to plan for that matter. I think that is what you are missing, try looking at it from an American cold war POV that paints everyone outside of NATO or ABCA as a potential hostile. Truth is grey and uncertain, only possibilities are real and concrete. You don't plan for truth, you plan for possibilities.

zraver
17 Jan 13,, 23:52
I did. I don't see any "solid evidence". It's all one sided black and white paranoia.

That is the key that you are failing to grasp.

watch this entire film please. Its from 1951 when the chance of a Soviet nuclear strike on the US was zero...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

USSWisconsin
18 Jan 13,, 00:35
Background
India's nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the "Atoms for Peace" non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, India began work on a thermonuclear weapon in the 1980s. In 1989, William H. Webster, director of the CIA, testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that "indicators that tell us India is interested in thermonuclear weapons capability." India was purifying lithium, producing tritium and separating lithium isotopes. India had also obtained pure beryllium metal from West Germany (2).

Testing
After 24 years without testing India resumed nuclear testing with a series of nuclear explosions known as "Operation Shatki." Prime Minister Vajpayee authorized the tests on April 8, 1998, two days after the Ghauri missile test-firing in Pakistan.

On May 11, 1998, India tested three devices at the Pokhran underground testing site, followed by two more tests on May 13, 1998. The nuclear tests carried out at 3:45 pm on May 11th were claimed by the Indian government to be a simultaneous detonation of three different devices - a fission device with a yield of about 12 kilotons (KT), a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 KT, and a sub-kiloton device. The two tests carried out at 12:21 pm on May 13th were also detonated simultaneously with reported yields in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 KT.

However, there is some controversy about these claims. Based on seismic data, U.S. government sources and independent experts estimated the yield of the so-called thermonuclear test in the range of 12-25 kilotons, as opposed to the 43-60 kiloton yield claimed by India. This lower yield raised skepticism about India's claims to have detonated a thermonuclear device.

Observers initially suggested that the test could have been a boosted fission device, rather than a true multi-stage thermonuclear device. By late 1998 analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had concluded that the India had attempted to detonate a thermonuclear device, but that the second stage of the two-stage bomb failed to ignite as planned.
Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/)

no weapons tested until 1998.

Tronic
18 Jan 13,, 00:53
That is the key that you are failing to grasp.

watch this entire film please. Its from 1951 when the chance of a Soviet nuclear strike on the US was zero...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

The Soviets had already tested their nukes, and America knew it wouldn't be too long before they would be able to strike the US. They prepared their civilians for such. Our leaders didn't, because they didn't imagine a similar threat was facing them as well. I don't care why you think India "may" have been a threat (by some very poorly placed arguments; port calls, a handful of Bears and a dozen recon -25s); the reality is that India didn't intend to be a threat. Above all else, it shows how much India's leaders had failed the country, as they neither prepared to fight a WW3, nor prepared their civilians how to survive it.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 13,, 01:23
Nuclear Weapons - India Nuclear Forces (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/)

no weapons tested until 1998.

You've missed this part.


Background
India's nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the "Atoms for Peace" non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the "Atoms for Peace" program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."No one believed this crap about peaceful nuclear explosion.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 13,, 01:37
So, what would be India's reaction in case of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan?

USSWisconsin
18 Jan 13,, 01:41
You've missed this part.

No one believed this crap about peaceful nuclear explosion.

I suppose they probably could have had a heavy air drop or demolition type weapon ready much sooner. Probably not very long after the test in 74.

But wouldn't they would have been limited to using it in the region?

zraver
18 Jan 13,, 01:50
The Soviets had already tested their nukes,

So had India...


and America knew it wouldn't be too long before they would be able to strike the US. They prepared their civilians for such. Our leaders didn't, because they didn't imagine a similar threat was facing them as well. I don't care why you think India "may" have been a threat (by some very poorly placed arguments; port calls, a handful of Bears and a dozen recon -25s); the reality is that India didn't intend to be a threat. Above all else, it shows how much India's leaders had failed the country, as they neither prepared to fight a WW3, nor prepared their civilians how to survive it.

Wow you just don't get it.... Its not about right or wrong, its about perceptions inside the very narrow context of US-Soviet competition.

zraver
18 Jan 13,, 01:54
I suppose they probably could have had a heavy air drop or demolition type weapon ready much sooner. Probably not very long after the test in 74.

But wouldn't they would have been limited to using it in the region?

Depending on the design of their fission weapons, India had a large fleet of Canberra bombers. Not a long range bomber, but long ranged enough for dealing with her neighbors or threatening the Straits of Malacca (w or w/o nukes).

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 13,, 05:29
Above all else, it shows how much India's leaders had failed the country, as they neither prepared to fight a WW3, nor prepared their civilians how to survive it.Is this a fair assessment? While we certainly had plans against India, if Indian ships stayed in port and soldiers in barracks, we would not have initiated combat.

lemontree
18 Jan 13,, 06:09
The US tried to be allies with India, but India started the NAM with a very anti-western bias at its core.

Now this is where the POV is at tangent to what we believe..
(a) About US trying to be allies with India: We were actually pushed towards Soviet Union by US policy. Till the early 60's, the west was our source of weapons. Then the US sells F-104's to Pakistan and refuses to sell India, sells tons of free weapons to Pakistan. The UK also refused to sell the Lightening to us, so we bought the Mig-21. Towards the *** end of 1965 Indo-Pak war, the US supplies 90 F-86 Saber jets to Pakistan to make up their depleted sqns (inspite of a declared wpns embargo on both Pak and India). This were clearly anti-Indian actions by the US, not the act of an ally.

(b) NAM: We were done with colonialism and did not want to surrend our soverignity to the policies of any world power. We were not going to become the battleground for any world power. NAM saved us from becoming the Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan of this world. Indian soverignity came first.


I borrowed the idea mainly from Sir Hackett. Was it every really considered? I don't know, but a former NATO general in his writings had the Soviets pop Birmingham, and NATO respond by hitting Minsk. This implies a reflection of discussions he had with his peers on the subject. I am just extrapolating, I was just a tanker not a policy maker.

The obvious target is one or more of the 5 or 6 naval bases in the Mumbai area. Probably with one or more B61 sub megaton free fall bombs. Combined with conventional attacks on Indian air and naval assets. Like I said earlier, the US will have between 9-11 carriers to use globally, with the primary missions being the safeguarding of the Atlantic and the defeat or containment of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. However there should still be at least 1 more likely 2 carriers for use in the Indian ocean to take on the Soviet 8th Squadron. There could be three, if a pacific carrier is hustling East but I consider this unlikely. Nuclear or conventional in a WWIII confrontation between the US and India, the US might well be able to launch a 100-120 plane alpha strike. However this is probably the limit of US power projection except for B-52's out of Guam and DG which will probably have other taskings.

- Why I asked was that, if the US had used the nuclear option, then India would have been pushed right into the Soviet camp with no return.
- Hitting Indian naval assets would hardly serve any purpose, as they were not a threat to US naval assets. However, pushing India to the Soviet camp would mean that Pakistan would have been overrun by Indian and Soviet forces.
- Soviets get Karachi harbour and the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean would be crawling with Soviet naval units.
- The next target would be DG. One would assume that the Soviet-Indian navy would keep drawing US naval assets to DG's protection and deplete the force strength needed else where.
- Also the Persian Gulf will become a no-go area for the US Navy.

All Indian deficiencies in ELINT technology would be agumented by Soviet assets.

China - they can be well contained by the Soviet and Indian AFs. The terrain is the killer, approaches limited and logistical nghtmare.
Besides in WWIII the Tibetans would be a real asset to keep the PLA very, very busy.
The PLA will have to depend on their western front for any meaningful military gains.

I only see the US making a mistake of opening another front any loosing their Pakistan and the Persian Gulf for good. By involving India the US would give the Soviets what they wanted - a foothold in the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

lemontree
18 Jan 13,, 06:15
Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.
That is a silly question. If a nation has access to a recce and svl resources, it will obtain it.

The version being used by India was a recce version and not the interceptor version.


The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.
Well then the vision seems increasingly myopic. I thought that the US Govt had a got system of analysis and reasoning. Guess the Brits were quiet an influence on the US.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 13,, 06:21
- Why I asked was that, if the US had used the nuclear option, then India would have been pushed right into the Soviet camp with no return.
- Hitting Indian naval assets would hardly serve any purpose, as they were not a threat to US naval assets. However, pushing India to the Soviet camp would mean that Pakistan would have been overrun by Indian and Soviet forces.What's the difference, Captain? We were expecting this to begin with.


- Soviets get Karachi harbour and the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean would be crawling with Soviet naval units.
- The next target would be DG. One would assume that the Soviet-Indian navy would keep drawing US naval assets to DG's protection and deplete the force strength needed else where.
- Also the Persian Gulf will become a no-go area for the US Navy.I would not go that far. Soviet naval assets have to get through the 7th Fleet first ... and again, the prize is not the IOR but Europe. While I can see the Soviets have enough ground and air assets to spare for South Asia, they certainly do not have enough Naval assets to spread around. Weakening the Atlantic means they lost the war.

lemontree
18 Jan 13,, 06:21
So, what would be India's reaction in case of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan?
Probably take our portion of J&K, I guess.
But cannot say for certain, as an invasion of Pakistan would bring in the NATO and make the sub-continent a war zone.

We would remain on the fence I guess. That is a high stakes poker game that we would have stayed away from.

lemontree
18 Jan 13,, 07:50
What's the difference, Captain? We were expecting this to begin with.
The difference is that you would have turned a neutral nation into a rabid enemy.


I would not go that far. Soviet naval assets have to get through the 7th Fleet first ... and again, the prize is not the IOR but Europe. While I can see the Soviets have enough ground and air assets to spare for South Asia, they certainly do not have enough Naval assets to spread around. Weakening the Atlantic means they lost the war.
If the prize is Europe then why hurt India. India would respond back with Soviet assistance and help destroy US assets in the region, we dont care what happens to Europe anyway. We would release Soviet assets from the region so that they can be directed to where they can hurt NATO the most.

Besides, if 6 Soviet subs could scare the 7th Fleet in the Bay of Bengal in 1971, then a lot more would happen when WWIII breaks out.
I'm guessing tactical nuclear strikes on the carrier groups.

The out come would depend on who has what left on Day 2 of WWIII

Officer of Engineers
18 Jan 13,, 13:19
The difference is that you would have turned a neutral nation into a rabid enemy.That's the point. We were expecting that in the first place.


If the prize is Europe then why hurt India.Because India will hurt our friends who is helping us against our enemy, more specifically, China. India would not be helping China to keep those 45 Soviet divisions in Siberia.


India would respond back with Soviet assistance and help destroy US assets in the region, we dont care what happens to Europe anyway. We would release Soviet assets from the region so that they can be directed to where they can hurt NATO the most.You're not releasing Soviet assets. You're increasing it.


Besides, if 6 Soviet subs could scare the 7th Fleet in the Bay of Bengal in 1971, then a lot more would happen when WWIII breaks out.
I'm guessing tactical nuclear strikes on the carrier groups.Those six subs or more would not be stopping REFORGER and the Atlantic task forces from reaching Europe.


The out come would depend on who has what left on Day 2 of WWIIIIn all honesty, does it matter?

payeng
18 Jan 13,, 15:12
Allies with any of the power bloc was kinda luxury for India at that time when India have to fill the stomach of her poor and hungry citizens, if I am not wrong poverty rate before 90 was more then 50% which means majority of the population during that time would have thought of bread before butter, I pity if anyone ask why certain nations did not part with any of the power bloc in the power game, lets take the example of Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs.
31644
for those who were deprived of basic needs of life don't think of esteem and self actualization but the basic and physiological needs of life.
One of the fact of Non Alignment was not to be a part of this power game politics, it is not to be confused as a third front, Non-Alignment is a moment it is not a treaty or pact, it was a collective effort to say the ambitious nations to gtfo and mind your own business 'leave us alone'. I am not sure how much did Western front progressed with their relation with third world independent and sovereign states but Soviet had some policies of maintaining positive diplomatic relation with such nations who were termed as a third world nations. Pakistan was pro US, since or even before Independence as the Muslim League, even though they were in NAM too they tried their best to use their relations to exert US pressure upon India and even succeed. The option available with India was clear, even before 72 Indra Gandhi had a diplomatic tour around the world including US to exert a pressure against Pakistan upon oppression of their own people in then East Pakistan, the intrusion of refugee was heavily draining the under developed economy, (a problem which India have to deal with till date). Nixon was not in favor of Indian interest.And India later found support from the Soviets.

