Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike

[sgarg]

With the kind of guidance chips pakis use, any missile can simply change course to Beijing or Shanghai.

They will simply say:

China has only given missiles up to 600 km range to Pakistan.

The missiles from North Korea are unreliable.

 

[Ashutosh Lokhande]

...........

 

[bengalraider]

China had initially transferred m11 missiles to Pakistan, however more recently there has been confirmation of Chinese transferring df-21 missiles to Saudi Arabia. As you well know the Saudi establishment has long been thick with the Pakistani military, how long before a paki copy of the df -21 emerges is anyone's guess.
Also it is widely believed that the babur lacm is an underpowered modified version of the cj-10.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/30/why_did_saudi_arabia_buy_chinese_missiles

 

[Illusive]

China had initially transferred m11 missiles to Pakistan, however more recently there has been confirmation of Chinese transferring df-21 missiles to Saudi Arabia. As you well know the Saudi establishment has long been thick with the Pakistani military, how long before a paki copy of the df -21 emerges is anyone's guess.
Also it is widely believed that the babur lacm is an underpowered modified version of the cj-10.

Why Did Saudi Arabia Buy Chinese Missiles?

You think pak is capable of copying a missile without chinese help. They can't even make the TEL by themselves.

 

[bengalraider]

You think pak is capable of copying a missile without chinese help. They can't even make the TEL by themselves.

I think the Chinese sold the missiles to the Saudis partially to create a smokescreen for transfers to Pakistan, that said I'd also like to point out that the ghauri is essentially a painted dprk nodong and is a well tested platform.

 

[sgarg]

I think the Chinese sold the missiles to the Saudis partially to create a smokescreen for transfers to Pakistan, that said I'd also like to point out that the ghauri is essentially a painted dprk nodong and is a well tested platform.

Yes. We should take Saudi Arabia into consideration when planning for Pakistan. The arms transfer from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan are highly likely.
Arms transfers from Turkey and UAE are also possible.

 

[bengalraider]

Yes. We should take Saudi Arabia into consideration when planning for Pakistan. The arms transfer from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan are highly likely.
Arms transfers from Turkey and UAE are also possible.

When dealing with Pakistan we need to be aware of two things
1)Our adversary is a highly motivated and trained army with access to the best technology and equipment in the middle east comprising half a million soldiers, the only way to prevent arms transfers is to impose a sea lanes blockade and achieve air superiority ASAP.
2) Our Adversary has access to hundreds of thousands if not millions of potential militants and suicide bombers whose active involvement in any indo-pak conflict will complicate the strategic scenario a lot more.

 

[Ashutosh Lokhande]

the only way to prevent arms transfers is to impose a sea lanes blockade .

wont this be considered an act of war? can we really impose a blockade when we not in a war?

 

[bengalraider]

wont this be considered an act of war? can we really impose a blockade when we not in a war?

Transfers will only happen during war that is when the saudi-paki pacts come into play.

 

[sgarg]

wont this be considered an act of war? can we really impose a blockade when we not in a war?

Imposing a blockade is highly tricky. I know that imposing a blockade of Pakistani ports is part of IN's war plan. However it is a very difficult proposition.

I would assume that Pakistan will receive supplies despite India's effort to blockade its ports. One should always go with the worst case scenarios.

IN and IAF fighters will likely face not only PAF but also better fighters from UAE and Saudi air forces.

The next war with Pakistan will be a total war.

The biggest problem with India is that Hindus are strongly anti-war. The strategic thinking is seriously under-developed. This makes it very difficult for Indians to understand the challenges faced by the country.

The military works according to a hypothetical 40 day war, where in reality the war could last several months or even years. It is high time that India starts planning for a total war. This involves planning civil defence, increasing militia units, and massive mobilization of war industries.

 

[Virendra]

It is many times more difficult to choke Pakistan just by a naval port blockade, as long as they can be fed by Chinese via PoK.

 

[anupamsurey]

motivated trained army (doubtful- and looks like we do not have trained and motivated army), jehadis fighting with pakis, saudis supplying planes, these are nothing new to us (as we have already faced them), our military and decision makers might have already rounded these up, and we already have strategic offensive and counter offensive plans for this. thinking that our generals and administrators have not seen this is foolish enough to me (you see the decision makers don't think in the way we do...they might be always 10 steps ahead of us), comparing the mentality of our veterans to a DFI forum poster is just absurd.

