India Cold Start Doctrine and Pakistan's Tactical Nukes

[Bhadra]

USER=9097]@Bhadra[/USER]
I have some more questions:-

• Why is II Corps being chosen to run the test-bed for IBG this/next month given that II Corps is a Strike Corps, not a Pivot Corps?

Any force of similar size, similar task, similar composition can be a test bed. There must be a need to exercise II Corps, so instead of testing them in Strike Corps operations, Three groups made out of them can be tested as IBGs and the Doctrine validated.

• Is the purpose of IBG and Pivot Corps also to force Pakistan to draw out its Strategic reserve formations (I and II Corps), making them attack an IBG thereby allowing Strike Corps to flank and encircle these formations?

• The purpose of launching IBGs is to extract a cost from Pakistan for their misadventure in any form such as a Terrorist strike. The best cost will be destruction of portion of their military forces. In order to ensure that, IBG operations must attack and draw them to battle at a place that they are bound to react, areas vital to them or critical to them.
• Second aim of IBGs is put the Pakistani Army into decision dilemma, confuse them, create an alarming situation so that they react in haphazard manner - that is break down command, control and cohesion. The biggest dilemma is to use ARS and ARN or keep them intact. Both the situations are critical for Pakistan.
• Third, to create conditions for employment of Indian strike corps by providing secure bridgehead, communication centers and by establishing a favorable pivot.
• about six IBGs launched in the desert area and plains of Punjab (three holding Corps of of Pakistan) will necessitate that part of Strike Corps forces are employed to stop the six IBGs and restore the defensive balance. It is expected that three IBGs will be dealt with by three holding Corps reserves of Pakistan and for dealing with the other three IBG, Pakistan will be forced to use complete or portion of ARS and ARN.
• If Pakistan uses ARS and ARN, then three strike Corps of India will get a free run and if they do not use ARN and ARS then the war may end at IBG level only.
• 
  
• 
  

• Once the IBG capture their objectives, will the IBG be able to hold against Pakistani counter-offensive launched by I and II Corps? What if the Indian Strike Corps are not able to advance quickly enough to reinforce an under-attack IBG on time? That IBG could be pincered by I and II Corps.

ARS and ARN will have be be launched divided or in piecemeal. Three IBGs can be handled by Corps reserves but remaining three IBG will have to be dealt with by ARS and ARN forces. This will result in piecemeal employment , division of reserves and those can be destroyed in detail in view of superior Indian fire power and technology.

Second option for Pakistan is to launch ARS and ARN into Indian territory where three strike Corps will be poised for their destruction. That will be suicide.

Both situations are dangerous for Pakistan.

What rear echelon forces will reinforce the IBG and guard its rear once the IBG reach its stated objectives? An Infantry Div from that Corps?
Will the advent of IBG make the Pakistan Army split its Strategic Reserve into smaller formations? I can see that Pakistan is hopelessly out of options here.

The pivot Corps defenses ares expected to expand further and forward keeping in the progress of IBG.

Pivot Corps mechanised forces (remaining two armoured brigades and infantry elements will protect the rear of IBG.

Strike Corps will remain the same and Holding Corps will be provided with more Armour and Mechanised Infantry to convert them to Pivot Corps. So why do we not see any accretion in the total number of Tank Regiments and Mechanised Infantry Battalions?

Pivot Corps are already restructured post Op Parakram. Strike Corps are also very flexible organisation and can shed forces as also attach forces as per requirement.

• • Are the existing number of Tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles in the Independent Armoured Brigades sufficient to form the armoured nucleus of an IBG?
    [*]But we have only seven Independent Armoured Brigades.
    [*]Similarly, we have only six RAPIDs.
    
    [*]How can we make 8 IBG out of 7 Independent Armoured Brigades and 6 RAPIDs?

You are counting IBGs of Corps that are in plains and deserts. India has three more corps in mountainous sectors. They are also capable of launching three - four IBGs. For convenience sake, India can launch 6 - 7 IBGs in plain and deserts and 3 -4 IBGs in mountain sectors.