Before 62 the policy of the nation was for a friendly China and so was the infamous 'hindi chini bhai bhai' slogan. Diplomacy failed solving the McMohan line border sharing issue and so war became imminent, other wise India always wanted a friendly China as a neighbor, then a distant friend.

Some one quoted it well 'in war truth is the first causality'

So what changed now, cold war is over USSR dissolved, now it is China and US, where as maybe for China, India is Pro US but the fact is, even today India is non aligned, may be not as much under developed as in history but not interested in making a distant friend against a neighbor or a military bloc against the Super power, we are happy as we are on our own,and we have also seen what happened and is happening in Pakistan, some thing that the Indian foreign policy seems to explain in a silent note.

I wonder why a third world nation should be a WWIII war field?

payeng
18 Jan 13,, 15:17
I suppose they probably could have had a heavy air drop or demolition type weapon ready much sooner. Probably not very long after the test in 74.

But wouldn't they would have been limited to using it in the region?

Prithvi SRBM with a payload capacity of 1 ton was speculated to be able to carry a nuclear warhead from the 74 test design. And so was Agni.

astralis
18 Jan 13,, 15:43
lemontree,


(a) About US trying to be allies with India: We were actually pushed towards Soviet Union by US policy. Till the early 60's, the west was our source of weapons. Then the US sells F-104's to Pakistan and refuses to sell India, sells tons of free weapons to Pakistan. The UK also refused to sell the Lightening to us, so we bought the Mig-21. Towards the *** end of 1965 Indo-Pak war, the US supplies 90 F-86 Saber jets to Pakistan to make up their depleted sqns (inspite of a declared wpns embargo on both Pak and India). This were clearly anti-Indian actions by the US, not the act of an ally.


from US POV, post-49 the US wanted India to be a counterbalance to China and thus both Eisenhower and Kennedy made significant efforts to try to turn India into an ally.

however, indian senior leadership's noted Sinophilia (Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai? :)) and to a lesser extent Russophilia-- originating from the anti-imperialist/anti-Western left that (understandably) made up so much of India's early leadership as well as the Indian economy-- made it pretty clear to US policymakers that the indians were NOT going to be allies with the US anytime soon. moreover while NAM was supposed to be 'non-aligned', in the UN and other international bodies it was pretty clear that it sympathized rather more with the SU and its brand of anti-imperialist talk.

at this point in time the US started to pursue pakistan as an ally. this obviously created a cycle of antagonism.

zraver
18 Jan 13,, 21:36
Well then the vision seems increasingly myopic. I thought that the US Govt had a got system of analysis and reasoning. Guess the Brits were quiet an influence on the US.

That system of analysis and reasoning was premised on the balance of power and risk of war between the US/NATO and USSR/WP. It colored everything, just as India's past as a colony colored its views of the world.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 13,, 05:58
The obvious target is one or more of the 5 or 6 naval bases in the Mumbai area. Probably with one or more B61 sub megaton free fall bombs. Combined with conventional attacks on Indian air and naval assets. Like I said earlier, the US will have between 9-11 carriers to use globally, with the primary missions being the safeguarding of the Atlantic and the defeat or containment of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. However there should still be at least 1 more likely 2 carriers for use in the Indian ocean to take on the Soviet 8th Squadron. There could be three, if a pacific carrier is hustling East but I consider this unlikely. Nuclear or conventional in a WWIII confrontation between the US and India, the US might well be able to launch a 100-120 plane alpha strike. However this is probably the limit of US power projection except for B-52's out of Guam and DG which will probably have other taskings.Jason,

I'm sorry I missed this but I seriously think you understated the seriousness of an American nuke strike. India was a nuclear weapons power. The primary target would be India's nukes and that would include her NCA, translation. Dehli would see a mushroom cloud.

zraver
19 Jan 13,, 06:29
Jason,

I'm sorry I missed this but I seriously think you understated the seriousness of an American nuke strike. India was a nuclear weapons power. The primary target would be India's nukes and that would include her NCA, translation. Dehli would see a mushroom cloud.

Sir, considered and rejected, Delhi is out of range of naval aircraft and a missile launch risks global nuclear war rather than a demonstration.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 13,, 06:46
Not for a boomer. Flight time is too short for a Moscow launch decision. Come mid-80s, cruise missiles would also enter the equation.

In any event, the USN cannot allow an Indian nuke to be deployed, not after they strike first.

Officer of Engineers
19 Jan 13,, 06:57
Probably take our portion of J&K, I guess.
But cannot say for certain, as an invasion of Pakistan would bring in the NATO and make the sub-continent a war zone.

We would remain on the fence I guess. That is a high stakes poker game that we would have stayed away from.Frankly, Captain, I am at a loss at these points. While I can follow your points on the surface, once I start thinking about them, it made no sense. Please, I'm trying to figure this out as an intellectual exercise.

India does not want to be a target. I can understand that. That meant not to support any superpower one way or the other. You don't like the Soviet Army in Afghanistan but you didn't help evict them either.

Yet, you expect to fight back after receiving a nuke hit and that means being ready to receive, to survive, and to retaliate a nuke strike ... but you had no plans, no training, no preparation for it ... because to do so means to invite a nuke strike.

That would mean that you must yield command of your forces to superior preparation but you didn't do that ...

Please walk me through this. I don't want to spend another seven years figuring out another of your mysteries.

commander
19 Jan 13,, 14:54
Frankly, Captain, I am at a loss at these points. While I can follow your points on the surface, once I start thinking about them, it made no sense. Please, I'm trying to figure this out as an intellectual exercise.

India does not want to be a target. I can understand that. That meant not to support any superpower one way or the other. You don't like the Soviet Army in Afghanistan but you didn't help evict them either.

Yet, you expect to fight back after receiving a nuke hit and that means being ready to receive, to survive, and to retaliate a nuke strike ... but you had no plans, no training, no preparation for it ... because to do so means to invite a nuke strike.

That would mean that you must yield command of your forces to superior preparation but you didn't do that ...

Please walk me through this. I don't want to spend another seven years figuring out another of your mysteries.

But Sir wouldn't trying to evict or helping to evict Soviets from Afghanistan would make India look like siding with the USA and it's allies ? If that happens especially at a time like that where Pakistan was a valuable ally to USA than India , India would have lost its neutral stance and I don't think USA would have helped India anyway if faced with the threat from Soviets ? I maybe wrong but just my opinion.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jan 13,, 21:17
As I stated to the Good Captain, I am at a loss at understanding all these points. Don't worry if you don't understand it all either. We're exploring new territory here and we're bound to get a few things wrong but until we know where we are wrong, we will not know what is right.

lemontree
21 Jan 13,, 10:18
Frankly, Captain, I am at a loss at these points. While I can follow your points on the surface, once I start thinking about them, it made no sense. Please, I'm trying to figure this out as an intellectual exercise.....

Please walk me through this. I don't want to spend another seven years figuring out another of your mysteries.

Sir,

India was walking the tight rope during the Cold war. Even though we may have seemed to be tilting towards the USSR, there was nothing in common between the people of the two nations. We just wanted to have a bully we could have on speed dial.

I will give you an example through the Indo-Israeli vs Indo-Gulf-Saudi relationship:
- India is and was highly dependent on imported crude oil.
- India still does not have the clout to bargain good crude oil prices and has to depend on the goodwill of the seller.
- In India's case all crude oil came from the Persian Gulf region.

Being the leader of NAM, we had all the erstwhile colonies as member states and many of them were oil rich islamic gulf states. They all gave support and oil on the basis of support to Palestine and no diplomatic relationship with Israel. India had to keep them happy, but could never ignore Israel and we had a secret link with them, and a Israeli consulate was establisted in India - the explaination given was that the many Jews living in India needed visa facilities to visit Israel. We had close diplomatic and military links with Israel since the late 60's. But overtly we supported Yaser Arafat and his demand for a Palestinian state.

Most of US policy towards India was based on the British POV, The British POV was in favour of Pakistan, as it thought Pakistan to be willing to toe the British line and hence wanted Pakistan to control the strategic old silk route in J&K. Faor India the Kennedy era was akin to the Clinton era, of warmth and friendship. The US tilt went completely towards Pakistan after Kennedy. The policies of Lyndon Johnson and Nixon took India and US apart.

Deltacamelately
21 Jan 13,, 11:20
Frankly, Captain, I am at a loss at these points. While I can follow your points on the surface, once I start thinking about them, it made no sense. Please, I'm trying to figure this out as an intellectual exercise.

India does not want to be a target. I can understand that. That meant not to support any superpower one way or the other. You don't like the Soviet Army in Afghanistan but you didn't help evict them either.

Yet, you expect to fight back after receiving a nuke hit and that means being ready to receive, to survive, and to retaliate a nuke strike ... but you had no plans, no training, no preparation for it ... because to do so means to invite a nuke strike.

That would mean that you must yield command of your forces to superior preparation but you didn't do that ...

Please walk me through this. I don't want to spend another seven years figuring out another of your mysteries.
Sir,

To understand the Indian position, we must revisit the early years after independence and the catalysts which forced India to -

1. Get close enough to the Soviets to access its military and diplomatic support.
2. Maintain enough distance from the Soviet's through NAM to prevent getting sucked-up in the Soviet military camp.

India's relation with the Soviets initially was ambivalent. Nehru stricktly wanted to remain non-aligned, and actively participated in the Commonwealths. However, Eisenhower's decision to provide arms to Pakistan in 1954, followed by the Paks joining the SEATO and subsequently the CENTO left India literally clueless about the regional security map. These agreements assured Pakistan the supply of sophisticated military hardware and economic aid, which she would use recklessly against India and her interests.

The situation obviously alarmed India, which had continuous tense relations with Pakistan. Now since Pakistan also bordered the SU, it also provided Moscow with the incentive as well as the opportunity to cement relations with New Delhi. India’s status as a leader of the NAM also allowed the SU to bolster Soviet policy in the third world. India and the SU therefore pursued similar policies based on common security threat born out of the US interests in Pakistan. It was in this context that India and Soviets exchanged military Attaches. Although Indo-Soviet cooperation had begun, the investment of soviet-military aid to India only begun in the context of deteriorating China-Soviet and Indo-China relations. Following the 1962 war, the China-Pakistani axis was also an added impetus for growing cooperation between India and the USSR. Through all these developement, there was a clear Indian indication to the Soviets to expect India staying neutral in case hostilities commense between the US and USSR. We had documented policy to stay out of any military campaign involving the Soviets and NATO, hence it made no sense to invest in civilian drills to survive a nuclear strike. We also made no serious efforts to develope any expeditionary force, contrary to what Jason believes. In the 60s-70s, heck even 80s, India had a handfull of naval vessals that can not be considered indicative of any remote blue water naval capability. As a policy matter, India was determined to remain out of any military alliance or military action involving the two super blocks, however, India was also determined to fight any extra-subcontinental power, if challenged within what she considered, her sphere of influence in the IoR.

Tronic
21 Jan 13,, 13:12
Even though we may have seemed to be tilting towards the USSR, there was nothing in common between the people of the two nations.

