Deterrence

[shiv]

I just had a sudden realization:

When I look at the two following Indian policy statements
1. We have no territorial ambitions
2. NFU
.the meaning I get from them is
1. We have no territorial ambitions - "We gonna stay put and sit on our asses and hope for the best but fight if someone touches us"
2. NFU: "We wil use nukes only reactively if we get hit. We have no specific plans beyond that"

I have reason to believe that my reading of both these policies is dead right. We have a "lazy, easy" policy. We will plan nothing until we are attacked and after that we will "play it by ear" and we have no plans beyond the immediate goal of thwarting aggression and massive retaliation

We have to look at the implications of the "lazy, easy" Indian doctrine through the lens of the problem that Pakistan poses to us. Our leaders must understand the following facts:
1. 1948 war ended in the US. Pakistan did not withdraw its forces
2. 1965 war was an attempt to take advantage of a "weak India" after 1962 and taught Pakis nothing
3. 1971 - even splitting of Pakistan and a Simla agreement have been simply ignored and sidelined by Pakistan
4. 1999 - a signal of Pakistan spitting on all previous agreements
5. 2001 to 2016: No sign of Pakistan backing out of attacking India despite its internal problems, piss porr international reputation and faltering economy

Pakistan is not going to "introspect". Pakistan is only aiming at Indian destruction - or at best very very serious damage to India. If we have not understood this there is no point in planning for a prosperous future expecting taht we will be left alone. We will not be left alone.

This brings me to nuclear weapons. There are too many assumptions being made about nukes. There is an assumption that 50-80 nukes on 10-20 Pakistani countervalue (city) targets will "destroy Pakistan".

I am trying to say No. It will not destroy Pakistan. It will cause a lot of death and misery. If our nukes are used properly, all central governance of Pakistan - i.e army/cilivian may be eliminated. But the Pakistan problem will not be solved by this because we still have a 800,000 next to us with at least 150 million people left alive after a nuclear exchange. Suppose there was no nuclear war, what would be different? The only difference would be fewer deaths. But the problem of installing proper and India friendly governance in Pakistan will remain.

The assumption that nuking Pakistan will somehow magically solve something simply because of destruction is not an idea that I can agree with. We will have to go in and take control of vast swathes of Pakistan and impose governance. Doing this will be costly an bloody but our "lazy, easy" policy solves nothing by itself.

In my mind, the only "plan" I can think of is a deliberate plan to break Pakistan into two or more pieces in the next war and carry it through to control territory whether there is nuclear war or no nuclear war. We simply cannot continue to imagine that all will be well if we simply leave Pakistan alone. I can predict right now and offer my left testimonial in a bet that this idea will not go down well with most Indians who do not want any war. But if war is imposed on us we must prepare for a final solution. It is not a happy thought, but it has to be thrashed out in public debate starting now.

[RoyG]

Roy, Last week, I happened to hear a fellow-green-tea drinker Chinese near coffee machine dhoti shibbering on ISRO's capability to launch 20 satellites. He keeps thinking it is a dual use vehicle and each satellite is actually an MIRV. He wouldn't accept India will not use ISRO's capability.

what say?

MIRV is there, nothing to hide.

PSLV is too large to do anything.

Federation of American Scientists invented similar logic back in the day.

Some cannot digest that Indians are capable of reemerging as a world power again.

[Prem]

For Pakistan, let's count only Pakjabi on priority basis for Journey to Jannat in Jungi Zanoon. Leave aside women, kids & old goats, numbers become very realistic for their accommodation in Brothel Upon Heaven with all benefits and perks for these illegitimate offsprings of Terks. 50-60 Million dead Pakjabi will go long way to to eliminate global islamist terrorist threat. Just make sure first that we have enough economic clout to buy as many HR jerks peddling their wares on our path to permanent peace.

[RoyG]

There are limits to jihadi mentality when you rise that high and amass wealth.

They'll never nuke anyone.

We'll just salami slice them until there is nothing left.

Hindoos have infinite patience.

In this case we'll simply just wait it out and watch them destroy themselves.

Hyenas actually do the same.

[SSridhar]

At what point does Counterforce become unacceptable to the other party that it indeed escalates? Do we need counterforce weapons to do targeted assaults? Is a tit for tat answer the best answer to TNW's? Tactical weapons worked to some extent due to the geographical distance of the two main protagonists.

In order to answer these, I will again go back to the West European theatre because I believe that there are some lessons there for us.

I start with the assumption that because of our NFU and because of Pakistan's FU policies, we have already been attacked either by a decapitating strike or through battlefield TNWs. Therefore, there is no question of counterforce weapons becoming 'unacceptable' to Pakistanis. If Pakistan had launched a massive first strike, then they should expect a counter. Even if they used only TNWs, they should still expect a massive retaliation from us because our doctrine is clear on that. No ambiguity. The question of 'acceptability' doesn't arise therefore.

This is one place where there is significant difference between the West European theatre and us. There, West Europe was US cat's paw and Germany, Holland & Belgium (but mostly Germany) were to house the TNWs and use them against invading Soviet & Warsaw Pact troops. The assumption by the US (and NATO) was that such battlefield-level nuclear emplyment would not lead to strategic exchanges.This was the initial thought anyway. But, in our case, our doctrine is very clear and we will immediately resort to employment of strategic weapons.

Do we need to resort to counterforce weapons as a tit-for-tat? Absolutely yes. A nuclear attack on a n-weapon state demands a nuclear counter attack. The argument whether tit-for-tat is a good policy or not breaks down when nuclear forces are involved. In our scheme of things, a-weapons have a deterrent political value. In the case of Pakistan, they are weapons of war and have only a military value. So, if deterrence breaks down, we have to respond in kind to hasten the termination of war and achieve a goal favourable to us. Otherwise, what is the use of a weapon if we hesitate to use it? N-wars cannot go beyond a couple of days. Wars are not dharmic and more so n-wars. As to whether, the same objectives can be achieved with other weapons like BrahMos, Garuthma, Nirbhaya et al, sure they may be able to do so in the case of Pakistan which lacks depth. But, the very nature of the n-weapons and their delivery platforms ensure a certainty, a compression of war duration and morale-sapping large-scale destruction of the carefully selected targets of the enemy leading to the giving up of the will to continue the fight that the other weapons will not be able to give.

As for distance, yes, that is an issue, but our strike forces are expected to operate in an NBC environment anyway. Besides, most of the targets we select for n-attack would be farther away from the border. We may have to even coordinate the strikes with the ANA because we want them to seize the opportunity to take over their legal lands up to Attock. They would not be equipped or trained to operate in a nuclear environment.

The Europeans quickly realized that this was a bad bargain for them, as all these weapons would be used on their land, on their people and hence the stiff opposition to nuclear weapons on tactical missiles and the subsequent INF treaty . One of the key focus areas has been to ban tactical weapons. Everything I know about India's thinking on this matter is to move AWAY from tactical nuclear weapons.

Only partially true, IMO. The Germans were very hesitant initially with TNWs, n-tipped artillery shells etc but they realized that they had to use them as otherwise they were naked and likely to be swamped. These were deployed in Germany, Holland & Belgium quite willingly. However, the Germans demanded the US to develop alternates because detonating these weapons either on their own soil against intruding Soviet army would expose their citizens & military or inside Poland, for example, when advancing German soldiers would be exposed. That was the next stage that led to ERW or Neutron Bombs and Germany, the frontline state, was willing to deploy them also when Carter dropped the idea suddenly due to [his idea of] ethical reasons, domestic pressure etc. West Germany was indeed miffed and there was even deterioration in relationship between the two nations over this issue. The Germans were so committed to these weapons. So, it was not as if the West Europeans were averse to deploying these tactical weapons. The NATO felt that they had no choice otherwise. What NATO called ‘the triad’ was conventional, theatre and strategic nuclear forces. Up to this point, the idea of 'theatre' was very narrow, limited to the immediate vicinity (probably a few tens of Kms) of the eyeball-to-eyeball opposing forces.

The INF treaty came in c. 1987 almost three decades after the NATO deployed theatre n-weapons. The deployment of MIRVed, more accurate & road-mobile, the SS-20 by the USSR in 1977 altered the balance. These were deployed facing China as well as Western Europe. These were IRBMs, not strictly theatre-weapons but their accuracy (and hence counterforce) and their targeting necessitated that they be deemed as theatre nuclear weapons. This was a grey area. All these SS-20s were based in the USSR, not in East Europe. The NATO allies developed Pershing & GLCMs to strike deep into East Europe, the Soviet & Warsaw Pact troops located well within Poland and all the way up to Ukraine. In fact, the Americans called these as Long Range Theater Nuclear Force (LRTNF). We can already see the definition of 'theatre' getting re-defined. The Warsaw Pact countries in East Europe had a depth that the West European countries lacked, another similarity with India-Pakistan situation.

To cut a long story short, IRBMs were considered as theatre weapons and in our case too, the high-accuracy Agnis, MIRVed & MARVed, would be effective counterforce weapons to strike behind the frontline troops. Conventional forces & weapons must tackle the advancing strike corps of the PA. We may also use conventionally-understood TNWs against the PA but only judiciously taking into account our troop positions, planned manoueveres etc. But, we may generally eschew these weapons.

I have no idea about what the thinking in the Indian strategic forces command is but it would not be prudent to eliminate any option. We have to overcome the deleterious effects of theatre weapons to suit our requirements.

In our context, the geography and population densities involved do not allow for this luxury. In most war games, those assumptions on limited theater use went awry quite rapidly and would be pronto in our case. We have our conventional forces to eliminate TSP war fighting capabilities. As data will show to you, one would need dozens of TNW's to make an armored division inoperable and this is without hardening and most of our tanks have been NBC enabled.

Sensible nations do not consider n-weapons as war-fighting instruments. Only Pakistani army officers talk casuallay about these WMDs and only their SFC draws up very low threshold redlines. It is therefore safe to assume that the Pakistani perception of their n-arsenal is to use it against us. Obviously, a nuclear exchange in our context would be initiated by Pakistan and responded to by India. Once a country is attacked with a n-weapon, the dynamic changes. The definition of 'theatre' cannot be limited to just the points of contact between the two attacking armies either along the border or the frontline, as the West European Theatre of the 60s thru' 80s proves.

Limited theatre use would escalate rapidly up the ladder, no doubt. But, in this scenario, India is not initiating a nuke attack for it to feel that it would go awry. A jihadi-controlled, reckless Pakistan with nuclear weapons is always dangerous and coupled with its tactical brilliance, we have to assume that things will certainly go awry. We are not going to stop things from spiraling out of control. That can happen only between two responsible entities, as it eventually happened between the US-NATO & USSR-Warsaw countries/groups. Pakistan is clearly not.

[Raghz]

I have reason to believe that my reading of both these policies is dead right. We have a "lazy, easy" policy. We will plan nothing until we are attacked and after that we will "play it by ear" and we have no plans beyond the immediate goal of thwarting aggression and massive retaliation

We can call it by any name, but this is what I think is our reality at present.

Pakistan is not going to "introspect". Pakistan is only aiming at Indian destruction - or at best very very serious damage to India. If we have not understood this there is no point in planning for a prosperous future expecting taht we will be left alone. We will not be left alone.

The assumption that nuking Pakistan will somehow magically solve something simply because of destruction is not an idea that I can agree with. We will have to go in and take control of vast swathes of Pakistan and impose governance. Doing this will be costly an bloody but our "lazy, easy" policy solves nothing by itself.

In my mind, the only "plan" I can think of is a deliberate plan to break Pakistan into two or more pieces in the next war and carry it through to control territory whether there is nuclear war or no nuclear war. We simply cannot continue to imagine that all will be well if we simply leave Pakistan alone. I can predict right now and offer my left testimonial in a bet that this idea will not go down well with most Indians who do not want any war. But if war is imposed on us we must prepare for a final solution. It is not a happy thought, but it has to be thrashed out in public debate starting now.

Caveat: I do not know about weapons and hence will stick to strategy.

I would dare to say that our policy tells us more about ourselves than to whom it is supposed to address. Policy stems from what the leadership of a nation define as priorities for the nation. Over the last 70 years, our priority has never been to invade and occupy territory. More or less the order of our priorities have remained the same. We are one of the lowest spenders on defense (if we remove the wages and other associated costs).

The DNA of majority of Indians and hence the Indian leadership is rooted in Sanatana Dharma whether we recognize / acknowledge or not. The only exception was during UPA I and UPA II, when the power center was from an alien culture and hence the priorities got changed / new ones introduced. Thankfully, we have got someone who is far more rooted in our cultural ethos than anyone before. Having said that, it does not mean we are pacifists. It is just that, our freedom fighters and later political leaders have witnessed famines and suffering of millions of Indians. Hence our priority is to address our immediate problems. It is always an economic argument of Butter Vs Guns. We have always spent more on butter, but just enough on guns so that no one snatches our butter again. As our economic situation improves, our policy will evolve. Having a policy of occupying territory after a nuclear war is useless unless we have the means to implement it. At the moment, our policy tells us that we do not have the means. When we do, our policy will change.

I do not think our economic situation gave us the luxury to plan for the breakup of Pakistan. It happened in 1971 not because India planned for it, but because Pakistan committed suicide. When a nation is born of hatred and continues to have hatred as a state policy against its neighbours and its own citizens, what else can we expect? My reading is that the same (breakup) will repeat with respect to Baluchistan, Sindh, NWFP, Gilgit, Baltistan, etc. Islam is not holding Pakistan together. The Pakistan army is.

[SaiK]

You can't prevent a suicide mission, especially that is done w/o your knowledge. Of course, you can setup certain preemption plan to avoid that if it happens within yellow seas. However, India's interest is also not to protect neighborhoods who are on suicide missions all by themselves. They will charter their own destruction is what many slow-disaster-extremist think. The truth would be somewhere in the center, where the only factor that defines is how you have managed not to sink along with the suicide. Analyze impacts of cross-border activities that might emanate from such missions.

[arijitdas]

I am a newbee here and feeling previledged to add my own 2 cents.
I found most of the points/ views apt and crisp.But by virtue of working in SE Asia for a while I have met a number of Pakistanis and chatted with them candidly on almost all issues.
Firstly we're all assuming that Pakistan is a cohesive 'Nation-State', well it's actually not and trust me in foreign locations, the deep rifts between a Punjabi (Pakistani) and a Sindhi or even a Pakhtun grows manifold. In Sindh there are ~20Mn Muhajirs residing who are not as rabid anti Indians as Punjabis, remember Altaf Hussain berating Punjabi army and denouncing the state of Pakistan -http://www.dawn.com/news/1281154. Also Mahmood Khan Achakzai has recently stated he's a Pakhtun first and the province of KP belong to Afghans - http://www.dawn.com/news/1268402 and for Baloch I believe I need not to even bother. Well some of the Sindhis or Pakhtuns are indeed anti Indians but during a full scale war the fault lines cana be ecxaggerated IMHO.
So from my viewpoint there's no reason to kill the people who'll be of your help once the exchange ends. But We must take out the nuclear stockpiles from, whichever province they are in and for that we need to have very strong intelligence and surveillance.
Now comes the biggest question, how to tackle Punjab? Well the way Punjabi's have heckled us Indians we should hang our heads in shame. Punjab threatening the state of India is like Maharashta threatening China! But our Dhoti clad LEADERs continued to tolerate this unending and unintentionally encouraging them to be more assertive and aggresive without the fear of any sort of retribution.
I can tell with genuine conformity that 'Fidayeen' as a core belief system runs deep inside the veins of the Punjabi muslims and the visceral hatred towards anything Hindu and Indian is just mindboggingly unreal. So in my view they wouldn't only stick to the TNWs when the threshold breaches and indeed Punjabis being such extremely sado-masochists and insecured lot would target Indian cities/installations with their full might. We cannot fathom a Ronen Sen or a Meera Shankar or an S Jaishankar would ever even utter what their amb. Zafar Hillay (All being High Commissioners to the US for their respective countries) famously said : 'Either we use it, or we lose it', such is their Paranoia!
So India must be ready for a full scale nuclear exchange from the first moment as Panjabi army would try to do as much harm to India and to Indian states before they attain 'Shahadat' and become Fidayeen.
Remember we're dealing with a quasi-jihadi army motivated by religion and not by logic or sanctity so our answer should be, pre-emptive as well reciprocative and definitely not reactive.

[ramana]

MAD works for rational players,

Mad caps have to be targeted in particular. Sometimes before they act.
In case on an exchange all Indian warheads should be targeted at Pakjab only.

[Gagan]

I was wondering where to post this, but here goes: This is about the UCAV / DAE program in Chitradurga
International media on India’s Top-Secret Nuclear City under construction must watch latest news?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwW1YRgep44

[Gagan]

1. Excuse the reporter-ni, she is afflicted by the Leftist bug. Talks about 'Indian proliferation', 'Indian defence minister', as if she is a non-indian. Maybe she is not indian

2. Bharat Karnard talks about the yield of India's TNs, 175, 225, 275 KTs. The only test proven physics package India has is a 20KT.

3. K Santhanam also appears in the video. Says that the TN underperformed, that part of the test shaft was undamaged.

4. A Q Khan describes how he has a shed in Kahuta where the roof opens up and he could fire a N tipped missile at New Delhi. Bugger says that in case the political or military leadership dithered or were wiped out, he would press the button to launch the missile himself.

[ramana]

So best option is to get Hafiz Suar to pignap him like Napoleon Pig!

[ramana]

Seriously, Karnad numbers are interesting.

I don't understand the 225kt one.

[krishna_krishna]

Mohtarma is World Press Institute, Ex Indian Express what else do you expect hain ji ?

She has another one on AJ(news channel) on hindu ejtrimissm. What suprises me is how she is able to get in touch so closely with a Vice Admiral that is something mind boggling why would such people be allowed to get near. Anyways what seems to me is laser cold testing facility to test the petals, but why only Ur not Pu. I am worried about sperm counts about boys on the sub if they want to have an Ur based machine

[shiv]

So from my viewpoint there's no reason to kill the people who'll be of your help once the exchange ends. But We must take out the nuclear stockpiles from, whichever province they are in and for that we need to have very strong intelligence and surveillance.
Now comes the biggest question, how to tackle Punjab? Well the way Punjabi's have heckled us Indians we should hang our heads in shame. Punjab threatening the state of India is like Maharashta threatening China! But our Dhoti clad LEADERs continued to tolerate this unending and unintentionally encouraging them to be more assertive and aggresive without the fear of any sort of retribution.
I can tell with genuine conformity that 'Fidayeen' as a core belief system runs deep inside the veins of the Punjabi muslims and the visceral hatred towards anything Hindu and Indian is just mindboggingly unreal. So in my view they wouldn't only stick to the TNWs when the threshold breaches and indeed Punjabis being such extremely sado-masochists and insecured lot would target Indian cities/installations with their full might.

Interesting thoughts.

A few of my thoughts in response:

Taking out nuclear stockpiles is not going to happen - and the idea in general falls under the category "counter-force" - i.e "countering their (nuclear) force". No amount of nuking of suspected sites can guarantee their destruction so the solution is to punish the nation, its leaders and its people and its ability to survive as a coherent state by hitting "counter-value" targets causing massive and deliberately cruel and deliberate premeditated genocidal damage.

The argument we have been having here (and you have also clearly expressed your views on this) revolves around the question of whether anyone in Pakistan can be awarded a little less misery than others, when making them miserable is the fundamental objective of a countervalue doctrine

You are right about Pakjabis but i want to point out that the people in the Pakistan Punjab area have historically lost to all invaders and the losers have largely taken up the religion of the invaders but have lost even after that - to Sikhs, Afghans, British and Indians. Inflict enough pain on them and they will buckle. It is exactly as you say - they have been mollycoddled and favoured by out Lutyens leaders

I don't claim to have any great strategy or fantastic answers, but I do wonder if Pakjab - especially rich north Punjab of Pakistan can be subjected to the worst punishment while sparing Lahore, Karachi, Quetta etc.

[SSridhar]

. . . but why only Ur not Pu.

If the facility is a hydrodynamic facility, one can understand the requirements for Uranium.

[SSridhar]

I am a newbee here and feeling previledged to add my own 2 cents.
I found most of the points/ views apt and crisp.But by virtue of working in SE Asia for a while I have met a number of Pakistanis and chatted with them candidly on almost all issues.

Welcome to the forum, arijitdas2006. Please do share your experiences and thoughts and contribute to the widening of knowledge.

Firstly we're all assuming that Pakistan is a cohesive 'Nation-State' . . . but during a full scale war the fault lines cana be ecxaggerated IMHO.

On the first part, no, we do not make any such assumption. Please follow our main Pakistan thread and you will realize that. On the second part, I concur.

But We must take out the nuclear stockpiles from, whichever province they are in and for that we need to have very strong intelligence and surveillance.

I agree and that's where counterforce targetting is so important. With about five dozen terrorist organizations, with almost all of them in cahoots with the Pakistani Army and the ISI, and a significant section of the PA being radicalized jihadis, if the stockpile is not taken out or degraded, there is every likelihood of them falling into wrong hands. Pakistan also has dozens of n-weapons on a constant prowl shuttling along main roads and highways unobtrusively as their SFC has admitted before. How do we seize them? Deep real-time intel is very essential for this for accurate targetting. Then there are TNWs in the hands of local commanders near the border. The reality is that we may never be able to capture or account for all these. Another scenario to consider is like what happened after the USSR broke-up and the CAR states gave-up the weapons.

Zafar Hillay famously said : 'Either we use it, or we lose it', such is their Paranoia! . . . So India must be ready for a full scale nuclear exchange from the first moment

As we know, n-weapons are a political weapon for us while they are weapons of war for the Pakistanis and meant only to be used. The power of Pakistan is such that Zafar Hilaly, being from Chennai & Bengaluru, espouses a suicidal doctrine so nonchalantly. We don't have any illusions about Pakistan's determination to use these weapons at the earliest opportunity. We will proceed with the assumption that they will not hold back.

. . . so our answer should be, pre-emptive as well reciprocative and definitely not reactive.

What do you mean by pre-emptive? Go and seize their weapons like how OBL was seized? That's not going to happen, if that's what you meant, unless the situation within Pakistan had deteriorated so badly that it warrants enough fear for India & the US to act together and has tacit Chinese support or China also collaborates fearing for its own safety. That is a long distance away. The closest it came to was 2008/2009 when the Taliban occupied Swat. Since then, the situation has perceptibly improved.

As for 'reactive' our NFU policy is already reactive, isn't it? I do not understand reciprocative.

[arijitdas]

^^
It's an honor really for me to have received inputs from you SSridhar sir and Shiv Sir, truly humbled.
Sir I work as Fraud Investigation Consultant in an IT firm in Kuala Lumpur and there are a number of Punjabi Pakistanis working in our office in the call center as well with many Han Chinese.
For your point regarding the discussion on cohesiveness of Pakistan, yes, I was reading the last couple of pages of this thread and I agree I may have been wrong there.
By pre-emptive, I meant all the ways possible to scuttle their first use,by means of sabotage, subterfuge, raw force whichever we may deem fit. However we may like to seize their nukes, I agree completely with you sire, that's not going to happen. Also by reciprocative means undoing the messes created by our previous Govts. especially Gujral doctrine. Normally it would take many years to 'un-wrong' the wrongs and the series of them, but we're running against time and running out of time as well. I think you'll also agree that the tentacles of ISI has reached deep within our political/societal system, recently released Shahabuddin is a fit case for that --> http://zeenews.india.com/home/shahabudd ... 24620.html. Also there were news that Dawood got the tip off from Mantralaya/ Mumbai Police before permanently leaving India and ultimately settling in Pakistan. News Links -> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... er-Dawood-
Ibrahim.html
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/dawood-ib ... 10860.html
and many more.So my question is do we have this serious plants inside the Pakistani political/judicial/executive system, I have not read any reports/news/details confirming it. So I presume, probably not, and by reciprocative I meant this kind of access and reach, which in my understanding is a bridge too far.
But I want to pursue this one a little differently. Pakistan has one and only one ally (so to say) left today. Ummah no matter how much support Pakistan verbally will not actually come to their aid, as was visible during '71 when when we helped breaking a Muslim nation into 2. The only ally of Pakistan, is the ephemeral 'Elephant in the Room', i.e China. Well for me, sorry if it sounds harsh, but Pakistan is the 'condom' which China uses for sodomy, and we're at the receiving end. In my view, China may encourage Pakistan to be assertive and aggressive, as they know, even if, there's a nuclear exchange between India & Pakistan, there would be pretty less fall out on Chinese mainland, also all their major rivers are on upper basin and we're at the lower basin, so there's pretty less chance of water contamination as well. Again Hans from Communist Party of China, would not be bothered about the 'Humanitarian' part much, if we're obliterated, it's better for them as it would mean less competition, unchallenged workforce size and unbound hegemony in Asia and later globally. So by every means it's for their benefit to encourage them for an all out war, no matter how much they want to persuade the Pakistan otherwise, their ultimate aim is to reduce the biggest obstacle from their way. And as the famous saying goes, for communists it's the end that matters, not the means.(Leon Trotsky - A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. (Also quoted as "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.") Marx --> https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/doc ... munism.php
Thus in my view, our immediate priority should be to create major unrest,problems in POJK area (so called Azad Kashmir & GB) as well in Balochistan. We have to increase the psychological, physical and material costs for China in doing business via CPEC. For China it's not Business through CPEC, as the cost of doing business is sky-high compared to sea routes and we all know it, it's strategic and purely strategic. Needless to add that Hans are not that great kind souls who'll spend Billions of Yuans to better the lives of 200 million Pakistanis. So unless we first need to take care of the euphemistic Elephant we'll keep on throttling for the answer of an unuttered question.

I know this posting is a little long for the thread, but would love to have you Shifu's view about taming the Dragon.Who wants to be a Dragon Slayer?

[Rudradev]

It is possible to utterly destroy Pakistan without nukes.

The key is to destroy, with overwhelming conventional means, thoroughly and very publicly, the warfighting capability of the Pakistan Army.

I'm talking about visiting on the PA the sort of complete destruction that the US brought to bear on the Iraqi Army during the 1991 Gulf War. Convert N-5, E-4 and their tributaries into a highway-of-death vista, littered with thousands of corpses and burned-out vehicles destroyed while in full retreat. Let the whole of Pakistan see that the PA... the one institution that holds that nation together through fear and intimidation... has no capacity to do anything anymore. Let Pakistani army units disband of their own accord and flee, in civvy shalwars, to their various cities, villages, farmsteads, and tribal homes... where they can become recruits in a lakh of tiny regional conflicts.

So far, this has never been achieved in full view of the Pakistani people. In 1971, a humiliating defeat was inflicted in Bangladesh, but that was too far away and could be spun every which way by the PA for their audience at home. Likewise, in 1999, the PA corpses who littered the passes overlooking Kargil and Drass were simply left there to freeze (with very good reason from Musharraf's point of view). As long as the Pakistani people don't *see* the incontrovertible evidence of a total PA rout, the defeat is wasted to one extent or another. If it happens where all Pakistanis can see it, and it is sufficiently comprehensive and exhaustive in its scope, the destruction of PA warfighting capability will spark off exactly the sort of subnational revolts that are brewing under the surface at all times, and end with the result we have always wanted: the centrifugal breakup of the Pakistani state.

The advantages of formulating such a goal are the following:
1) We do not have to be concerned about holding territory other than for very short-term tactical purposes. Our forces simply have to move, destroy, mop up, smack down any counterattacks, and move on again as quickly as they can. This allows for greater elasticity of supply lines and logistics, and maximum efficacy of combined-arms warfare against a conventional enemy force.
2) We do not have to be concerned about getting bogged down in urban warfare. Let the surviving PA troops retreat to the cities. In the internet/cell-phone age, evidence that the PA is being concurrently devastated throughout the country will get to those cities even ahead of retreating or deserting troops. We will not have to touch the cities at all, apart from interdicting efforts to resupply PA units in the open from those cities. Eventually, the cities will destroy themselves as a result of our actions.
3) In fact, the only targets we should attack within cities would be known jihadi institutions: hammering Muridke, Binori et al with sustained, repeated barrages of stand-off weapons. There is no need for us to destroy civilian infrastructure within cities. Since we are not concerned with holding territory, the "non-state" assets will not be able to stage an effective guerilla campaign from within cities against our troops in defensive positions. OTOH, power plants, water supply infrastructure, agricultural land, transport/communications infrastructure, and of course military institutions outside city limits would be fair game as targets of opportunity.
4) Besides delivering overwhelming destructive force, the sole objective of the operation would be speed. Go in, kill, and get out. Go around population centers and reinforced hardpoints to hit enemy concentrations in their most unprepared state. Disrupt enemy command and control using decapitation strikes (conventional). Aim for the frontlines to shift so quickly and fluidly that there is no clear opportunity for the enemy's use of TNWs. The PA should be left guessing about our intentions; they will expect us to try and seize territory, but in actual fact, our sole purpose will be to engage them and kill them wherever possible.
5) In the meantime, test a few thermonukes in the Rajasthan desert, just so that there is no doubt about our intentions to follow up on any type or scale of nuclear attack against our advancing forces. Together with keeping the Pakis guessing about our operational intentions, this may create enough FUD to prevent the PA initiating a nuclear strike.

