No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US

**kuku** · 20 Sep 10,, 18:14

Originally Posted by antimony

I understand 1 and 2, but 2 and 4?

I read about the interview given by General Khalid Kidwai to the Landau Network. Now invasions and destruction of the military I can understand, but economic strangulation and internal destabilization? So if the Pakistani army somehow convinces themselves that it it India behind the Baluchistan affairs they are going to launch a nuke?

That seems pretty far fetched. Also interesting is what is not in. If India manages to pull off several small scale border skirmishes (far more likely than cleaving Pakistan in two with the strike corps) than that does not constitute a threshold event.

I think the internal destabilisation factor only comes in when it becomes a threat to the integrity of their nation. Although i doubt any insurgency could be fueled to such strength.

I am confused about the 4th point, what if the military complex in charge of defence, foreign policy and development, observes that the nation is being economically strangulated through aggressive diplomacy and the arms race.

, i guess that also becomes a worry when the economic situation is so bad that it threatens their national integrity.

**Deltacamelately** · 20 Sep 10,, 18:57

Originally Posted by zraver

]d then destroy it/force it to surrender.....

That's the way Nixon thought and hence the tilt.
Z,
He had his day by calling our PM a bitch, a forceful, however unintelligent statement, but, as per yours anglicized vocab, she was our bitch and luckily, she never gave us the mandate to dismantle the PA, something we could have easily accomplished in more than one ways. 71 was an abberation.

]Anything less is just territory that may or may not be important in and of itself, but that lets the PA know where the IA is.

Me and Sir, OoE know that if the Chinese ran across the Himalayas with their tail between their legs, just because they had collapsed their own LOCs, but then the Indians are not that buffoons! The Paks are trained, but they have not learned from the PLA's scorched earth policy.

**zraver** · 20 Sep 10,, 19:02

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

Like you, I'm trying to see what our Indian bretherns are seeing and like you, not very well at understanding their points but even still, the destruction of all border fortifications would at least have a punitive effect. I don't know if the Indians have the stomach for scorched earth but burning the entire Pakistani side of the border and laying nasty booby traps (ala the 1984 2nd Sino-Vietnam War style) would render further Pakistani adventures too expensive to bear (just as the Chinese bankrupted the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia).

Sir, the major problem I see in just crossing the border as it is functionally no different than an in depth penetration. Once the immediate border is blown open the PA has to fight to keep the link between Karachi and Islamabad open or Pakistan dies. The problem for the Indians is that critical transportation route is very close to the border. The only thing the Pakistani's have left India as retaliation is air strikes which would of course force the Pakistani government to reciprocate. Matching terror for terror, which despite ISI claims, India is unprepared to do. or finally, small scare light formations like commandos crossing the frontier to do ambushes which will not have a major impact on the Pakistani government.

They have set the nuclear threshold way to low, but is that the real threshold? Pakistan might be publicly saying that if India takes more than the letter A from the Pakistani alphabet they will go psycho, but will they really? is the real threshold closer to the letter M for instance. Based on Mumbai, either RAW believes Pakistan is willing to nationally suicide, or they don't know. If it is the latter, RAW needs to find out.

**nvishal** · 20 Sep 10,, 19:22

From the 4 pakistani threshold: This is the only likely one:
1. Indepth invasion
The other three are comical at best.

Though i don't think the PA will do a first strike. India is still pre-absorbed wrt pakistan and the PA would like that to continue. They try hard to appear crazy but i don't think they're that crazy.

**antimony** · 20 Sep 10,, 19:41

Originally Posted by kuku

I think the internal destabilisation factor only comes in when it becomes a threat to the integrity of their nation. Although i doubt any insurgency could be fueled to such strength.

I am confused about the 4th point, what if the military complex in charge of defence, foreign policy and development, observes that the nation is being economically strangulated through aggressive diplomacy and the arms race.

, i guess that also becomes a worry when the economic situation is so bad that it threatens their national integrity.

In my understanding the current economic situation is not too hot, what with the floods and all.

