Arun.prabhu wrote:Pakistan gets away with it because they have nukes.
ISIS gets away with it because no one in the west has been willing to stoop to their level. When Russia and hezbollah did, they got their asses kicked. NK gets away with it because no one is willing to defeat them and then rule the nation. Also, because they have nothing to lose.
In other words - you have yourself answered a question you asked.
If I recall, you asked whether we need to invest heavily in LO/stealth technology. The US did exactly that but has been unable to subdue ISIS, North Korea or Pakistan. In fact Pakistan has been mollycoddled by the uS.
To that extent all high tech is worthless against tactics that make expensive high-tech redundant. We can pay China with the same coin and threaten them with nukes and let them go blue in the face copying American stealth designs
The US hasn't been able to subdue these state actors not because of lack of weapons, technology, manpower, tactics or doctrine, but because of lack of will power, which governs what tactics or doctrine you adopt, how you use your weapons, technology and manpower, etc.
Counter-insurrgency or counter-guerilla warfare requires what we've been doing in Kashmir. Occupy the territory, prevent support/communication with secure base of operations (POK), control the population and ensure economic prosperity or failing the last, fear of God through terror tactics.It takes time. It's man power intensive. It's low tech. It requires the local population to ultimately trust you/fear you more than they do the enemy. We won the COIN campaign in Punjab. We will win it in Kashmir, though the local population be ever so bent on being bought or enamoured with the idea of Pakistan. After all, we're here and have nowhere else to go. Furthermore, our economic success is attractive honey that they'll want sooner or later. Note that the intensity of the Kashmiri insurgency is a lot less today than it was in its heyday. As for cross-border provocations, hit them in the same theatre or escalate across the border, call a flag meeting once the lesson's been taught for the nonce and then return to the scheduled programming. South Korea manages it and they live next to a far more irrational state than we do.
Of course, there is the other way of conducting COIN operations. Tacitus, I think it was who said, "They made a desert and called it peace." Tamerlane once put it to practice in the same geographic vicinity, I believe. And so did the Mongols. But I consider this a last resort.
Pakistan's tactics that works with India will not work all that even less well with China,I believe.For one reason, they'll flood the area with Han to secure the territory - what they are doing in all their troubled provinces today basically - and they'll kill whomsoever resists as well as their family, if that is what it takes. So local recruiting base, one of the key pillars of guerrilla warfare goes out the window. Where would we establish the secure rear area for our insurgents? Within India? The current government perhaps has the political will, but what of the one that follows? There goes one of the remaining two. The stool will not stand on one legs when it was designed for three.
Arun.prabhu wrote:In 2040, while I'm sure that Pakistan will remain a thorn in our side, we'll probably have to be prepared to defend our overseas interests - force projection over sea - and fight a war against Pakistan and/or china at the same time.
We are already at war with Pakistan. I am unable to figure out why people (and that includes you) expect war to be like 1965, or 1971, or the Gulf war. We have enjoyed conventional superiority over Pakistan since 1971 and Pakistan has, since then successfully waged asymmetric war against us. It is another matter that they have not defeated us and we grow stronger. Pakistan has for very long had the support of the US, China and KSA that allows them to retain enough military strength to fight us to a standstill in a few weeks - or at least delay Indian victory in conventional war until external forces intervene and make it more costly for us. India has chosen to get hit and stay hit so long as the hit is not crippling. It is of course insulting - but to an extent the new government has restored some honour. But that is a digression.
Do we need stealth fighters to hit Pakistan. No.We can hit them with what we have. The only question is if and when Pakistan will start a "conventional war" against us. As thing stand it I don't see it happening soon. But if we must plan for war with Pakistan it will be to split them and nuke them if they nuke us. So do we need stealth fighters for that? No.x
Yeah, sure, I grant that we're at war. We are well equipped for the low intensity war that Pakistan's perpetrating. See my explanation above.
Arun.prabhu wrote:OTOH, if current economic growth continues, it'll be more like North Korea and South Korea today than the more even footing between Pakistan and India. After all, if our economy is big enough to spend hundreds of billions on defence, Pakistan will be left in the dust. And when we spend that much, we can go all stealth or whatever. Note that by then, directed energy weapons will possibly have matured enough and have enough power and range that air forces become obsolete.
We would be talking both fiction and science fiction here if we continued on this line of discussion. Not on the LCA thread