Personal Ideas About Cold Start`s Problems

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
in CSD our forces have to cross border within 24 hour after getting orders. This has been practised number of time.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Another article from Indian point of view by Colonel Ali Ahmed

Making Sense of 'Nasr'


News reports have it that Pakistan has successfully conducted a test of a surface-to-surface short range Hatf IX (Nasr), described as a multi-tube ballistic missile with a 'shoot and scoot' capability. The statement of the Director-General of the Strategic Plans Division, Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, that the flight consolidated Pakistan's strategic deterrence capability at all levels of the threat spectrum indicates that Nasr is nuclear capable.

To Pakistani analyst, Dr. Shireen Mazari, 'It (Nasr) will act as a deterrent against use of mechanised conventional land forces. This was essential in the wake of India's adventurist war-fighting doctrine formulations, which envisaged the use of rapid deployment of armed brigades and divisions in surprise and rapid attacks.' She believes, 'Indian dreams of a limited war against Pakistan through its Cold Start strategy have been laid to rest. This will allow for a reassertion of a stable nuclear deterrence in the region.' This article analyses if Dr. Mazari is right.

Pakistan is the weaker side in the India-Pakistan dyad. Recognising this structural factor, its military, which also runs the state, has been constantly innovative in addressing what it perceives as an asymmetry. It has resorted to external balancing in renting out its strategic location for geopolitical use by external powers. It has forged a close relationship with China to balance India and help China in its strategic purposes in relation to India. For over quarter of a century, it has tried to gain 'depth', forward of its defences, by rendering rear area security problematic for Indian forces through its proxy war. It has attempted internal balancing by reportedly training five lakh irregulars for making India's stabilisation operations untenable, even at the risk and cost of the backlash it is currently enduring. This explains the utilisation of the development of Nasr for purposes beyond merely doctrinal.

Further, Pakistan employs information operations interestingly and to some effect. For instance, it claims to have equalised India's number of nuclear tests at Chagai and insists that these give a variegated capability. It periodically claims success of missile tests from the point of view of deterrence signalling. The Nasr test, for instance, coincided with the launch of corps level Indian military manoeuvres, Exercise Vijayi Bhav, in the Rajasthan deserts. Pakistan's nuclear related rhetoric is also designed to increase the salience of the nuclear overhang and addresses multiple audiences, in particular the US. Its prosecution of operations against the Taliban in FATA and Khyber Pakhtoonwa province has been marked by much sound and fury, particularly with respect to the displacement of people. Its deployment of nationalist strategic analysts to inform, rationalise, legitimise and influence has been proactive. All these resulted in a former US president once famously mistaking South Asia to be the most 'dangerous' place in the world!

This creditable record of information warfare requires to appropriately condition analyses of developments like that of the Nasr. Nasr's flight test had both Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai and Dr. Shireen Mazari giving their opinions. This clearly indicates that even if Nasr is a forbidding reality by itself, the same needs underlining and highlighting for effect. Multiple aims are thus achieved. The purported aim is deterrence, which explains the timing to coincide with the Indian exercise. It could also be to get the US focus back on the eastern front in terms of making the admittedly delicate balance seem untenably unstable, in light of US keenness to get the Pakistani Army take on the Taliban in North Waziristan.

That said, taking Nasr seriously at face-value helps arrive at its actual significance. The development of Nasr indicates that Pakistan views India's Cold Start doctrine with concern. The Nasr is meant to deter India's launch of Cold Start. Since Nasr is reportedly nuclear capable, short range and light weight, it could imply the use of tactical nuclear weapons were such a conflict to occur. Fearing a lower nuclear threshold, implied by availability of tactical nuclear weapons, India may be deterred from embarking on Cold Start. This would enable Pakistan to recreate the space it once had for continuing its prosecution of proxy war - a space that has been constricted by India's formulation of a Cold Start doctrine, even though all the components of the doctrine such as weapons acquisitions, relocation of formations and change to a manoeuvre war culture are not yet entirely in place.

It has been assessed that Pakistani reliance on its nuclear cover would increase with India's increasing felicity with Limited War doctrine. Pakistan is reportedly ahead of India in numbers of nuclear warheads and in a more variegated missile delivery capability. This, to one analyst, spells a strategy of 'asymmetric escalation'. In the Pakistani logic, nuclear deterrence is also to operate at the conventional level. Nasr, to Dr. Mazari, makes for deterrence stability since it helps strengthen this dimension of nuclear stability. Dr. Mazari is right on deterrence stability, but gets her reason wrong - the reference to Cold Start being anachronistic.