 

[sgarg]

motivated trained army (doubtful- and looks like we do not have trained and motivated army), jehadis fighting with pakis, saudis supplying planes, these are nothing new to us (as we have already faced them), our military and decision makers might have already rounded these up, and we already have strategic offensive and counter offensive plans for this. thinking that our generals and administrators have not seen this is foolish enough to me (you see the decision makers don't think in the way we do...they might be always 10 steps ahead of us), comparing the mentality of our veterans to a DFI forum poster is just absurd.

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion; or is it just an effort to derail it.

Get down from your high horse.

We have seen enough irrationality from highly placed people in this country. We want to see honest discussion, as it is the only way to improve.

Offer your arguments. My arguments may be wrong but you still need to prove it.

 

[anupamsurey]

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion; or is it just an effort to derail it.

Get down from your high horse.

We have seen enough irrationality from highly placed people in this country. We want to see honest discussion, as it is the only way to improve.

Offer your arguments. My arguments may be wrong but you still need to prove it.

did i do something wrong?
my point is why we should degrade our armed forces and its leaders, we are one of the best armed forces in this world, we have proven our mettle in fields where even the russians and US had to bite its own bullets (and mind you these are few of the best "armed" forces in the world). and one must not forget it is our armed forces and its leaders who will fight the war not someone like me or you who might have not even handled a gun in their life. for proving- its there to see for all of us.
and i intended to bring the topic on the right track by presenting forth my point

 

[bengalraider]

@anupamsurey -I believe that the "motivated trained army "part has been taken from my post #287, if so you have understood it out of context
Never in my post do I mention that the IA is not motivated or trained in any way, I merely pointed out what anyone analysing the military forces of the Muslim world will also tell you. The point was that the Pakistan army is not just another middle eastern army , it is the best trained military force in the Muslim world, also by virtue of being a professional force it is also a motivated adversary for us.
As far as the jehadi aspect is concerned that becomes much more important when you consider that in any future indo pak war,all wargames indicate that we shall face our greatest difficulties with urban combat in enemy cities we occupy and in the shape of non -state actors disrupting and attacking our supply lines and rear echelons. Not to mention a point I've made before on this forum, you may mark my words again "the first shot or blast of a future indo pak war will not be fired on the borders, it will be an attack on a civilian target carried out by non state actors acting on orders from our adversary ".Again this in no way means that our forces or intelligence are inadequate in any way, it means our adversary is to be taken seriously.

 

[sgarg]

did i do something wrong?
my point is why we should degrade our armed forces and its leaders, we are one of the best armed forces in this world, we have proven our mettle in fields where even the russians and US had to bite its own bullets (and mind you these are few of the best "armed" forces in the world). and one must not forget it is our armed forces and its leaders who will fight the war not someone like me or you who might have not even handled a gun in their life. for proving- its there to see for all of us.
and i intended to bring the topic on the right track by presenting forth my point

I talk to a lot of soldiers. I have done a lot of social service and stayed in villages. The soldier of Indian army has strong distrust of his officer. I take it as a sign of a problem rather than greatness.
The defence forces suffer from mediocre officers and lack of strategic vision. (I have worked with many-many ex-officers.)
The British structure of Indian army needs great changes for the army to become really effective.

The success of Indian army is not really as great as you imply but I take it as I live in this country and I am strongly nationalistic.

Our military lacks an ideology. It has coherence but NOT vision. The coherence is due to structure British created. The vision is not there as a national consensus has not emerged as to what direction the country has to take.