Is the new order for 450 T-90MS also going to help here? These should be enough to raise 10 more Armoured Regiments taking the total to 77. Or is it just meant for Depsang plains and North Sikkim plateau?

I am not aware of induction of new tanks and raising of any regiments. I am only giving you strenghth as per open sources specially Wiki.

About missile and MBRL support available to the IBG, will it be from existing Arty Divs or will new missile and MBRL regiment(s) be raised as part of new Arty Bde/Div for each Pivot Corps?

Are current Arty Divisions placed under Command HQ or Strike Corps HQ?

Will Mountain Strike Corps also get Arty Divs? So far I only know about 40, 41 and 42 Arty Divs which are all meant for plains.

My knowledge about artillery division is also restricted to this:
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.com/2012/12/artillery-divisions-in-indian-army_22.html

However, one can safely assume that every pivot corps will have one independent artillery brigade which may be equipped with rocket artillery if not missile regiment.

Missile regiments with their 400 km range can support operations from anywhere.

From the looks of it, the plan is to stay close to the Pakistani cities and suburbs (to prevent "Tactical" Nuclear Strikes) but not enter the cities (to prevent a Stalingrad). How does the Army plan to augment Western Command's urban fighting capablity? Particularly the armour. Will armour survive

I suppose Indian Army will have to train in MOUT more rigorously. Tanks form important part of MOUT but still I would not advocate Arjun.
Otherwise urban clusters will be isolated and bypassed.

Application of air cavalry. I remember reading last year that the Army was trying "Air Cavalry" concept. Obviously this concept is difficult to apply until the Air Force relents and allows Army to fulfill its Battlefield Support Helicopters (Mi-17 and IMRH) as part of Army Aviation. But which units, do you think, will be trained for Air Assault. (Bit confused about difference between Air Cavalry and Air Assault). As far as I can tell, a larger number of light infantry in air assault roles will require more effort in sanitizing the area off enemy AD. But Air Assault can also prove to be instrumental as seen in Meghna Heli lift in 1971.

Indian Army so far has no luxury of air cavalry or air assault forces. However one PARA brigade strength and resources exist to launch Paradrop and Heliborne operations.

Caution : These are purely my personal views based on personal knowledge and based on open sources and may not be any where close to reality.

 

[Arsalan123]

Only thing favors pak is nuke themselves.
Once your country twice the size,good economy(better than India),US backing and etc then fought a conventional war ...result.

Everytime same picture.yiu can't defend a piece of land when the hostile country is bigger and share border with a small province and that too,on totally different side,not connecting with all other provinces of your country.you should celebrate.basically you guys still celebrate but it was very hard for us to defend bangladesh.it was almost impossible.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Everytime same picture.yiu can't defend a piece of land when the hostile country is bigger and share border with a small province and that too,on totally different side,not connecting with all other provinces of your country.you should celebrate.basically you guys still celebrate but it was very hard for us to defend bangladesh.it was almost impossible.

First manage your home and forget Kashmir. Baluchistan and KPK could be next.

 

[Arsalan123]

Firstly, the PAF did not enter Indian territory.
Secondly they dropped their bombs across the border from within their own territory and scooted back to safety like a dormouse seeing a cat. They didn't have the guts to fly into Indian territory and cause destruction. It was a dud raid by a package of 25 aircraft that achieved zilch except for the chance downing of a MiG 21.

And yes, they're shit scared of our military might. Otherwise why on earth would they spend billions of PKR for sustaining their nukes? This is to try and balance the huge force asymmetry. We called their bluff and busted their nuke threat with the Balakot strike.

Dummy strikes? Does that moron think Balakot was a figment of one's imagination?

Lol! Reading that so called 'defence expert's' opinions mentioned in your post was funny. In fact, rather silly!

Sir your army said on Feb 27 that pakistan violated indian airspace and here you are saying that we didn't.lol our entire air Force was airborne and we managed to enter in your area despite many sams.i think we did well.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Sir your army said on Feb 27 that pakistan violated indian airspace and here you are saying that we didn't.lol our entire air Force was airborne and we managed to enter in your area despite many sams.i think we did well.

