Frankly! WHAT WAS SOUTH ASIA'S WWIII SCENARIO?

**Officer of Engineers** · 09 Jan 13,, 06:21

Ok, nukes have been flying. Soviet divisions are clashing with Chinese and NATO divisions. The world is going to hell storm whatever!

What was India and Pakistani plans? Twiddling their thumbs for the winner? I'm being serious.

**Tronic** · 09 Jan 13,, 08:00

I'm guessing it would depend on whose leading India at the time. If Nehru, than watching the show from the sidelines. If Indira, an intervention in Tibet? looking for a chance to snatch Diego Garcia?

Who knows?

Doubt if Pakistan would be interested in anything. Their sole focus is and always has been Kashmir and they've failed consistently at it. I wonder though if seeing the US busy with the Soviets, the Indian leadership would've been more open to smashing the Pak army post-70s.

**Skywatcher** · 09 Jan 13,, 19:34

Which, WWIII scenario, sir? (Especially with regards to timeframe)

**cataphract** · 09 Jan 13,, 19:55

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Ok, nukes have been flying. Soviet divisions are clashing with Chinese and NATO divisions. The world is going to hell storm whatever!

What was India and Pakistani plans? Twiddling their thumbs for the winner? I'm being serious.

Twiddling thumbs sounds like a good idea, since the neighborhood was never threatened by Soviets, Americans or Chinese. At best a buildup along the India-China border?

**Deltacamelately** · 10 Jan 13,, 12:15

Sir,

IA couldn't get a better opportunity than this to dismantle the PA, while I am confident that howsoever the Paks would have wanted, the Chinese wouldn't have opened the southern theatre.

**kuku** · 10 Jan 13,, 17:37

Would the goal for the Government of India not be to be neutral and to ensure that the Republic of India survived? Supporting either side sounds like an invitation for the opposite.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11 Jan 13,, 03:10

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Which, WWIII scenario, sir? (Especially with regards to timeframe)

Any scenario. The thing is EVERYONE EXPECTED INDIA to be involved. More specifically challenging the USN in the Indian Ocean and harassing China's Tibet's MR. At the very least tying down those USN and PLA assets from re-enforcing the actions against the Soviets. That was before India opened up her views to the world.

The thing is that Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers could not have escaped notice of WWIII participants' expectations. China and the US would have targeted Indian assets just in case. We know today that Moscow could not have counted on the Indian Navy to do anything but that did not stop American plans from sinking the Indian Navy. The same with Tibet. The Indian Army was not going to march north to relieve the Soviets but the Chinese kept four armies in the region.

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

**cataphract** · 11 Jan 13,, 03:25

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Any scenario. The thing is EVERYONE EXPECTED INDIA to be involved. More specifically challenging the USN in the Indian Ocean and harassing China's Tibet's MR. At the very least tying down those USN and PLA assets from re-enforcing the actions against the Soviets. That was before India opened up her views to the world.

The thing is that Indian and Pakistani strategic thinkers could not have escaped notice of WWIII participants' expectations. China and the US would have targeted Indian assets just in case. We know today that Moscow could not have counted on the Indian Navy to do anything but that did not stop American plans from sinking the Indian Navy. The same with Tibet. The Indian Army was not going to march north to relieve the Soviets but the Chinese kept four armies in the region.

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

Sir, I am going to assume your timeframe is 1962+. IMO, your scenario is unlikely before 62 for several reasons:

1. Sino-Soviet split was not serious enough for China to declare war against Soviet Union. Plus China did not have the resources to go to war with the Soviets before 62. They were busy recovering from the GLF and Korean War.

2. India was not pro-Soviet before Indira Gandhi, and not perceived as such. JFK even visited India in the early 60s. After the 62 war, Nehru turned to the Americans for help, not the Soviets. Nehru collaborated with the CIA to aid the Tibetan resistance.

3. The Indian navy was minuscule and incapable of even harassing the US navy in the Indian Ocean.

Therefore, if WWIII happened as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, India would be insignificant in the picture.

If we're looking at 1969 - 73, your scenario is very much plausible. I'm guessing India's primary focus would be the Tibetan border and any offensive into Tibet would be contingent upon the success of Soviets in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11 Jan 13,, 03:41

Originally Posted by cataphract

If we're looking at 1969 - 73, your scenario is very much plausible. I'm guessing India's primary focus would be the Tibetan border and any offensive into Tibet would be contingent upon the success of Soviets in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.

