Thread: INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED

Sir,

What is the strategic and overall value of Cold Start? Whack a bunch of people to prove that India is no pushover and then go home?

That's no way to fight a war. In war, you must consolidated gains and territories. Are the IA planners and GOI senior leaders prepare to keep the land they gain piecemeal over the Cold Start offensive? If so, then Cold Start could be a viable strategy depending on what kind of land and strategic gains consolidated. If it ain't so, then Cold Start is not a viable strategy. A more viable strategy would be more cruise missiles and tactical bombers. They would bomb the crap out of Pakistan, destroy the economy, and infrastructure and try to kill the leaders to drive the point home that India won't be messed around. But that is only good for one time. Cuz if the time comes to use that a second time, it has no real value and only a good old natured massive invasion would do the trick and accomplish the strategic goals that India has been seeking so long.

Personally, looking over this Cold Start doctrine, I think it is a waste of time and money and resources from a strategic planning point of view. Cold Start doctrine does not obtain the strategic goals we seek. And building more cruise missiles and bombers would do the trick of Cold Start with far less risk to men and materials because all Cold Start do is achieve tactical goals such as the destruction of terrorists training grounds, hidden weapons cache, etc. Massive air bombing combined with company or battalion sized special heave assault forces would bring the enemy out into the open and annihilate them. Furthermore, the bombers give us more flexibility in terms of waging wars then cold start do over a longer duration of time. Cold Start's advantages go up in poof after 3 weeks, at most. If we had to invade Pakistan, we already have the ability to do so.

Anoop,

One of the axioms of warfare is that all defences can be breached. There are many justifications taht can be trotted out.

The gaps are monitored by a variety of means mechanical and also by men. They should also be covered by minefield and artillery.

It must be the aim of the defender to find out about the enemy's intention as far forward of the dfences as possible so that it allows him to evaluate the options, the strength, the man machine mix so that he can adjust his defences suitably and poise his reserves to react in the shortest of time. Be one an attacker or a defender the positioning and the man machine mix of his reserves is critical. Nothing will go picture perfect. The reserves will make the difference.

The National aim of India is not to conquer Pakistan. That would be suicidal for a variety of reasons. It would be not to lose ground and instread at the end of the war have the maximum advantage in men and eqpt and territory captured for the inevitable bargaining at the bargaining table at the end of the war.

The negation of trading space for time is inded an inhibitor.

No battle that has a worthy enemy can finish in 24 hours. Of course, Pakistan would respond. That is where reserves or countervailing force would take on. Note: reserves once committed, must be recreated.

There will always be 'you win some and you lose some. The aim is to keep the lsoe some low and win some high.

I got what you meant by velocity.The Cold Start achieves both, containing Pakistan's nuke trigger finger as also gain territory that makes sense at the bargaining table.

Colonel,

To be able to claim in perpetuity the lands captured in the real world scenario requires a strong backer who can mould international opinion in your favour. We do not rate the protectiveness of the US as in the case of Israel both in war and in the peace negotiation.

Why should India capture Pakistan? It has so much of problems. I am sure India does not want to add more to its own. Then, to be very candid, why should we change the demographic equation and you know India's problem on that count.

That is why, India will attack only when India is threatened. That is the fact of life.

Look at Bangladesh. it is a bread basket case. What is happening? Those idiots have swamped India as illegals and are a serious burdcen on India's progress. They are adding to the communal tensions too.

That is why it is in the interest of India that all our neighbours get economically viable and have stable govts. It would stop all the illegals.

Let's put it this way. The world has cold shouldered the US on Iraq. If they had the might they would have turfed the US out. They don;t have and so they grudgingly accept Iraq as a fait accompli but with total show of disdain. If that happens to powerful US, the sole superpower, will anyone allow India to sit pretty over Pakistan's territory that it might capture?

That is realpolitik. Militarily this is not the correct thing, but that is the fact, However, the world will allow bargaining after the war (this is the actual winning area). Concessions that otehrwise would not happen will be extracted. This would ahve some moral standing in the international eyes.

