2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWell, Cactus was the 1st to call this.
No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US
Thu Sep 09 2010, 03:31 hrs
New Delhi:The US had taken up concerns by Pakistan on the perceived ‘Cold Start’ strategy of the Indian Army that envisages rapid deployment of troops on the western border to escalate to a full blown war within days but has been told that such a doctrine does not exist but is a term that has been fabricated by think tanks.
The matter was repeatedly taken up by senior US Defence delegations after Pakistan voiced concerns that diverting more troops to the Afghan border would not be feasible given the Indian ‘Cold Start’ strategy that could bring offensive elements of the Indian Army to its eastern border within four days.
While the US has been assured that no such doctrine exists, the Army has now come on record to say that ‘Cold Start’ is not part of its doctrine. Army Chief General V K Singh has told this newspaper that India’s basic military posture remains defensive.
“There is nothing called ‘Cold Start’. As part of our overall strategy we have a number of contingencies and options, depending on what the aggressor does. In the recent years, we have been improving our systems with respect to mobilisation, but our basic military posture is defensive,” the Army Chief told The Indian Express.
The ‘Cold Start’ doctrine has been doing the rounds since the conclusion of Op Parakram in 2002 when the Indian Army was asked to mobilise on the Pakistani border after the attack on Parliament. It took the Army almost two months to fully deploy troops. Defence strategists have been talking about the new doctrine of the Indian Army that would enable it to deploy a full strength invasion force within a few days notice, unlike several weeks of preparation that were required earlier.
However, General Singh has said while active defence is part of the defensive strategy, India does not have any territorial ambitions. “We are not aggressors; however active defence is part of our defensive strategy. India is a peace loving nation and does not covet any territory,” he said.
While the Pakistani media has been getting shriller about the perceived doctrine, even suggesting several counter doctrines, the Army Chief has now clarified that the term is not a part of the Indian doctrine. “I think that ‘Cold Start’ is just a term bandied about by think tanks and media. It is neither a doctrine nor a military term in our glossary,” he said.
In November 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Washington that ‘Pakistan faces no threat whatsoever from our country and that is the stated position of the Government of India’. He made the statement after a comment by former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor about the possibility of a ‘limited war under a nuclear overhang’. The government was upset about the comment as Islamabad and Washington raised the issue with the former pointing fingers at India’s ‘aggressive nature’.
No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Well, Cactus was the 1st to call this.
Chimo
I view this as somewhat stupid
Till now everyone suspected that India would not be able to respond rapidly to a military situation, now they know for certain
And I do not understand why India has to make any of this clear to the US, its not as if the US was going to do something
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
There is no point continuing to run along with a fabricated doctrine when the enemy has already called out your bluff. 26/11 was proof of that.Originally Posted by antimony
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Now the point is that will the PA move troops from the Eastern Border or not. One of the fig leaves behind which they were hiding has just blown away.
India "telling" US anything about the cold start doesn't mean a thing. It is just to help US build pressure on PA to do what they need to do.
India having the capability to pull off the doctrine or even having such a doctrine in the first place is another issue. We certainly need the capability to respond to any terrorist provocation quickly enough. They can't always hide behind the nuke blackmail.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..
Let me ask you a simple question: What is the need to run (fast) to the starting gate, when you can stand comfortably ready at the same place just as well? Cold Start is a legitimate end-goal, but it is not a doctrine in itself. What IA is trying to achieve are more mobility and fire-power to frontline Holding Corps, pre-positioned stocks, better border infrastructure ~ routine enough improvements, not radical/complete doctrinsl change. And military policy is closely linked to foreign policy - how do you know that this clarification does not serve a parallel military/foreign policy objective?
As I mentioned before, Cold Start is a legitimate end-goal. But it has little direct corelation with terrorism - certain think-tanks did try to draw corelationship, but that was not the original or the official idea - as it was conceived back in the mid-90s. Chronologically it would be before the public emergence of nuclear overhang, and before terrorism overranking LIC and insurgencies as Pakistan's primary state policy against India. You simply cannot say anything - good or bad - about this objective, based solely on the reaction/non-reaction to the terrorist events.
The publicly discussed aim was the rapid crossing of the border, severing of the Karachi-Islamabad road/rail links and encirclement of the Pakistani Army while taking minimal losses. All worthy goals, and all totally unobtainable by the current Indian Army. She can do any one of them but not all of them. I joined WAB arguing about this very thing. A couple of years ago after a more detailed look I changed my views. The balance of forces, technology and terrain all serve as barriers to any type of truly forceful Indian blitzkrieg.
Until India's armored units are more fully equipped with improved versions of the T-90 and Arjun and her air force is fully modernized she jsut can't do it. Her lead in material is not big enough to take the losses to get across the frontier, guard her flanks and interior lines and fight encirclement battles. Even her ability to dominate the border ir order to force a crossing is in jepoardy as Pakistani A-100's come on line. These will force the Smerch to either backup or expose itself to counter-battery fire. Pakistan may also be gettign the HQ-12 SAM which is a very credible threat to any IAF attmepts to do a deep battle.
They are not going to be "satisfied" unless India dramatically reduces the military buildup on the border, thats my read. Simply stuffing the doctrine ain't gonna cut it.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
What doctrine?
Z,
You and the other MilProfs would of course know better, but would India be able to accomplish any of the other goals individually? The post-December 2001 military buildup, from where this started, took an agonizingly long time for the Strike Corps (offensive formations) to the front areas, by which time the work was well and truly alerted.
If India wants to, say, just fulfill the goal of rapid crossing of the border, would she be able to do that with the current largely defensive holding corps formations? I do not know if they would be able to do the job by themselves, and by the time the Strike Corps kick in, all elements of a "rapid crossing" would be gone.
If India and Pakistan chose to slug it out, India would probably win over due to her sheer scale, but I do not know if any country would see any "rapid", mid-term victory anywhere.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
So the Cold Start is to the Pakistani establishment what the Chinese DF-21 ASBM has been for the USN.
India can't cross the border and penetrate to any depth without taking a beating. Tanks are slow and need a lot of fuel, there are canals in the way and enemy fire. Pakistani frontier units however have a high degree of mobility with trucks, know the terrain and can do damage far in excess of thier own weight before they die.
India's one big advantage was the Smerch. It gave India the ability to crush any formation that massed for a counter attack. Now Pakistan has that ability via the A-100 so they cancel out.
Point Taken. Thanks.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: