Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Frankly! WHAT WAS SOUTH ASIA'S WWIII SCENARIO?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    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.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tronic View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        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.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          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 ;)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by cataphract View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by cataphract View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                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.
                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  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.

                  Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                    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.
                    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Understood sir.

                      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 16 Jan 13,, 15:47.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          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.
                          Last edited by Deltacamelately; 16 Jan 13,, 16:09.
                          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            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.
                            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                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.
                                Last edited by Firestorm; 16 Jan 13,, 22:55.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X