Anotehr example. Can we do in Kashmir what US has done in Iraq with the Iraqis Prisoners ? No chance. You have seen that case of justice of the Major who is alleged to have 'raped'. They are not taking the DNA test as gospel truth. Imagine DNA is not important, but the fabrications of the Kashmiri villagers who lvoe to put the Army in a spot. This is what the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Mufti Mohammed calls ' The Healing Touch'!

In India there are two sensitive subjects that are beyond discussion or rationale - Moslems of India and Kashmir. Why? One constitutes the vote bank that can tip the scale in favour, one way or the other and the other is our crown jewel in the our moralistic pedastal - India is just, fair and secular. This type of logic is giving rise to the type of Keshto Patel.

India is following stupid policies? Maybe. Well, that is the gospel truth.

I rather be secular with all its faults than be a rabid joe.

Gentlemen, I see I've got my work cut out for me. Please bear with me while I answer one post at a time. My thanks.

Originally Posted by Ray

Colonel,

Given the Pakistani deployment and reaction capability, it would be a real surprise if the Indian forces can clear all the opposition right upto Islamabad.

Sir,

I, too doubt the InA could march into Islamabad based upon Cold Start but that was not my point. My point that any Cold Start victory is designed to be fast, bold, and decisive, which would leave Pakistan with only the nuke option to counter the intial Indian victory. Given time, they would recover but from their perspective, do they have time?

Originally Posted by Ray

Pakistan is a small country (so to say militarily). Therefore, the force density compared to the land mass and manoeuverability is quite dense. It can bring about a sizeable reaction, except that its railway infrastructure is not compatible to the desired movement or so it appears prima facie as per a article.

Just actually how fast can they mobilize? A division's warning order takes 24 hours to execute and that's extremely fast. However, the IBG is already sitting pretty. While I would not want to compare the Pakistanis to the Iraqis but Sir, observe that Iraqi soldiers were sipping coffee instead of manning their post when Operation THUNDER-RUN initated.

Also, Sir, during exercise, how many times were you surprised by OPFOR?

My point, here, Sir, is that the Pakistanis will react but is the reaction fast enough and effective enough? Can they seize the initiative back away from the InA? If they could, then Cold Start would have failed.

Originally Posted by Ray

To obviate the nuclear option, no deep strikes would talke place. I am sure once the Indian forces are on the move, interested parties in the international arena would be briefed so that due pressure is exercised to prevent any knee jerk nuclear exchange.

I would hope so, Sir, but my gut says otherwise. Telling the enemy that you would go away would not make the victory decisive.

Originally Posted by Ray

Chinese will not risk anything for anyone. Have they ever done it? They cshould ahve done it in 1971. They only spewed pious platitude. Each nation has its own self interests to uphold and the last thing that China would esire is a confrontation with India for another nation. At best, it will re deploy so that India is unable to mvoe troops from teh Eastern sectors.

1971 is a bad example, Sir. The Chinese were getting ready for war against the USSR. Their intelligence network had already determined that Moscow was building up for a pre-emptive nuclear strike and the Chinese nuclear retaillitory strength was a bluff. The IRBMs that could hit Moscow were armed with conventional warheads, not nukes since the Chinese at the time could not get the warhead design just right.

Therefore, they could not have taken on India and retain enough strength to mount a limited but credible defence.

This being said, Chinese propaganda has stated that they had come to their allies rescue twice in Chinese history. The Korean War and the two Sino-Vietnam Wars on behalf of their Cambodian proxies.

Originally Posted by Ray

Where will the Chinese 15 AB Division be deployed. Surely not arir dropped in India. Resupply will be nil.

I would imagine the 15ABC would deploy inside Pakistan. This being all said, the 15ABC is only significant politically and only that because they're Chinese. Militarily, they're just a speed bump for any Indian force.

Originally Posted by Ray

India will not resort to nuclear action unless Pakistan sorts to it. If that is the scenario, the Chinese threat will not matter in the least. And China knows that and she is quite pragmatic.

That's my point, Sir. If Chinese troops deploy inside Pakistan, China denied PaKistan the nuke option.

Originally Posted by Anoop C

2. Col. Yu, the political directives I am refering to pervade the thinking and plan-making of the IA, as per articles I've read. In other words, the tendency has been to shy away from grand offensive ventures a la Pakistan and concentrate instead on modest, but achievable and sustainable aims. I agree that Cold Start does not call for grand offensives, indeed it seeks to self-limit the extent of the offensive, but the Brig. can speak with authority about the pressures on military commanders not to lose ground.