Not that India can force econmic strangulation on Pakistan anyway, but I guess it can be perceived that way.

In the end, I think I can see Cactus' logic, that discussion around these items is pointless as we would never be able to convince them, so we might just as well prepare ourselves.

**antimony** · 20 Sep 10,, 19:46

Originally Posted by zraver

They have set the nuclear threshold way to low, but is that the real threshold? Pakistan might be publicly saying that if India takes more than the letter A from the Pakistani alphabet they will go psycho, but will they really? is the real threshold closer to the letter M for instance. Based on Mumbai, either RAW believes Pakistan is willing to nationally suicide, or they don't know. If it is the latter, RAW needs to find out.

My non-MilProf brain understands this logic soundly.
My guess is that apart from RAW not knowing the threshold, the Indian political system is currently too much at an edge (if improved a little from the previous administration) to take hard decisions at the cost of economic progress. MMS is no IG or even a Vajpayee.

**nvishal** · 20 Sep 10,, 20:02

Originally Posted by zraver

They have to be at least deep enough to either threaten a major target and thus force the PA to fight, or deep enough to somehow isolate a major PA formation and then destroy it/force it to surrender.

Already happened in BD liberation war 1971. But the pestering did not stop.

**zraver** · 20 Sep 10,, 22:37

Originally Posted by nvishal

Already happened in BD liberation war 1971. But the pestering did not stop.

71 didn't have the nuclear genie.

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Sep 10,, 00:54

Originally Posted by zraver

Sir, the major problem I see in just crossing the border as it is functionally no different than an in depth penetration. Once the immediate border is blown open the PA has to fight to keep the link between Karachi and Islamabad open or Pakistan dies.

A quick look at the map showed me your thoughts. So, there is a place near the border where the Pakistani Army must accept battle.

Originally Posted by zraver

The problem for the Indians is that critical transportation route is very close to the border. The only thing the Pakistani's have left India as retaliation is air strikes which would of course force the Pakistani government to reciprocate. Matching terror for terror, which despite ISI claims, India is unprepared to do. or finally, small scare light formations like commandos crossing the frontier to do ambushes which will not have a major impact on the Pakistani government.

I don't know about that. The same map shows roads that can be (and should be) secondary LOCs.

Originally Posted by zraver

They have set the nuclear threshold way to low, but is that the real threshold? Pakistan might be publicly saying that if India takes more than the letter A from the Pakistani alphabet they will go psycho, but will they really? is the real threshold closer to the letter M for instance. Based on Mumbai, either RAW believes Pakistan is willing to nationally suicide, or they don't know. If it is the latter, RAW needs to find out.

Will the Chinese let them? Do recall that both Beijing and Washington told Islamabad to cool it during Kargil.

**Gun Grape** · 21 Sep 10,, 00:57

Originally Posted by zraver

Artillery failed the IDF, and more of their assets are modern systems rather than towed tubes. Arty is only marginally useful against forces that do not rely on heavy concentration but instead rely on heavy cover like a town or high mobility like anti-tank teams equipped with trucks and jeeps.

I'll disagree on this point.

The IDF didn't use artillery effectivly. It was the IDF TTPs, or lack of, that failed them.

Even Ben gave some eamples, Assaults on key terrain by his tanks that wasn't supported by infantry nor mortar or arty prep. And looking at some of the AARs that seemed to be the norm.

The IDF got lazy. Started believing their own press releases about being the best of the best and forgot the basics.

Effect in the impact zone doesnt depend on if arty is towed or mech. They shoot the same rounds. The US Army has a love affair with mech arty. But they are plains of europe and sandbox focused.

Towed isn't bad, nor is it obsolete. The Army is using the hell out of 198s an 777s in the hills of the ghan. I haven't seen many pics of palidans over there.

**zraver** · 21 Sep 10,, 01:03

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

A quick look at the map showed me your thoughts. So, there is a place near the border where the Pakistani Army must accept battle.

possibly off the bat, and yes eventually.