Philosophically this sort of operation would recapitulate the "war-rides" conducted by Edward I (The Black Prince) from the British-held territories of Aquitaine against the French throne. Edward never intended to seize more French territory than what had already been bequeathed to him by his Norman ancestors, but using speed and destructive power, sought to undermine the military authority of the Dauphin and French chivalric Knights, throwing the entire integrity of France into disarray. Defeating large French formations in pitched battles helped reinforce the mystique of the Black Prince and crippled the H&D of the French throne (so very important in maintaining control over feudal states like 14th-century France or 21st-century Pakistan). Later British leaders got greedy and started occupying French towns instead of merely sacking and burning them, and the French staged a comeback under Joan-of-Arc... but that's a different story.

Of course, the entire discourse of "low thresholds" and "TFTA redlines" proffered by the Pakis (as well as their very visible pursuit of TNWs) is directed exactly towards deterring the Indian will to inflict such a scenario upon them. Since this is the deterrence thread, I would like to discuss how much deterrent value (against a 26/11 type Pakistani attack, for example) this completely non-nuclear scenario of inflicting crippling and public destruction against the Pakistan Armed Forces would have. Do we have the conventional superiority to achieve something like this... keeping in mind that our intended goal is only destruction of enemy forces and not occupying territory in the medium or long term? If not, then by when would we have it? Do the Pakistanis believe that this sort of war-ride is something India is capable of, and is planning to mobilize for (is this what their paranoia about "Cold Start" reflects?) What do BRF gurus feel is the *actual* threshold of destruction we could inflict on the PA with this kind of operation, short of which they would lack the confidence that using TNWs is the best way out for them?

[ramana]

All read Deejay's article linked n Balochistan thread.

[krishna_krishna]

Rdevji,

Pranam here is my two naya paisa :

1) Napakjabi army size : 550,000 active troops 500,000 reserves
Desh army size : 1,252,090 active personnel 1,155,000 reserve personnel

Conventional military doctrine indicates in order to bring the amount of destruction you intend in your discussion the ratio of invading forces must be 3:1 right now we are at 2:1 if we punch above our weight we can do that but the fact is we need to factor in our other borders and that stretches out thin and we are almost 1:1

2) The only way to bridge this gap would be through technology and using other Arms such are Navy and Airforce where we hold superiority

3) We need smart ammunitions that are advanced as well as cheap to produce in numbers, unmanned bombers and nuclear submarines

IF we see what is being bought I believe 2019-22 is the time when we can have this capacity provided we grow at current rate and napakis go down with current rate.

4) What can be a jackpot is if we can co-ordinate Iran and Afghanistan into military strategy with base in Tajikistan the goose would be grilled to perfection

Lastly if they get new forefather like Russe than again it would be shity. So key is to make sure they do not get any sugar daddy's and we continue on current path. Victory shall be ours Inshallah!!!

[shiv]

Of course, the entire discourse of "low thresholds" and "TFTA redlines" proffered by the Pakis (as well as their very visible pursuit of TNWs) is directed exactly towards deterring the Indian will to inflict such a scenario upon them. Since this is the deterrence thread, I would like to discuss how much deterrent value (against a 26/11 type Pakistani attack, for example) this completely non-nuclear scenario of inflicting crippling and public destruction against the Pakistan Armed Forces would have. Do we have the conventional superiority to achieve something like this... keeping in mind that our intended goal is only destruction of enemy forces and not occupying territory in the medium or long term? If not, then by when would we have it? Do the Pakistanis believe that this sort of war-ride is something India is capable of, and is planning to mobilize for (is this what their paranoia about "Cold Start" reflects?) What do BRF gurus feel is the *actual* threshold of destruction we could inflict on the PA with this kind of operation, short of which they would lack the confidence that using TNWs is the best way out for them?

The topic is "deterrence" and while it was intended for deterrence from launching nuclear war, it is worth asking, as Rudradev has done, whether conventional force alone can deter Pakistanis from nuclear misadventure against India

In my mind a "deterrent" is capability, intent and demonstration of intent. I will try and illustrate with an example

1.If I carry a stick for self protection it is capability
2. If I wield the stick and show it when I feel threatened, it is intent
3. But a demonstration of ability and intent is when I actually use the stick to beat someone

Unfortunately "deterrence with nuclear weapons" is a game that can be played only using points 1 and 2 above - i.e. showing capability and expressing intent. The fundamental point is that if you intend to possess nuclear weapons to deter someone, you must actually have those weapons. You cannot use non existent nuclear weapons and say that you have nuclear weapons to deter someone. If you do not have nuclear weapons, you should be able to show capability and intent to use conventional weapons in a way that stops the opposing party from using his nuclear weapons. This is a useless pursuit as India has tried this and failed.

Since deterrence is in large part a purely psychological phenomenon, India went though the agonizing process of not developing nuclear weapons and claiming that it is possible to deter nuclear armed adversaries (esp China) by using peace overtures, cultural demonstrations of goodness, give and take. Unfortunately India learned the hard way that this is absolute bullshit. Nobody in the world gives a rats ass for goodness but everyone respects an ability to cause untold suffering. The ability to cause suffering is a deterrent, not goodness. That is why conventional superiority by itself is not enough - nuclear weapons must stay as the sheet anchor of deterrence. This much is well known, but the world (especially the US) has moved on since then.

When the USSR was the US's main opponent, it was possible to do a Tango with the USSR and reach "civilized but idiotic" treaties like SALT, START and anti ABM agreements. When the US started facing adversaries that would not negotiate like the USSR - namely Iraq, Iran and NoKo, the US embarked on two-fold path - which only the US can do (not India). The US imposed sanctions (Iran, NoKo) or made war (Iraq, Libya).

What the US did in the case of Iraq and Libya was point No 3 above -which is

3. But a demonstration of ability and intent is when I actually use the stick to beat someone

The US has demonstrated an ability and intent to punish and punish severely using conventional weapons alone, keeping nukes in the background. The US is even today moving further in developing extremely low yield and extremely accurate "modern warfighting" nuclear weapons - a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of jingos calling for outdated "megatonne" nukes.

To cut a long story short India needs to demonstrate ability and intent to use its conventional forces to cause massive suffering to Pakistani forces as a "trailer" of what is to come in case they want nuclear weapons. I think the Indian armed forces have done exactly that from time to time - but I think both we the public and the forces themselves feel that we can do much more graphic demonstrations if given the chance.

Here Indian "peaceniks" have a spoiler role and rabid Islamists have developed ties with Indian peaceniks to prevent India from taking more effective action, while emboldening the Paki army. But that is a separate issue

[shiv]

Let me make a very short post as a tailpiece to my post above:

Forget multi-megaton warheads. Why not develop extremely accurate 5 -10 kiloton warheads and delivery systems to specifically target pinpoint locations?