I slightly disagree here. What was common between the people of both India and SU were that they were both heavily socialistic. India's pre-independence leaders were pretty much all socialists, and the Indian independence movement left a huge socialist footprint in the Indian mindset. I realize this talking to the older generations, and they have this romanticized view of the SU/Russia. Even my grandfather, who was a landlord (a Jagirdar) and who lost a significant chunk of his land during India's socialistic land reforms, had a somewhat positive view of the SU.

And when Krushchev made his first visit to India, he was given a rockstar treatment. My memory's a little rusty but I believe crowds by the thousands flocked to (Calcutta, Bengal?) to see him.

Tronic
21 Jan 13,, 13:25
Frankly, Captain, I am at a loss at these points. While I can follow your points on the surface, once I start thinking about them, it made no sense. Please, I'm trying to figure this out as an intellectual exercise.

India does not want to be a target. I can understand that. That meant not to support any superpower one way or the other. You don't like the Soviet Army in Afghanistan but you didn't help evict them either.

Yet, you expect to fight back after receiving a nuke hit and that means being ready to receive, to survive, and to retaliate a nuke strike ... but you had no plans, no training, no preparation for it ... because to do so means to invite a nuke strike.

That would mean that you must yield command of your forces to superior preparation but you didn't do that ...

Please walk me through this. I don't want to spend another seven years figuring out another of your mysteries.


Sir, India would not help evict the Soviets from Afghanistan as they were still keeping things in check for India. The "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation", which cemented the Indian-Soviet relationship, was signed merely a couple of months before the '71 Indo-Pak war. That can't merely be a coincidence. India was being flooded by millions of Bengali refugees and Indira had already asked the army chief to prepare an invasion of East Pakistan. Signing the treaty with the Soviets at that point of time indicates that it was solely aimed at deterring the US from getting involved in the war in support of it's ally Pakistan.

Deltacamelately
21 Jan 13,, 14:56
I slightly disagree here. What was common between the people of both India and SU were that they were both heavily socialistic. India's pre-independence leaders were pretty much all socialists, and the Indian independence movement left a huge socialist footprint in the Indian mindset. I realize this talking to the older generations, and they have this romanticized view of the SU/Russia. Even my grandfather, who was a landlord (a Jagirdar) and who lost a significant chunk of his land during India's socialistic land reforms, had a somewhat positive view of the SU.

And when Krushchev made his first visit to India, he was given a rockstar treatment. My memory's a little rusty but I believe crowds by the thousands flocked to (Calcutta, Bengal?) to see him.:confused::eek:

Sir,

India was walking the tight rope during the Cold war. Even though we may have seemed to be tilting towards the USSR, there was nothing in common between the people of the two nations.

3163031631
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Tronic
21 Jan 13,, 15:04
:confused::eek:

I'm actually surprised you think otherwise.

anil
21 Jan 13,, 15:54
There was more people to people contact between russians and indians in the 60s and the 70s than the west. Recall raj kapoor, recall the thousands of russian performers travelling the circuits in indian circuses. Old school russian generals from the soviet army as well as the russian army are honoured guests in national programs to this day.

The word "strategic partnership" has been over used and no longer holds the same meaning for india. For eg, india has signed strategic partnerships with both the US and Pakistan as well as Russia and China. However, the actual relations are determined by historical(physical) events and not by paper signatures.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jan 13,, 18:00
The "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation", which cemented the Indian-Soviet relationship, was signed merely a couple of months before the '71 Indo-Pak war. I've actually forgotten about that. Now, today, we know the treaty meant squat all. China signed it and it didn't stop the Sino-Russo Cold War which nearly turned hot ... actually it did. Vietnam signed it and Moscow did not come to her rescue though truth be known, they were too busy getting ready for Afghanistan. However, for us, in the West, the implications were clear, as falsely as it was. India has chosen sides. Much like China has chosen sides.

Gentlemen, I am extremely bewildered by the implications of all of this. It was a truly ugly situation. We would have killed a country on a misunderstanding.

I am truly astonished that India did not realize just how truly in danger she was. Captain, with all due respects, I really don't think India could have rebounded from an American nuclear first strike. No one had thought it through, even here, even by Jason. The Nuclear Release Authority is a primary target. If we were to attack India, then, Dehli cannot be allowed to survive as with all your nuclear installations, however close they are to civilian centres.

God! The Soviet Invasion of Pakistan is a truly ugly nightmare scenario for India. China would've attacked. She would've had to. India would've defended her territory. She also would've had to. China had no hope of winning unless the Americans intervene and they too would've had to. Chinese collapse meant 45 divisions and 200 more warheads heading West.

Gentlemen, we have just uncovered a nightmare scenario no one had thought of.

I don't really count on luck ... but Gentlemen, go buy yourselves a lottery ticket.

Deltacamelately
21 Jan 13,, 18:47
I'm actually surprised you think otherwise.
The statement you responded to was not mine. Request you to re-read.

lemontree
22 Jan 13,, 05:21
Jason,
Dehli would see a mushroom cloud.


[QUOTE=zraver;900230]
Sir, considered and rejected, Delhi is out of range of naval aircraft and a missile launch risks global nuclear war rather than a demonstration.

Zraver is right, Delhi was out of range of US naval aircraft.
Secondly, the US did not have naval missiles to hit Delhi. The Pershing 1 had a max range of 750 km and the Pershing 2 with max range of 1800 km came into production only in 1983. Correct me if I may have left out any missile system that could have reached Delhi.

lemontree
22 Jan 13,, 05:26
Even though we may have seemed to be tilting towards the USSR, there was nothing in common between the people of the two nations.
I had stated the above and not Delta.


I slightly disagree here. What was common between the people of both India and SU were that they were both heavily socialistic. India's pre-independence leaders were pretty much all socialists, and the Indian independence movement left a huge socialist footprint in the Indian mindset. I realize this talking to the older generations, and they have this romanticized view of the SU/Russia. Even my grandfather, who was a landlord (a Jagirdar) and who lost a significant chunk of his land during India's socialistic land reforms, had a somewhat positive view of the SU.

And when Krushchev made his first visit to India, he was given a rockstar treatment. My memory's a little rusty but I believe crowds by the thousands flocked to (Calcutta, Bengal?) to see him.
What I meant was that Indians identified more with the US and Canada and hence you have so many who settled down there, we dont fine the same people movement from India to Russia. It is in this context that I stated the above.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 05:29
Zraver is right, Delhi was out of range of US naval aircraft.
Secondly, the US did not have naval missiles to hit Delhi. The Pershing 1 had a max range of 750 km and the Pershing 2 with max range of 1800 km came into production only in 1983. Correct me if I may have left out any missile system that could have reached Delhi.Captain,

I specifically stated boomers. I will be more specific in the POSEIDON and TRIDENT missile series. And the PERSHINGs were assigned to the army, not the navy.

lemontree
22 Jan 13,, 05:41
Captain,

I specifically stated boomers. I will be more specific in the POSEIDON and TRIDENT missile series. And the PERSHINGs were assigned to the army, not the navy.
My mistake sir, I thought that the Posidon came into service much later, did not know that it was in service since 1971.

lemontree
22 Jan 13,, 05:47
Gentlemen, I am extremely bewildered by the implications of all of this. It was a truly ugly situation. We would have killed a country on a misunderstanding.
It is in the past sir. The situation now is different.


I am truly astonished that India did not realize just how truly in danger she was. Captain, with all due respects, I really don't think India could have rebounded from an American nuclear first strike. No one had thought it through, even here, even by Jason. The Nuclear Release Authority is a primary target. If we were to attack India, then, Dehli cannot be allowed to survive as with all your nuclear installations, however close they are to civilian centres.
The reason why we feel we would have survived a US nuclear strike, was that the US and SU would be too busy lobbing nukes at each other. India or other regional powers would come into the picture much later. India would never have been 1st priority target, that is what we feel. Unless I am wrong.



God! The Soviet Invasion of Pakistan is a truly ugly nightmare scenario for India. China would've attacked. She would've had to. India would've defended her territory. She also would've had to. China had no hope of winning unless the Americans intervene and they too would've had to. Chinese collapse meant 45 divisions and 200 more warheads heading West.

Gentlemen, we have just uncovered a nightmare scenario no one had thought of.
How much more we could achieve if we met for a drink once a week.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 06:03
It is in the past sir. The situation now is different.Of course, Captain, but I had thought we knew all the nightmare scenario. It's a shock to discover another one that I never thought of.


The reason why we feel we would have survived a US nuclear strike, was that the US and SU would be too busy lobbing nukes at each other. India or other regional powers would come into the picture much later. India would never have been 1st priority target, that is what we feel. Unless I am wrong.The same as Russia vis-a-vi China. The Soviets reserved 200 warheads for the Chinese theatre. Even one boomer would do the job to India.


How much more we could achieve if we met for a drink once a week.Your wife screaming in both our ears about keeping you out too late.

lemontree
22 Jan 13,, 08:20
Your wife screaming in both our ears about keeping you out too late.
Oh no sir, in front of you she would be all sugar and honey....but when I get back home, it would be some thing like this

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/p/pms_lion-11961.jpg

anil
22 Jan 13,, 10:48
Why would the US nuke india?

If nukes had indeed started flying, I would assume that the nuke war would be reduced to a number game. If US nuked russia then russia would nuke US back. If US nuked india and russia then both of their arsenal would be fired at US. A russian nuclear strike on CONUS would surely cripple its supply and infrastructure along with its significant 'productive' population. Anything more would be for the simple purpose of killing a few million americans. Yet that would not be enough to wipe out the american population from US.

So I guess the russian nuclear inventory is not enough to wipe out all life from america
Is the US nuclear inventory enough to wipe out all signs of progress from russia? How many warheads can it spare for india? Now india has infrastructure in maybe less than 10% of its land mass. So if US wipes that out, still does it change anything for india apart from retaliating back on CONUS?

Does anyone have the optimum inventory to strike everywhere? I don't think so.

-------

I'm curious to know where the chinese nukes would be aimed. Would they be aimed at russia, US, india or vietnam? How will it bifurcate its warheads?

Nuclear warfare will only be waged if there is a guaranteed chance of success since the participating parties have already said goodbye to a large part of their productive population. What does a nation have(and not) to loose?

Deltacamelately
22 Jan 13,, 10:54
I've actually forgotten about that. Now, today, we know the treaty meant squat all. China signed it and it didn't stop the Sino-Russo Cold War which nearly turned hot ... actually it did. Vietnam signed it and Moscow did not come to her rescue though truth be known, they were too busy getting ready for Afghanistan. However, for us, in the West, the implications were clear, as falsely as it was. India has chosen sides. Much like China has chosen sides.

Gentlemen, I am extremely bewildered by the implications of all of this. It was a truly ugly situation. We would have killed a country on a misunderstanding.

I am truly astonished that India did not realize just how truly in danger she was. Captain, with all due respects, I really don't think India could have rebounded from an American nuclear first strike. No one had thought it through, even here, even by Jason. The Nuclear Release Authority is a primary target. If we were to attack India, then, Dehli cannot be allowed to survive as with all your nuclear installations, however close they are to civilian centres.

God! The Soviet Invasion of Pakistan is a truly ugly nightmare scenario for India. China would've attacked. She would've had to. India would've defended her territory. She also would've had to. China had no hope of winning unless the Americans intervene and they too would've had to. Chinese collapse meant 45 divisions and 200 more warheads heading West.

Gentlemen, we have just uncovered a nightmare scenario no one had thought of.

I don't really count on luck ... but Gentlemen, go buy yourselves a lottery ticket.
Sir,

Was pondering over the matter myself and suddenly found this short interview of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. Unfortunately, bulk of the interview is in Hindi. What is revealing is, he himself as well as the Indian political class was aware of the threat posed by the 7th fleet. He clearly told his political masters that 7th Fleet means nuclear attack and that he would not be able to do anything worthwhile if the Americans launch a nuclear strike. He also said that he believes that the US military would not strike with nuclear weapons and that he was more confident that the American citizens themselves would not agree to such a strike. He was then asked what if the Americans bring in their army, to which he replied - "I would be the most happy man and would take it as one big opportunity to be remembered as one great General who defeated not only the PA but the US Army as well.

