Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Defence News & Discussions

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

  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That's not how it works but here is something to consider.

    India is not afraid she cannot march to Islamabad. India is afraid she has to occupy Islamabad. Do you really want 200 million Pakistanis now with access to the Indian border to look for work? Do you really want another Bangladesh on your border?
    No, that too most of them radicalized, no.

    This you've said earlier, and I agree. But why don't you think it is the fear of millions of men, women and children dead, plus some cities destroyed? Dead also figures in the calculation of strategic thinkers, don't you agree?
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      This you've said earlier, and I agree. But why don't you think it is the fear of millions of men, women and children dead, plus some cities destroyed? Dead also figures in the calculation of strategic thinkers, don't you agree?
      No, it does not. Within the Indian-Pakistani context, the nuclear objective is to inflict unacceptable damage onto the other. Even if it's a counter-population strategy, they have to figure out what part of the population. Bankers, engineers, lawyers, and even military HQ personnel would figure far more into this calculation than a bunch of beggars.

      It's damned cold blood enough to burn babies but it's down right machine to determine which babies to burn to hurt the other babies even more.

      Welcome to my world.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
        I said pre-emptive like 50 times now. Pre-emptive counter-force.
        See, what i missed is how is there the question of pre-emptive when we have a stated doctrine of no first use.

        Or are you talking about conventional missiles here only

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
          India is not afraid she cannot march to Islamabad. India is afraid she has to occupy Islamabad. Do you really want 200 million Pakistanis now with access to the Indian border to look for work? Do you really want another Bangladesh on your border?
          The bolded bit is the problem. I've always assumed if we ever got nuked by the Paks, we wouldn't nuke back. We'd occupy the place and do a regime change. No need for more innocents to die with Indian nukes.

          Those would be for China as deterrent since we have no intention to ever march to Beijing and they have the same which means neither would ever use them.

          It isn't so much the 200m Paks at the border but actually administering the place. Who'd would we pass power on to. With Bangladesh we cultivated alternative successors. The Mukti Bahini were ready to take over. There is no such equivalent with Pakistan and i cannot think of one. There is no purpose in marching to Islamabad unless this question is suitably answered.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Jul 19,, 21:40.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            See, what i missed is how is there the question of pre-emptive when we have a stated doctrine of no first use.

            Or are you talking about conventional missiles here only
            The article by Vipin Narang talks about pre-emptive Indian nuke strikes, and my opinion was based on that. I thought about it for many nights, and months. How could India do it? It talks about certain grey areas and flaws in the Indian Nuclear Doctrine. Flaws that are vague, and not properly defined. "No first use, to...........no first use against non-nuclear weapons states".....get the idea?

            Even then, many months or probably a year back, when I discussed it, I held onto my view that India doesn't need nukes to disarm Pakistan. Conventional ballistic missiles would do. That, and the things the Colonel and I discussed.

            I have come to the realisation that Indian nukes are not needed to take out Pak nukes in a pre-emptive attack. Conventional ballistic missiles can do the same thing, without the world crying over an Indian pre-emptive nuke strike. Can India do it? Ofcourse. Post 2030. Time to build the economy, then dismantle the terrorist country.
            Last edited by Oracle; 09 Jul 19,, 06:01.
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              The bolded bit is the problem. I've always assumed if we ever got nuked by the Paks, we wouldn't nuke back. We'd occupy the place and do a regime change. No need for more innocents to die with Indian nukes.

              Those would be for China as deterrent since we have no intention to ever march to Beijing and they have the same which means neither would ever use them.

