Early last year a group of Indian and Pakistan retired generals and strategic experts sat down for a war-gaming exercise in Washington. The question, predictably enough, was at what point during a conventional war, would the generals in Rawalpindi GDQ reach for the nuclear trigger.
In the event, the simulated war took on an unpredictable turn, which in some ways was more illuminating than the question of nuclear escalation, as columnist Ashok Malik writes in The Great Divide:India and Pakistan, a collection of essays by experts on both sides of the border.
The exercise begins with an Indian military strike on militant camps in Pakistani Kashmir, the most commonly envisaged scenario for the next India-Pakistan war. But the Pakistan response defies conventional logic . They don’t order a military push into Indian Punjab and Rajasthan, they don’t even attack Bombay High, the most valuable Indian oil asset in the Arabian Sea, and well within striking distance of the Pakistani Air Force.
Instead PAF planes fly all way to Bangalore, deep in the Indian south, to attack the campus of Infosys, the much celebrated Indian IT company.
Strange choice of target ? By all military logic it would seem so. It’s not like all of India would be crippled if Infosys were attacked, they don;’t run Indian IT infrastructure. Even the company itself might not suffer lasting damage. Its data would probably be stored in locations elsehwere too, and it wouldn’t take it long to rebuild the campus. Besides. the Pakistani planes would be almost certain to be shot down on their way back, if they managed to penetrate this far in on what seems like a suicide mission.
So why Bangalore, and Infosys? Malilk quotes a Pakistani participant as saying they chose the target because it is an “iconic symbol” of India’s IT prowess and economic surge. The idea was to strike at India’s economic growth and great power aspirations. A raid on the Infosys campus, visited by heads of states and corporate leaders, would underline the dangers of business in India and remind the world that for all its new-found success, it remained a nation of contradictions, and at heart, unstable.
Many people in the room were not convinced by the Pakistani choice. It still seemed more like an academic exercise than anything rooted in military reality. But in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks later that year, and in the light of renewed warnings this week by Israeli intelligence of another Mumbai-like attack coming in the next few weeks, it is clear that India’s vulnerability appears to be in economic, rather than purely military, targets.
Indeed last year when tensions rose following the Mumbai attack and there was talk of an Indian military response, it was Pakistan’s former chief of intelligence Hamid Gul who warned of Pakistan hitting back where it would hurt the most. India’s so-called Silicon Valley will go up in smoke, Gul is widely quoted to have told CNN, if the Indians sent troops to the border.
{Photographs of the Mumbai skyline and Indian and Pakistani soldiers at Wagah]
Trackback
56 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I just don’t get it.How can pakistan attack Bangalore.Their planes would be shot down before reaching Bangalore.If you are talking about cruise missiles,then India has already tested its anti missile missile like the patriot of US.It would be inducted into the armed forces soon.
- Posted by Anshupakistan is not a “tarnavala”like you people said it is a nuclear power pak army is not a “tarnavala”you can take the example of recent operation in swat valley.The american forces are in afghanistan for eight years & they just have captured 20 percent area of afghanistan but the pak forces have captured 95 percent of swat in just 1 month and US forces are also shocked from kashif pakistani
- Posted by kashi@Ali:
I agree with you that Pakistan got nothing left to be bled. The Indian paranoia and the “assets” like Taliban/Al-qaida already bled Pakistan.
2. If IAF and PAF have both done that then how come this Urdu saying “Kavva chala Haans ki chaal, aur apni chaal bhi bhoola”, fits only for India. Ha Ha!!! hey don’t say that about your own PAF.
3. I could have reminded you about 1971 as an ultimate proof of your misplaced jingoism, but I don’t want to do that.
Go read correct history first not the distortions and the lies you have been fed by your establishment in school, punctuated by weekly sermons from the terrorists.
- Posted by rajeevTo the joker who said that India simply needs to move its military to the border and “bleed” pakistan to bankruptcy. Well, Jr. I think you must not be old enough to remember January 2002 when India brought 1 million soldiers to Pakistani border and then suffered major financial losses and a declining business enviornment. Pakistani military bases are all close to the border and it was India that suffered and bled economically! So much for that tactic!
Secondly, the guy who said that “atleast IAF was invited to Nellis”, hahaha. The only reason why IAF was invited was to play with them and as soon as the french heard about it, they brought their special EW planes to sniff all the goodies off of the Russian built planes. IAF sucks. And need I remind you that PAF has been to Nellis numerous times and actually WON trophies in the past, including till late 1980s! Recently PAF is gearing up again to attend Nellis next year.
Indians forget their “Auqaat” very quickly. There’s a saying in Urdu “Kavva chala Haans ki chaal, aur apni chaal bhi bhoola”, meaning a when the crow tries to walk/dance like the Haans, it forgets its own way of walking as well. Indians have already developed an ego of a superpower while the only thing fueling their egos is their poverty.
- Posted by AliAn interesting concept, Keith.
In fact, a similar concept was the main reason for American victory in the cold war. Most of the Russian military expenditure during that time was for a war they knew would never come, due to the whole “nuclear destruction” issue. But at the same time, Russia could not afford to look weak in front of their own people. So they spent their way into financial oblivion.
However, this is a case where India should not try and duplicate the US success.
Pakistan needs a mobile army, so it can properly deal with militant rebellions as they arise. If it’s army is all stuck on the border with India, it will have no way of easily responding to the insurgents who are slowly taking control of Pakistan.
And a Pakistan which falls to insurgency would not be in India’s interests.
India really doesn’t need to do anything. Their army and airforce easily beats Pakistan. All it needs to do is remain ready, but avoid any overt posturing.
