Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Frankly! WHAT WAS SOUTH ASIA'S WWIII SCENARIO?

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

  • #91
    I am wondering now. What if India had sided with the Soviet's .. Would India have become a Communist by now ? How would have that affected the current playing field ?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Noted. But this just confirms why the GOI still does not trust the US Govt.
      The US tried to be allies with India, but India started the NAM with a very anti-western bias at its core.


      What was the level of popping that was considered?


      What would have been the consequences of such a demonstration?....was that ever considered?
      I borrowed the idea mainly from Sir Hackett. Was it every really considered? I don't know, but a former NATO general in his writings had the Soviets pop Birmingham, and NATO respond by hitting Minsk. This implies a reflection of discussions he had with his peers on the subject. I am just extrapolating, I was just a tanker not a policy maker.

      The obvious target is one or more of the 5 or 6 naval bases in the Mumbai area. Probably with one or more B61 sub megaton free fall bombs. Combined with conventional attacks on Indian air and naval assets. Like I said earlier, the US will have between 9-11 carriers to use globally, with the primary missions being the safeguarding of the Atlantic and the defeat or containment of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. However there should still be at least 1 more likely 2 carriers for use in the Indian ocean to take on the Soviet 8th Squadron. There could be three, if a pacific carrier is hustling East but I consider this unlikely. Nuclear or conventional in a WWIII confrontation between the US and India, the US might well be able to launch a 100-120 plane alpha strike. However this is probably the limit of US power projection except for B-52's out of Guam and DG which will probably have other taskings.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by hammer View Post
        India was not even expecting to be considered a threat to the Americans much less a nuclear target. It did not host any foreign military force. No nuclear umbrella from either side. It was also fighting its own armed communist guerrilla movement. How much more visible could it get ?
        It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

        Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

        The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

          Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

          The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.
          I just want to understand on what you said.

          1. Pakistan was an ally of US at the time.
          2. India and Pakistan were not in good terms esp after the 1971 war.
          3. US aids and helps Pakistan with all sorts of things from intelligence to aircrafts.
          4. Now US thinks for India to be neutral they have to buy from USA or from one of it's allies , otherwise it would consider India as siding with USSR ?
          5. Also Indian leaders have condemned what was done in Afganistan by Soviets at the time as per previous posters and still US considers India is not neutral.

          Sorry but it just doesn't add up or there is some X factor missing which made the American's think India was an ally of Soviets.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by commander View Post
            I just want to understand on what you said.

            1. Pakistan was an ally of US at the time.
            2. India and Pakistan were not in good terms esp after the 1971 war.
            3. US aids and helps Pakistan with all sorts of things from intelligence to aircrafts.
            4. Now US thinks for India to be neutral they have to buy from USA or from one of it's allies , otherwise it would consider India as siding with USSR ?
            5. Also Indian leaders have condemned what was done in Afganistan by Soviets at the time as per previous posters and still US considers India is not neutral.

            Sorry but it just doesn't add up or there is some X factor missing which made the American's think India was an ally of Soviets.
            Yup X factor, US black and white view of the Cold War World. It was one sided, unfair but rational given the circumstances.

            Comment


            • #96
              It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?

                Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.

                The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.
                India only operated the reconnaissance variant (Mig-25R). And very few of those too. India did not have spy satellites. So how were we supposed to spy on Pakistan without our aircraft getting shot down? The Mig-25's speed and altitude provided that option. And we both know that as far as its use as an interceptor was concerned, the Mig-25 wasn't really all it was earlier thought to be by the west.

                As, for the Tu-142's, they were the Indian Navy's only maritime reconnaissance aircraft till the smaller Il-38's came. They were bought because of a need for better ASW capabilities in the IN. To say that these few platforms were bought with an eye on an adversary besides China and Pakistan is ridiculous. If that was the case, they would have been bought in a much larger number, and a different configuration.

                As for India buying soviet hardware, we bought western hardware as well. In 65 and 71, India used Centurion tanks along with Hawker Hunters, Dassault Mysteres, Folland Gnats and EE Canberras. We bought the Jaguar (after the Brits refused the Tornado) and Mirage 2000 in the late 70's and early 80's respectively and Bofors artillery guns in the late 80's. Our soldiers all used locally produced versions of the FN-FAL. In fact, this alone should have given more than significant hints on India's neutrality. Which other country bought both Soviet and Western hardware in such amounts?
                Last edited by Firestorm; 17 Jan 13,, 20:08.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                  It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?
                  In the context of an actual WWIII, yes.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                    India only operated the reconnaissance variant (Mig-25R). And very few of those too. India did not have spy satellites. So how were we supposed to spy on Pakistan without our aircraft getting shot down? The Mig-25's speed and altitude provided that option. And we both know that as far as its use as an interceptor was concerned, the Mig-25 wasn't really all it was earlier thought to be by the west.
                    How did Pakistan spy on you? And no, its abilities as an interceptor were never in doubt. What was revealed was its lackings in the air superiority department. Ask yourself why the US might be nervous about Mig-25's in the Indian Ocean. What US platform did they pose a threat to?

