Possibility: Direct Air Strikes inside Pakistan against terror camps

Discussion in 'Military Strategy' started by Indx TechStyle, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. aditya10r

    aditya10r Mera Bharat mahan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    5,353
    Likes Received:
    9,916
    Ins aridaman will be reality soon................................
     
  2. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,790
    Likes Received:
    23,374
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    A much higher imbalance of power is needed between both countries. Won't occur before a decade.


    Le'me think over it if I can myself write an article for strategy.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  3. aditya10r

    aditya10r Mera Bharat mahan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    5,353
    Likes Received:
    9,916
    Right now the power ratio is something like 2.5:1 what fo you want it to be 4:1
     
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  4. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Location:
    N/A
    you cannot have two objectives at the same time.

    Either you stay with Balochistan, or try adventure in POK.

    I would say, forget Baloch only use limited power and capability there and concentrate more on Neelum Valley (POK). It's a big area and without air support it cannot be recaptured by the Indian army.

    You need air support to target 2 peaks. Shikar gali and Gurangan Gali and there are some other areas which would require direct air support.
    Untitled.png
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  5. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    7,403
    @Indx TechStyle @aditya10r .... If the power ratio in between India and Pak becomes 10:1, then too strategically its unlikely. Although I prefer to keep away from making such points as my point of view doesn't match and go down well over here. But since I've been tagged, I'm just giving a bit of naiya paisa over here :).

    Last time when we did a surgical strike or give any technical name to it, on Pok, DGMO had steered away clearly from mentioning the PA deaths in the report. We simply mentioned that we had attacked launch pads over there, nothing less, nothing more. No mention of targeting PA posts or troops were made. Now this has been done strategically to keep an upper hand. Although we have targeted there posts, but if we have mentioned anything like that we would have shown ourself as aggressor. Now in a war one would win and one would loose and we all know who would be on which side in case of Indo-Pak war. But another thing which we never count on is, who would start it? Who would be first to fire the bullet?

    Now we all do live in a much intertwined international society. The powerful nations doesn't become powerful by bullying or by militarily winning wars, they do become powerful by controlling others. For example lets take the case of latest attack of US on Iraq and Afghanistan. Although they have eliminated Saddam and OBL, but in return they have given birth to ISIS. With that there operations in Iraq and Afghanistan did came to an end, but they had to open another front in Syria. Along with that see what they are doing in the first two countries. They are spending Billions in name of nation building and for first time I think world bank debt had risen so much on US. But still US is thriving. Why? Its not because of their power ratio in compare with Iraq or Afghanistan, its because of their power ratio in compare to whole world. If it would have been anywhere less, US would have been another USSR by now.

    So, in case of India, we could always use airstrike against their terrorist camps. But by doing so we would simply give an excuse to the suicidal vest wearing nation to push the button. Now commando strike by a small force and surgical strike by an air force are two different things with strategic point of view. Pakistan has swallowed the bitter pill this time by fooling their awam. But any airstrike would be too much for them to swallow and they would be compelled to retaliate at whatever cost. Now it means a full blown war.

    In the case of a full blown war, India do hold upper hand and would win hands down, both conventionally and in Nuclear field. But after that there would be a huge responsibility on India, Nation Buildup. Nation buildup not only of India, but of Pakistan too. You can't escape this fate no matter what you does. This nation building in turn would not be something India would want to take up. Annexing parts of Pakistan after the war is simply out of question as no one can do that with any sovereign nation and whether you like it or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation as per international rule. This is the very reason India is trying to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. If this happens, then its free for all.

    @Screambowl ... IMO Baluchistan is much better bet for India then POK. If you are talking about annexation of POK, then its a bad idea right now. The idea which Pak has cultivated in Kashmir is that of a free country. They did involved religion with Kashmir and people of POK are no less zombies then their Indian counterpart. If you think annexation of Kashmir would solve the issue for india, then you are wrong. It would infact open up new challenge for India. Right now we are dealing with Kashmir valley. Then we would have to deal with Muzzafarabad valley, Nellum Valley and god knows how many more valley. Our cost would rise many fold.