We bombed KPK. In the subsequent action an F 16 was taken for a MiG 21.

https://theprint.in/defence/this-is...6-fighter-jet-inventory-is-intact/217732/amp/

 

[Arsalan123]

First manage your home and forget Kashmir. Baluchistan and KPK could be next.

Are you serious? Like tarbela and Multan hahahahaha

 

[Arsalan123]

We bombed KPK. In the subsequent action an F 16 was taken for a MiG 21.

https://theprint.in/defence/this-is...6-fighter-jet-inventory-is-intact/217732/amp/

I don't know much about claims of su-30 and f-16 kill but this is age of modern technology and India is ahead in satellite engineering.there are lots of images of balakot available online.there is no damage to the building.i am not saying that iaf failed to achieve targets.i think iaf did it purposefully because there are always children in madrassas and places like this.it was good decision by iaf not to Target the building.similarly we targeted empty places near your military installations.both air forces are very good.

 

[vampyrbladez]

I don't know much about claims of su-30 and f-16 kill but this is age of modern technology and India is ahead in satellite engineering.there are lots of images of balakot available online.there is no damage to the building.i am not saying that iaf failed to achieve targets.i think iaf did it purposefully because there are always children in madrassas and places like this.it was good decision by iaf not to Target the building.similarly we targeted empty places near your military installations.both air forces are very good.

Bombs today don't need to have a very high collateral damage. Spice 2000 guided munitions can act as an air burst weapon and kill all inhabitants in a room without destroying the structure.

 

[itsme]

I don't know much about claims of su-30 and f-16 kill but this is age of modern technology and India is ahead in satellite engineering.there are lots of images of balakot available online.there is no damage to the building.i am not saying that iaf failed to achieve targets.i think iaf did it purposefully because there are always children in madrassas and places like this.it was good decision by iaf not to Target the building.similarly we targeted empty places near your military installations.both air forces are very good.

IAF or Indian govt has confirmed where the target was. Only ISPR show a location. Sme way during SS1 But, after the videos came out the locations were different than what Pak showed. More over Indian independent journalists have confirmed seeing the SAR imagery shown by IAF. Not sure when they will declassify it.

You're own ISPR confirmed they dint cross LOC. What IAF said about violating airspace may be is the airspace above Pak side of LOC. Where both sides have an arrangement of not coming close to the LOC.

Moreover like 100 times I told you PAF performed ops along the LOC unlike IAF. So, you talking about SAMs n all is pure delusion. If PAF had did a significant incursion then they would have been shot down. For comparison PAF attempted incursion as intercepted and IAFs incursion was not intercepted until it was too late. The only positive in this entire thing for PAF was pour pilot ending behind enemy lines but that too was nullified by returning him cause IN CBG was parked outside Karachi. As every Indo Pak engagement Pak manages to win a battle or two but the War is won by India.

 

[IndianHawk]

Intent changes overnight. The job of the Indian Armed Forces is to train for every eventuality. They need to give a capable response option to the GoI. The Pakistanis think that they will not give us a chance at exercising Cold Start. Just like they thought that doing Pulwama just before elections will ensure Modi's defeat. Just like they thought that doing Kargil will win them Siachen. Pakistan is in the habit of making miscalculations. In the future, they might miscalculate and make a move on the hybrid front that will give India legal authority to attack Pakistan. The Cold Start doctrine will be implemented then. And the diplomatic Corps will ensure that the international sentiment supports India. You are questioning the probability of a scenario which I say is not a matter of if but when. Its inevitable. And we had better be prepared to implement Cold Start on the ground on that fateful day.

Yes Pakistan is miscalculating since 1947 .that is why it's half the size now . It's terror strategy is also miscalculation as India grows unabated while Pakistan sinks deeper into hell of its own Making.

I don't see India using cold start to attack Pakistan unless Pakistan pulls out something on the scale of kargil or Mumbai 26/11.

In casea like pulwama or pathankot etc we now have options of air strike / surgical strike and naval strike will also be an option imo.

The problem with cold start is that it will involve huge numbers of military men directly from both sides and that will lead to huge numbers of dead soldiers on both sides .different then killing Hundreds of unknown militants in remote balakot as these killings will take place as populous borders in Punjab , Rajasthan and Sindh.

