If the Indian Army had to start a war with Pakistan

[Yusuf]

After three major wars it started and got thrashed in, Pakistan realized that it cannot beat India. It them took to terrorism and then waged a fourth war in a new format using limited incursions.

Pakistan realizing that it will never win a war with India may not attempt to launch a pre-emptive attack on India again. But it will continue to use terror and may be another Kargil style attack if at all.

Indian Army has always been the defender. Even against China our position is defensive while the Chinese build their forces aggressively against us.

But in the Pakistani context, does the Indian army have any ORBAT ready for being the aggressor for a change?
What will the objective of the war be? We know that the Cold Start doctrine has been around now for half a dozen years or more. But has the army been provided with political objectives that it can couple with military goals and have a plan ready for Pakistan. I am very sure that the next war with Pakistan, a full scale war that is will have to be launched by India to protect its own interests.

 

[Known_Unknown]

The Indian Army will be ready and willing (even if not able) to fight the ultimate war of attrition and annihilation with Pakistan. However, the question, will the Indian political leadership be ready?

India has been let down time and time again by its political leaders, not by its armed forces. Until India has a strong polity which is not willing to concede the strategic interests of India, the country will forever remain a backwater third world country incapable of global leadership.

The first and foremost task of Indian leaders should be the reduction in the number of political parties from 50 or 100 down to max of 3 or 4 at the national level. Until the country is united, there can be no progress, and until there are tens or hundreds of parties, the country will never be united.

 

[Yusuf]

This thread is not to consider the political leadership and its mindset.

Let us assume that the mandate has been given by the political class to the army.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Are we also assuming that Pakistan will just allow the IA to wreak havoc without resorting to nukes? If the Pakis are reasonably sure that the IA is moving on Lahore or blockading Karachi, they will unleash their nukes.

The military contest has already been lost by India (in the sense that if it had acted earlier, it could have prevented the Pakis from acquiring nukes in the first place). It's a stalemate, there will be no full scale invasion of Pak unless we're prepared to take massive civilian casualties and plan the destruction of our own economy.

EDIT: Of course, if we're not talking about a full scale invasion of Pakistan, but merely adhering to the Cold Start doctrine, then the IA is not militarily prepared for such an operation according to it's own studies. Even if we assume that it is ready, Cold Start will be no different than earlier wars in that the objective of the IA will be to bite off chunks of Paki land (of course, the Pakis would try to bite off chunks of Indian land), and after a few weeks, sue for peace.

 

[hit&run]

There is no point waging a war against Pakistan if we have no plans to disband Pakistan army like USA did after 2003 invasion of Iraq, establishing a new Government and defang their nuclear deterrence capabilities once for all.

Surgical strikes is a fancy outlandish option and Cold start doctrine is rather a defensive gamble if successful causing limited and temporary losses to Pakistan which will be lost in translation of propaganda during the course of time then after.

What we are doing now is the best we can do i.e. keep cutting the nails as they grow (borrowed form another poster at WAB), but to become more effective everyday in doing the same.

Only effective rational to nurture both theories should be; for Surgical strikes by not declaring it in open but being covert, clandestine and persistent, for Cold start it must be followed by a massive invasion.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There are many questions that Indian army/politicians will have to deal with:

What can be an acceptable premise to sell to the world for the war?(Especially when
we showed the world than even Mumbai terror 26/11 could not trigger a war)

Will it be a real war or like the previous wars where we leave everything incomplete,
return territory and start a lovefest with pak?

At what point would Pakistan pull the nuclear trigger? Since the dream of the
whole country is to go down in flames.

Going back to the point above would it be better to launch a first pre-emptive strike
yes a nuclear strike? Would an effort to take out Pakistani nukes be made? Since
nothing has ever been done to prevent them acquiring nuke even refusing Israel's
offer to take them out.

How much Collateral damage is India willing to accept? 1 -2 cities 10 cites? Should we
wait and attack after we have BMD in place and full faith it will work?

What should our retailiatory weapons be? AGNI'S,Prithvis, Nuclear capable cruise missiles
we will have 3.

what should our pre empetive nuclear strike weapons be? IMO it should be Neutron and/or
hydrogen bombs. We are rumored to have but always remained silent about them.

should we do this alone or work with other nations with the same interests?

 

[ani82v]

I don't think it would be easy to assess the difficulties given the fact that IA will not up against just Puki Army but also against the armed militia. We don't know what will be their strength but we do know that we have to have an urban warfare in the hostile public environment.

If at all IA invades Pakistan, it would be the full and final and with the possibility of all kind of fall outs with enormous implications.

 

[Bhadra]

@yususf and others

Two Basic Presumptions.

A war has be waged with a clear cut political and tangible aims.
War as a means of achieving an aim will be resorted to if other means have failed.