[SwamyG]

old video. Doval Doctrine for China, developing missiles (and not focusing on developing tanks) etc etc

[Manish_Sharma]

Rudradev ji, the current debate started with scenario about 2 cities Mumbai and Delhi have been nuked by Pakistan, and we shouldn't hit back porkis using our nukes.

Secondly, Smaller warheads americans have developed are dial a yield type small ones; plus they are not taking down their 475 kt W88 warheads and destroying them. Those are also deployed.

[wig]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 96504.html

Pakistan's new uranium enrichment complex

Pakistan, estimated to have the world’s fastest-growing nuclear stockpile, could be building a new uranium enrichment complex, according to commercial satellite imagery analysed by Western defence experts.
The construction of a new site, based in Kahuta, 30 km east of Islamabad, provides fresh evidence of how Pakistan is seeking to boost its atomic arsenal — a goal which is inconsistent with the principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group the country is seeking to join, said the analysis.
The analysis was conducted by IHS Jane’s Intelligence review using satellite images taken by Airbus Defence and Space on September 28, 2015 and then again on April 18, 2016.
Pakistan, which conducted its first nuclear tests in 1998, is believed to have around 120 nuclear weapons, more than India, Israel and North Korea. A 2015 report written by scholars at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center said Pakistan could increase its stockpile by 20 warheads a year and have the world’s third largest in a decade.
“The area of interest is 1.2 hectares and is located within the secure area of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL),” said the statement. Karl Dewey, a proliferation analyst at IHS Jane’s, added: “It is sited within an established centrifuge facility, has strong security and shows some of the structural features of a possible new uranium enrichment facility. This makes it a strong candidate for a new centrifuge facility.”
The structure of the site also bears strong resemblance to facilities built by nuclear fuel company URENCO, which also operates several nuclear plants in Europe, it said.
“This may be more than coincidence as AQ Khan, considered to be the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, worked at URENCO before stealing centrifuge designs and returning to Pakistan,” said Charlie Cartwright, an imagery analyst for IHS Jane’s. Pakistan is currently seeking to join the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group that seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture atomic weapons.
Pakistani physicist AH Nayyar said if the site was indeed a centrifuge, “then primarily because they are being built inside KRL I would conclude they are for weapons”, adding that the country’s nuclear power plants were supplied by imported uranium from China. He, however, cautioned it was not possible to be definitive about the site’s purpose based on imagery alone.

[Gagan]

Cross posting from TSP thread:
Kahuta
The new development is marked New Centrifuge Facility.
The area on the right marked Missile Manufacture, also manufactures components of several different kinds of weapons
Once you zoom out of this image, one can see the various SAM and Radar sites that the Pakistanis have set up to try and protect this area. They have several Crotale SAM units, and balloons deployed south-east and south west of this facility to try and counter any aerial strike

[Gyan]

We must launch all out covert war against Pakistan while keeping ready for shallow thrusts and lightening hits if they get too aggressive. We also have to prepare for internal COIN in more systematic manner.

[SSridhar]

In the light of the Uri Army camp attack, there was some report suggesting that the Pakistani Defence Minister, the loose-canon Khwaja Asif, had threatened India with a nuclear attack. I am not able to locate yet any reference to that.

Of course, we won't b surprised if Khwaja Asif has indeed issued such a threat.

I compiled a list of such threats that Pakistan has issued at various times and bragged about their deterrence.

• According to the article ‘Securing nuclear peace’ written by the then Pakistani foreign minister Abdul Sattar, former foreign minister, Agha Shahi and retired Air chief, Air chief Marshal Zulfikhar Ali Khan in News International of 5 October,1999, Pakistanis feel the value of their nuclear capability was illustrated on at least four occasions in mid 1980s, 1987, 1990 and later in 2001. In the same article the Pakistani authors acknowledge that the Kargil crisis both tested and illustrated the deterrence assumption. The first such threat came when the Indian High Commissioner Mr. S.K.Singh was told by the Defence Minister of Pakistan in January, 1987 that Pakistan was capable ‘of inflicting unacceptable damage to India’. The second came within a few months during an interview by the noted journalist Kuldip Nayer with A.Q.Khan in c. 1987. In February 1990, the visiting Pakistani COAS, Gen. Yakub Khan referred to ‘fire from the sky and rivers of blood’ in conversation with the then Indian prime Minister, Mr. I.K. Gujral. A few months later, in May 1990, the nuclear threat was conveyed through the US, as Shri K.Subrahmanyam vividly recalled in an interview. On 5th October 2001, a Pakistan Army 5-star general, sporting a 'huge toothy grin' asked the British PM Tony Blair's communications director, Alastair Campbell at a dinner hosted by Musharraf, to remind India of Pakistan's nuclear capability to launch a nuclear attack on it within 8 seconds.
• When India launched massive shelling across the IB after Pakistan had violated ceasefire and killed several Indian civilians in early October 2014, Pakistan Defence Minister Khwaja Asif said "Pakistan has the ability to reply to Indian aggression. We do not want the situation on the borders of two nuclear neighbours to escalate into confrontation. India must demonstrate caution and behave with responsibility" Simultaneously, the Federal Minister for States and Frontier Regions Lt Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch (Retd) said war is not the solution to any issue but "India should realise the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power".
• Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said in July 2015 that if they needed to use nuclear weapons for "our survival, we will". Asif said on Geo News programme 'Jirga' that use of nuclear weapons was an option as they were not kept merely for show but as deterrents.
• On October 20, 2015, Pakistan issued a very explicit nuclear threat when its Foreign Secretary, Aizaz Chaudhury, said in Washington, “Our nuclear programme is one dimensional: stopping Indian aggression before it happens. It is not for starting war. It is for deterrence”. He explained that Pakistan’s “low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons” would make it difficult for India to launch a war against Pakistan while remaining under the nuclear threshold. He said, “Our argument is, when you are a nuclear power, you do not create spaces for war. War is no more an option,” the foreign secretary said. “We have plugged the gap India had created. We have the right to do so.”
• On August 8, 2016, Pakistan-based Kashmiri terrorist and chief of the United Jihad Council, Syed Salahuddin, issued a very explicit threat when he said in a joint news conference in Karachi along with Jama’at-e-Islami, “Pakistan is duty bound, morally bound, politically bound , constitutionally bound to provide concrete, substantial support to the ongoing freedom struggle on the territory of Kashmir. And if Pakistan provides this support, there is a great chance of a nuclear war between two powers.” A few days earlier, the Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif had said, addressing a public gathering in Muzaffarabad, "We are waiting for the day Kashmir becomes (part of) Pakistan."

[wig]

some of the nuclear threats issued by Pakistan including one by Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif in an interview (July 8, 2015) to a Pakistani TV channel disclosed that Pakistan was willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure country's safety and survival

{b] Abdul Qadeer Khan, also known as A.Q. Khan, in a hawkish and preposterous statement (May 28, 2016, Islamabad) avowed that in case of any alleged military adventurism from India, Pakistan could target Delhi from Kahuta within five minutes.[/b] Kahuta is located about 30 km southeast of Islamabad and is famous for Pakistan's nuclear centre for carrying out atomic and weapon-testing experiments and related facilities. India is, however, not new to such threats emanating from Pakistan's official and non-official quarters since May 28, 1998, when Pakistan detonated first nuclear bomb.
A.Q. Khan made such baleful statement while addressing a seminar viz; 'Difaa-e-Pakistan: Youm-e-Takbeer ki Ahmiyyat' ('Defence of Pakistan: Significance of Youm-e-Takbeer) organized by the federal government aided Nazriya Pakistan Council (NPC), which is mouthpiece of anti-Indian and Pakistani hawks.

