Personal Ideas About Cold Start`s Problems

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
certainly i think the period around 2009-10 was the best time for india if they really were suppose to go for a limited scale war with pak.

or any period under this govt.bt they lost the opportunity

imran khan or nawaz are both bad guys.
 

opesys

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
279
Likes
138
@opesys

this is not so..you guys has such border agreement with bangladesh also..but alot of bangladesh's soldier are killed by indian bsf

only killing the weaker side
Wrong comparison. Yes, there were some unverified reports about the BSF but that was not against Bangladesh's soldiers. It was against some smugglers and people who tried to illegally enter India.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
@JBH22 @opesys

well no i siad so because every indian from the past many years is busy saying that we will go to war if anything like mumbai attack happened..despite the fact that itis nt proved that whether GOP was officially involved in this or not.

how they got into the mega city that too through a boat with guns loaded.and what not
It has been proved beyond doubt that Pakistan Govt and ISI was involved in the Mumbai carnage.

It is just that Pakistan lives in denial. That is also an established fact.

There is the usual lament from Pakistan that it is bearing the maximum brunt of terrorism. Sure it is. But Pakistan conveniently forgets the fact that the monster was the creation of Pakistan and Zia. Pakistan creates the monster and then laments that this monster is tearing apart Pakistan. Don't you think that is weird and some sort of deluding oneself in total denial?

Pakistanis forget the Bibilical injunsction – As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.

You are merely reaping the short sighted vision of Zia, replicated by the Pakistanis of not being able to see beyond their nose. If Pakistan than thought it through, they would have realised that the terrorism that they had created in its womb will be biting the hand that fed them i.e. Pakistan!

I hope you are aware that in the Pakistan courts, prosecution has commenced that has indicated where the terrorists were trained to include using of the boats.

Therefore, the evidence was given and it is beyond doubt that Pakistanis were behind the whole carnage.

leaving this

the reason i said so was that Pakistan is killing 2-3 soldiers everymonths from india since the past many years.

nothing as such happened


as i told you guys..guts is something one need to have to attack a country sitting on nuclear threshold with megatons of warheads,7lac bigger army,thousands of tanks,decent air force,sea based second strike capability within a short period.capable of delivering nukes from air and land and soon sea,

tell me how will your forces advance into pak when the border itself is protected by thousands or more than 1 lac soldiers wth batteries of nasr missile and a-100 mrbl in hand,more than 500 al khalid on border

i mean this is too silly.
In so far as guts are concerned, be not under the fond delusion that one Pakistan equals 10 Indians. In every war, you have been shown what the proof of the pudding is. And 1971 told you how gutsy 90,000 PsW proved of Pakistan!

How will India take on Pakistan with what it has in the form of the military? Time will only tell as it has been telling every time.

However, India does not have the proprietary rights to lunacy as Pakistan has and so we don't attack out of pique.

And we have to prove nothing to Pakistan. We are way ahead in all departments.

wasnt india too worried when in 2002 pak was even supppose to use nukes?running to the west?
Are you confusing Main Nawaz Sharif to be an India running to Bill Clinton and knocking at the gates on 4 July – the US Indpendence Day, when Clinton wanted to have a well deserved break?

you guys should be happy we didnt had musharaf bt coward like zardari in service.otherwise the reply to indian warnining would be alot different
Yes Musharraf was a brave man.

He got Pakistan's nose rubbed in the mud internationally with his cockananny harebrained operation that had to logistic back up and left his soldiers who infiltrated with supplies, medevac and so on once the Indian riposte started.

certainly i think the period around 2009-10 was the best time for india if they really were suppose to go for a limited scale war with pak.

or any period under this govt.bt they lost the opportunity

imran khan or nawaz are both bad guys.
No.

India is not a crazy hashish driven nation that embarks on war just because they have to prove a point or because the PM got out on the wrong side of his bed!

India has proved the point many a time when Pakistan attacked.

It has been put there by a Pakistani.

What do you expect to be said?

You seem to have missed out this:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2012 )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
You are not uptodate on the issue of cross LC firing.

By enlarging the conflict to Lahore or other parts, India would not have had the moral authority as she had to put Pakistan in the international doghouse. In every other war, there was silence over who is culprit. In the Kargil War, every single country blamed Pakistan, so much so, Mian Nawaz Sharif had to run to the US. Even in Pakistan, notwithstanding jingoism, there has been many articles, even by military professionals, lamenting the stupidity of Musharraf.
indeed kargil was a strategic blunder.


It was not only a strategic blunder but also tactical and showcase how poorly Pakistanis plan operations merely on misplaced delusions.

Anyone who has a modicum of military knowledge would know that unless a battle is sustained logistically, it will fail.

On a Sandmodel, going and occupying unheld areas may appear exciting tactically, but to believe that there will be no reaction, is sheer stupidity.

Thereafter, even if one caters for reaction, one has to also ensure that till the time the international community calls a halt as they have done in all Indo Pak Wars, the troops can sustain themselves and remain battle worthy having adequate resupply in material and personnel.

To do so, one requires lines of communication and that was totally deficient where the Pakistani troops were sent.

From the diary of an officer, it was revealed that it was more on religious 'food' than actual!

Religion is a strong force multiplier for Pakistan, but one also requires the nourishment of the physical form.