 

[sgarg]

@anupamsurey -I believe that the "motivated trained army "part has been taken from my post #287, if so you have understood it out of context
Never in my post do I mention that the IA is not motivated or trained in any way, I merely pointed out what anyone analysing the military forces of the Muslim world will also tell you. The point was that the Pakistan army is not just another middle eastern army , it is the best trained military force in the Muslim world, also by virtue of being a professional force it is also a motivated adversary for us.
As far as the jehadi aspect is concerned that becomes much more important when you consider that in any future indo pak war,all wargames indicate that we shall face our greatest difficulties with urban combat in enemy cities we occupy and in the shape of non -state actors disrupting and attacking our supply lines and rear echelons. Not to mention a point I've made before on this forum, you may mark my words again "the first shot or blast of a future indo pak war will not be fired on the borders, it will be an attack on a civilian target carried out by non state actors acting on orders from our adversary ".Again this in no way means that our forces or intelligence are inadequate in any way, it means our adversary is to be taken seriously.

Pakistan, Turkey and Iran are the pillars of the Muslim world. This is the reason it is not easy taking Pakistan on.

Pakistan has had strong alliances which increased its power manifold. India has no strong alliances.

This is imperative for India to develop strong self-reliance as India is very much like Israel - a unique country often misunderstood.

 

[anupamsurey]

I talk to a lot of soldiers. I have done a lot of social service and stayed in villages. The soldier of Indian army has strong distrust of his officer. I take it as a sign of a problem rather than greatness.
The defence forces suffer from mediocre officers and lack of strategic vision. (I have worked with many-many ex-officers.)
The British structure of Indian army needs great changes for the army to become really effective.

The success of Indian army is not really as great as you imply but I take it as I live in this country and I am strongly nationalistic.

Our military lacks an ideology. It has coherence but NOT vision. The coherence is due to structure British created. The vision is not there as a national consensus has not emerged as to what direction the country has to take.

I M SORRY TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, the soldiers of Indian army do what it is said to him by his CO, your comments of trust and mistrusts do not play in the level of Infantry in war scenario, every one has to do his part and survive the war. the idea of the British structure is also a misleading point, have you noticed entire world follows the same structure as Britishers did and do now a days, there has been very little change in the structure of armed forces.
AND OUR MILITARY DOESNT LACK ANY IDEOLOGY, our ideology is not to spread islam or fight communism, or expand our territory (we by default donot have such fancy ideology), our ideology is very simple.....it has always been about safeguarding our country from our enemies, believe in my words our armed forces have been fighting the adverse factors with single aim ...safeguarding our nation.

 

[anupamsurey]

Pakistan, Turkey and Iran are the pillars of the Muslim world. This is the reason it is not easy taking Pakistan on.

Pakistan has had strong alliances which increased its power manifold. India has no strong alliances.

This is imperative for India to develop strong self-reliance as India is very much like Israel - a unique country often misunderstood.

yes i agree with you , but my comment about well motivated army was intended to bring a unique incident into our memory ..the general of this well motivated army surrendered to Indian army for a glass of scotch.

 

[sgarg]

I M SORRY TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, the soldiers of Indian army do what it is said to him by his CO, your comments of trust and mistrusts do not play in the level of Infantry in war scenario, every one has to do his part and survive the war. the idea of the British structure is also a misleading point, have you noticed entire world follows the same structure as Britishers did and do now a days, there has been very little change in the structure of armed forces.
AND OUR MILITARY DOESNT LACK ANY IDEOLOGY, our ideology is not to spread islam or fight communism, or expand our territory (we by default donot have such fancy ideology), our ideology is very simple.....it has always been about safeguarding our country from our enemies, believe in my words our armed forces have been fighting the adverse factors with single aim ...safeguarding our nation.

How do you safeguard something when you don't even know what you are safeguarding.

"Safeguarding the nation": Easy to say these words. People don't even know what a nation is. Do you know? A nation is defined by its people, not by geographical area. The nation can survive even if people migrate from one area to another.

The structure and organization of the army is a big topic and cannot be discussed in this thread. Please create another thread if you you want to discuss.

Giving orders is NOT leadership. Leadership comes by setting an example. A leader should be worth emulating.

Military victory is defined by land gained. There is no military victory if land is not gained.

There have been many good things since independence and many bad things. The good thing has been uplift of ignored and downtrodden sections of the society. It was needed urgently. The bad thing has been inability of society to leave its divisions behind.

The army has no vision. Army must be an instrument of nation building. The army must involve the society. The society can be powerful only when each citizen feel close to army. I don't see this in India.