Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Nixon Succeeded

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    How long does it take for the boomers to unload all of their missiles? Soviet boomers, IIRC, have not mastered of firing all of their missiles in quick succession such as within less than a couple minutes without stabilizing the buoyancy and center of gravity factor. If the destroyers are pinging like hell, then it is easy to see where the group is and the hunter subs can hone in on the sound of missiles launching quite quickly for it is damn impossible to mask the sounds of missiles launching.
    You're missing a few steps. First, the pinging would help the boomer. They wouldn't be blind. There's no need to hide. Second, the pinging scares away all other subs, including those wanting to kill that boomer.

    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Even more so, you could position an THAAD equipped Aegis destroyer to take out the missiles as they are being launched and have not reached their maximum velocity.
    By the time THAAD was even dreamed off, Soviet SLBMs have come of age and range that they did not need Cuba.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
      There was no way that US could alter the ground realities. yes the naval scene but not the ground realities or even aerial realities. And India was not going to back down in any case not especially after millions of refugees flooding into India.

      Despite your belief in US, US is not the omnipotent power as you make it out to be.
      Not interested in getting into a pissing match with you, specially as I am glad India won. But, had the US decided to fight early, yes even the ground realities. India could not sustain an offensive army in Bangladesh without air cover. Not only that, war with the US means severe food and fuel shortages for India. In 1971-72 India imported between 72 and 111 million bushels of America wheat per year. If Nixon had the political will, India would have lost.

      Comment


      • #78
        zraver, I don't think fear had anything to do with the russians backing down. I think their objective was to win.

        The bottom line is that thousands of nukes, military bases and billion dollar military spendings are utter worthless when you cannot even guarantee that you will outlast or outlive after a nuclear war. The US had no choice but to chest thump. The US objective in the cold war was to prevent a nuclear war. The russian objective was to outlast. But in the end, war never happened.

        Had the US moved in 1971, under indira gandhi, there is no way india would back down. If you think she would have backed down then you got it wrong. She would have engaged and probably pulled the russians in. The possibility of an actual US russian confrontation would have been certain. Nixon had met her earlier so he was not sure what she was capable of. The fact is that she had a history of being capable. You have to remember that the US objective in cold war was to prevent a nuclear war.

        Comment


        • #79
          What would be the objective for US to go into this adventure with India? Saving Pakistan?
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by anil View Post
            zraver, I don't think fear had anything to do with the russians backing down. I think their objective was to win.
            Fear had everything to do with it. The Russian trigger pullers in 1971 were guys that fought from Poland to Moscow to Berlin. They knew the destruction wrought by war first hand.

            The bottom line is that thousands of nukes, military bases and billion dollar military spendings are utter worthless when you cannot even guarantee that you will outlast or outlive after a nuclear war. The US had no choice but to chest thump. The US objective in the cold war was to prevent a nuclear war. The russian objective was to outlast. But in the end, war never happened.
            The war never happened in part because the US was ready to dance at a dead man's party.

            Had the US moved in 1971, under indira gandhi, there is no way india would back down. If you think she would have backed down then you got it wrong.
            I am unaware of her being a brain dead moron.... she would back down. she is not going to wreck India for Bangladeshis

            She would have engaged and probably pulled the russians in.
            How, Russia wasn't going to fight the US for India.

            [quote]The possibility of an actual US russian confrontation would have been certain.[/qute]

            certainly zero

            Nixon had met her earlier so he was not sure what she was capable of. The fact is that she had a history of being capable. You have to remember that the US objective in cold war was to prevent a nuclear war.
            The US objective in the Cold War was not to prevent a nuclear war, it was to safeguard the Western Democracies. You can chest thump all you want but the correlation of forces and logistics situation says US. The only ingredient missing was the political will and this is why Nixon moved slowly. However, had he moved resolutely, India lacked the political will to impale herself on an American sword for a bunch of Bangladeshis.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              What would be the objective for US to go into this adventure with India? Saving Pakistan?
              Pretty much, which is why we didn't. Pakistan is just not that important, especially then with the American focus on Europe, domestic strife from the counter culture and anti-war movements and the Vietnams.

              Comment


              • #82
                zraver, you keep going on with this theme of US never turning down a confrontation. I'm not trying to win a battle of words. 1971 is a piece of history. You interpret it however you like.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Jason,

                  I'm not sure Ghandi would have backed down. In fact, I think the complete opposite. Do recall that she did order an assault on Diego Garcia and the InAF was preparing to kamakaze the Big-E.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Jason,

                    I'm not sure Ghandi would have backed down. In fact, I think the complete opposite. Do recall that she did order an assault on Diego Garcia and the InAF was preparing to kamakaze the Big-E.
                    IIRC, the discussion about DG was hypothetical, the IAF lacked the carry capacity to even get to DG using Hakwer Sidley 748's of the time. As for the Big-E, I'll ask the same question others have asked. With what? The most capable elements of the IAF were heavily engaged on two fronts. Her best strike bombers, despite being needed to support the ground war, were virtual sitting ducks to the USN's SAM/MigCAP capability because the Canberra was slow and lacked precision standoff weapons. The only super sonic assets India had were very short legged. Call the Bay of BEngal a bay all day lon but it is still a sea and a large one at that. 2.1 million km^2 plus in size only a bit smaller than the Med.