              It isn't so much the 200m Paks at the border but actually administering the place. Who'd would we pass power on to. With Bangladesh we cultivated alternative successors. The Mukti Bahini were ready to take over. There is no such equivalent with Pakistan and i cannot think of one. There is no purpose in marching to Islamabad unless this question is suitably answered.
              The various factions within the Balochis, the Pushtuns. These are severe fault lines within the Pak establishment. There is need for a comprehensive policy for the next 10 years, adequate funding, leadership training among those youths and a strategy to unite them. The PA and the ISI have been trying to wrest away Kashmir for 70 years, could not. If we do the same in Pakistan for 10 years, the result will be there for everyone to see.
              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                Even then, many months or probably a year back, when I discussed it, I held onto my view that India doesn't need nukes to disarm Pakistan. Conventional ballistic missiles would do. That, and the things the Colonel and I discussed.
                Yeah, here's the problem. While you're concentrating all your bombs on their nukes, you ain't bombing their armies.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  Yeah, here's the problem. While you're concentrating all your bombs on their nukes, you ain't bombing their armies.
                  And that too. I'm assuming Cold Start takes care of that.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                    And that too. I'm assuming Cold Start takes care of that.
                    So you want to eliminate half of the air-land battle. Right. You do understand that airpower is vital in shaping the battlefield before opposing riflemen see each other.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                      The various factions within the Balochis, the Pushtuns. These are severe fault lines within the Pak establishment. There is need for a comprehensive policy for the next 10 years, adequate funding, leadership training among those youths and a strategy to unite them. The PA and the ISI have been trying to wrest away Kashmir for 70 years, could not. If we do the same in Pakistan for 10 years, the result will be there for everyone to see.
                      Pushtuns & Balochis aren't going to rule Pakistan. They are potential break away states. Pakjabis rule Pakistan. Where are the successors to be found among them ?

                      We've marched into Islamabad. Now how do we administer the place. We will not want to be stuck there for long as insurgencies will build up. There has to be a legitimate successor acceptable to the people there. Who will do it ? Unless the PA starts committing equal atrocities in Punjab there will be no contender.

                      With Bangladesh you had the Mukti Bahini. You had a Mukti Bahini because of the atrocities being committed and there was a very clear intention to break away from west Pakistan.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Jul 19,, 10:41.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                        So you want to eliminate half of the air-land battle. Right. You do understand that airpower is vital in shaping the battlefield before opposing riflemen see each other.
                        What I meant was, what you said about SEAD missions first, then taking out Pak's C4ISR, taking out the backup HQ that assumes command (it most probably will be mobile), then the Indian Army march in. I am following your lead here and ending it with Cold Start.
                        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                          What I meant was, what you said about SEAD missions first, then taking out Pak's C4ISR, taking out the backup HQ that assumes command (it most probably will be mobile), then the Indian Army march in. I am following your lead here and ending it with Cold Start.
                          Here's the problem. Too many targets and not enough bombs. Pakistan is a target rich environment. You will run out of bombs before you run out targets and we have not even begun to talk about soft kills.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            Pushtuns & Balochis aren't going to rule Pakistan. They are potential break away states. Pakjabis rule Palistan. Where are the contenders here among them ?

                            We've marched into Islamabad. Now how do we administer the place. We will not want to be stuck there for long as insurgencies will build up. There has to be a legitimate successor acceptable to the people there. Who will do it ? Unless the PA starts committing equal atrocities in Punjab there will be no contender.

                            With Bangladesh you had the Mukti Bahini. You had a Mukti Bahini because of the atrocities being committed and there was a very clear intention to break away from west Pakistan.
                            Don't you think if India ever employs this method, our intelligences agencies won't be talking to potential successors in Pakistan? They would, months in advance. These are assets that are cultivated years before any assault takes place. We use Pushtuns and Balochis to break Pakistan.

                            After breaking it up into 4 countries, we get someone we like into Pak Punjab and install him. The Pakistani population will be too bothered about where their food, water and medicines come from. Civil wars doesn't take place on an empty stomach with people nursing their limbs and lives.
                            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Here's the problem. Too many targets and not enough bombs. Pakistan is a target rich environment. You will run out of bombs before you run out targets and we have not even begun to talk about soft kills.
                              India is not going to war tomorrow. Sir, post 2030, that is if India builds up her economy as well as her military teeth.
                              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                              Comment


                              • Yeah, that's not going to happen. To give you an idea of the scale here. The airware portion of the Kuwait War saw 2000+ sorties per day for 30 days. That's 2000+ bombs per day and we were still hunting SCUDs for the duration of the war. The Iraq War saw 700 cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad on the first day and an entire American tank squadron still got surrounded. Those munitions btw took over 40 years to build up as they were left overs from the Cold War and we're talking about an economy that India is nowhere close to.

                                To build that kind of military arsenal, you will require Indians to line up for bread lines and that's not the point of a military.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X