Given this clarification, is it still your claim that the need to protect own turf will not influence the conduct of Cold Start? Sure, the brigade battle in the offensive may be over in 24 hours, but what of the Pakistani response?

To be honest about this, I had a hell of a time wrapping my head around the limited ground concept. It just doesn't make sense militarily. The enemy always have room to manouver just beyond your immediate reach.

Until I borrow the Chinese War Zone Campaign example. The object is not to take ground but to destroy the enemy force. While the Indians may not be thinking exactly on these terms, they are thinking fast, bold, and decisive.

Those three words is exactly how I would describe Cold Start - fast, bold, and decisive.

How exactly would this translate on the battlefield? I say the Indians got that lesson taught to them on the 1962 Sino-Indian War. The Chinese action was fast, bold, and decisive ... but they retreated and from a military standpoint, they ran home as fast as they could having collapsed their own LOC through their faster than expected and farther than expected advance and two very big and very angry Indian corps were coming at them foaming at the mouth.

Whom does the History Books say won the 1962 Sino-Indian War?

Originally Posted by Anoop C

This leads back to my question of the Pakistani 'Riposte' doctrine which seeks to gain territory in India, as part of their defence, to be used as counter bargaining weights to India's possession of Pakistani territory at the time of the ceasefire. Now, India's aim in a conflict will be (a) to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and (b) be in an advantageous territorial position at the time of the ceasefire. The Pakistani aim will be (a) deny the Indian objective and thereby embarrass the Indian govt. politically, (b) bring international pressure to bear on India to stop the conflict soon and (c) prevent a humiliation of the Pakistan Army in the eyes of the Pakistani public. This last aim means they must have something to show to the Pakistani public in terms of Indian territory captured and thereby drives their planning. In this scenario, the PA may well opt for capturing territory in India at locations suitable to them rather than defend their own when hard pressed - an aim which works to India's political disadvantage and thereby puts constraint on IA's planning. Hope I'm making sense.

Forgive me but that's one doctrine too many for me to grasp. I was trained on NATO Isolation and Reduction; I've studied Soviet Deep Battle; and helped analyse Chinese War Zone Campaign; and I've just started getting my feet wet with Cold Start. I could not begin to understand Pakistani doctrine at this point.

Originally Posted by Ray

Border Post along the border (note: posts means Forward Defended localities/ areas).

A few kms behind a lateral chain of company level to battalion level posts with gaps that are covered by missile, mechanised elements

Thereafter a little more distance to the rear battalion or brigade size posts.

This is as per what is known from the US aerial recon photos.

I reckon the Mechanised Reserves are held centrallly depending upon the AOR so that the reaction is within the spatiotemporal resilience of the combat plans.

Minefields are continuous throughout along each layer of defence.

Sir,

This may be a little naive but why not air drop a brigade/regiment between battalion and brigade?

1) You've just threatened the brigade reserve with overwhelming force

2) You've disrupted both their physical and psychological orientation

With the same conjunction, move your engineers (I say two regts - ie, four battalions) supported by infantry to breach company and battalion.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Sir,

What is the strategic and overall value of Cold Start? Whack a bunch of people to prove that India is no pushover and then go home?

1962 Sino-Indian War and what it cost India in political clout.

Originally Posted by Ray

Colonel,

To be able to claim in perpetuity the lands captured in the real world scenario requires a strong backer who can mould international opinion in your favour. We do not rate the protectiveness of the US as in the case of Israel both in war and in the peace negotiation.

That is something I've never understood, Sir. India is a power of its own. China stood alone and condemned by the world over Tibet. The Croats got away with mass murder in Krajina that they now claim as their own. I would argue, Sir, that India do not claim land in perpetuity not because of lack of Indian power or support but because of Indian morality.

Originally Posted by Ray

Why should India capture Pakistan? It has so much of problems. I am sure India does not want to add more to its own. Then, to be very candid, why should we change the demographic equation and you know India's problem on that count.