Hence, Pakistan was defeated!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
You are not uptodate on the issue of cross LC firing.

By enlarging the conflict to Lahore or other parts, India would not have had the moral authority as she had to put Pakistan in the international doghouse. In every other war, there was silence over who is culprit. In the Kargil War, every single country blamed Pakistan, so much so, Mian Nawaz Sharif had to run to the US. Even in Pakistan, notwithstanding jingoism, there has been many articles, even by military professionals, lamenting the stupidity of Musharraf.
indeed kargil was a strategic blunder.
[/quote]

It was not only a strategic blunder but also tactical and showcase how poorly Pakistanis plan operations merely on misplaced delusions.
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,416
Gentlemen,

We have folks who still dispute the events occurred long back. Be it 1972, 1965, 1948, 1947.... 7th century AD... Indus valley civilization.

Argument is futile.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
One argues when there is a stalemate.

1971 and Kargil were no stalemate.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Therefore, it would be safe to assume that Pakistan would not launch a nuclear war immediately after the Indian forces commence the Cold Start or whatever it is called.

The rest of your suggestions are valuable.

Pakistan may not immediately lunch nuclear weapons but they can immediately lunch cruise missiles against key military and civilian targets all within its missile coverage...

Anyway, since India's Cold Start doctrine assumes that Pakistani forces will simply swept aside in the process, I think it will be safe also to assume that Pakistan right from the start will have their backs up against the wall and with very limited options except the nuclear trigger...
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Pakistan may not immediately lunch nuclear weapons but they can immediately lunch cruise missiles against key military and civilian targets all within its missile coverage...

Anyway, since India's Cold Start doctrine assumes that Pakistani forces will simply swept aside in the process, I think it will be safe also to assume that Pakistan right from the start will have their backs up against the wall and with very limited options except the nuclear trigger...
Indeed they can.

What is war all about?

They can also launch aircraft and artillery.

But that does not deter military action.

Every 'appliance' of war is to deter and it is how one circumvents it is where the outcome takes place.

Nothing can be 'swept away'.

Everything is contested with blood!

If Pakistan's only weapon is nuclear, then why did they not use it during Kargil?

Going nuclear is not an easy decision no matter how charged is the lunacy!
 
Last edited:

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
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?
Ewald? Rage? Still no response? Cat got your tongue?
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
i wish we could had gone into full scale war.we had musharaf,a good man in power
bt again
i am so happy this govt didnt saw any conflict with india otherwise they would have accepted anything.even leasing kashmir to india

thank God time has passed,either imran khan or nawaz is to step up and both are very bad guys
 

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,156
Likes
12,211
@t_co
sir give it a read.just by deploying soldiers along the pakistani border

imagine the situation if war would have started
we already have more than 1 lac soldiers deployed with batteries of nasr nuclear tipped nasr and what not

Op Parakram claimed 798 soldiers - Times Of India

than check out this
they wanted to do this 1 decade before.they ended up with 27 timesmore death toll and 2-3 times more cost

2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


till 2050 they cant even attack bhuton.

is the NASR a turkish,saudi,or uzbek name?????:confused::confused::confused::D:eyebrows::eyebrows:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
If Pakistan's only weapon is nuclear, then why did they not use it during Kargil?

Going nuclear is not an easy decision no matter how charged is the lunacy!

Kargil was their gamble right from the start. It was a limited adventure. However, nothing can be considered limited in India's Cold Start if implemented.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
i wish we could had gone into full scale war.we had musharaf,a good man in power
bt again
i am so happy this govt didnt saw any conflict with india otherwise they would have accepted anything.even leasing kashmir to india

thank God time has passed,either imran khan or nawaz is to step up and both are very bad guys
Dreams afflicting you?

Forgotten 1971 and Kargil?


Wasn't Musharraf the good man in both?



till 2050 they cant even attack bhuton.
Really?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Kargil was their gamble right from the start. It was a limited adventure. However, nothing can be considered limited in India's Cold Start if implemented.
In war you do not gamble or take it as an adventure unless one is totally daft and unprofessional.

Musharraf is the same person who lost the Qaid post in Siachen!
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
Doesn't a 60km nuke against India makes you look like Stupid..

And keep repeating about the same doesn't makes you look more Stupid ..

the whole cold war doctrine is disturbed with just a 60km missile
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Doesn't a 60km nuke against India makes you look like Stupid..

I think that's the whole point of Pakistani nuclear arsenal (or all other nuclear arsenals), at least within its coverage, is to deter direct invasion of Pakistani soil. If India does invade Pakistani soil in implementing Cold Start then that will render naught Pakistan's nuclear deterrence. I don't think Pakistan will allow this to happen even if they'll look stupid in the process (i think nobody cares if they look stupid if their national survival is at stake).
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
In that case they will only suffer their own nuclear arsenal in there own lands..

I think that's the whole point of Pakistani nuclear arsenal , at least within its coverage, is to deter direct invasion of Pakistani soil. If India does invade Pakistani soil in implementing Cold Start then that will render naught Pakistan's nuclear deterrence. I don't think Pakistan will allow this to happen even if they'll look stupid in the process.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
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?
I would not presume to even have an opinion about a strategic move at that level. I don't know what the assumptions would be. The US government (President and Secretary of State) could not support it publicly. The American people?

"God created war so that Americans would learn geography."
"• Mark Twain
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top