This will make de-escalation that much more difficult. As dangerous as cold start is it extracts a price. It enhances risk of full fledged war much more as it can't be denied by Pakistan like Uri or balakot.

Now you and I may actually angry with this approach . No tolerance for terror and let it be a direct war to punish Pakistan. But that may not be a political choice as it puts enormous strain on economy and create panic for investment.

Meanwhile air / surgical strike hit militants as well as Pakistan army and yet their is de-escalation option as Pakistan enters the denial mode.

With rafale+ meteor here in September and s400 by next year we have complete superiority over Pakistani airspace.

But I Will agree you on point that if Pakistan pulls out another Mumbai or kargil or parliament attack then cold start it is. It's just that going by the trend since Mumbai Pakistan will only target Indian military in Kashmir /border region . And cold start won't be used to retaliate that although I'll be glad if it does .

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Mikesingh]

Sir your army said on Feb 27 that pakistan violated indian airspace and here you are saying that we didn't.lol our entire air Force was airborne and we managed to enter in your area despite many sams.i think we did well.

If your planes had entered our airspace they would have been shot out of the sky by our air defence weapons. Our ROE (Rules of Engagement) lay down that all weapons, surface as well as air will be in 'weapons hold' status unless the enemy crosses the IB/LoC. They didn't and so we did not fire. Even our SUs avoided firing their BVR missiles though all your F-16s, mirages and your Thunder blunders were locked on. Your attack package picked up these lock-ons and fled back to your territory after hastily tossing their bombs just across the LoC causing damage to a little mole hill!! Lol!

But I love the way your ISPR spins yarns and brainwashes the sheeple into believing that the PAF destroyed all military installations causing massive casualties!!

And the funny part is that you all believe this propaganda without even bothering to verify the facts.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Sir your army said on Feb 27 that pakistan violated indian airspace and here you are saying that we didn't.lol our entire air Force was airborne and we managed to enter in your area despite many sams.i think we did well.

Your DGISPR said that they attacked Indian target from inside the Pakistan. It is an official statement. What do you have to say about it?

 

[HariPrasad-1]

satellite engineering.there are lots of images of balakot available online.there is no damage to the building

Are you sure that there are images of no damage to building post balakot attack?
What happened to the declaration of DGISPR in which he bluffed that he will take international media to that location? Even after one and half month, they could take Media to a Madrasa few KM away from Balakot.

 

[Bhadra]

Everytime same picture.yiu can't defend a piece of land when the hostile country is bigger and share border with a small province and that too,on totally different side,not connecting with all other provinces of your country.you should celebrate.basically you guys still celebrate but it was very hard for us to defend bangladesh.it was almost impossible.

Very good.
That is what Indians have been telling you since 1890 - when Sir Syed Ahmed propound the theory of two nations - that religion can not be a basis on nationality or nationhood.

Pakistani Sayids, Mirs, Mirzas, khan Pathan, Jats, Khokhars, Badmash Gujjars and Nawabs of Awadh had nothing in common with intellectually superior and fiercely proud Bengalis. Islam or for that matter any other religion can never be the single bedrock of nationhood - a stupid thought process that led to avoidable partition.

The logic of geographical separation, large distances hindering successful defence of the two areas, is also flawed because Pakistan never treated Bangladesh to be part of their nation bur rather a Colony. It was never defended well. Your army was there to maintain control over that population and land mass rather to defend them.

Consequences, Pakistani Army thought it prudent to surrender rather than defend Bangladesh..

I sincerely suggest that you do not present lies as logic.

I fear that same thing is going to happen to Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK and Norther Areas. We have seen that in past. During Brasstacks, when Indians had amassed their forces on the border Punjabi generals denuded Sindh and deployed entire ARS in Punjab.

 

[Bhadra]

I don't see India using cold start to attack Pakistan unless Pakistan pulls out something on the scale of kargil or Mumbai 26/11.

In casea like pulwama or pathankot etc we now have options of air strike / surgical strike and naval strike will also be an option imo.