India's Army Chief has indicated that no such doctrine exists. It appears that the Indian military is looking to respond to subconventional provocations at the same level. This may be in the form of surgical strikes, Special Forces operations, border skirmishes, activation of the Line of Control, select punitive operations, etc. The Indian intent will be to convey a message of resolve as well as to punish and cause selective attrition. And the aim would be to address Pakistani cost-benefit calculations in such a manner as to coerce Pakistan into limiting its provocation below India's 'level of tolerance'. Such a course of action by India has internal political utility in letting off steam in terms of 'something' being done. It is also decidedly less expensive, preserving India's grand strategy of economic rise from being unnecessarily buffeted.

The Indian move away from a default resort to Limited War places the onus of escalation on Pakistan. India's conventional capability is to ensure that Pakistani reaction to such subconventional retribution is non-escalatory. Should Pakistan try to respond with conventional action, that would provoke a 'Cold Start' by India. Pakistan would thus be placed a second time round in a position of decision to escalate, this time by using Nasr. The prospects of Pakistan's self-deterrence under such circumstances are higher. In the event, Pakistan will be forced to react defensively to India's 'contingency' operations.

In case push comes to shove and Pakistan does resort to the use of Nasr, then this would more likely be on its own territory, rather than provocatively on Indian launch pads close to the border. India's promised retaliation may not then necessarily be along the lines of its nuclear doctrine of 'massive' punitive retaliation (strategy having the privilege of departing from doctrine). The net result would be further nuclear impact(s) on Pakistani territory.

In other words, stability reigns not due to India being deterred, but Pakistan being self-deterred. Accountability for initiating both the conflict and a possible nuclear conflict would rest with the Pakistani military. The aftermath would surely find it decisively pushed off its commanding perch in Pakistan by an angered people.

In rethinking Cold Start as a default option and working towards proactive 'contingency' options, India is a step ahead in doctrinal shadow boxing. It appears to be playing by Schelling's concept of Limited War as a 'bargaining' process:

'It is in wars that we have come to call 'limited wars' that the bargaining appears most vividly and is conducted most consciously. The critical targets in such a war are the mind of the enemy"¦the threat of violence in reserve is more important than the commitment of force in the field"¦ And, like any bargaining situation, a restrained war involves some degree of collaboration between adversaries.' (Schelling, Arms and Influence (1966).
The challenge in South Asia is to ensure that the contest remains at the doctrinal level. Keeping it so entails getting into a doctrinal dialogue with Pakistan so that the 'collaboration', mentioned by Schelling, can be from a mutually intelligible script.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,589
If Pakistan hasn't launched yet, and India makes pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Pakistan on top of mobilizing for a surprise ground invasion of Pakistan, India would have won the battle, but lost the war--India would be as ostracized as North Korea and its rise would be impossibly curtailed. Rage, WG Ewald, or any other US poster would no doubt agree.
The world would thank us for cleaning up the mess that the West created and China covertly supplied.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
The world would thank us for cleaning up the mess that the West created and China covertly supplied.
The entire world will thank us and chinese will be made to look like an ostricth with their heads buried in sand. I f I was in charge of RAW today, I wud create massive problems for chinese in Tibet till they learn the hard language of terrorism.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
The world would thank us for cleaning up the mess that the West created and China covertly supplied.
Rage, Ewald, what do you guys think? Indian pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Pakistan on top of a surprise ground invasion. Would America support such a move?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
If Pakistan hasn't launched yet, and India makes pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Pakistan on top of mobilizing for a surprise ground invasion of Pakistan, India would have won the battle, but lost the war--India would be as ostracized as North Korea and its rise would be impossibly curtailed. Rage, WG Ewald, or any other US poster would no doubt agree.
You must know the "I'm sure you would agree that...." gambit is not legitimate debate.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
For a moment I thought the thread was about when the Car won't start in the winter mornings :troll: ..
Sorry
Anyway, I believe that the most potent threat to a cold start comes not from military infrastructure or doctrinal faults .. but from the Administration arena .. the GOI and its snail instincts at work.
Having the best hardware and doctrines is all lab work. If we don't get permissions and decision done on time at the top .. there is no head start.
If there is no head start, there is no cold start.