'Youm-e-Takbeer' (The Day of Allah's Greatness) is celebrated on May 28 as a national day throughout Pakistan every year in commemoration of Pakistan's detonating nuclear devices in Chaggai, Baluchistan, 17 days after India had detonated nuclear devices in Pokhran. This also made Pakistan 7th country in the world having nuclear weapon capability.
A.K. Khan, had single handedly made atomic bomb possible for Pakistan, but was disgraced for five years (2004-2009) and kept under house arrest by President Musharraf's for indulging in clandestine international business of atomic technology. However, A.Q. Khan has undiminished popularity amongst Pakistani masses in Pakistan and considered as a national hero, for creating atom bomb for the country as well as being a foremost hawk against India.
A.Q. Khan's threatening India to destroy Delhi may not have official node but the platform he had chosen for airing anti-Indian nuclear stance is important. Moreover, the seminar under question was also addressed by prominent retried senior military officers including Admiral (R) Abdul Aziz Mirza, former Chief of Pakistan Navy and Gen (retd.) Raza Khan, former President of the National Defence University (NDU), which itself is indicative of the fact that every year on 'Youm-e-Takbeer' day Pakistan religiously reminds India of its nuclear deterrence against India.
Warning of use of nuclear power against India, emanating from A.Q. Khan is, however, not a new Pakistani phenomenon. Pakistani civil and military leadership and ISI supported terrorist groups have been threatening India occasionally by claiming that Pakistan's defense had become impregnable due to its nuclear weaponry, which could be used against India in the event of any threat to Pakistan's existence.
Notably, former Pakistan Foreign Secretary had officially confirmed (October, 2015) that Pakistan would use low-yield nukes, also called as "tactical," nuclear weapons in a potential future conflict with India, particularly to pre-empt advance of Indian troops, to be carried out under so-called "Cold Start" doctrine, which was reportedly brain child of the then Indian army chief, General Deepak Kapoor in late 1980s, which India had denied vehemently.
Earlier, when India-Pakistan bilateral talks were called off (August, 2015) the then Pakistan's National Security Advisor and currently Advisor to Nawaz Sharif on Foreign Affairs, Sartaz Aziz had criticized India for allegedly behaving like a regional power and in a veiled threat to India had reminded India that Pakistan was also a nuclear-armed country.
Significantly, former chief ofPakistan's Strategic Plans Division (SPD), Lt General Khalid had reportedly made it known publicly during his 14 years long tenure (2002-13) as SPD chief that Pakistan could consider using nuclear weapons against India under four circumstances viz; if India conquers a large part of Pakistan; if India destroys large parts of Pakistan's army or air force; if India tries to strangle Pakistan economically; and if India tries to destabilise Pakistan politically, including by creating large scale internal subversion. It is SPD, which manages the operation, maintenance, and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpiles, under President and Prime Minister of Pakistan.
More recently, former President Parvez Musharraf, in an interview (June 10, 2015) to "Duniya News' a Pakistani TV channel, slammed India for allegedly destabilizing Pakistan and warned that Pakistan's nuclear weapons were meant for the defense purposes and not for "celebratory" occasions, like 'Shab-e-Baraat'.
He also alleged that India's ultimate strategy was to "de-nuclearise" Pakistan, which would never be allowed to happen. Later, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif in an interview (July 8, 2015) to a Pakistani TV channel disclosed that Pakistan was willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure country's safety and survival.
Some Pakistani ISI supported terrorists like Hafeez Saeed, chief of banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) have also been advocating use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan against India. While addressing (January 15, 2016, Islamabad) his supporters, Hafiz Saeed warned India that it was under range of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Earlier, while addressing a 20,000 strong rally on the occasion of 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' Hafeez Seed had also advocated (February 6, 2011, Lahore) for use of 'Jihad' to settle so called Kashmir issue even if it led to nuclear war with India.
Unlike India, which always maintained of no first using nuclear weapons, Pakistan never officially declared its nuclear doctrine but on a number of occasions have expressed its readiness to use nuclear weapons, which was in accordance with Pakistan's well established nuclear dogma. In addition to it, advocates of Pakistan's being a nuclear country also believed that Pakistan could maintain balance of power with India merely by conventional means.
Anti-Indian Pakistan civil and military hawks further assumed that despite India did not have any threat from any quarter, detonating nuclear bomb by India in 1998 was primarily a signal to Pakistan against its safety and security. It was alleged by a section of Pakistani hardliners that nuclear explosion by India was carried out without any military justification since China had already agreed with India for a mutual reduction of troops along their common border, hence India wanted to frighten Pakistan. Pakistani hawks are also euphoric over the fact no war had taken place between Pakistan and India after Pakistan's possessing nuclear warheads.
Pakistan and its ISI have been using threat of nuclear weapons against India as a buckler while carrying out and supporting terrorist activities in India unabated. Significantly, during Indo-Pak crisis, including Kargil war, Pakistan army has also been prompting its civilian leadership to threat India of using nuclear weapons against it and would continue doing so in future also.

http://www.merinews.com/article/pakista ... 6672.shtml

[shiv]

Pakistan tends to resemble a suicide bomber Col Anil Athale

The reality of 2016 is that one of our adversaries, Pakistan, has dysfunctional entities (non-State actors), bordering on irrational and suicidal, who can trigger a nuclear exchange.

The two-person, non-zero sum game model of the Cold War is irrelevant today. Minimum deterrence is an oxymoron. Deterrence is either effective or ineffective and is an absolute concept with no scope for minimum/maximum or partial failure/success.

Nuclear deterrence is based on assured and unacceptable damage on the adversary even if we are striking second in retaliation.

Assured damage capability is based on force that is survivable and fail safe as also the 'will' of the nation to act on its threat. While we indeed have the physical capability, how do we square it off with the Gandhian ethos that we claim to follow and that rejects the Biblical 'eye for an eye' concept? Both cannot coexist.

Credibility is also a product of past behaviour. We failed to respond to the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament, the July 7, 2006 Mumbai train attacks and the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai.

...

A very young Pakistani soldier once told me nearly 45 years ago, 'Saab, aap ka kaisa mulk hai? Agar hum aap jaise takatwar hote to pure Pakistan ke upar bulldozer chala dete (What kind of country is yours? If we were as powerful as you we would have bulldozed Pakistan)' How do we establish the credibility of our retaliatory deterrence in light of this mindset?

The second problem area is the subjective concept of 'unacceptable damage.' For us loss of half our cities is unacceptable damage so it is for China. But is it so for Pakistan? Will we be deterred from retaliation due to our humanitarian concerns, Gandhian ethos and fear of cross border radiation damage to our side of Punjab? Can an unstable and violent Pakistan be deterred by the threat to its cities? Is it time to think of producing enhanced radiation weapons to enhance our credibility? Do we need retaliatory force that is capable of completely destroying Pakistani Punjab, the political heart of the Pakistani State and its army?