The problem with cold start is that it will involve huge numbers of military men directly from both sides and that will lead to huge numbers of dead soldiers on both sides .different then killing Hundreds of unknown militants in remote balakot as these killings will take place as populous borders in Punjab , Rajasthan and Sindh.

There is basic confusion here in your mind regarding Cold Start Doctrine. You have conveniently and unwittingly linked it to a scale - scale of forces.
No, Cold start menas application of military force as a means of preemption or response without giving any time to Pakistan to assess it, preempt it or stop it. It is doctrine of use military as a means which hitherto was restrained due time, internal and external restraints and thus worked in favour of Pakistan.

Scale, time and place etc will be determined as per aims and objectives but are not the deciding parameters.

This will make de-escalation that much more difficult. As dangerous as cold start is it extracts a price. It enhances risk of full fledged war much more as it can't be denied by Pakistan like Uri or balakot.

Cold start will force Pakistan to respond military and that is where India expects to extract the price. The threat of escalation works both ways. It is not as if after Cold Start India has no options. India will retain all options to manage escalation including nuclear escalation.

Now you and I may actually angry with this approach . No tolerance for terror and let it be a direct war to punish Pakistan. But that may not be a political choice as it puts enormous strain on economy and create panic for investment.

The whole idea of Cold start doctrine is to assure Pakistan of application of Military means so that Pakistani terrorist activities as an instrument of State policy is "restrained" or "deterred".

Meanwhile air / surgical strike hit militants as well as Pakistan army and yet their is de-escalation option as Pakistan enters the denial mode.

With rafale+ meteor here in September and s400 by next year we have complete superiority over Pakistani airspace.

Any application of military force, be it single aircraft inside Pakistan to take on targets inside Pakistan will be part of Cold Start Doctrine.

But I Will agree you on point that if Pakistan pulls out another Mumbai or kargil or parliament attack then cold start it is. It's just that going by the trend since Mumbai Pakistan will only target Indian military in Kashmir /border region . And cold start won't be used to retaliate that although I'll be glad if it does .

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

No. Do not link "scales" to a policy choice and application of military means to implement that policy. Airstrikes, SF raids, IBG operations may also be undertaken as "preemption" against terrorist bases, holding ares, training areas, and their HQs inside mainland as the situations demand.

"Cold Start Doctrine" is still in nascent stage and developing. It will take shape as per force development, technological development, RMA technologies and security situation prevailing in the sub-continent.

 

[IndianHawk]

There is basic confusion here in your mind regarding Cold Start Doctrine. You have conveniently and unwittingly linked it to a scale - scale of forces.
No, Cold start menas application of military force as a means of preemption or response without giving any time to Pakistan to assess it, preempt it or stop it. It is doctrine of use military as a means which hitherto was restrained due time, internal and external restraints and thus worked in favour of Pakistan.

Scale, time and place etc will be determined as per aims and objectives but are not the deciding parameters.



Cold start will force Pakistan to respond military and that is where India expects to extract the price. The threat of escalation works both ways. It is not as if after Cold Start India has no options. India will retain all options to manage escalation including nuclear escalation.



The whole idea of Cold start doctrine is to assure Pakistan of application of Military means so that Pakistani terrorist activities as an instrument of State policy is "restrained" or "deterred".




Any application of military force, be it single aircraft inside Pakistan to take on targets inside Pakistan will be part of Cold Start Doctrine.



No. Do not link "scales" to a policy choice and application of military means to implement that policy. Airstrikes, SF raids, IBG operations may also be undertaken as "preemption" against terrorist bases, holding ares, training areas, and their HQs inside mainland as the situations demand.

"Cold Start Doctrine" is still in nascent stage and developing. It will take shape as per force development, technological development, RMA technologies and security situation prevailing in the sub-continent.

I agree with this response. May be I'm mis linking scale to policy response.

But your view point raises certain deeper questions
A) you said air strike / surgical strike will be part of cold start . I don't think that's true. What does cold start say about such random strikes by different forces?

B) how are we going to preempt militants with IBG movement. As fast as IBG are in Kashmir border mountainous terrain / forest will give enough time for militants to run and anyway IBG will be confronted by Pak army .