What is important here is - Both he and the Indian political class were aware about the imminent military threat posed by both the British as well as the Americans. But they were committed to take the fight forward.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvDjHcTeTe8&NR=1

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 12:31
Why would the US nuke india?Already stated more than once

1) Because she was perceived as on the side of the Soviet bloc
2) Because she was a nuclear weapons power not allied to the US


If nukes had indeed started flying, I would assume that the nuke war would be reduced to a number game. If US nuked russia then russia would nuke US back. If US nuked india and russia then both of their arsenal would be fired at US. A russian nuclear strike on CONUS would surely cripple its supply and infrastructure along with its significant 'productive' population. Anything more would be for the simple purpose of killing a few million americans. Yet that would not be enough to wipe out the american population from US.

So I guess the russian nuclear inventory is not enough to wipe out all life from america
Is the US nuclear inventory enough to wipe out all signs of progress from russia? How many warheads can it spare for india? Now india has infrastructure in maybe less than 10% of its land mass. So if US wipes that out, still does it change anything for india apart from retaliating back on CONUS?

Does anyone have the optimum inventory to strike everywhere? I don't think so.If the strategy is counter-force, then yes, both arsenals have more than enough to deal with each other and everybody else as well. So you think just because that Russia was facing the US that she did not had nukes to deal with China, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, and South Africa?

What makes you think the US was not ready to deal with the India


I'm curious to know where the chinese nukes would be aimed. Would they be aimed at russia, US, india or vietnam? How will it bifurcate its warheads?At the time, the Chinese had less than a dozen warheads all would be mounted on IRBMs at Lop Nor in Western China which indicated that they were aiming for European Russia ... that is if the rockets could take off and land there.

History suggests that the Chinese bluffed as they never mounted warheads on the rockets, even during the wost crisis.


Nuclear warfare will only be waged if there is a guaranteed chance of success since the participating parties have already said goodbye to a large part of their productive population. What does a nation have(and not) to loose?Oh Horse Puckey, nuclear war would be waged when the we're too stupid not to go to war. It has nothing to do with guarrantees of victory and everything with not being able to accept humiliation at the hands of our enemy.


Sir,

Was pondering over the matter myself and suddenly found this short interview of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. Unfortunately, bulk of the interview is in Hindi. What is revealing is, he himself as well as the Indian political class was aware of the threat posed by the 7th fleet. He clearly told his political masters that 7th Fleet means nuclear attack and that he would not be able to do anything worthwhile if the Americans launch a nuclear strike. He also said that he believes that the US military would not strike with nuclear weapons and that he was more confident that the American citizens themselves would not agree to such a strike. He was then asked what if the Americans bring in their army, to which he replied - "I would be the most happy man and would take it as one big opportunity to be remembered as one great General who defeated not only the PA but the US Army as well.

What is important here is - Both he and the Indian political class were aware about the imminent military threat posed by both the British as well as the Americans. But they were committed to take the fight forward.The Field Marshall read the situation right but I don't think he read the threat right. The Americans were not going to attack because of the political situation at home but that did not mean that India could cross American red lines which would force an American response. Clearly, marching to Islamabad was one of those red lines.

Deltacamelately
22 Jan 13,, 13:42
The Field Marshall read the situation right but I don't think he read the threat right. The Americans were not going to attack because of the political situation at home but that did not mean that India could cross American red lines which would force an American response. Clearly, marching to Islamabad was one of those red lines.
Sir,

Apologies, but I doubt a General of his stature could read the threat situation, but would fail to read the threat paradigm. Even in that case the InA's perception and strategy stands vindicated. We dismembered Pakistan, substracting one of the three battle fronts, while the Big E kept menacingly sailing and at the same time, ensured that those "American Red Lines" were not crossed. Translation - The InA retreated from couple of miles, yonder at Lahore. Indira called Nixon's bluff.

anil
22 Jan 13,, 14:31
1) Because she was perceived as on the side of the Soviet bloc
2) Because she was a nuclear weapons power not allied to the US
I find this difficult to believe.


If the strategy is counter-force, then yes, both arsenals have more than enough to deal with each other and everybody else as well
That is unbelievable confidence. It's a pain just to take out a single nation's nuclear arsenal in a first strike with the whole triad and all. But executing first strikes on half a dozen states is suicide IMVHO. A smart nation will not bite more than it can chew.


Oh Horse Puckey, nuclear war would be waged when the we're too stupid not to go to war. It has nothing to do with guarrantees of victory and everything with not being able to accept humiliation at the hands of our enemy.
The US and russians got sense knocked into them at the right time else the cold war wouldn't have stayed cold. Only an idiot goes out guns blazing not sure what will remain in the aftermath. A nation needs good intelligent population to progress and survive. Both the US and russians could not guarantee that hence they never went through it.

Think about it... If someone had the capability to execute a few million on CONUS, dear CONUS would never strike first. And if someone(like russia) had the capability to wipe out the whole american civilisation, dear CONUS would rather buy time.

There must be number, a figure or a statistic to keep the americans on a leash. What if I killed 2 million urban americans? NO!! What if I killed 5 million urban americans? 20 million? Would that capability prevent the americans from executing a first strike? Fu#$k yeah!! No wonder the americans are rallying around the world for NPT.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 15:40
I find this difficult to believe.Precisely the reason for this thread as of several posts ago. We're exploring new territory. You may find it hard to believe but also take it as fact.


That is unbelievable confidence. It's a pain just to take out a single nation's nuclear arsenal in a first strike with the whole triad and all. But executing first strikes on half a dozen states is suicide IMVHO. A smart nation will not bite more than it can chew.Not confidence but a simple matter of numbers. We had nukes targeting empty silos. EMPTY SILOS! Silos that already launched their rockets just so that they can't be used again. Never mind the SALT 1 and SALT 2 Treaties said there isn't anymore rockets to use them. We had 60,000+ nukes. What makes you think we can't spare a couple of hundred for India?


The US and russians got sense knocked into them at the right time else the cold war wouldn't have stayed cold. Only an idiot goes out guns blazing not sure what will remain in the aftermath. A nation needs good intelligent population to progress and survive. Both the US and russians could not guarantee that hence they never went through it.Yeah, well, you're talking to one of those idiots right here. 4th Brigade, CFB Lahrs, and we even had our own nukes. Your country was not going to be blackmailed by Pakistani nukes. What makes you think that we would? That I would? Never mind this scenario. I recalled that we deliberately cocked the nuclear trigger three times. I MEAN WE COCKED THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER ON PURPOSE and so did the Soviets. So, don't tell me that we had good intelligent population. We were damned lucky that we didn't squeeze the trigger and yes, it was a matter of luck.


Think about it... If someone had the capability to execute a few million on CONUS, dear CONUS would never strike first. And if someone(like russia) had the capability to wipe out the whole american civilisation, dear CONUS would rather buy time.We cocked the trigger for Israel. ISRAEL. Think about that.


There must be number, a figure or a statistic to keep the americans on a leash. What if I killed 2 million urban americans? NO!! What if I killed 5 million urban americans? 20 million? Would that capability prevent the americans from executing a first strike? Fu#$k yeah!! No wonder the americans are rallying around the world for NPT.You have absolutely no idea how close and how many times we came to WWIII. You also have absolutely no idea how far you can push the Americans ... and I can tell you, it ain't that far.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 15:50
Apologies, but I doubt a General of his stature could read the threat situation, but would fail to read the threat paradigm.Several things.

1) All battles are gambles. You tilt the odds as much as you can but you really don't know when the other guy is going to pull an ace. Therefore, if the battle goes right, you read the situation right. If it goes wrong ...

2) All national level orders take at least 72 hours to execute, with poor communications, a week. When the Big E showed up, Nixon had no choice but to accept a situation at least 10 days after India learned of it. 72 hours for India to learn and digest the information and scenario and a week to execute.

So, the only red line the Americans could actually present is Islamabad. Anything else, the Indians could not execute.


Even in that case the InA's perception and strategy stands vindicated. We dismembered Pakistan, substracting one of the three battle fronts, while the Big E kept menacingly sailing and at the same time, ensured that those "American Red Lines" were not crossed. Translation - The InA retreated from couple of miles, yonder at Lahore. Indira called Nixon's bluff.Well, here's the point, while the Field Marshall may feel confident about facing an American Army, he was not going to push it. There's another red line that he did not cross. An attack on the Big E or Deigo Garcia. Yes, I know both were planned and both were cancelled.

Firestorm
22 Jan 13,, 16:09
Why would the US nuke india?

If US nuked india and russia then both of their arsenal would be fired at US.


But India did not have an arsenal at the time. Neither did it have any delivery vehicles to mount it on. That's why I'm bewildered when the Colonel and Zraver keep saying India was a nuclear weapons power and hence automatically a target for the US. It wasn't.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 16:12
1974 test says you did and any cargo plane can drop a nuke.

Firestorm
22 Jan 13,, 16:15
The "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation", which cemented the Indian-Soviet relationship, was signed merely a couple of months before the '71 Indo-Pak war.



I've actually forgotten about that. Now, today, we know the treaty meant squat all. China signed it and it didn't stop the Sino-Russo Cold War which nearly turned hot ... actually it did. Vietnam signed it and Moscow did not come to her rescue though truth be known, they were too busy getting ready for Afghanistan. However, for us, in the West, the implications were clear, as falsely as it was. India has chosen sides. Much like China has chosen sides.


I think the treaty served its purpose. It made the soviets send a few subs to trail the Enterprise at least. Now if push came to shove they might not have been able to stop the Big E, but it did make Nixon think twice. It cast doubts in his mind about Soviet intentions. If he had been sure that the Soviets wouldn't lift a finger regardless of what the USN did in the Bay of Bengal, he might have been more eager to give the attack order.

Firestorm
22 Jan 13,, 16:22
1974 test says you did and any cargo plane can drop a nuke.

Sir, you said yourself, that the Chinese had barely a dozen warheads in the 70's despite starting their tests a decade earlier. So how many could India have had. One? Two? And besides Pakistan, there were no real targets within range of a Cargo plane, even if it did manage to somehow evade all air defenses. Western China doesn't have any juicy targets. Why wouldn't US strategic planners take these practical issues into account? They would be ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike based on a hunch.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys had such a cavalier attitude towards lobbing nukes on a country you faced no nuclear threat from.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 16:44
Sir, you said yourself, that the Chinese had barely a dozen warheads in the 70's despite starting their tests a decade earlier. So how many could India have had. One? Two? And besides Pakistan, there were no real targets within range of a Cargo plane, even if it did manage to somehow evade all air defenses.I've seen reports that by the early 80s, India had 8 to 12 component form nukes and I used cargo planes as an example of how easy to have a delivery vehicle. You had bombers. You also had InAF pilots willing to make kamakazie runs at the Big E. Which one of them would be unwilling to tag a nuke along?


Western China doesn't have any juicy targets.4 armies in the Chengdu MR and there's no juicy targets?


Why wouldn't US strategic planners take these practical issues into account? They would be ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike based on a hunch.These are contingency plans to be used as a blue print for specific actions. Strategic decisions would require a more detailed analysis though it may not be based on anymore information.


I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys had such a cavalier attitude towards lobbing nukes on a country you faced no nuclear threat from.This was the 70s. Nukes were still the answer to everything. Our thinking had not evolved to conventional replacements as of yet.

Albany Rifles
22 Jan 13,, 20:03
I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys had such a cavalier attitude towards lobbing nukes on a country you faced no nuclear threat from.
This was the 70s. Nukes were still the answer to everything. Our thinking had not evolved to conventional replacements as of yet.