We have expanded our deterrence to cover all nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. How will we retaliate to a 'dirty' bomb attack on Indian population centres by a non-State actor? The dysfunctional State of Pakistan tends to resemble a suicide bomber. The only effective defence against a suicide attack is 'Pre-emptive' destruction of the attacker. Can we rule out a pre-emptive response? Will that not need a counter-force capability?

These are some of the pertinent questions that need to be asked and answers found. It is time we get real.While issues like Kashmir may occupy the public mindspace for the moment, the real challenges to national security lie elsewhere.

[ramana]

A request when quoting news articles please post author name also.

[habal]

yaar baat suno .. loss of half of our cities walon.

Can Pakistan fire away 100 nukes together. Answer is no ! Mobilizing so many missiles, mating them to nuclear warheads will give so many alarm signs that there is no element of surprise. So they have no option but to mobilize 10-15 first, mate the warheads and by the time they fire it, incentive is for us to target these missiles in best case scenario and minimize casualty. Next step is to retaliate. After our retaliation, there won't be any Pakistan because we have to target just very few targets in pakjab to close this story.

[shiv]

A request when quoting news articles please post author name also.

done

[ShauryaT]

PS: Except for the last para, much of this was written before the attack in Uri, but not posted.

Do we have the conventional superiority to achieve something like this... keeping in mind that our intended goal is only destruction of enemy forces and not occupying territory in the medium or long term? If not, then by when would we have it? Do the Pakistanis believe that this sort of war-ride is something India is capable of, and is planning to mobilize for (is this what their paranoia about "Cold Start" reflects?) What do BRF gurus feel is the *actual* threshold of destruction we could inflict on the PA with this kind of operation, short of which they would lack the confidence that using TNWs is the best way out for them?

Our conventional fire power superiority against Pakistan is about 5:1, men and material about 2.5:1 - on paper, for all services combined. We have to then further divide this force on two fronts. Amassing this superior fire power across the entire battle front dilutes the same and allows Pakistan to pursue a policy of "aggressive defense". Our superior fire power can be brought to bear in certain ORBAT scenarios limited by time and space, say in RYK or across the Shyok? But then Pakistan can also do the same to a limited extent in other areas. So, in a nut shell at a practical level, NO we do not have this overwhelming superiority of force, unless we are able to dismiss the northern and eastern fronts and move resources all to the western front. If we are able to harness our complete potential and bring it to bear, then Pakistan's aggressive defenses fall quickly but still not at complete decimation levels. Pakistan banks upon western powers being able to restrict India from achieving permanent gains. In future, they will expect this from China.

We can and should build overwhelming conventional force capabilities but it needs a serious restructuring of the armed forces, towards goals that reflect the reality of our mission objectives. In addition, we need to increase defense budgets to 3% of GDP. No government since RG times is considering these type of budgets. ABV tried a course correction but since then it has been a controlled slide down, including with the Modi govt - so far.

Pakistan's constant cry with western powers is India's increasing conventional strength creates a security risk and hence they have so far been supported in the name of security-parity, masquerading for ideological hatred. How long will this continue is anyone's guess but China is stepping up and seeking to fill in for western powers. What you have described above is to inflict damage to H&D. I personally prefer more targeted and meaningful political objectives for a military campaign than just a slap and teaching a "lesson".

On thresholds public postures apart, our military commanders are leaning towards a bluff theory, at least as far is TNW's are concerned. TSP is constantly seeking to test our thresholds and trying to gauge our response and see if we will play their game. The game they want us to play is of "escalation dominance/control". Whereby, proportionality of response is the key test of rationality and reason. We have indeed by and large played this game with them, making an exception only for nuclear weapons and they do not like that answer. The game they want us to play is to limit the military conflict to LoC, where again they can concentrate their forces nullifying our advantages. We are called the "aggressor" for this approach as they can say, Why are we fighting over areas where there is no dispute.

This is the reason they do not like cold start as these IBG's about eight of them are by and large concentrated across the IB. The IBG's are indeed designed to inflict the type of damage you have described with temporary holds on territory. The fear of cold start is this fear of damage to H&D. To what degree does this slap have an effect to achieve any purpose is debatable. As time moves on these IBG advantages will be check mated, not done so in full measure as the PA is indeed stretched on the western front and internal duties. I do not think IBG thrusts trigger any red lines - bombastic proclamations apart. Yet, India seems to accepted the idea that a conventional response to a non-state actor action is an escalation and hence in a weird sense not rational.

We are a long way off from achieving this desired overwhelming superior fire power with complete dominance of C^4 over the conflict zone. Our best bet today is to slap them in limited areas, challenge them to escalate - they cannot. In the process, force them to spend out of proportion on defense, undermine their society, create FUD in their command and control, exploit their fault lines, isolate them internationally, bank roll Afghanistan, and wage rigorous unconventional war - with clear defined objectives.

Look at the latest assault in Uri, the ask is for GoI to break away from the PA's narrative of when and how to escalate and for India to initiate actions that the PA has to react to. To me, that would be a definite change of approach. Let us see.

[Rudradev]

What you have described above is to inflict damage to H&D. I personally prefer more targeted and meaningful political objectives for a military campaign than just a slap and teaching a "lesson".
.

Thanks for the informative response, Shaurya. However, you are incorrect on the above. Invading Pakistan with the sole purpose of inflicting massive and visible damage to the PA is not just about a slap to lower H&D, for it's own sake.

The PA IS the primary political enforcer that holds the state of Pakistan together in its present equation. They do this by fostering the impression of being the strongest bloc in Pakistan, with the greatest capability for organized violence. Even this impression has not been enough, in recent times, to prevent the rising of subnationalist militias... be they TTP or Baluch insurgents... who challenge the might of the TSPA. Yet, by and large, the TSPA has been able to convince most entities in Pakistan (whether political parties or secessionist groups) that it's too strong to be contested directly.

If the IA openly, visibly, and humiliatingly defeats the PA, causing massive destruction with relatively few losses on our side, and gives no opportunity for the PA to stage any semblance of a counterstrike against Indian territory... the myth of PA invincibility and supremacy stands exploded, in full view of all actors in Pakistan. Surely that constitutes a powerfully effective political objective in itself.

Seeing that the SAA, for example, COULD be challenged and defeated militarily was a key moment in the ongoing Syrian conflict... the will to rise up in violent revolt catches like wildfire when such a thing is undeniably and indelibly proven. Where the PA faces a dozen minor challenges to their authority now, a visibly defeated, degraded and humiliated PA will find themselves facing a hundred minor challenges and any number of major challenges to deal with from subnational insurgent groups (as well as from friendly neighbouring ANA). In addition, CPEC (their last hope for a patronage economic bailout) will be doomed.

[Gagan]

If India attacks, the objective HAS to be to denuke them, destroy their capability to build more.
Once this is done, then one can pick the PA out at leisure

[RoyG]

If India attacks, the objective HAS to be to denuke them, destroy their capability to build more.
Once this is done, then one can pick the PA out at leisure

Denuke can only be done by salami slicing the country and forcing a recall within the borders of Punjab.

Any pre emptive strike is too risky and will never be entertained as a viable operational strategy.

[Gagan]

Everyone except the chinese (or pak pasand netas in the west) will join in in the project to denuke them. But this can't be done all of a sudden.
A consensus has to be built, plans made, then it can take place.

[Karan M]

denuking and all can happen later. for now hit and keep hitting, for six months.