Personal Ideas About Cold Start`s Problems

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by t_co, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    Cold Start assumes the India Army can get underway into Pakistan in 24-72 hours in units of at least brigade strength. The trouble is, in order to support those brigades and protect them from a Pakistani counterattack, the Indian Army needs to project division-sized or even corps-sized forces into Pakistan, and also seize main routes of lateral movement in Pakistan.

    In order to do that, the IA needs to build up division-sized and corps-sized supply dumps along the desert south of Sindh. Those supply dumps--essentially big warehouses full of fuel and ammunition--would take months to establish and be trivial for Pakistan to locate. Even if the ISI doesn't find it themselves, the Americans, Russians, and Chinese all have spy satellites who would be able to find such a warehouse in a single pass over the region, and any one of them could give the coordinates onto the Pakistanis.

    With the coordinates, all Pakistan would have to do is find ways to hit those warehouses with conventional, or even tactical nuclear, warheads when Cold Start begins. And while it would take 24-72 hours to get a brigade into Pakistan, it would only take 15 minutes for a Pakistani ballistic missile to set off all that fuel and ammunition in the desert. Once that happens, any IA force that got into Pakistan would just run out of ammo and fuel and find itself stranded and cut off--or at the very least, waiting three to four weeks while the rest of the Indian Army mobilizes and rescues them, losing all semblance of surprise in the process.

    Ergo, Cold Start, while sounding nice, is in reality not the proper way to use the Indian Army. The concept of deep penetration and mobile battlegroups is built to achieve penetrations of strategic depth and win a complete victory, not contain the conflict at a sub-nuclear level and wring negotiated concessions.
     
  2.  
  3. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  4. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    This looks to me like its mostly plagiarized from an earlier analysis by some U.S. think tank, which I remember was dated to 2007. Not very surprising considering the author is a Pakistani. I think the only part that was actually his own contribution was the "700,000 Indian troops could not suppress Kashmiri freedom struggle" thing.

    I will find and post the earlier analysis.
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  5. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Any use of nuclear weapons by the Pakis would result in Cold Start being thrown out the window, and India reverting to the Sundarji doctrine (full-scale mobilization of all Indian strike forces, aiming for the complete dismemberment of Pakistan). I have heard other army professionals on this forum emphasize that the IA would always retain the option of reverting to this earlier doctrine, which arguably allows India to make better use of its conventional superiority.

    As for Indian supply dumps, I don't know the details of IA logistics but I doubt it would be so easy for Pakistan to disable the Indian logistical system with conventional weapons. Some more learned members can perhaps shed more light on this.


    What, in your opinion, would be the "proper" way to use the Indian Army?
     
    W.G.Ewald, jalsa and Ray like this.
  6. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    That's the point: Pakistan wants India to only be able to use the Sundarji doctrine, because that forces India to go all-out or stop altogether and makes the Indian set of options "brittle".

    Supply dumps are extremely visible and vulnerable targets, since they can't be located deep underground because trucks have to be able to quickly pull up and pick up loads of fuel, shells, and bullets, and they have to close to roads so the trucks can come and go in large numbers. The IA must devote lots of air defense and air superiority assets to defending them, which means less A/D for its battlegroups operating on Pakistani soil.

    The proper way? Shrink it to the bare minimum necessary to hold off a Pakistani invasion, because any land invasion of Pakistan runs a high risk of triggering a nuclear response. Focus on building up a large air force with a strong precision strike and stealth component, to disable Pakistani nuclear launch capabilities and command and control systems. Any negotiation with Pakistan is likely to be fruitless so long as Pakistan retains the ability to lob nukes at New Delhi and Mumbai, no matter how much territory the Indian Army ends up gobbling up, so India needs to figure out a way to take that capability out of the equation.

    Of course, this gets into the larger question of grand strategy: does India really want to weaken Pakistan? Because if India weakens but doesn't kill Pakistan, then it raises the likelihood that some jihadist detonates a nuclear bomb in Mumbai or Kolkata or Delhi. If India is going to attack Pakistan, it better go all the way.

    The alternative is to build a set of non-military levers for dealing with Pakistan. Let Pakistan grow strong, but tie its well-being to the health of India.

    For example, China and Japan are regional rivals, but China has actively helped Japan's economic stability over the past two decades. Why? This gets it leverage over Japan through Japanese exports to China, and because Japanese banks are now joined to the Chinese financial market, China can launch an attack on Japanese government bonds with its gigantic government investment fund (nearly 100x bigger than the hedge fund Soros used to bring down the English pound). The consequence? Even a man like Shinzo Abe can't do much about China's moves in Japan's backyard, since Japan depends so much on China to survive.
     
    Rage likes this.
  7. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    OK Japan depends on China for survival as per this gentleman. Should we tell the asylum that we have someone on the run? I guess this is more entertaining.
     
    W.G.Ewald and spikey360 like this.
  8. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    @OP, you assume Paki missiles are accurate enough to hit a warehouse. When have seen Babur hit anything, much less their tactical ballistic missiles? They would not waste a nuke on an ammo dump when it would be spread out over distance with many sub targets.
     
    W.G.Ewald and sayareakd like this.
  9. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Since you are a Chinese, please apply the concept of CNP and then analyse.
     
  10. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    Not sure what this has to do with Comprehensive National Power (is that what you mean here?).
     