                    As, for the Tu-142's, they were the Indian Navy's only maritime reconnaissance aircraft till the smaller Il-38's came. They were bought because of a need for better ASW capabilities in the IN. To say that these few platforms were bought with an eye on an adversary besides China and Pakistan is ridiculous. If that was the case, they would have been bought in a much larger number, and a different configuration.
                    Pakistan had 2 submarines with littoral missions. Chinese boats were clones of Soviet derivatives of the German WWII era Type XXI. The only other blue water navy in the IO besides the IN was the USN. Those TU-142's could very easily provide soviet missile subs with targeting data on US carrier groups.

                    As for India buying soviet hardware, we bought western hardware as well. In 65 and 71, India used Centurion tanks along with Hawker Hunters, Dassault Mysteres, Folland Gnats and EE Canberras. We bought the Jaguar (after the Brits refused the Tornado) and Mirage 2000 in the late 70's and early 80's respectively and Bofors artillery guns in the late 80's. Our soldiers all used locally produced versions of the FN-FAL. In fact, this alone should have given more than significant hints on India's neutrality. Which other country bought both Soviet and Western hardware in such amounts?
                    Iraq...

                    What other non-ally did the Soviets sell such tech to? Even Iraq and Syria didn't get Bears, and Iraq's T-72's were monkey versions, not fully capable. India right or wrong was perceived to be a Soviet ally and had the capability to hurt the US if that perception was right and ignored. Better to smash India's ability to stab the US or its allies in the back, than get stabbed in the back. Realpolitik...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                      It's post-Vietnam US. Would the public opinion in America put up with bombing another third world country? Right after Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Would the Carter administration approve such an operation?
                      Outside military circles, I beleive the public opinion of India was relatively favorable in that period. There was considerable Indian influence in popular music, many musical groups and artists made connections to Indian spirituality in the 1960's and 70's as well as many churches in the US (my family's church included), and India was frequently perceived as an ancient and noble culture by the US public in the 1970's. There would probably have been public protests against attacks on India, particularly right after Vietnam. However in a nuclear exchange with the US recieving nukes, and the media telling us that the Soviets (who presumably had nuked the US) were allied with India - I suppose everything would have been very different - its mind wrenching to imagine the horror of such a conflict. The first 1974 Indian nuclear testing would have weighed in the mix too, I'm not sure when the public became aware that India had successfuly tested a nuclear device, but they probably didn't have a credible weapon for years after the first test, and the US and her allies (besides Pakistan) were certainly well out of reach...
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        The US tried to be allies with India, but India started the NAM with a very anti-western bias at its core.
                        That doesn't make them allies of the Soviets either. NAM was a mixed bag and eventually split into it's own camps.

                        Tito was more anti-Soviet at that time, than he was anti-West. Under Nehru, India had the best relations with the US during the entirety of the CW. Sukarno played off both the Soviets and the Americans and elicited billions of dollars of aid from both countries. Nasser cracked down against both the Islamists and the Communists, though his socialist policies and pan-Arabism put him at odds with the US. Nkrumah led impoverished Ghana out of colonialism and it was his anti-imperialist and pro-African stance which made him at loggerheads against the West.

                        At one end, Nehru went to war against China and tied up with the CIA to track China's nuclear weapons, while on the other, Sukarno cozied up with the Chinese and elicited their support.

                        NAM may have been at odds with a lot of American policies, but it can hardly be described as one working political entity.


                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        It used Soviet tanks, jets, bombers, had nuclear weapons, lead a primarily anti-western bloc of nations. In the time period we are talking, the Soviets are actively courting the Indians. I don't know when talks began but by 1986 the Indians would be operating the Tu-142 Bear strategic bomber. Indian pilots and crews are already training on the Mig 25 which will enter service in 1981. Why exactly was India interested in strategic platforms?
                        India used predominantly British and French tanks, jets and bombers until 1965. It was sanctioned during that war, which resulted in its military coming to a grinding halt. After which, India started its indigenous weapons industry while importing from the Soviets, who promised an uninterrupted steady supply of spares, coupled with the political benefit of keeping in check Pakistan's allies, the US and China. Regardless, a significant portion of India's weapons continued to be sourced from the English and the French post-'65 (Gnat M2s, Mirages, Harriers, Jaguars, Centurians, Sea Hawks).