In Punjab Rajasthan theatre there are no militants camp on border. How much deeper can IBG move before it's not cold start anymore but a deep prolonged penetration by now.

C) policy maker will always have to figure in scale to formulate policy response. Scale of punished need to be ascertained as well as enemy reaction and counter action have to be gauged in .govt do retain escalation ladder but it still needs to work out how escalation is justified at each step of the ladder?



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Bhadra]

I agree with this response. May be I'm mis linking scale to policy response.

But your view point raises certain deeper questions
A) you said air strike / surgical strike will be part of cold start . I don't think that's true. What does cold start say about such random strikes by different forces?

B) how are we going to preempt militants with IBG movement. As fast as IBG are in Kashmir border mountainous terrain / forest will give enough time for militants to run and anyway IBG will be confronted by Pak army .

In Punjab Rajasthan theatre there are no militants camp on border. How much deeper can IBG move before it's not cold start anymore but a deep prolonged penetration by now.

C) policy maker will always have to figure in scale to formulate policy response. Scale of punished need to be ascertained as well as enemy reaction and counter action have to be gauged in .govt do retain escalation ladder but it still needs to work out how escalation is justified at each step of the ladder?



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

I present following even at the cost of more than required repetitions.

The roots of dangerous and unstable security competition between India and Pakistan lies in the ideology of partition of India where a certain section of population seperated with the idea of capturing and ruling the Indian subcontinent like Moguls once again. The idea of participative democracy, elections, rule by majority was abhorrent to such an idea and they rejected it..

The see-saw Security competition and resultant unstable deterrent based security regimes existing between India and Pakistan was always thought to be "asymmetry in Conventional forces" which Pakistan tried to brake time and again by their "preemptive offensive" actions - 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen fiasco, Kargil misadventure all were examples of it but they did not not succeed.

Then the security competition shifted to nuclear arena when Pakistan produced a Islamic nuclear devise after eating grass and India goaded Pakistan to be overt nuclear power with the intention that nuclear ability of Pakistan would result in a stable and permanent deterrence between India and Pakistan. It was thought that nuclear parity will address Pakistan's security concerns and existentialist dilemma for ever.

However, to India's dismay Musharraf landed up at Kargil under Nuclear Security regime and Pakistani Army got embolden to use terrorism more vigorously and extensively under nuclear umbrella.

Well, India has shifted from "Defensive Defense" to "Offensive Defense" and has brought back deterrence regime to use of Conventional military means even at the threat of Pakistan bring down nuclear threshold down to TNW.

Call it Cold Start Doctrine or Offensive Defense or "proactive actions" as the latest Indian Army Doctrine calls it, will consist of policy of:

* Use of conventional military forces as means of unstable stable deterrence.
* Use preemption as also reaction as the situation demands.
* Reduction in warning time and reaction time to Pakistani forces.
* Inflict appropriate loss on Pakistan forces. Doctrine to be force oriented.
* Keep the military strikes, short, sudden, intense and technology driven.
* Application of conventional forces in graduated manner to keep windows for conflict termination open.

The above means that India has brought Pakistan to pre-1998 period to a deterrence regime which negates Nuclear factor to play a significant role. Pakistan on the other hand wish to insist on nuclear factor by introduction of TNW Nasar. Indian Cold Start Doctrine negates TNW of Pakistan and forces Pakistani Conventional Forces into play - a situation from where Pakistan will always try to escape. The higher aim is not to allow Pakistan bask under nuclear sun and use terrorism with impunity.

About Premption :

Preemption is essential part of deterrence regime which allows our forces many advantages line initiative, choice of targets, inflict greater losses on enemy, surprise and ability to bring enemy forces to own design of battle. The military charastics of Pakistani situation can be dangerous for her in the event of Indian preemptions. Cold Start Doctrine warrant that primitive actions be undertaken against Pakistani forces to deny them freedom of action and impose greater caution.

In the anti terrorist war scenarios preemptions would be justifiable and more easily acceptable even internationally.