I don't know about that. The same map shows roads that can be (and should be) secondary LOCs.

For a military formation yes, but cut the main links between Karachi and Islamabad and you won't be getting imports of food and fuel to over 100 million people on backcountry unimproved roads.

GG,

Towed isn't bad, nor is it obsolete. The Army is using the hell out of 198s an 777s in the hills of the ghan. I haven't seen many pics of palidans over there.

Show me a modernf roce willing to pit towed guns against mech in a battle of manuever other than India?

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Sep 10,, 06:24

Originally Posted by zraver

Show me a modernf roce willing to pit towed guns against mech in a battle of manuever other than India?

The USMC?

Actually, come to think of it, any recce or airborne force would have no choice but to pit towed against mech.

**Deltacamelately** · 21 Sep 10,, 06:31

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Pakistani are still thinking fortified lines while the PLA has moved onto maneuvers.

Sir,
I was commenting upon your point, that of the Pakistani Army to have learnt political victories through military means.

Major, it's easy. Too easy. The problem is not starting the butchering. The problem is stopping once you start.

That's something that will depend upon the size, type and demography of the territory covered by the InA and the determination of our political heads to ensure that the same territories won't be used for staging future assaults in Indian assets.

The Indochinese got a taste of it but nowhere near what the Chinese had to endure themselves. To answer your question, Major, the Tai Ping rebellion, 1850-1864

Sir,

One would consider the Taiping rebellion more of an internal strife than a foreign led massacre. And any case, even though the consequences for China during that period were devastating, the claimed 20 to 30 million deaths were as much a result of the conflict, as is the fact that drought and famine claimed equitable numbers.

I gave the opinion that if the Chinese could envisage a scorched earth policy, in absence of similar butchering meted out against their own people by the Viets/Indo-chinese etc based on culturo-religious ground, then the InA surely qualifies to carry out a similar stage carnage considering what our people have gone through the centuries and also till recently in the hands by those, who claim that heritage.

On that scale, the Taiping rebellion, though, a butchering nonetheless, will remain an internal disturbance, and odd compliment to the conflicts with the west.

**Double Edge** · 21 Sep 10,, 09:12

Originally Posted by zraver

Matching terror for terror, which despite ISI claims, India is unprepared to do. or finally, small scare light formations like commandos crossing the frontier to do ambushes which will not have a major impact on the Pakistani government.

I'm under the impression that matching terror for terror was an option until our PM IK Gujral put an end to it in '97 under his doctrine that called for better relations with our neighbours. Whether this policy can be reversed is an open question but might need to be reconsidered if more attacks follow in the future.

**Deltacamelately** · 21 Sep 10,, 10:06

Originally Posted by zraver

Show me a modernf roce willing to pit towed guns against mech in a battle of manuever other than India?

Z,

I am not aware as to what perception other western forces hold about towed arty vis-a-vis SPA. However, speaking strictly from the InA point of view, towed artillery is still around with us for several reasons, not the least being that it can be transported long distances much more easily than self-propelled guns, notably when rapid deployment and special forces are involved and that is exactly is what will be required in a swift action against the PA, in the context of the discussion.

Towed artillery will be with us for times quite far ahead as can be forecasted for several other reasons other than just portability. There is the cost factor, for, as a general rule, towed artillery is less expensive in unit and maintenance terms than the more complex SP platforms. It makes fewer demands on transport-related infrastructure, such as bridging, especially when some SP systems weigh almost as much as battle tanks. In addition, there are several types of battlefield terrain in the Indo-Pak context, where the deployment of self-propelled artillery would be well ill-advised.

Even for amphibious warfare, employment of a combination of land and sea forces to take or defend a military objectives, the general strategy is very ancient and was extensively employed by the Greeks, i.e towed artillery remains the norm. To round matters off, many towed artillery systems are readily air-portable, including swift moves even by helicopters.

So no, we know what we are using and we are quite confident about its battle worthiness even if the same might not be intelligible to your forces.