Nor were conventional weapons and their delivery systems accurate and lethal enough.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 13,, 20:42
Oh no sir, in front of you she would be all sugar and honey....but when I get back home, it would be some thing like this

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/p/pms_lion-11961.jpgThe most dedicated of combat soldiers cows before his wife. You remember this, Captain?






"Shock and Awe"...then hearts and minds.Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.Sir, that is what the "shock and awe" will do. But I would prefer if the enemy country was not oriental/asian, we (oriental/asian) can be very stubborn people.Hmmm, yeah, right, sure ... you're married, aren't you?

anil
23 Jan 13,, 09:12
Not confidence but a simple matter of numbers.
Targeting empty silos and having large nuclear stockpile cannot guarantee a successful first strike, especially with a triad. A nuclear attack will carry a guaranteed retaliation. Nations that do not have the infrastructure to carry out real-time monitoring of enemy stockpile will instead target population density areas. In such a situation, the american generals(the cowboys), will have to agree to part away with a portion of their population. The cold war is a physical testament that the american and russian generals are not the macho cowboys they intended to portray.


What makes you think we can't spare a couple of hundred for India?
Because the americans were not sure about the nature of relationship between india and russia in the 70's nor do they understand it now.


I MEAN WE COCKED THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER ON PURPOSE and so did the Soviets.
Cocked and uncocked three times... what does that tell us?


We were damned lucky that we didn't squeeze the trigger and yes, it was a matter of luck.
The american civilisation is very young and still illegitimate. Even with all it's cowboy shit, it still managed to make use of its brain. What use was its large stockpile when it couldn't guarantee to outlive other civilisations. It has undid a part of its stockpile yet it still believes that the brightest star will outlive.


You have absolutely no idea how close and how many times we came to WWIII. You also have absolutely no idea how far you can push the Americans ... and I can tell you, it ain't that far.
Obviously, I can't read the american mind. I do understand deterrence and thresholds. Like I already said, the american civilisation is very young. Your argument has actually helped me consider this posibilty of nuclear war.

lemontree
23 Jan 13,, 10:13
anil,
The Colonel is giving a view of NATO and US policy towards India. Take it as an education mate.

When he says that one US submarine could target India, he is quite right. A US sub 1000 km away had the capability to turn the Konkan coast into a nuclear wasteland and we would have had nothing to hit back at that sub.

Deltacamelately
23 Jan 13,, 12:36
Several things.

1) All battles are gambles. You tilt the odds as much as you can but you really don't know when the other guy is going to pull an ace. Therefore, if the battle goes right, you read the situation right. If it goes wrong ...
Sir,

That said, doesn't it cut both ways? The good Field Marshal seems to be confident of pulling an ace vis-a-vis the US Army, if at all it decided to enter the war.

2) All national level orders take at least 72 hours to execute, with poor communications, a week. When the Big E showed up, Nixon had no choice but to accept a situation at least 10 days after India learned of it. 72 hours for India to learn and digest the information and scenario and a week to execute.

So, the only red line the Americans could actually present is Islamabad. Anything else, the Indians could not execute.
From what I have collected about the said American red line, marching to Islamabad wasn't the one they were worried about, dismantling of the PA was what they were sure and what they clearly misunderstood. The InA was not given any mandate for doing that.

Well, here's the point, while the Field Marshall may feel confident about facing an American Army, he was not going to push it. There's another red line that he did not cross. An attack on the Big E or Deigo Garcia. Yes, I know both were planned and both were cancelled.
There is absolutely no substance to prove that the Field Marshal was intending to push the Yanks. He quoted that there was nothing he could do if the Americans resorted to a nuclear strike. The politicos asked him what he could do if the Americans landed their Army and he said he would be be happy if that happened, possibly because he was confident he could manage the battlefield, as long as it stayed conventional.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jan 13,, 13:55
Targeting empty silos and having large nuclear stockpile cannot guarantee a successful first strike, especially with a triad. A nuclear attack will carry a guaranteed retaliation. Nations that do not have the infrastructure to carry out real-time monitoring of enemy stockpile will instead target population density areas. In such a situation, the american generals(the cowboys), will have to agree to part away with a portion of their population. The cold war is a physical testament that the american and russian generals are not the macho cowboys they intended to portray.Are you being deliberately stupid? WE WERE TARGETTING EMPTY SILOS! EMPTY SILOS!!!!!!! That meant the rockets have already left!!!!!!! The ONLY WAY you target EMPTY SILOS is during the MIDDLE OF A FRIGGIN NUCLEAR WAR! We would have been receiving and delivering nuclear hits! Succesful first strike? Of all the baloney I have ever read. NO ONE BELIEVED IN SUCH A THING! In case you still don't get it. WE WERE TRYING TO FIND TARGETS FOR THE NUKES WE WOULD HAVE LEFT!

Get it through your head. We had nukes to spare and not enough targets to use them.


Because the americans were not sure about the nature of relationship between india and russia in the 70's nor do they understand it now.So, we should assume the best case scenario (India joining the US) or the worst case scenario (India joining the USSR) of which the Soviets already provided military assistance. You're not seeing what we saw.


Cocked and uncocked three times... what does that tell us?That someone was smart enough to chicken out and that someone was the Soviets, Israelis, China ... and India (the kamakazie and Deigo Garcia attack was cancelled). Do you get it? Someone chickened out and it wasn't the Americans. Are you going to count on someone being smart enough to chicken out every freaking time?


The american civilisation is very young and still illegitimate. Even with all it's cowboy shit, it still managed to make use of its brain. What use was its large stockpile when it couldn't guarantee to outlive other civilisations. It has undid a part of its stockpile yet it still believes that the brightest star will outlive.It wasn't because of the Americans.


Obviously, I can't read the american mind. I do understand deterrence and thresholds.No, you don't. Not even close. Brezhnev believed that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war. The level of misunderstanding on both sides (and I'm not even counting this Indian scenario) as astronomical. You have no idea. No idea. Those of us who lived through those times and gone through those drills and prepared to fight a nuclear war are absolutely amazed that we avoided one. My brigade was ready to lob nukes and to receive nukes. We were VII Corp's strategic reserves and if there was ever a nuclear target, we were it. Don't you think that there were times when we thought this was it and imagined our families burining a mushroom cloud? Did you think that would stop us from lobbing our nukes? First strike or not?


That said, doesn't it cut both ways? The good Field Marshal seems to be confident of pulling an ace vis-a-vis the US Army, if at all it decided to enter the war.V and VII Corps were busy in Europe. The Americans were tied down in Vietnam. About the only ground force the Americans had available were the 101st and the 82nd, both airborne divisions and both divisions were too heavily involved in Vietnam. I would be confident too of defeating the American ground forces.


From what I have collected about the said American red line, marching to Islamabad wasn't the one they were worried about, dismantling of the PA was what they were sure and what they clearly misunderstood. The InA was not given any mandate for doing that.That was not totally India's call. Pakistani moral and command collapse was a strong possibility but again, Nixon had to give India 10 days to execute her orders which meant current combat situations must resolved itself first. India was not about to stop combat and open ways for the Pakistani Army to retalliate.


There is absolutely no substance to prove that the Field Marshal was intending to push the Yanks. He quoted that there was nothing he could do if the Americans resorted to a nuclear strike. The politicos asked him what he could do if the Americans landed their Army and he said he would be be happy if that happened, possibly because he was confident he could manage the battlefield, as long as it stayed conventional.That is precisely my point, the FM did not know whether the Americans would resort to nukes or a conventional response. It was best not to find out.

anil
23 Jan 13,, 19:57
lemontree, I understand what a nuclear detonation on konkan will do. I'm actually thinking about the events beyond that.

Officer of Engineers, the soviets didn't chicken out, they bankrupt themselves in the process. They had and still have a capability to wipe the american civilisation and that is enough to keep the americans on a leash . IMO, if the soviets and the americans did fight a nuclear war, both their civilisations would have been history or at least extremely vulnerable in the aftermath.

From what I understand about the american mind from your narrations, they plan to take the world down with them if they go out. Only a hideous and under evolved civilisation can think like that not to mention that it is impossible and stupid. No wonder india continues to ally itself with the russians.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jan 13,, 20:01
Officer of Engineers, the soviets didn't chicken out, they bankrupt themselves in the process.WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT

Cuban Missile Crisis
Berlin Crisis
67 and 73 Israeli Arab Wars

anil
23 Jan 13,, 20:21
Officer of Engineers, that is very thought-provoking. You convinced me that american and pakistani generals think alike. Very very interesting stuff indeed.

I'm going to think more about this in the next few days.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jan 13,, 20:25
So are the Soviets

They cocked the trigger twice themselves

Sino-Soviet Border Wars
73 Israeli-Arab War

And no, we're nothing like the Pakistanis. They never cocked the trigger, namely when they threatened, they did not have the nuclear gun.

Firestorm
23 Jan 13,, 20:32
And no, we're nothing like the Pakistanis. They never cocked the trigger, namely when they threatened, they did not have the nuclear gun.

Yeah, well we know that with hindsight. At the time in question, they had the Indian govt. convinced that they did. That's what finally mattered.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jan 13,, 20:34
Yeah, well we know that with hindsight. At the time in question, they had the Indian govt. convinced that they did. That's what finally mattered.The point is that Pakistan at no time was ready to start a nuclear war. We did. Not only were we ready, we were willing.

anil
23 Jan 13,, 20:37
Officer of Engineers, if we threaten the punjabis in pakistan with existence then they have no choice but to hurl a few warheads at us in the finale.

The american generals are more interesting because they are willing to start a war on issues that do not effect their existence. But a nuclear war WILL effect their existence. There's a bluff in here. I have to think about this.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jan 13,, 20:47
The american generals are more interesting because they are willing to start a war on issues that do not effect their existence. But a nuclear war WILL effect their existence. There's a bluff in here. I have to think about this.

1) It was no general. It was the President of the United States.

2) Unlike the Indian and Pakistani Armies, NATO and Wasaw Pact Armies were actually trained to fight a nuclear war. So, when the real thing was coming down the line, we were ready to do it, even with the thoughts of our families burning in mushroom clouds.

3) The decision to start a nuclear war is not in the hands of a military. The ability to fight a nuclear war is the military. So, when we're ordered to fight a nuclear war, we ain't bluffing.

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 06:42
Colonel,

The question is a premtive first strike on Delhi and other Nuclear installations on a dormant India achieve? Will it make sure that India will not enter the fray, or will it rather be American Pearl Harbour? I do think India will take the initial first strike and then respond.

What makes Islamabad the red line in 1970's when there was no Afghanistan problem?

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 06:45
Colonel,

India is still not prepared to fight the Nuclear War. There are no material for schools and civilians on how to deal with such a situation. Heck, the Indian Medical System, is not even trained on such a eventuality

anil
24 Jan 13,, 07:40
Officer of Engineers, there is no way the US can win in a nuclear war but what you say suggests that the US is not only trying to survive the war but also win it which is a contradiction and ill and near sighted. If the american generals still go ahead with it then they maybe thinking about some sort of a "limited" nuclear war. Is there even such a thing?

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 08:18
Officer of Engineers, there is no way the US can win in a nuclear war but what you say suggests that the US is not only trying to survive the war but also win it which is a contradiction and ill and near sighted. If the american generals still go ahead with it then they maybe thinking about some sort of a "limited" nuclear war. Is there even such a thing?

The problem is, you are trying to put ethics and indian cultural values to warfare. Who said Nuclear War is not winnable? Who said there cant be life on earth after destruction's by USA, USSR and China ? USA believed in its values and was ready to sacrifice their future and present for it, Also I have to say USA had USSR measured, very similar to Pakistan has India.

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 08:18
Officer of Engineers, there is no way the US can win in a nuclear war but what you say suggests that the US is not only trying to survive the war but also win it which is a contradiction and ill and near sighted. If the american generals still go ahead with it then they maybe thinking about some sort of a "limited" nuclear war. Is there even such a thing?