Regards,
Virendra
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
You must know the "I'm sure you would agree that...." gambit is not legitimate debate.
Agreed. I was going to just ask for your opinion then: would you support Indian pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Pakistan on top of a surprise ground invasion? Would America as a whole support such a move?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Given that Pakistani nukes are located near US drone bases, and those drone bases include US personnel, I'm not sure the Americans would be happy having their folks nuked.
if things get hot and people dont move out it will be dangerous for them. Speaking of foreigners in I heard that lot of PLA guys are in country, hope they move out in time, before things get hot.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Those things won't help against missiles loaded with cluster munitions or a nuke. Trying to load and unload trucks while anti-personnel bomblets are falling around you is nearly impossible, plus a flooded ammo dump is probably going to be disabled until it gets unflooded, which would take days.
Cluster bomblets are not going to penetrate buildings and if they are falling around you, wait until they are done. :rolleyes: The flooding system is area specific and if the building is already destroyed, it won't hamper what is already gone. Nukes are another story, but if Pak goes that far then they will get the same treatment.

What does that have to do with ballistic missiles? Plus, couldn't Pakistan just order accurate ballistic missiles from a third party, just as India has ordered its only competent anti-missile defense, the S-300, from Russia?
The only third country willing to sell accurate gyroscopes is Israel and their relationship with Pakistan is zilch. China is an option but their gyros are not particularly accurate enough except for cluster munitions. As stated, those won't penetrate buildings.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Cluster bomblets are not going to penetrate buildings and if they are falling around you, wait until they are done. :rolleyes: The flooding system is area specific and if the building is already destroyed, it won't hamper what is already gone. Nukes are another story, but if Pak goes that far then they will get the same treatment.
Wait until they are done? You're making cluster bombs sound like a bad thunderstorm--except you'll have flaming wreckage and dead bodies all over the tarmac and the roads leading to the supply point...

The only third country willing to sell accurate gyroscopes is Israel and their relationship with Pakistan is zilch. China is an option but their gyros are not particularly accurate enough except for cluster munitions. As stated, those won't penetrate buildings.
AFAIK the DF-21D is equipped with radar-based terminal guidance systems that let it hit moving targets with a CEP of under 100m and stationary targets with a CEP of under 60m using a spiraling, quasi-ballistic trajectory. The gyroscopes are there.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
if things get hot and people dont move out it will be dangerous for them. Speaking of foreigners in I heard that lot of PLA guys are in country, hope they move out in time, before things get hot.
Except the whole point of Cold Start is to attack without any warning at all. It's called "cold start", not "warm start"; things won't be hot and people (least of all the Americans) won't have advance warning. After all, if India did provide advance warning, wouldn't Pakistan notice US personnel leaving their military bases?
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
And from where you get such information ?

AFAIK the DF-21D is equipped with radar-based terminal guidance systems that let it hit moving targets with a CEP of under 100m and stationary targets with a CEP of under 60m using a spiraling, quasi-ballistic trajectory. The gyroscopes are there.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Wait until they are done? You're making cluster bombs sound like a bad thunderstorm--except you'll have flaming wreckage and dead bodies all over the tarmac and the roads leading to the supply point...



AFAIK the DF-21D is equipped with radar-based terminal guidance systems that let it hit moving targets with a CEP of under 100m and stationary targets with a CEP of under 60m using a spiraling, quasi-ballistic trajectory. The gyroscopes are there.
They will deal with the bomblets, mine clearance and fire support when needed. That is what engineer crews and fire brigade are for. It isn't going to shut it down for any length of time.

Nobody is worried about the hyped DF-21. Pakistan wouldn't get it anyway.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
They will deal with the bomblets, mine clearance and fire support when needed. That is what engineer crews and fire brigade are for. It isn't going to shut it down for any length of time.
You'd be surprised. In drills the US ran as recently as 2005, suppression with 2000-3000 kg cluster munitions (equivalent to 4-6 cruise missiles or ballistic missiles) can cut the transport rate of a supply node by nearly 2/3rds during the strike and 1/3rd up to an hour after the initial strike.