I don't know about India wanting to take Pakistan but there are strong arguements for India to destroy Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Ray

That is why, India will attack only when India is threatened. That is the fact of life.

Sir, I would argue that India takes far more hits than it delievers. I know of no other powers that would tolerate Kragil and an attack on Parliment.

Originally Posted by Ray

Look at Bangladesh. it is a bread basket case. What is happening? Those idiots have swamped India as illegals and are a serious burdcen on India's progress. They are adding to the communal tensions too.

That is why it is in the interest of India that all our neighbours get economically viable and have stable govts. It would stop all the illegals.

Sir, in order for that to happen. People would need to want to work.

Originally Posted by Ray

Let's put it this way. The world has cold shouldered the US on Iraq. If they had the might they would have turfed the US out. They don;t have and so they grudgingly accept Iraq as a fait accompli but with total show of disdain. If that happens to powerful US, the sole superpower, will anyone allow India to sit pretty over Pakistan's territory that it might capture?

That is realpolitik. Militarily this is not the correct thing, but that is the fact, However, the world will allow bargaining after the war (this is the actual winning area). Concessions that otehrwise would not happen will be extracted. This would ahve some moral standing in the international eyes.

I would counter, Sir, aside from the threat of tossing nukes, who would care?

Originally Posted by Ray

Anotehr example. Can we do in Kashmir what US has done in Iraq with the Iraqis Prisoners ? No chance. You have seen that case of justice of the Major who is alleged to have 'raped'. They are not taking the DNA test as gospel truth. Imagine DNA is not important, but the fabrications of the Kashmiri villagers who lvoe to put the Army in a spot. This is what the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Mufti Mohammed calls ' The Healing Touch'!

In India there are two sensitive subjects that are beyond discussion or rationale - Moslems of India and Kashmir. Why? One constitutes the vote bank that can tip the scale in favour, one way or the other and the other is our crown jewel in the our moralistic pedastal - India is just, fair and secular. This type of logic is giving rise to the type of Keshto Patel.

Sir, India is being accused of American style attrocities. Being nice is no protection from rumours.

Originally Posted by Ray

India is following stupid policies? Maybe. Well, that is the gospel truth.

Why should India be any different than the rest of us? I've got a PM who threatens to kill the government (ie call an election) over same sex marriages.

Originally Posted by Ray

I rather be secular with all its faults than be a rabid joe.

Sir, I have to say that having kids to bring perspective back into life. If you like arguing, Sir, I've got two horses who convinced that it's warmer at the water hole than it is in the barn.

Whew, thank you, gentlemen for giving me the soap box. I'm now stepping down for the next person to stand on the soap box.

How exactly would this translate on the battlefield? I say the Indians got that lesson taught to them on the 1962 Sino-Indian War. The Chinese action was fast, bold, and decisive ... but they retreated and from a military standpoint, they ran home as fast as they could having collapsed their own LOC through their faster than expected and farther than expected advance and two very big and very angry Indian corps were coming at them foaming at the mouth.

China won and of that there is no doubt. We are not a self deluding race like some around the corner where we live.

There are many reaons for the same.

The Indian Army then was totally of the British lifestyle, which BTW, is not bad. It was polo, blackgammom, whist, a shikar and all that pizzazz. Throw in one's prowess being measured in how one can hold his drinks and how many he can put under his belt. And ofcourse shaking a leg over the weekend with fair damsels.

The Indian Army had very little idea of Moutain Warfare. They dug up the defences (which was not there originally) post haste and there were huge gaps. The Chinese being past master at infiltration just cut them off, hit the gun position and rolled up the carpet.

QED.

We learnt and learnt fast. In 1965 at Nathu La , the Chinese got a bloody nose. I think it was 64 or 69 Field regiment which did the honours.

Today, it is a different kettle of fish.

Sir, I've got two horses who convinced that it's warmer at the water hole than it is in the barn.

Try standing in a pond in a blizzard. It is warmer than a huge barn where the temp is low and made lower with the wind chill factor. Honest.

I can't explain why.

Originally Posted by Ray

Try standing in a pond in a blizzard. It is warmer than a huge barn where the temp is low and made lower with the wind chill factor. Honest.

I can't explain why.

Wonderful, I've got a One Star taking the side of my horses.