The problem is, you are trying to put ethics and indian cultural values to warfare. Who said Nuclear War is not winnable? Who said there cant be life on earth after destruction's by USA, USSR and China ? USA believed in its values and was ready to sacrifice their future and present for it, Also I have to say USA had USSR measured, very similar to Pakistan has India.

anil
24 Jan 13,, 08:48
Defcon5, A conventional war and a nuclear war are two completely different things. The former is meant to completely defeat the enemy while the later is meant to end the enemy's civilisation.

The basic fact is that no one can win in a nuclear win. That's why they are called weapons of mass destruction because that is their purpose.

Either the american civilisation is stupid or they knew that their chest beating was enough to pacify the russians.

lemontree
24 Jan 13,, 09:30
Colonel,

India is still not prepared to fight the Nuclear War. There are no material for schools and civilians on how to deal with such a situation. Heck, the Indian Medical System, is not even trained on such a eventuality
You are highly mistaken.

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 09:33
Defcon5, A conventional war and a nuclear war are two completely different things. The former is meant to completely defeat the enemy while the later is meant to end the enemy's civilisation.

The basic fact is that no one can win in a nuclear win. That's why they are called weapons of mass destruction because that is their purpose.

Either the american civilisation is stupid or they knew that their chest beating was enough to pacify the russians.

They do create wanton destruction but Nuclear Weapon or weapons isnt going to stop any civilization, it might set it back a few decades at best. This is not the meteor that ended the Dinosaurs. It is a media fear mongering at best.
Americans have their reasons, and we have our reasons for our need to be regional 'daadaa'

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 09:34
You are highly mistaken.


Captain,

I am in Education industry and before I posted I spoke to a few people who actually run hospitals here. I can tell you schools and hospitals are not trained for that eventuality. That much is for sure.

Deltacamelately
24 Jan 13,, 10:34
Captain,

I am in Education industry and before I posted I spoke to a few people who actually run hospitals here. I can tell you schools and hospitals are not trained for that eventuality. That much is for sure.
Our disaster management system is state run and works differently. What makes you think that with two immediate hostile neighbours, which are both nuclear powers, the GoI can remain ambivalent on such realities?

lemontree
24 Jan 13,, 10:49
Captain,

I am in Education industry and before I posted I spoke to a few people who actually run hospitals here. I can tell you schools and hospitals are not trained for that eventuality. That much is for sure.

If you are in God's own Country, then your medico friends may not be as clued up as the some northern states.
We know which are our target cities.

Defcon5
24 Jan 13,, 11:00
Our disaster management system is state run and works differently. What makes you think that with two immediate hostile neighbours, which are both nuclear powers, the GoI can remain ambivalent on such realities?

Well, I am in Kerala and I am in the Education industry K-12. I CAN CONFIRM, CBSE schools havent got any directive regarding the same.I have very number of friends own and run hospitals, I did give some of them a call on the subjects, They have had training for Epidemics, Flood and Disaster, but absolutely NOthing on Nuclear War and its management. I am an active member of a Rotary Club here and quite keyed in medical sector through that also, Polio is taken seriously not Nuclear War.

But Major, how is that surprising when according to the discussions here, India didnt even know it was extensively targeted? I have not even seen an increase water storage or tanker buys, or even Nuclear Shelter construction instructions for families. Nothing. And I live in the Southern Naval Fleet HQ City.

Dante
24 Jan 13,, 11:50
Defcon5, A conventional war and a nuclear war are two completely different things. The former is meant to completely defeat the enemy while the later is meant to end the enemy's civilisation.

The basic fact is that no one can win in a nuclear win. That's why they are called weapons of mass destruction because that is their purpose.

Either the american civilisation is stupid or they knew that their chest beating was enough to pacify the russians.

It's surprising from reading some of the answers here how much can a point of view/vision can differ from one culture to another..

Anil, you don't understand: it's not about "pacify" or stupidity. Both the russians and american have a threshold. If that is crossed, they will fight a nuclear war, they can't afford not to, victory or no victory..

You seem to think that the word "mas destruction" is like a turn -off switch that stops everything. Well, it really isn't, it just made (thankfully) everyone to think twice before pressing the red button..

Dante
24 Jan 13,, 12:33
Well, I am in Kerala and I am in the Education industry K-12. I CAN CONFIRM, CBSE schools havent got any directive regarding the same.I have very number of friends own and run hospitals, I did give some of them a call on the subjects, They have had training for Epidemics, Flood and Disaster, but absolutely NOthing on Nuclear War and its management. I am an active member of a Rotary Club here and quite keyed in medical sector through that also, Polio is taken seriously not Nuclear War.

But Major, how is that surprising when according to the discussions here, India didnt even know it was extensively targeted? I have not even seen an increase water storage or tanker buys, or even Nuclear Shelter construction instructions for families. Nothing. And I live in the Southern Naval Fleet HQ City.

Defcon, giving India's size, population, density, rural environment and infrastructure, can preparations realistically be made to absorb nuclear strikes on a large scale?

I'm asking because, maybe, on national scale, it didn't make much difference one way or another or was considered impossible to implement on country level..

Tronic
24 Jan 13,, 12:42
Well, I am in Kerala and I am in the Education industry K-12. I CAN CONFIRM, CBSE schools havent got any directive regarding the same.I have very number of friends own and run hospitals, I did give some of them a call on the subjects, They have had training for Epidemics, Flood and Disaster, but absolutely NOthing on Nuclear War and its management. I am an active member of a Rotary Club here and quite keyed in medical sector through that also, Polio is taken seriously not Nuclear War.

But Major, how is that surprising when according to the discussions here, India didnt even know it was extensively targeted? I have not even seen an increase water storage or tanker buys, or even Nuclear Shelter construction instructions for families. Nothing. And I live in the Southern Naval Fleet HQ City.

I completely agree with every single point of yours; Indian civil nuclear threat management/awareness is totally nil. That said, the government claims that it is normal practice in the Northern states to ask people to build nuclear shelters (I had never heard of such a thing all my life in Punjab). Recently, the government placed an add in the local newspapers in Kashmir asking people to do so, and the result was a total shock:


Indian Kashmir warned to gird for nuclear war | The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/23/asia-pacific/indian-kashmir-warned-to-gird-for-nuclear-war/#.UQEZlyfLTbw)
Residents told to build bunkers as tensions with Pakistan spike

The shock among all the people there seeing such news popping up in the papers clearly shows that this is not the norm. Even in the North, Indian civilians are not made aware to the threat of a nuclear attack, nor made aware on how to seek protection during such an event. Two of my cousins are doctors, one working in Chandigarh, another high up near the Rohtang pass. I'll give them a ring and ask if they receive any directive or preparation to cater for nuclear disaster, but I doubt they do.

The only ones in India I have seen training, and are fully equipped, for an NBC war scenario are the Indian armed forces. Seldom have I seen the same training and awareness passed down to the civvies.

Tronic
24 Jan 13,, 12:50
The statement you responded to was not mine. Request you to re-read.

I don't know how that happened. My mistake. (Can't correct it now though, it doesn't give me the option to edit for some reason :confused:)

anil
24 Jan 13,, 13:08
Dante, anyone can can prepare a random list of nuclear thresholds.

The pakistani generals love to show indians that they are suicidal.

If the american generals too are suicidal then what are they waiting for? Why don't they fight a war with the russians RIGHT NOW and be done with? Why don't the pakistanis invade india with their precious warheads and claim the throne of delhi?

Whether pakistan will outlive india or whether the americans will outlive the russians, that is for wisdom to decide.

It's not about cultures. It's about the 'end' that matters.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jan 13,, 13:51
Oh for Pete sakes! It is NOT AMERICAN GENERALS who are pushing nuclear war. Our job is to fight it. Not start it. That decision alone is the responsibility of the civilian leadership. Get it through your head, THE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP decides on nuclear war. I'm telling you how we were going to fight it. I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHY WE WOULD START IT. That decision belongs to the Office of the President of the United States, NOT THE JOINT CHIEFS.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jan 13,, 13:53
Dante, anyone can can prepare a random list of nuclear thresholds.Again, you numbskull. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. WE WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO COCKED THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER. MOSCOW DID IT TWICE THEMSELVES. The Sino-Soviet Dispute and the 73 Arab-Israeli War.

The Chinese retreated 100 miles away from the borde and the Israelis stopped the wholesale slaughter of the Egyptian Army. Another words, China and Israel chickened out before Moscow.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jan 13,, 14:04
Frankly, Anil. Study the hell up before posting anymore. I've listed you five crisis in which the nuclear trigger was cocked and not all of them by the Americans. You HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA who the nuclear release authorities were and I will tell you it is NOT THE AMERICAN NOR SOVIET GENERALS. The Nuclear Release Authorities wear 3 piece suit, NOT A UNIFORM.

You are EXTREMELY UNINFORMED when it came to nuclear weapons decisions. You HAVE ZERO IDEAS about our thresholds. And you have ZERO IDEAS about the nuclear confrontations. It is NOT the military's job to bluff. Our job is to fight it. The decision to order us to stand to or stand down from a nuclear alert is NOT OURS. Therefore, the military does not bluff when we're ordered to stand to. Frankly, we expect the same from the Soviets. When they stand to, both militaries were expecting to fight the war. We don't expect each other to back down. We thank our lucky stars someone upstairs somewhere got smart but it ain't the guys wearing the battle dress.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jan 13,, 16:00
Dante, anyone can can prepare a random list of nuclear thresholds.You really are daft. It is NOT RANDOM. They were strategic necessities that were deemed of national importance to the US ... and the USSR for that matter. Again, get it through your head. Both the US and the USSR had cocked the nuclear trigger (in fact, they are the only ones who ever did) and not always aimed at each other.

Firestorm
24 Jan 13,, 20:12
Indian civil nuclear threat management/awareness is totally nil. That said, the government claims that it is normal practice in the Northern states to ask people to build nuclear shelters (I had never heard of such a thing all my life in Punjab). Recently, the government placed an add in the local newspapers in Kashmir asking people to do so, and the result was a total shock:

The shock among all the people there seeing such news popping up in the papers clearly shows that this is not the norm. Even in the North, Indian civilians are not made aware to the threat of a nuclear attack, nor made aware on how to seek protection during such an event. Two of my cousins are doctors, one working in Chandigarh, another high up near the Rohtang pass. I'll give them a ring and ask if they receive any directive or preparation to cater for nuclear disaster, but I doubt they do.


I agree. I was 12 when the 1998 tests happened. I grew up and was educated in Mumbai (definitely the biggest "target city") till I was 22. There was nothing taught to us either before or after the tests about what to do in case Mumbai grew a mushroom cloud. There were and are no civil awareness programs about surviving in a NBC environment or about which government agencies will handle the fallout and nothing about any shelters. Our state run disaster management is a joke anyway. When things get even moderately bad they cry uncle and call in the Army to do the real work.

Defcon5
25 Jan 13,, 05:05
Defcon, giving India's size, population, density, rural environment and infrastructure, can preparations realistically be made to absorb nuclear strikes on a large scale?

I'm asking because, maybe, on national scale, it didn't make much difference one way or another or was considered impossible to implement on country level..

For a country which is target seriously by two belligerent and irresponsible nuclear powers, and also targeted by 'just in case' by the world's super power, There is no talk among the civilians about the seriousness of the problem. Nor have there been businesses taking up the opportunities that are there to feed on such a genuine fear pshyocis that should have in reality existed, but it does not. The Indian Government never has been truthful to the people on what are its geo political interests as well as the threats they face.

You are right, there isnt much we could with regards to all the problem you have cited, but fact of the matter is there has NO preparations at all, that is not acceptable, atleast to me as a concerned citizens

lemontree
25 Jan 13,, 06:38
...not made aware to the threat of a nuclear attack, nor made aware on how to seek protection during such an event. Two of my cousins are doctors, one working in Chandigarh, another high up near the Rohtang pass. I'll give them a ring and ask if they receive any directive or preparation to cater for nuclear disaster, but I doubt they do.
Chandigarh and Bhatinda are nuclear tragets for China.