Nobody is worried about the hyped DF-21. Pakistan wouldn't get it anyway.
Worried or not, those are the capabilities it has. Pakistan doesn't need the whole missile anyhow--just the guidance systems.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
The main issue with Cold Start isn't that the IA can't mobilize in 24 hours for a blow on Pakistan; it's that after the blow is launched, what next? India has no answer. Do they follow this up with Sundarji if Pakistan doesn't negotiate? Do they go for nuclear first strikes if Pakistan readies its nuclear weapons on the IBGs or supply depots? What if Pakistan only nukes Indian forces on Pakistani territory--does India still have a right to nuke Pakistan in response?

This ties back to an even deeper issue: what is Cold Start supposed to achieve? If it's deterring Pakistan from allowing terrorist activity, then the lack of an IA response to the 2008 Mumbai attacks means that Cold Start has failed. If it's supposed to achieve lasting peace between India and Pakistan, it's even more laughable--doctrines stressing land invasion are usually not good ways to achieve peace.

Instead, couldn't India pursue a sunshine policy of helping Pakistan achieve economic growth and get itself into the 21st century? If India wants to be the leader in South Asia, why can't it be a leader that turns the other cheek and helps its neighbors?
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
Instead, couldn't India pursue a sunshine policy of helping Pakistan achieve economic growth and get itself into the 21st century? If India wants to be the leader in South Asia, why can't it be a leader that turns the other cheek and helps its neighbors?

1965 - Indian army manages to not just thwart advances of Pakistani army but gain territory as well. In the end, most of those gains were returned back.

1972 - After the genocide in East Pakistan, the resultant war ends up splitting Pakistan with 90000 of its soldiers end up as POW.

1998 - Once again the military generals of Pakistan botch up and its soldiers are left hanging down the cliffs of Kargil.

In all these cases, India could have pressed on its advantage and then not just massacred thousands of Pakistanis but also ensure that the Pakistan armed forces are no longer a threat to anybody but its own citizens! But what did India do in these situations? And why do you think so?

Not many years since a bunch of Pakistanis landed in Mumbai and massacred many Indians. This wasn't the first time it had happened. There is a history of Pakistanis targeting Indians in the border, Kashmir, Delhi and other areas. Inspite of this, all these years its India convincing Pakistan for better trade relations and not the other way! Don't you think India shows the other cheek very too often? Do let us know your thoughts!
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
For a moment I thought the thread was about when the Car won't start in the winter mornings :troll: ..
Sorry
Anyway, I believe that the most potent threat to a cold start comes not from military infrastructure or doctrinal faults .. but from the Administration arena .. the GOI and its snail instincts at work.
Having the best hardware and doctrines is all lab work. If we don't get permissions and decision done on time at the top .. there is no head start.
If there is no head start, there is no cold start.

Regards,
Virendra
Cold start was devised to overcome the very slow decision problems. Once a go is given there will be no looking back.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
The main issue with Cold Start isn't that the IA can't mobilize in 24 hours for a blow on Pakistan; it's that after the blow is launched, what next? India has no answer. Do they follow this up with Sundarji if Pakistan doesn't negotiate? Do they go for nuclear first strikes if Pakistan readies its nuclear weapons on the IBGs or supply depots? What if Pakistan only nukes Indian forces on Pakistani territory--does India still have a right to nuke Pakistan in response?

This ties back to an even deeper issue: what is Cold Start supposed to achieve? If it's deterring Pakistan from allowing terrorist activity, then the lack of an IA response to the 2008 Mumbai attacks means that Cold Start has failed. If it's supposed to achieve lasting peace between India and Pakistan, it's even more laughable--doctrines stressing land invasion are usually not good ways to achieve peace.

Instead, couldn't India pursue a sunshine policy of helping Pakistan achieve economic growth and get itself into the 21st century? If India wants to be the leader in South Asia, why can't it be a leader that turns the other cheek and helps its neighbors?
Let me answer the last para first.

Pakistan is a country that does not understand or appreciate benevolence. It has the habit of biting the hand that feeds her. India is but an enemy. There can be no sunshine policy with Pakistan. Well sooner or later China too will feel the pain.

About Cold Start, what after india attacks? India is going to decapacitate paki infrastructure and degrade a lot of its war fighting capabilities in the initial blitz. Indian IBGs are mandated to make shallow ingress just below what se understand will be the nuclear threshold of Pak.

If Pak resorts to nukes, it means it has just lost the war. Indian response will be based on strategic objectives.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top