 

[Bhadra]

WHY PAKISTAN'S TACTICAL NUKE THREAT NOT MUCH OF A BOTHER FOR INDIA:
SUNDAY, JUNE 09, 2019 BY INDIAN DEFENCE NEWS
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2019/06/why-pakistans-tactical-nuke-threat-not.html

NASR in reality is the obsolete Chinese supplied Weishi-2 ballistic missile renamed as the Hatf-IX

Pakistan's tactical nukes: Were they developed with 'cold start' in mind?

New Delhi: Whenever a country's defence establishment speaks about its capabilities and boasts about powerful weapons, there are generally two main motives behind it. One is to assure their countrymen that they are safe and another is to send across a message to the adversary, a powerful message that can act as a deterrent.
In case of Pakistan, the establishment there knows very well that they would not be match India's might in conventional warfare. There is something that the Pakistanis fear and it is called Cold Start Doctrine. Cold Start doctrine is said to be an offensive plan of the Indian forces intended to quickly mobilise forces and subdue Pakistan before it even considers nuclear retaliation. This is said to be a plan prepared by India's top military minds which advocates swift multi-pronged attack in the event of conflict.

The size of Indian Armed forces is massive, we outnumber them and Islamabad knows that a full fledged assault by India would spell doom on them. So, to caution India, Pakistan keeps talking about the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Indian forces if any attempt is made to enter its territory.
Pakistan has hinted in the past that it would not hesitate to use tactical nukes if Indian forces advance. Pakistan's short range missile NASR is the weapon that the Islamabad boasts of whenever the issue of Indian aggression comes up.

A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, generally smaller in its explosive power, which is designed to be used in battlefield situations, in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons which have a long range and serve a different purpose altogether. Strategic nuclear weapons are designed to hit targets deep inside the enemy interior away from the war front.

Tactical nuclear weapons are of the range of 20-60 km with the blast radius of 3-5 km. It is not like those long range nuclear warhead carrying ballistic missiles which are fired thousands of kilometres away with pre-designated target and carry massive warheads. Tactical nuclear weapons are for battlefield situations mainly aimed at thwarting incoming forces which are already at the borders and pushing to enter the territory.
In 2018, Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa had made a strange remark. He said, "Nasr has put cold water on cold start".

A defence and strategic affairs expert had once told OneIndia that Pakistan developed tactical nuclear weapons primarily to deal with India's cold start launch. Cold start doctrine is something that Pakistan fears.
Pakistan also fears that India might also put together Cruise Missile Defence System (CMDS) which along with QR-SAM will provide India's Strike Corps a layered battlefield Aerial Defence systems against cruise missiles like Babur, Raad and Nasr SRBMs. QRSAM Air Defence System is a critical component in India's "Cold Start" Doctrine.

Hypothetically speaking, if Indian Forces do enter Pakistan's territory and Islamabad does indeed use tactical nukes then it would also be risking the lives of its own civilians as the device would detonate in Pakistani soil.

Another thing is once Pakistan uses a nuclear weapon in any form, Indian retaliation would be unimaginable as New Delhi will not be bound by 'No First Use' policy. India had declared 'No First Use' (NFU) as a policy; Pakistan is averse to it and feels that NFU in principle negates its deterrence advantage against India. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are intended to compensate for conventional forces which is largely believed to be lagging behind India.

What Pakistan must keep in mind is that India has fairly developed secondary strike capability. India has ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead that can be launched from submarines in short notice. Pakistan can rest assured that any use of nukes- tactical or strategic - the retribution will be swift, severe and devastating threatening its very existence.

 

[Bhadra]

Army to raise new battle formations along Pakistan border by October
The Indian Army is going to raise the first few Integrated Battle Groups (IBG) along the Pakistan border and then it will start simultaneously raising them on the China border too.
ANI|
Jun 19, 2019, 02.00 PM IST
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...an-border-by-october/articleshow/69855566.cms

NEW DELHI: Aiming to further strengthen its ability to carry out swift strikes during wars, the Indian Army is going to raise new lethal battle formations along the borders with Pakistan by October.

The Indian Army is going to raise the first few Integrated Battle Groups (IBG) along the Pakistan border and then it will start simultaneously raising them on the China border too.