The only ones in India I have seen training, and are fully equipped, for an NBC war scenario are the Indian armed forces. Seldom have I seen the same training and awareness passed down to the civvies.
You are right about that. Mainly because in the Indo-Pak scenario we expect the nukes to used against attacking formations and not civilian targets. Training or no training, shelter or no shelter....in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. The lucky ones will be the ones who died in the blast.

Defcon5
25 Jan 13,, 07:44
Chandigarh and Bhatinda are nuclear tragets for China.


You are right about that. Mainly because in the Indo-Pak scenario we expect the nukes to used against attacking formations and not civilian targets. Training or no training, shelter or no shelter....in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. The lucky ones will be the ones who died in the blast.

Captain,

Isnt that playing into Pakistan hands. That is to limit Nuclear War to Armed Forces formations? Our strike back after their initial nuclear attack on our forces will not be on just Pakistan Army formations, and Pakistan knows that; therefore in my mind there is no doubt that they will launch against Indian cities, after our first wave of retaliatory strike

Deltacamelately
25 Jan 13,, 08:48
Captain,

Isnt that playing into Pakistan hands. That is to limit Nuclear War to Armed Forces formations? Our strike back after their initial nuclear attack on our forces will not be on just Pakistan Army formations, and Pakistan knows that; therefore in my mind there is no doubt that they will launch against Indian cities, after our first wave of retaliatory strike
Defcon5,

The much hyped doctrine of "Massive Retaliatory Strike" after eating a Pakistani nuke is a sham. Infact it is being reviewed currently. This call for a massive retaliation doesn't gives the Indian Nuclear Forces any flexibilty to manouver. The necessity is space and that can only come with flexibity of response. The current assumption is, the PA will only resort to nuclear weapons being used on the advancing Indian columns in a graduated manner. There is noway to provide complete nuclear protection to the entire Indian mainland, sans the important strategic and military installations and there is also a perception that the PA won't resort to widescale counter value targetting short of complete annihilation by the Indian Armed Forces. At best, we are trying hard to provide some sort of ABM shield to the most illustrated targets.

anil
25 Jan 13,, 10:05
That decision alone is the responsibility of the civilian leadership.
But the american president is still a civilian who wouldn't know shit about shit. How does he get to make a decision which jeopardises the survivability of US over a simple face saving issue?


WE WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO COCKED THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER
I'm still finding it difficult to believe because it is so and very illogical. IMO, it was all hot air until they came to their senses.

------

Okay i will agree the US becomes a suicidal monster if its 'thresholds' are crossed for the sake of ending this argument.

observer7
25 Jan 13,, 11:05
But the american president is still a civilian who wouldn't know shit about shit. How does he get to make a decision which jeopardises the survivability of US over a simple face saving issue?

Its because the USA is a democracy. If you fail to realise what this means then maybe you need to understand the basics first.

Dante
25 Jan 13,, 12:20
But the american president is still a civilian who wouldn't know shit about shit.

His job is to make the right call, not to be a military expert. He has more than enough people around to give him accurate informations and different solutions.

Tell me this: in India's case, who made the decision to got o war? The military or the political?



How does he get to make a decision which jeopardises the survivability of US over a simple face saving issue?

Because that's what being a democracy means . He is the representative of the people.

"Face saving issues" makes or breaks a power ;)
look at the cuban crisis, for an example: let's say the americans were bluffing. They set the threshold. The soviet break the blocade and pass the threshold. The americans back down. So, what's next? ..One year late, the soviets nuke israel, despite american warnings, because they think it's another bluff..now the americans either start ww3 or back down again..if they back down, they start loosing allies and the soviets will push again..see where this is going?



Okay i will agree the US becomes a suicidal monster if its 'thresholds' are crossed for the sake of ending this argument.

You can't be a power if nobody takes you seriously , and for that you have to put you're money where you're mouth is :)

Defcon5
25 Jan 13,, 12:37
Defcon5,

The much hyped doctrine of "Massive Retaliatory Strike" after eating a Pakistani nuke is a sham. Infact it is being reviewed currently. This call for a massive retaliation doesn't gives the Indian Nuclear Forces any flexibilty to maneuver. The necessity is space and that can only come with flexibity of response. The current assumption is, the PA will only resort to nuclear weapons being used on the advancing Indian columns in a graduated manner. There is noway to provide complete nuclear protection to the entire Indian mainland, sans the important strategic and military installations and there is also a perception that the PA won't resort to widescale counter value targetting short of complete annihilation by the Indian Armed Forces. At best, we are trying hard to provide some sort of ABM shield to the most illustrated targets.

Major ( I am sure you must have been promoted to higher ups now, do advice me :)),


I dont get this is at all, It seems our Nuclear strategy is shaped by Pakistan. It was in their interest to limit the nuclear retaliation. Personally as a citizen, I am not ready for my Army to bore the brunt of a Nuclear attack; There is so much more at stake if the army is crippled and counter attack is formed by them (be advised I am not Orbat or Military man, just a layman) Are we going to conduct Nuclear War like Kargil? Are we going to tell our Army not to cross IB and fight with one hand tied even in a Nuclear War? How can we trust Pakistan not escalate from attack on armed forces to civilian targets, how can we be sure of their control structures after start?

I think it is not for Nuclear Forces but it is rather Politicians and people who are interested to stop nuclear damage(at our cost) who needs space to maneuver. If Pakistan initiates a Nuclear Strike, the only way to save India and our interests, is to make Pakistan a huge glass bowl.

Officer of Engineers
25 Jan 13,, 13:48
But the american president is still a civilian who wouldn't know shit about shit. How does he get to make a decision which jeopardises the survivability of US over a simple face saving issue?Are you freaking shitting me? I gave you the scenarios and you came back with this shit?

Kennedy and Nixon were commissioned officers in the military. And Kennedy was injured in combat.


I'm still finding it difficult to believe because it is so and very illogical. IMO, it was all hot air until they came to their senses.Again, I gave you the crisis and you came back with this shit.

The Soviets went from 10 to 45 divisions, zero to 1100 aircrafts, 2000 tanks, and 200 nukes in the space of 3 years and Brezhnev asked Nixon to help or at least stay out of the way when they attack China. Nixon said no.

Moscow had released nuclear authority to boomer captains during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. In other words, Soviet SSBN Captains did not have to wait for the release codes, they already had them and were given conditions to which they were supposed to launch.

Yes, all hot air. Lazy dumb ass. DO SOME FREAKING RESEARCH!

Defcon5
26 Jan 13,, 02:49
Colonel,

Can we change our scenario?

Let the timelines be 2015, the issue erupts between Japan and China, forcing US to play part or Russia is under a stronger leader and looks to take over Eastern Europe yet again? How will India respond? Will India's response be any different?


Or some other scenario, World War 3 in 2015?

Officer of Engineers
26 Jan 13,, 04:18
Isnt that playing into Pakistan hands. That is to limit Nuclear War to Armed Forces formations? Our strike back after their initial nuclear attack on our forces will not be on just Pakistan Army formations, and Pakistan knows that; therefore in my mind there is no doubt that they will launch against Indian cities, after our first wave of retaliatory strikeTo be fair, I really do not have the faintest idea how both Pakistan and India views nuclear war. At this point, I seriously doubt that they do even consider nuclear war. To date, there has been no open source material about nuclear weapons delivery exercises, ie mating warheads to delivery vehicles under wartime conditions (The same can be said of Israel). All other nuclear weapons powers have published exercises on nuclear weapons delivery.

I will be the first to admit that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack but the old saying goes, practice makes perfect and with the increase of practice, especially with new crews, the more odds of being spotted, especially by the big two.

This being all said, 200 nukes on either side, actually three including the Chinese, AIN'T MASSIVE NUCLEAR RETALIATION. Just looking at Dehli map alone, I see 4 targets, each needing a nuke of its own, meaning 12 nukes to ensure destruction of all 4 targets (yes, that's how fucked up we were when discussing nuclear war).

But then, India and Pakistan may not be aiming to fight a nuclear war. They may be trying their best to deter a nuclear war (as are the Chinese). If you have to launch, you already lost. The best is to avoid a launch in the first place.

Incidentally, Captain, the primary nuclear target in India is Dehli whether you're Chinese, Pakistani, Russian, British, French, or Israeli. The National Command Authority is always the first target you have to take out.

anil
26 Jan 13,, 04:27
Officer of Engineers, the only way I will be absolutely convinced is when the US actually fights a nuclear war. And when they do, I will laugh.

Officer of Engineers
26 Jan 13,, 04:32
Officer of Engineers, the only way I will be absolutely convinced is when the US actually fights a nuclear war. And when they do, I will laugh.I don't want to convince you. I WANT YOU TO DO FREAKING RESEARCH! YOU HAVE DONE ZILCH! NADA. YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT OF YOUR ASS. YOU HAVE NO FACTS. JUST YOUR PERSONAL OPINION WHICH IS AS GOOD AS WHAT COMES OUT OF YOUR ASS.

At least with Zraver when we discussed something, he comes from a basis of facts. I may dispute his interruptions but not the facts. You, on the other hand, well, you're sitting on your hands while taking a crap.

And OBVIOUSLY, YOU ARE IGNORING THE FACT THAT MOSCOW COCKED THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER TWICE!

DAMNED FANBOY!

anil
26 Jan 13,, 05:17
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/images/smilies/smiles.gif

kuku
26 Jan 13,, 05:32
What would western response been to the soviet charlie class nuclear submarine India had leased between 1988-91.
I would guess Indian Navy would understand that the submarine would be a target.

Firestorm
26 Jan 13,, 18:09
What would western response been to the soviet charlie class nuclear submarine India had leased between 1988-91.
I would guess Indian Navy would understand that the submarine would be a target.

That was an attack sub. Not a boomer. Wouldn't even enter their calculations.

Officer of Engineers
27 Jan 13,, 03:04
That was an attack sub. Not a boomer. Wouldn't even enter their calculations.The ASW screen would have kept a keen eye out for her.

lemontree
28 Jan 13,, 06:25
Incidentally, Captain, the primary nuclear target in India is Dehli whether you're Chinese, Pakistani, Russian, British, French, or Israeli. The National Command Authority is always the first target you have to take out.
I know sir, I was only referring to Chandigarh and Bhatinda as a reference to point our local/ regional targets.

lemontree
28 Jan 13,, 06:29
An update on Indian sub launched missile development...The Hindu : News / National : India successfully test-fires underwater missile (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-successfully-testfires-underwater-missile/article4350553.ece)

This is a capability that the USN had 40 years ago, with nuclear capability. Also their missile had thrice the range of the our missile.

Deltacamelately
28 Jan 13,, 10:53
Major ( I am sure you must have been promoted to higher ups now, do advice me :)),
Way to go.


I dont get this is at all, It seems our Nuclear strategy is shaped by Pakistan. It was in their interest to limit the nuclear retaliation. Personally as a citizen, I am not ready for my Army to bore the brunt of a Nuclear attack; There is so much more at stake if the army is crippled and counter attack is formed by them (be advised I am not Orbat or Military man, just a layman) Are we going to conduct Nuclear War like Kargil? Are we going to tell our Army not to cross IB and fight with one hand tied even in a Nuclear War? How can we trust Pakistan not escalate from attack on armed forces to civilian targets, how can we be sure of their control structures after start?

I think it is not for Nuclear Forces but it is rather Politicians and people who are interested to stop nuclear damage(at our cost) who needs space to maneuver. If Pakistan initiates a Nuclear Strike, the only way to save India and our interests, is to make Pakistan a huge glass bowl.
Here is a nice read which talks about the fallacy of "Massive Nuclear Retaliation".