  11. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    The problem is that ammo and fuel dumps are extremely soft targets; all it takes is one bomb falling into the wrong place to set everything off. Plus, it's unwise to assume too much incompetency from your enemies. Pakistani missiles won't be inaccurate forever.
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    That is right.

    How long do you think a total war will take to have a 'complete' victory (whatever that means)?

    What is the state of the economy to sustain the same.

    And so on and so forth.

    It is not merely two forces going on rampage.
     
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    If one located logistic nodes in just a couple of places, it would be a sure giveaway of the avenues of advance/ attack/ingress.

    It would also allow the adversary to estimate the forward, intermediary and depth objectives.

    And do you think logistic nodes will be in the show window?

    Would that be a very military way of doing things?
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2012
    W.G.Ewald and spikey360 like this.
  15. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    First, Cold Start is expressly designed to be a limited, rather than total, war, so it would not fall into the CNP category as heavily as say, a Sundarji operation would.

    Second, given that both sides have nuclear weapons, economic and cultural strength will not matter as much in a total war, because such a conflict would quickly escalate to rapid-fire emptying of both sides' nuclear arsenals on each others' cities. The old model of 10 nukes over 10 cities on both sides, producing 1% and 7% casualty rates for India and Pakistan, respectively, is outdated. Now, it is likely that Pakistan and India could dump anywhere from 50 to 90 nuclear warheads on each other's urban areas each, possibly wiping out over 100 million people. Of course, in such an exchange, Pakistan would likely cease to exist as an independent country--but India would not be in a position to pick up the pieces and profit, as 20-30% of its GDP would probably be gone, as would its richest and most developed cities. What's much more likely is that an outside power, most likely the UN, would come in and implement a DMZ between the two countries, and India wouldn't be able to do much about it (no UNSC seat, remember?).
     
  16. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    Logistic nodes won't be in the shop window to Pakistan, no. But to any nation with sufficiently advanced spy satellites--USA, Russia, China--they will be easily visible. All it takes is a simple phone call in that case.
     
  17. musalman

    musalman پاکستان زنده باد

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    905
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Lahore
  18. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    If that were the case, then would nuclear missiles be used for a limited foray?

    The timelimit of any war cannot be legislated.

    To embark on war out of pique would not be a well thought out action and would surely meet unfortunate consequences.

    CNP has to be taken into account for all policy decision, including war, total or limited is what my view is.

    CNP would encompass not only the economy and culture, quantifying the following factors:

    (1)economic performance —nominal GDP—,
    (2) social development — life expectancy—,
    (3) educational performance —international student assessment scores—,
    (4) government performance—corruption—,
    (5) energy production,
    (6) military expenditures,
    (7) arms production, and
    (8) nuclear weapons capability.

    Use of nuclear weapons is not an easy decision that any country can take. The first one to use it has, in such an eventuality, lost the war since the world will be against such a nation and may even nuke it so as to curtail the nuclear holocaust that will prevail if left unchecked.

    That is why Pakistan while flaunting her nuclear option during the Kargil War, which they were losing, was baulked into leaving it as hollow threats.

    AS far as the UN is concerned, it is paper tiger and cannot enforce anything.

    Would a logistic node have to appear as logistic nodes?
     
    Kunal Biswas likes this.
  19. Sam2012

    Sam2012 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    205
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Cold start is Indian Army doctrine , do you think they have notconsidered all the criteria of fuel , equipment & opponent counter stategy etc before going into this type of doctrine

    S i agree US , Russia & you have spy satellite . what all those were doing while pokran-2 u chinese were crying like a baby , " ask india to sign CTBT :whoo: in UN" thats all you can do

    more over if there is serious flaw in our doctrine why u & ur step sister( Pakistan) take on Indian army & finish it ?

    You better first clear issues around u taiwan , japan island issue, vietnam & Phillipines , you guys act liek super power till now u have not won an inch of land from so called disputed territory u fools:mad::taunt:
     
    spikey360 likes this.
  20. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,563
    Likes Received:
    28,311
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    There are 'fundamental' flaws in your assessment ..

    1. You lacked realistic insight into the matter..
    2. You lacked basic history knowledge on the Subject..
    3. You lacked technical knowledge about what you talk..


    1. You Skipped the first part of Cold Start and most Important is the Massive Precision Attack Campaign and Air Supremacy before the actual Ground Units moved in, The targets include important tactical infrastructure, tool and Personal, Enemy C4I, Immobilize enemy ability to response and counter, the rest of your assessment is almost useless after this point, further An Advancing Moving forces is always covered with layers of Air & Missiles Defense system and its important elements are always protected, India have tactical BMD such as S-300PMU2 for its Offensive strike forces also planning to get Iron dome and licensed produce them to protect vital installations, Guess you never knew..

    2. Its silly to even assume huge tactical supply are open warehouse, Sorry in reality they are not, For Historic input Satellites are useless and can be jammed and India did this with US satellites already, Again its silly to say that Warehouse may or will be targeted by Nukes, Nukes are very important assets there use is limited and decisive & are not spend on imaginary warehouse, PA is Stupid but not total retard as you say, further a Liquid IRBM need to strike need 6-12 hours for readiness not mins, This is the reality not like your assessment sound like Comic to most here..


    3. Your Assessment is a not honesty, You have skipped major points & included comical ideas to pass your opinion..


     
  21. trackwhack

    trackwhack Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    They think flying single prop gliders nearby and fishing boats are enough to prove that they are big daddy. We are digging for oil in their 'sovereign' space
     

Share This Page