In Indo Pak context

1947 - Pakistan started war - Aim - annexation of J&K - Result Failed. End result - Status quo.
1965 - Pakistan started war - Aim - annexation of J&K - Result Failed. End Result - Status quo.
1971 - India started War - aim Liberation of Bangladesh _ result - India succeeded . End- Pakistan bifurcated.
1984-86 India premepted Pakistan and occupied Siachin. End Pakistan denied strategic advantage.
1999 - Pakistan intruded in Kargil - aim to pressurise India to vacate Siachin and internalise the issue of J&K - Failed. End result - status quo.

For a futuristic war which IA has to wage on Pakistan:

What will be the political aims. That is, what the country want to achieve vis a vis Pakistan?
Secondly, how will that be achieved militarily (for example by capture of territory or by destruction of Pakistani army or forcing Pakistan to sign on and deliver on a treaty, by dividing Pakistan, etc ect)


You clearly spell on the last part : What are the Political aims and objectives of India with respect to Pakistan (say for example, for USA, thei poltical aim can be de- nuclearisation of Pakistan so also that of India)

So first thing first ! Can any one spell that out.

 

[ani82v]

@yususf

Two Basic Presumptions.

A war has be waged with a clear cut political and tangible aims.
War as a means of achieving an aim will be resorted to if other means have failed.

In Indo Pak context

1947 - Pakistan started war - Aim - annexation of J&K - Result Failed. End result - Status quo.
1965 - Pakistan started war - Aim - annexation of J&K - Result Failed. End Result - Status quo.
1971 - India started War - aim Liberation of Bangladesh _ result - India succeeded . End- Pakistan bifurcated.
1984-86 India premepted Pakistan and occupied Siachin. End Pakistan denied strategic advantage.
1999 - Pakistan intruded in Kargil - aim to pressurise India to vacate Siachin - Failed. End result - status quo.

For a futuristic war which IA has to wage on Pakistan:

What will be the political aims. That is, what the country want to achieve vis a vis Pakistan?
Secondly, how will that be achieved militarily (for example by capture of territory or by destruction of Pakistani army or forcing Pakistan to sign on and deliver on a treaty, by dividing Pakistan, etc ect)


You clearly spell on the last part : What are the Political aims and objectives of India with respect to Pakistan (say for example, for USA it can be de- nuclearisation of Pakistan )

So first thing first ! Can any one spell that out.

Lets suppose the aim is to punish Pakistan after series of terror attacks in lets assume Bangalore (target: IT centers, defense R&D centers) with massive casualties. All the preliminary evidence leads to Puki and the newly elected Govt there obfuscates any requests of action against terrorists. Indian Govt decides to go to war because previous requests to Puki to resolve it peacefully has failed miserably. The basic idea would be to have a military invasion as a response to terror strike. This will raise their cost of terror attacks for them in future. The Govt would be ready to go to all out war because Pak has been bluffing about it after every terror strike.

The aim would be then to capture the terrorists there and destroy the military and militia training infrastructure.

Lets Yusuf add some more.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Lets suppose the aim is to punish Pakistan after series of terror attacks in lets assume Bangalore (target: IT centers, defense R&D centers) with massive casualties. All the preliminary evidence leads to Puki and the newly elected Govt there obfuscates any requests of action against terrorists. Indian Govt decides to go to war because previous requests to Puki to resolve it peacefully has failed miserably. The basic idea would be to have a military invasion as a response to terror strike. This will raise their cost of terror attacks for them in future. The Govt would be ready to go to all out war because Pak has been bluffing about it after every terror strike.

The aim would be then to capture the terrorists there and destroy the military and militia training infrastructure.

Lets Yusuf add some more.

why would we act when we did not act during mumbai? Pakistan will say terrorists launched the nukes
and indian govt spineless nature may accept it.

 

[Bhadra]

Before one attepts an answer on the above question; study of following will be useful:
[video]http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/PolMilObjModelLGX05.pps#334,23,Slide 23[/video]

[video]http://www.clausewitz.com/Flash/FLVs/BlackKnight.htm[/video]

 

[ani82v]

why would we act when we did not act during mumbai? Pakistan will say terrorists launched the nukes
and indian govt spineless nature may accept it.

Because using peaceful methods during Mumbai failed and hence aggressive response is sought. And Cong is not in Govt. Assume politically, its a go ahead.

 

[Bhadra]

Punishment is a means and not aim. Well you could say that lauch a militry camapaign to Punish Pakistan with a view that it is deterred from launching terrorist strikes.

Will that be Ok ??

And please stay on the topic !

 

[Bhadra]

And secondly, One must understand what constitutes punishment in a perticular environment and set of situation.
Was Occupation of Siachin a punishment?
Was Kargil operation a punishment?
Was 1971 operation a punishment? Has Pakistan been deterred due to that?

Well punishment must be something that results in attainment of aim!!

So coming back again - Define political aim. Then we will talk about other things .

 

[Yusuf]

No I don't want the next war, launched by india to be just a punishment or teach a lesson kind like what china attempted on India.

I really don't know I our political leadership has even given a passing thought at considering this possibility and formulating any plans. Lack of strategic foresight.

The basic premise has to be understood that no matter what, there can be no peace with Pakistan. The relations are NOT salvageable even if Kashmir is handed on a platter to them. The current kind of warfare imposed on us by Pakistan, terror and low intensity conflicts will continue even after a "settlement" on Kashmir. They will come up with new excuses and blame on non state actors.