That just it. There were no plans of doing so. Dehli had no plans of marching into that meat grinder.

**YellowFever** · 11 Jan 13,, 04:40

I think the operative word(s) here is, "Ok, nukes have been flying"....

I can see India and Pakistan jockeying for positions and making contingency plans if the war was strictly conventional.

But if nukes were flying and continue to fly between the Soviet Bloc and NATO, most likely every other country not involved would try to look as inconspicuous as possible and bury their heads in the sand.

I would imagine the last thing India/Pakistan would want to do is piss off one side or the other, especially since both sides had nukes to spare by the thousands....

**lemontree** · 11 Jan 13,, 04:49

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

I did'nt realise that Nixon policy had such a decisive impact on relations towards India!
I guess we would have stayed "non-aligned" till the Big five had bombed the hell out of each other, then we would have bled Europe, US and the Chinese dry selling non contaminated rice and bread....Lol

**Tronic** · 11 Jan 13,, 04:50

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

So, the question is, what were the Indian and Pakistani plans? Scream at the top of their lungs, "we're non-aligned?"

Sir, India was one of the founding fathers of the non-aligned movement, and we strongly felt so. India was never so closely aligned with the Soviets as Pakistan was with the Americans. America had military bases in Pakistan since inception, yet, not a single Soviet boot was ever allowed on Indian territory. Heck, we didn't even provide the Soviets with any dedicated naval facilities for the IOR. Non-alignment has always been, and continues to be, the core guiding philosophy of Indian foreign policy. (It's also one of the reasons India continues to be vary of buying weapons from the US, as they come with many clauses and strings attached).

There was a very strong tilt towards the Soviets in the early 70s, but even that was reactionary to America's support of Pakistan, rather than on India's own accord. We were never communist enough to fight on behalf of the Soviets, and never trusted the Americans enough to tilt towards them. India was truly non-aligned.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11 Jan 13,, 05:01

Originally Posted by Tronic

India was truly non-aligned.

Yes, we know that now but the fact remained that India was considered part of the Soviet bloc. Now, whether true or not is not what I am asking. I am asking when the fan gets dirty with the fertilizer, what were Indian and Pakistani plans? Would the Indian Navy stay in port? Would the Indian Army stay in barracks?

We discussed this before, not with regards towards India, but China had absolutely no choice but to take on the Soviets if the Soviets and NATO clashed. They were next.

I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.

India was also viewed in the same vein but the natural barriers gave her some protection against the Chinese and her posture was not as threatening as Vietnam was ... and China would not be looking to open a third front if India could stay quiet ... but again, there were 4 armies in the region.

And I have not even started on Pakistan yet.

But the point is none of this is absent from view to the Indian strategic thinkers. They must have known all this. I am truly curious what they had planned out.

**cataphract** · 11 Jan 13,, 05:06

Originally Posted by Tronic

Sir, India was one of the founding fathers of the non-aligned movement, and we strongly felt so. India was never so closely aligned with the Soviets as Pakistan was with the Americans. America had military bases in Pakistan since inception, yet, not a single Soviet boot was ever allowed on Indian territory. Heck, we didn't even provide the Soviets with any dedicated naval facilities for the IOR. Non-alignment has always been, and continues to be, the core guiding philosophy of Indian foreign policy. (It's also one of the reasons India continues to be vary of buying weapons from the US, as they come with many clauses and strings attached).

There was a very strong tilt towards the Soviets in the early 70s, but even that was reactionary to America's support of Pakistan, rather than on India's own accord. We were never communist enough to fight on behalf of the Soviets, and never trusted the Americans enough to tilt towards them. India was truly non-aligned.

Tronic,
It's not a question of being communist or pro-Soviet, but one of securing India's regional interests. In 1971, flush with success in East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi would've moved against West Pakistan and then China given the opportunity. And China's fixation on their northern borders would have given her the opportunity. At the end of the day, she still would not be subordinated to the Soviets.

I imagine we would be like Finland in WWII - co-belligerents, but not allies. Well, I at least wish we were so

**cataphract** · 11 Jan 13,, 05:08

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I was thinking of what Yellar said and I have to disagree. Vietnam would have no choice but to march north. The alternative is China marching south and China would march south. They have to rid of the southern distraction before they can concentrate fully in the north.

Sir, could North Vietnam afford such a strident anti-Chinese posture in 1971, with South Vietnam still existing and American troops in their backyard? More importantly, there were Chinese troops in North Vietnam itself!