The Illogic of ‘Massive’ Punitive Retaliation






Ali Ahmed
Security Analyst
e-mail: aliahd66@hotmail.com











The latest CRS Report for the US Congress, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, estimates that there are plans to increase Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal beyond its estimated current holding of 60 weapons, in the near future. What are its implications for India’s nuclear deterrent capability?

Expansion in the Pakistani arsenal could have two motives. One could be to gain a second strike capability with respect to India, thereby contributing to deterrence stability. Second could be to acquire a first strike capability, defined as sufficient weapons, to degrade India’s nuclear retaliatory capability, substantially. It is perhaps the latter interpretation of Pakistan’s nuclear expansion that prompted India’s Army Chief to comment, “Even if Pakistan is looking at deterrence, they require a minimum amount. But when you keep increasing it, it is a matter of concern….” For Pakistan to attempt to acquire a first strike capability would worry New Delhi only in case India’s arsenal was small.

It has been estimated in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that India has 70 warheads. If this is enough to survive a Pakistani first strike has perhaps prompted Indian concerns. A Pakistani ‘first strike’ would require destroying at least 50 Indian weapons. For this it would require over 100 weapons. Since India’s arsenal is not going to be static in the interim, a first strike capability for Pakistan is ruled out. In case Pakistan is only assuring itself a second strike capability, what are the implications for India’s doctrine of ‘massive’ punitive retaliation?

In case India responds to Pakistani first use with ‘massive’ nuclear retaliation, it exposes itself to a similar counter strike. In case Pakistan’s arsenal is taken at the higher estimated figure of 90 weapons, India would require destroying up to 70 weapons to preserve itself from a counter strike of similar ‘massive’ proportions. This implies expending about double the number of weapons in the attacks. Adding for reserves and a second strike capability with respect to China, the numbers India requires move beyond 300. Since India has abjured arms racing, it requires rethinking its doctrine of ‘massive’ punitive retaliation.

‘Massive’ retaliation implies inflicting ‘unacceptable damage’. Since this has not been defined by India, it can be along three dimensions – counter value, counter force and mixed. Going in for the last without degrading the enemy’s retaliatory capability would open up India to unthinkable retaliation. This is the problem with the estimate that India requires busting 10 Pakistani cities for deterrence. In case its nuclear retaliatory capability is degraded through counter force strike, as has been estimated above, India requires jettisoning ‘minimum’ in its doctrine of ‘credible minimum deterrence’. The implication of mixed targeting is the same as that of counter force targeting.

Unless the adversary is deprived of his means of nuclear retaliation, it would be imprudent to go in for a ‘massive’ strike against it. This can never be guaranteed since the location of dispersed, hardened and camouflaged weapons can never be known with any degree of certainty. Even achieving 90 per cent levels of degradation is not good enough since the surviving weapons are liable to be used in a counter value mode as vengeance; even a defeated enemy can launch limited and sporadic attacks. Achieving such levels of degradation is possible against minimal nuclear arsenals. In expanding its arsenal, Pakistan is no longer in that category.

With respect to China, ‘massive’ punitive retaliation makes even less sense since China certainly would have enough nuclear warheads left over from any nuclear exchanges with India to prevail. Even if China’s seaboard is devastated, India would be grievously hurt. Therefore, there is no reason to provoke a Chinese ‘massive’ response by unnecessarily going ‘massive’ in the first place, even if in response to Chinese nuclear first-use. No-first use pledges notwithstanding, going ‘massive’ would be suicidal. Therefore, ‘massive’ punitive retaliation requires a rethink.

It has been averred that the nuclear doctrine is only for deterrence. Once deterrence has broken down, India has the option of departing from the doctrine meant for deterrence in favour of one meant for war-fighting. This implies that India requires a distinct nuclear war-fighting doctrine. The idea would also face the criticism that there cannot be two doctrines, one for deterrence and another for war-fighting. It is perhaps due to this that little thinking has been done on these issues

The argument here is that ‘massive’ punitive retaliation as doctrine is incredible on two counts. One is that it is untenable against lower order nuclear first use by the enemy, which is the more likely manner of nuclear use. Second, it lays India open to like retaliation since the enemy’s nuclear retaliatory capability cannot be degraded sufficiently. Attempting to do so would be to engage in an arms race as witnessed in the Cold War. Therefore, there is reason to shift to a war-fighting nuclear doctrine. Efficacy of deterrence would remain in Assured Retaliation; only Assured Deterrence needs to be jettisoned.




The Illogic of ‘Massive’ Punitive Retaliation by Ali Ahmed (http://www.ipcs.org/article/nuclear/the-illogic-of-massive-punitive-retaliation-2905.html)

Deltacamelately
28 Jan 13,, 10:56
The ASW screen would have kept a keen eye out for her.
Sir,

Shadowing subs coming out fresh from construction is also considered?

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 13,, 13:53
Anything that would be a threat to the carriers and boomers would be actively sought out. If they stay in port, they're safe but I'm willing to bet that during wartime conditions, the Americans would have a few sharks lying in ambush outside of Indian ports.

Deltacamelately
28 Jan 13,, 15:03
Anything that would be a threat to the carriers and boomers would be actively sought out. If they stay in port, they're safe but I'm willing to bet that during wartime conditions, the Americans would have a few sharks lying in ambush outside of Indian ports.
Sir,

But won't that also provide others to record your acoustic signatures? The Akulas would also love to get the shark's signature given the proximity we are talking about.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 13,, 16:00
But won't that also provide others to record your acoustic signatures? The Akulas would also love to get the shark's signature given the proximity we are talking about.Maj,

If the AKULAS right now are NOT ACTIVELY hunting for acoustic signatures, then someone should be fired. However, the conditions I spoke of was wartime conditions. It's way too late to hunt for signatures then.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 13,, 17:50
Here is a nice read which talks about the fallacy of "Massive Nuclear Retaliation".There should be a course on this. Deterrence is not war fighting. I still remain absolutely amazed at the brilliance of this thought. I truly wonder if only Eastern culture could have came up with this. Western culture is way too coloured by "Si vis pacem, para bellum."

Double Edge
28 Jan 13,, 23:14
Don't know if its too late to add anything in here but i'll try..


We are dealing with historic unknowns from both sides. We from the West are damned surprised that you were not ready for WWIII and you Indian gents are damned surprised to find out we had nukes targeting you.
Why do you think the call to use them might have come against India ?

Possiblities are countless, what about probabilities or how likely.

I agree with you & Z about what american perceptions of India were at the time, i recall reading similar from TIME magazine articles from the era (when their archive was open). Americans saw NAM and India in particular as benefitting the soviets more.

but i also think it isn't as cut & dry. In war flexibilty matters.


Again, I point to the Soviet Invasion of Pakistan scenario. The Pakistanis must have thought they were next when the Soviets marched into Kabul. And so must have Dehli. Anything pointing to their thoughts in this matter?
Do the americans have any say over this before India gets into the picture. After all, Pakistan is america's ally. If the Americans respond by rushing troops there then no Indian adventure is possible. America's warming up with China also means no possibilty for Indian action towards China either.

Z's posts make it amply clear that any navy that expects to operate effectively in the IOR needs India on board. Its really with or against India to operate there.

What India & the US will do is get on the phone to each other and work out a deal. Where the red lines are and what is acceptable. That's it. India will also have to talk the Soviets and find out what is acceptable with them.

How we balance out these two will determine who nukes India first or none at all. There will be no interference nor assistance to either warring party.

No adverse Indian action towards China & Pakistan + access to the IOR. Tell me why the US is going to nuke India. I don't think they will. The Soviets are another matter as they might see India in a very different light after, which would be a defacto American win.

When the nukes start flying its best to limit the area where they operate. Concentrate on the knowns. And the biggest known in this case is the soviets and vice versa.

Soviets going at China & NATO means they are the only parties to the fight. Eveybody else is going to do their best to skip that party. That means planning for all parties concerned just got easier.

Bear in mind India's word holds so long as the americans retain their ability to carry out their threats, otherwise all bets are off. If there's going to be any Indian adventures it might be better to wait for the day after.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 13,, 03:48
Don't know if its too late to add anything in here but i'll try..Never too late. My mind needs exercise.


Why do you think the call to use them might have come against India ?

Possiblities are countless, what about probabilities or how likely.

I agree with you & Z about what american perceptions of India were at the time, i recall reading similar from TIME magazine articles from the era (when their archive was open). Americans saw NAM and India in particular as benefitting the soviets more.

but i also think it isn't as cut & dry. In war flexibilty matters.Because mainly, we have two allies (Pakistan and China) that we have absolutely no control over, ie not under our command, but absolutely need to keep the Soviets from concentrating all their force in Europe - well, we needed China and China needed Pakistan. Chinese threat perception is different from ours but we cannot afford their collapse.


Do the americans have any say over this before India gets into the picture. After all, Pakistan is america's ally. If the Americans respond by rushing troops there then no Indian adventure is possible. America's warming up with China also means no possibilty for Indian action towards China either.Never mind the Americans. Concentrate on the Chinese. The Chinese can absolutely not afford a Soviet occupied Pakistan. Combined with India, that meant all of Western China is lost. The Chinese would attack. They would have to ... and India would be drawn in with or without her concent.

Double Edge
29 Jan 13,, 15:23
Never mind the Americans. Concentrate on the Chinese. The Chinese can absolutely not afford a Soviet occupied Pakistan. Combined with India, that meant all of Western China is lost. The Chinese would attack. They would have to ... and India would be drawn in with or without her concent.
ok, so you're suggesting here that the Chinese would need to find another route to reinforce Pakistan and would have to overrun Indian lines.

But what about the 82nd & 101st. If they arrive in Pakistan unimpeded then where is the desperate need for China to get there. Chinese supplies can always come via the sea. The Americans have the same interest as the Chinese here in propping up Pakistan. Unfettered access to the IOR means the Paks can be resupplied. Whether this would be sufficient to halt a soviet advance in Pakistan i cannot say but failure to do so cannot be laid on India's door step.

The fundamental point behind setting up NAM was precisely to stay aloof from the very scenario you've outlined or other similar ones involving the big two. The objective for all non-belligerents would be to stay in one piece. How successful they would have been is debatable but they'd give it their best shot.

India would not be impeding anything here, at the end of the conflict there will be a weak US, SU & China. Who will there be to challenge India after that ? nobody.

What i got from Z's posts in this thread is that in times of conflict, India isn't just India the landmass but rather the IOR is India. If India intends to pursue an independent course into the future then India has to develop the capacity to deter any navy from operating in that region.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 13,, 15:37
But what about the 82nd & 101st.REFORGER


If they arrive in Pakistan unimpeded then where is the desperate need for China to get there. Chinese supplies can always come via the sea. The Americans have the same interest as the Chinese here in propping up Pakistan. Unfettered access to the IOR means the Paks can be resupplied. Whether this would be sufficient to halt a soviet advance in Pakistan i cannot say but failure to do so cannot be laid on India's door step.I'm not sure that is a point. Here we're speaking the NATO/Warsaw Pact/China fighting for their national survival. With one single army, the Soviets could collapse all of Western China (Northern China was already lost, the Chinese planned it that way). I cannot see how they would NOT attack.

Double Edge
10 Feb 13,, 12:50
REFORGER
Ok, so they would go to Europe then.


I'm not sure that is a point. Here we're speaking the NATO/Warsaw Pact/China fighting for their national survival. With one single army, the Soviets could collapse all of Western China (Northern China was already lost, the Chinese planned it that way). I cannot see how they would NOT attack.
If the soviets move into western China, then China has no way to invade India. China has no way to resupply Pakistan either other than via sea convoys.

That leaves the Americans. If India stays put and does not move ie take sides as well as granting access to the IOR why should India be a target for the Americans.

Officer of Engineers
10 Feb 13,, 15:08
If the soviets move into western China, then China has no way to invade India. China has no way to resupply Pakistan either other than via sea convoys.Which is why China MUST attack before the Soviets can be ready.