One of the political aims India should have is to break up Pakistan. Baloch and Sindh has to go separate. That will make Pakistan land locked and at a huge disadvantage and potentially crippled. Add to that reclaiming strategic areas of ours held by them, Gilgit Baltistan.

Primary threat will be of Pakistani nukes. There are two points to think about on this.

1) can we negate the threat of Pakistsn striking us with nukes.
a) take them out in the initial phase of the war. It does not have to a be a nuclear first strike from us to take them out.
b) have a credible missile defence in place so that anything that escaped out strike, can be countered.

2) Acceptable (well nothing is when it comes to loss, still) damage we are willing to take in case Pakistan still manages to strike us with nukes.


Diplomatically and militarily, will we be able to convince bigger and other powers to join hands with us to denuke and dismember Pakistan, more so the Denuking part than dismember which india can achieve alone as well. Will our political class realize this and sell this concept to relevant world powers so that they assist/stay quiet while we go about our business?

 

[pankaj nema]

Right Now TWO things are Happening

Pakistan is withering away in a slow meltdown due to the TOXIC religious
cesspool that they have created PLUS a dysfunctional economy which has led to
the further growth of all sorts of mafias who are fighting each other
such as what we see in Karachi

Secondly Indian armed forces are focussed on China and WITHOUT having a two front capability
It would be foolish to attack Pakistan Because it would give China a perfect oppurtunity
to hurt India and China would definitely intervene

Once we have a two front capability China would throw the Pakis aside

 

[Bhadra]

The basic premise has to be understood that no matter what, there can be no peace with Pakistan. The relations are NOT salvageable even if Kashmir is handed on a platter to them. The current kind of warfare imposed on us by Pakistan, terror and low intensity conflicts will continue even after a "settlement" on Kashmir. They will come up with new excuses and blame on non state actors.

One of the political aims India should have is to break up Pakistan. Baloch and Sindh has to go separate. That will make Pakistan land locked and at a huge disadvantage and potentially crippled. Add to that reclaiming strategic areas of ours held by them, Gilgit Baltistan.

Primary threat will be of Pakistani nukes. There are two points to think about on this.

1) can we negate the threat of Pakistsn striking us with nukes.
a) take them out in the initial phase of the war. It does not have to a be a nuclear first strike from us to take them out.
b) have a credible missile defence in place so that anything that escaped out strike, can be countered.

2) Acceptable (well nothing is when it comes to loss, still) damage we are willing to take in case Pakistan still manages to strike us with nukes.


Diplomatically and militarily, will we be able to convince bigger and other powers to join hands with us to denuke and dismember Pakistan, more so the Denuking part than dismember which india can achieve alone as well. Will our political class realize this and sell this concept to relevant world powers so that they assist/stay quiet while we go about our business?

Pardon me, very confused thoughts at best.

The very basic premise of diplomacy is that two neighbouring countries can be at peace with each other. Otherwise the world would have been at the state of war "nasty, beast, brutal and jungalee" and what Rousseau called in Nautural state each at war with the other. But human have demonstrated that in spite of competition, they can leave at peace with each other.
The aim of the war is always to bring peace and not create unlivable conditions for existence.

Breaking up Pakistan is a means and not an aim. Break up Pakistan to attain what? ( for exapmle, in 1971, Indians once for all, finished Pakistani capacity to attack India from two fronts thereby crippled her military capacity to attack India)

Answer that India will achieve by breaking Pakistan ! That will lead you to find political aim. Being together, why is Pakistan dangerous? After it breaks up what changes will occur that will not effect Indian national interests?

Hint: Is not Indian internal security threatened by Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka Myanmar etc? How is India managing that? Why is same not possible with respect of Pakistan?

 

[pankaj nema]

Pakistan is going own on its own So why should we disturb some one who is
bent upon committing suicide

The threat to India from Pakstan comes from the fact that what MISADVENTURE will the Paki " Jernails "
embark upon when they see that their country is now finished

 

[Yusuf]

Pardon me, very confused thoughts at best.

The very basic premise of diplomacy is that two neighbourliness countries can be at peace with each other. Otherwise the world would have been at the state of war "nasty, beast, brutal and jungalee" and what Rousseau called in Nautural state each at war with the other. But human have demonstrated that in spite of competition, they can leave at peace with each other.
The aim of the war is always to bring peace and not create unlivable conditions for existence.

Braking up Pakistan is a means and not an aim. Break up Pakistan to attain what?

Answer that !

Peace.

A denuked land locked PakJabistan cut out from china will not be a threat. PA completely degraded and may be if the local punjabi population actually grew a brain, they would hold the PA to task. By extension, ISI too could be disbanded.

 

[sayareakd]

First question we need to ask is our military has capability to attack pakistan to get decesive win?

All the three services have their own short coming. We have to prepare for at least year to win war. It should be time of our choice, etc lots of considrations, plus last but not least Pakistan nuclear blackmail.