    Best way out is to fuel Baloch movement as of now and increase the cost for Pakis. Along with that, we should fight propaganda war with Pak in POK. Fuel discontent in POK against Pakistan's puppet government over there. Ideology of Pakistan is Islam and Hindu hatred. You can't win against this ideology by military means. You would only fuel it. Pakistan in itself is an ideology, not a country. First you have to device plan to fight ideology rather then a country. Break the ideology, make them fight ideological war among themselves and they would come apart on their own.
     
  6. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Location:
    N/A
    Sukhish made a very valid point and clearly said you need to differentiate between tactical response and strategic response.

    Balochistan is strategical response and taking back Neelam Valley is tactical response.

    For Balochistan you need presence in sea or iran for logistic support. Without that forget any adventure. You can maximum keep them in compromising situation just to answer for their misadventure like Uri and Pathankot.

    In Balochistan you don't have population like in Kashmir hence any uprising is tough. Balochistan is something which is honestly not yours.

    When I talk about POK, it is India's and India has right claim and enter. And I specifically said, not whole POK but only Neelam Valley.

    I must tell you that Neelam valley is the largest district in (POK, not GB) and has population in 1-2 hundred thousands only and mostly in Athmuqam , Keran and Sharda. Which will leave once there is assault, Keran was already empty when Indian guns opened fire. More over It is a broad valley and India can build reservoirs on it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    aditya10r likes this.
  7. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    7,403
    I agree with you, but to do so you need to have local support over there. It has been feed into them that they are azad and intellectual level over there is second to zero. Annexing them is just only opening new front. You can't risk that now. If things would have been on your side in mainland Kashmir, your job would have been easier. But now it would be far too steep for you. It would be resource guzzling effort on your part. Do you think Kashmiris would come over and sign a treaty with you by just acknowledging the fact that India does have legal right in Kashmir?
     
  8. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Location:
    N/A
    Who has been listening to Kashmiris? None!

    I am not asking to take Neelam valley with the population. I said take Neelam valley and make the people migrate to Muzzafarabad or Binder. This is what happened last months. The civilians left Keran when Indian army retaliated.

    The Pakis came under shock when they realised the civilians have fled Keran when Indian arty shells fell on them which is one of the Major town. And this is why their DGMO called. They feared that after this The population will leave the area. And this tactic has worked. Only few locals who happen to be ex soldiers remained.

    This is why, it is easier to take Neelam Valley than any other place. Because once the Shikar Gali falls, the Kagan will come under threat. As the road to many prominent posts can be covered from the Shikar Gali . Just like Tiger Hill watches NH1.

    And to make this happen, you need air raid on Shikar Gali peak. The problem of infiltration will be half solved and their covert capability will fall down.
     
    Indx TechStyle and aditya10r like this.
  9. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    7,403
    Do that and you would open up the flood gate. Now as I did mentioned earlier, are we ready for the outcome? I am not talking about the war and the victory here, but of the outcome.

    Moreover taking over Neelam valley would only give you tactical advantage on PA, you are forgetting the jehadist here.
     
  10. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Location:
    N/A
    The air raid where ever will invite war. Be it small scale. The out come is India will have territory. Do whatever they want to do.

    Those tangos can hit in India anywhere. Not just Kashmir.. Aren't those tangos hitting already? At least once the Neelam Valley is in India's control Pak army's motivation will fall. They will send more, but in Neelam valley not in Kupwara or other places. Hence their momentum is diverted. And Indian army will not sit quietly they will hunt them before they even come.

    For every such tango, they can hit in Kagan.
    And Balochistan will always remain India's strategic response. There are many options.