                        Yes the version of the bear they got was set up for patrol not penetration but lets be honest, its still a strategic platform capable of reaching anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Likewise, why Mig-25's? Neither Pakistan or China had anything that could remotely indicate the need for an interceptor like the Mig-25.
                        It's ridiculous to assert that India would buy a maritime reconnaissance aircraft to use as a strategic bomber. As if it was devoid of all other options.

                        India's Mig-25s were also not interceptor aircraft but the Mig-25R variants, i.e., reconnaissance/spy planes. They regularly flew over Pakistan, out of reach from Pakistan's AD systems, and conducted recon sorties. They were replaced by satellites. Again, it's completely misleading to call them interceptor aircraft.


                        The US' had some solid evidence to back up its views as biased as they might have been. They did not occur in a vacuum.
                        You surely haven't presented them as of yet.
                        Last edited by Tronic; 17 Jan 13,, 22:55.
                        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                          You surely haven't presented them as of yet.
                          Re-read what I actually wrote in the last post please.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            How did Pakistan spy on you? And no, its abilities as an interceptor were never in doubt. What was revealed was its lackings in the air superiority department. Ask yourself why the US might be nervous about Mig-25's in the Indian Ocean. What US platform did they pose a threat to?



                            Pakistan had 2 submarines with littoral missions. Chinese boats were clones of Soviet derivatives of the German WWII era Type XXI. The only other blue water navy in the IO besides the IN was the USN. Those TU-142's could very easily provide soviet missile subs with targeting data on US carrier groups.



                            Iraq...

                            What other non-ally did the Soviets sell such tech to? Even Iraq and Syria didn't get Bears, and Iraq's T-72's were monkey versions, not fully capable. India right or wrong was perceived to be a Soviet ally and had the capability to hurt the US if that perception was right and ignored. Better to smash India's ability to stab the US or its allies in the back, than get stabbed in the back. Realpolitik...
                            What you are basically saying here, is that just because India operated a few (very few) Soviet built weapon systems that could theoretically be modified to help them against US conventional forces in a region far away from the main battleground of Europe, US strategic planners would have seriously considered pre-emptively nuking India. If you guys really thought like this, then I am astounded. I do not blame Indian strategic planners of the era of not expecting this. Nobody in their right mind would. Perhaps the Soviets were more right than even they knew when they called you reckless cowboys.

                            I also think that this opinion about a danger from India must have taken root post 1971. Nixon and Kissinger did a real number on the perception of India in US strategic circles. I don't think it ever fully recovered.

                            P.S: Regarding the Foxbats and Bears, India only operated a grand total of 8 of each of which all the Foxbats are now Museum pieces.
                            Last edited by Firestorm; 17 Jan 13,, 23:31.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              Re-read what I actually wrote in the last post please.
                              I did. I don't see any "solid evidence". It's all one sided black and white paranoia.
                              Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                              -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                                What you are basically saying here, is that just because India operated a few (very few) Soviet built weapon systems that could theoretically be modified to help them against US conventional forces in a region far away from the main battleground of Europe, US strategic planners would have seriously considered pre-emptively nuking India. If you guys really thought like this, then I am astounded. I do not blame Indian strategic planners of the era of not expecting this. Nobody in their right mind would. Perhaps the Soviets were more right than even they knew when they called you reckless cowboys.
                                Come on, own the rest of it, it was more than a few weapons systems, it was a host of reasons that when viewed through the colored lenses of the Cold War made India look like a Soviet ally or potential ally. In this thread there are Indians who claim India would have brought out the knives to get some of Pakistan and China- US allies against the Soviets. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the friend of mine enemy is mine enemy also.

                                I also think that this opinion about a danger from India must have taken root post 1971. Nixon and Kissinger did a real number on the perception of India in US strategic circles. I don't think it ever fully recovered.
                                More than just 1971, though that is the seed of the break. NAM plays a much bigger role as does the development of nuclear arms and the existence of the Indian Navy. Neither Pakistan nor China had a blue water navy, India lacked a large robust merchant marine, why exactly did India need a blue water navy? Why exactly did India need a nuke?

                                I don't really care about your answers from an Indian POV, its the what-ifs from the American POV that the US has to plan for that matter. I think that is what you are missing, try looking at it from an American cold war POV that paints everyone outside of NATO or ABCA as a potential hostile. Truth is grey and uncertain, only possibilities are real and concrete. You don't plan for truth, you plan for possibilities.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X