"We carried out an exercise to test the Integrated Battle Groups concept under the Western Command. The feedback from the formations and top commanders has been very positive and that is why we are going to start by raising two to three IBGs along Pakistan border by October this year," top sources in the Army said.

The sources said that the discussion regarding the exercise and feedback was discussed in detail by the seven Army commanders in the Army headquarters in their war room last week, and the commanders-in-chief have been given the powers to raise the IBGs in their respective areas of responsibilities.

The first three IBGs to be raised will have elements from the different formations of the Western Command.

As per sources, the Army has tested two types of configurations of the IBG during the exercise including one for offensive roles, which during hostilities involves cross-border operations and the other for defensive postures to withstand an enemy onslaught. During the exercise, IBGs will be used instead of brigades.

A brigade comprises of about three to four units, each having about 800 troops. The IBGs are planned to be commanded by officers of the rank of Major General and would have the manpower of around 5,000 troops each.

Now proven successful, the IBGs are being seen as game changers by the force and are going to entirely change the way the Indian Army plans to fight conventional wars.

The IBGs are part of Army Chief General Bipin Rawat's initiatives to reorganise and right-size the operational structure of the force to make it more effective and lethal during wars.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has also promised full support to the Army chief in modernising the Army and push all of its stuck modernisation projects.

 

[Bhadra]

Indian Army wants to change the way it fights enemies
With Integrated Battle Groups or light fighting units, response to a situation and movement of troops will become much faster.
INDIAUpdated: Oct 10, 2018 10:32 IST
Sudhi Ranjan Sen
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...hts-enemies/story-j8U5opGxYbAqM4CJmnhIeP.html

The way India fights its enemies could change with Integrated Battle Groups (IBG) comprising critical elements such as artillery, mechanised infantry, armour, signals and air support likely to replace the current somewhat, antiquated structures, Corps and Brigades.

IBG is one of the key issues before army commanders who are meeting in New Delhi, a top defence ministry official aware of the matter said, asking not to be identified.

“The proposal is set to be cleared,” this person added.

Integrated Battle Groups will change things in several ways. “For one, IBG will bring in more mobility, increase our ability to concentrate force within a specific battle theatre and, should the need arise, make it much easier to switch forces across theatres,” a top Indian army officer said on condition of anonymity.

“These are self-contained, light fighting units that can deliver the required punch if backed by the right kind of resources and technology. Response to a situation and movement of troops will become much faster,” Lieutenant General KJ Singh (retd) the former Western Army Commander said, explaining the rationale and benefits of IBG.

The fighting formations of the army are divided between Holding Corps , whose main task is defensive i.e. to hold ground , and Strike Corps who are assigned an offensive role inside enemy territory.

Despite efforts over the past few years, Strike Corps do take time to move towards the border or the areas of thrust.

Movements of Strike Corps or their elements are also always under intense scrutiny by enemy countries. “IBG will allow for more flexibility, deployment and employment. It allows the Indian Army to be much more pro-active. All battles today are fought in an integrated manner,” Lieutenant General Vinod Bhatia (retd) said, adding a caveat that the idea still “ needs to be implemented with care.”

Today, corps, each comprising at least three divisions, which, in turn, have three brigades under them, are the largest operational field formations. The brigades, comprising at least three regiments, each with around 800 fighting men, are the lynchpins or the base units that are used to project force.

“In case of hostilities, brigades often need to be augmented with Air, Mechanised Infantry, Armour, Artillery elements according to the mission and requirement. Once IBG come into play, having to augment formations with air, artillery etc is done away with since they are organised with all these units to start with and function as composite fighting unit,” another senior army official said on condition of anonymity.

IBG, however, will not completely replace the current structure of corps being the main pivots or field formations.

They will “be deployed according to the terrain and the task at hand,” the army official said.

The coming of IBG will also bring about changes in the command and control structure. Currently, a Lieutenant General commands a Corps and a Major General leads a Division. According to one of the proposals before the army commanders a Major General will head an Integrated Battle Group.

First Published: Oct 10, 2018 08:28 IST