                    In addition, if Nixon was truly determined to stop India and was really concerned India might not back down, he would have sent more than just the Big-E. Perhaps one of the other carriers in Asian waters (Yankee Station, Japan, Subic Bay); Constellation, Kittyhawk, Coral Sea, Ticonderoga, Hancock and Oriskany.

                    I hold, Nixon lacked the will so it was a minimum effort on the part of the US. I also hold that had Nixon really wanted to, and moved the assets indicating such will. India would have folded.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by anil View Post
                      zraver, you keep going on with this theme of US never turning down a confrontation. I'm not trying to win a battle of words. 1971 is a piece of history. You interpret it however you like.
                      I never said the US never turned down a confrontation, I am saying the Soviets are the ones who backed down in every confrontation that actually happened.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        IIRC, the discussion about DG was hypothetical,
                        No, it was real. The good Captain Lemontree's father was on the ambulance tasked to that mission. He was on the tarmac when the stand down came. That's all the info we have.

                        We deduced it was a brigade level op from having an ambulance and since the ambulance was on the tarmac, then the initial entry force was already enroute before the stand down was issued.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          IIRC, the discussion about DG was hypothetical, the IAF lacked the carry capacity to even get to DG using Hakwer Sidley 748's of the time. As for the Big-E, I'll ask the same question others have asked. With what? The most capable elements of the IAF were heavily engaged on two fronts. Her best strike bombers, despite being needed to support the ground war, were virtual sitting ducks to the USN's SAM/MigCAP capability because the Canberra was slow and lacked precision standoff weapons. The only super sonic assets India had were very short legged. Call the Bay of BEngal a bay all day lon but it is still a sea and a large one at that. 2.1 million km^2 plus in size only a bit smaller than the Med.

                          In addition, if Nixon was truly determined to stop India and was really concerned India might not back down, he would have sent more than just the Big-E. Perhaps one of the other carriers in Asian waters (Yankee Station, Japan, Subic Bay); Constellation, Kittyhawk, Coral Sea, Ticonderoga, Hancock and Oriskany.

                          I hold, Nixon lacked the will so it was a minimum effort on the part of the US. I also hold that had Nixon really wanted to, and moved the assets indicating such will. India would have folded.
                          Actually, the one folding in the situation is USA. Nixon showed the will to put pressure on India.
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                            Actually, the one folding in the situation is USA. Nixon showed the will to put pressure on India.
                            I disagree that Nixon had the will to do more than a minor demonstration with no intent to back it up. He had too many other things on his plate that were more important than Pakistan. Which is why he folded. My argument deals mainly with the what if, what if Nixon really did have it out for India? I argue that if India was indeed on his radar he would have sent more than just 1 carrier and would have done so sooner and sent them at a faster speed.

                            Sending 1 carrier out of 17 isn't will power, its demonstration.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Demonstration of what?

                              Anyway, the end result is the same. He folded.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                What would be the objective for US to go into this adventure with India? Saving Pakistan?
                                Pakistan and China were strategic allies of the US in countering russian influence. The indian leaders were watching them for many years trying to figure out that they were up to. It was difficult because they kept their alliances secret.

                                I. K. Gujral, the prime minister of india in 97-98, explains:

                                In 1954 Truman first time started giving arms aid to Pakistan. Nehru objected. And at that time categorically Truman said, "No, no. It is meant against Soviet Union." And there was a famous dictum of constrainment in the UN. He said "That gun has not yet been made which shoots only in one direction." We suspected it. And it went on. Then we found in '65 what we suspect in '54. Those weapons were used against us.
                                1971 for the first time proved what we were suspecting earlier. We were suspecting that there were certain commitments on the part of Americans with Pakistan's defense. We were also feeling that the arms being given to Pakistan were necessarily meant for in, against India and not for anything else. 1971 proved both the things.
                                It(bangla genocide) was not a sudden development. And we had at our hand ten million refugees in India. And Mrs. Gandhi was going from one capital of the world to the other trying to persuade to tell them, "Please do something now. It'll be difficult otherwise." But it was happening. And...was in a very benevolent, I'm sorry. Very belligerent mood. Also we were seeing that the American strategy was adverse to us. And now we were trying to find, trying to see that not only that the Americans were giving arms to Pakistan, that if need be they were willing to confront India. Threats there had been given to us by Kissinger and others. And I can tell you in retrospect because I'm privy of this information that we really went into negotiation for a treaty with Soviet Union after we were convinced of the belligerency of the other super power. '71 proved it conclusively when we got a direct threat of seventh fleet intervention.
                                You will recall that when the Bangladesh crisis was at its height Kissinger came here and we tried to explain to him what we were faced with. Kissinger went from here to Pakistan. And a day later we learned that he had gone to Pakistan to fly over to China secretly. Because all the time via...they were negotiating with China. So therefore that explained how strategically Pakistan was important to Washington despite whatever was happening in Bangladesh. Now we were faced with a new reality. We saw that a new alliance growing between the three once again. We also knew of the threats that were being given to us. And that really activated our talks for signing a treaty of friendship with Soviet Union. I think it helped our security at that critical moment.
                                Last edited by anil; 20 Aug 13,, 18:48.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X