    In salo ko laat maro toh hi samjhte hai.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    TheSeeker likes this.
  11. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    7,403
    Easy and achievable only on paper. In reality any short of war, large or small would be against India's interest. Any such thing would bring in international players in between and there would be imminent cease fire. This time around you would not have the advantage of Kargil, because you would be in Pakis shoes this time.
    So any short of cease fire would be more depressing for us then the Pakis. They would get another reason of empty chest thumping that they won the war.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  12. Screambowl

    Screambowl Ghanta Senior Member? Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Location:
    N/A
    Neelam valley is not Paki territory just like siachen was not. Cease fire must happen but after shikar gali is fallen.

    When World doesnt care about terrorism inflow into India we should be bold enouhh to slam world that you did not act, you did not pressurize pak to drop terrorim, hence here we are with our solution.



    Sent from my SM-T211 using Tapatalk
     
  13. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,790
    Likes Received:
    23,374
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    I created this damned thread some 2-3 years ago in military strategy section. Air strike would be best punishment to haunt any terrorist organization as well as ashamed their patron country.

    Immediately after Pulwama attack, air defences in Pakistan were in place and they've already moved some reasonable gear on border in past few days.

    Let's contemptlate.
     
    indiatester and aditya10r like this.
  14. Haldiram

    Haldiram Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    25,658
    India didn't use the airforce even at the height of formally declared war in 62. Even in Kargil, it was kept restricted despite the moral argument being in our favor. Using your air assets or hitting enemy air assets is seen as "proper war" because of the fear that taking out enemy's planes (nuclear delivery mechanism) could be seen by the enemy as a precursor to a full scale invasion and might start preparing their nukes. India is mindful of operating in the window between border firing but below full scale conventional war. India keeps all operations sub-conventional to show that we don't want to go "all out". That was the stated doctrine even during Kargil. It's unlikely they will break that threshold. That leaves us with the possibility of not crossing the border, or airspace, but hitting from a distance using arty and MBRL.
     
  15. porky_kicker

    porky_kicker No longer active Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    18,688
    Do you know that IAF came close to bombing Nawaz and Musharraf during Kargil war

    That would have been interesting if it happened.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
    aditya10r likes this.
  16. Haldiram

    Haldiram Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    25,658
    In the IAF's worldview they always come close to doing something and then they are prevented from achieving their true glory because of [bad govt/ bad foreign equipment/ bad domestic industry/ insert another excuse] (they also came close to bombing Kahuta nuclear plant). If they didn't have LGBs and bunker busters in 99, what were they going to bomb Kahuta with?

    If you send the IAF and they crash inside Pakistan, then we'll have to pay ransom money to Pakistan just to get the pilot back. Let the IAF practice for a future 7 front war scenario against Cambodia with gold plated F35 planes. Leave this little piece of glory for the other services who can deliver results. All bunkers inside Pakistan are within range of Brahmos and Prithvi missiles.
     
    Craigs likes this.
  17. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,880
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Location:
    Lucknow
    IAF had Matra LGBs in 99. I don't know from where you are getting your information.
     
  18. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    9,175
    Air strikes would be required only for sustained precision bombardment. There's significant risk to the aircraft too.

    What India needs is to surgically take out certain symbolic targets - Jaish and Lashkar's headquarters using Brahmos.
    And then bombard the terror camps - either with Brahmos or rockets.
    Massive shelling of Paki posts on LOC can continue.

    That should be a good enough response to the provocation. If pakis escalate then India can bring in the air force
     
  19. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,880
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Disagreed with respect. Brahmos can be responded by using Babur. MKI cannot be responded to. Pakistani air defence is shitty, so they will be forced to respond with scrambling aircraft of their own, resulting in an air superiority battle, which we are primed to win, since they have very limited BVR capabilities.

    I believe the real problem with a big air strike is that it can lead to all out war. Naval blockade should be used first instead in my opinion.
     
  20. Enquirer

    Enquirer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    9,175
    Once you do an air strike, there's no law that they have to retaliate on via an air strike - they can still use Baburs!

    All I am saying is that the cost of the operation (man and machine) is significantly higher with an air strike compared to launching few missiles - especially given that India would be interested in taking out some symbolic targets and not launch sustained air strikes on a large number of targets.
     

Share This Page