That way Pakistan can do all the pointless bluffing it wants to pretend to look strong in front of its people, but be able to use their army on the insurgents (which remain the important issue here).
- Posted by Holy CowOne thing that nevery ceases to amaze me during all this wargaming is that nobody seems to take into account the option of simply doing nothing for the Indians.
The best thing the Indians could do militarily is put the army to the field, the navy to sea and the air force up doing combat air patrols. Get the Pakistanis to mobilize and spend huge chunks of their GDP simply sitting in the desert. India could simply defeat Pakistan without ever firing a single shot.
The bonus is that along the way, India would be seen as the responsible partner for its self-restraint while Pakistan would face constant criticism and international pressure for not cracking down on terrorists.
I wonder what the game plan is for Pakistan in that scenario.
- Posted by KeithUmair,
Don’t get too excited. They have media exposes like that on CNN about the US armed forces all the time. Yet, nobody doubts their might. Oh noooo a bad defence procurement. Like that’s never happened to any other country before. However, the IAF is massive and its not relying on a single type of missile for any thing. They can afford to have projects fail. It’s an expensive mistake but it’s not catastrophic. And that distinction has to be made.
As for the video with the American Colonel….at least they were invited to Nellis. And while a lot of what he says is true about Indian figher ops, I can assure you that what is said about the PAF behind closed doors ain’t all that different…..you can guess at the compliments being given after their remarkable performance in the FATA and NWFP. Enough bombs to constitute a world war II bombing raid yet with less success than those guys had using a magnifying glass for a targeting scope. Either that says something about the PAF or it says something about the guys who feed them their targets.
When it comes to the scenario painted here though, it’s highly doubtful that the PAF could pull it off so easily. It’s a strike that most NATO forces would have a tough time pulling off. And that’s with the latest technology and pilots who get tons of training time. Even the best pilots in the world can’t defy the laws of physics…namely that they would have to fly with very little ammo just to have the gas to get there. It would be difficult for them to defend themselves in that situation and even more difficult to make it out of there. You’d think that a bunch of ex-generals would know that.
——-
Holy Cow,
Your Cope India example has been proven to be BS repeatedly. I’ll throw it on here again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news /1237790/posts
That’s hardly what you would call a realistic training scenario particularly when it comes to facing off against the USAF or any other western air force. That being said, I am fairly confident that against the PAF, the IAF would perform pretty decently and it would perform more than adequately in a scenario like this.
- Posted by KeithNice to see that Indians and Pakistanis are at it again; USSR and now USA with all the financial & military power don’t seem to be able to win wars – wake up people it seems that wars are never won!
- Posted by RichardPakistanis have deluded themselves with the belief that the Indian military is a clunky, old machine that is rusting by the day. This has been their mindset since Ayub Khan’s days. Their Sabre rattling in 1965 did not win them anything. India in those days did not focus much on military strength as it was led by an idealist who romanced with the idea of peace and friendship. By the time Indira Gandhi came to power, everything changed. She believed in India as a regional power. And though she was corrupt to the core, she put India on the path of military strength. After 1971, India has gone from strength to strength as she encouraged India towards missile technology, satellite launch, and indigenous development on many fronts. Of course, everything did not turn out as wished for. But India has emerged pretty strong in many areas. India did build an infrastructure that would help develop an all round growth in core technologies, including defense research. One can never make everything perfect. Even in the US, many experiments fail during development. Its military advancement is tuned towards China and not Pakistan entirely. So the comparison on number of fighter planes, war ships etc should be done in relation to China. And in that comparison, India is way behind. But Indian IRBMS and nuclear capability serves as a deterrent against China. India accuses China of sponsoring terrorism in its North East and China accuses India of sponsoring the Tibetan Buddhists. Pakistan should not try to get in the middle and start thumping its chest. Pakistan does not compare in any way with India. And this is not a boastful statement. It is the reality. In addition to military strength, one needs economic strength to back a war. The Americans can be at two wars at the same time and can still run their country with no economic issues. India is economically far ahead and it can survive a short term war. That is where the real measure should be. Can Pakistan engage with India in a war and survive economically after that? It would last for a week if a serious war erupts. Pakistan does not have the economic resources to survive after a costly war. It would be easy for India to offer kid gloves and keep Pakistan continue with the war a little longer, while shutting out its supply chains. And that would make Pakistan collapse internally. There will also be diplomatic wars going on at the same time. If Pakistan initiated the war, it will not get any support from most countries in terms of financial aid. As it is the world economy is hurting. No country would want to see its money wasted in unnecessary wars by countries taking their hard earned money for assistance. So the generals in Pakistan must look in all directions to do their calculations. Unless they are itching for a nuclear suicide, they should not venture into wars with any country. India has no interest in fighting wars with Pakistan or any country. But if attacked, it will retaliate. The best thing Pakistan could do is to focus its energy on national development instead of constantly thinking of war with India. This is no cricket match. This is very different from it. Hope Pakistanis realize how warped their minds have become.
- Posted by kp singhSorry, typo.
No such thing as F-17 Eagle (not officially, anyway).
I mean to say F-15 Eagle.
- Posted by Holy CowHow superior are the Su-30 fighters?
Look up “Cope-India 04″. Both documented by American and Indian sources.
Wargames conducted between India and America.
Indian latest purchase Su-30 pitted against American updated F-17 Eagles and other aircraft. Results were India winning 90% of all engagements.
In all engagements, India was given approx 14:4 numerical advantage. To represent that it has 100 Su-30 fighters ready for combat, and easily outnumbers enemy nations.
Pakistan has 40 F-16 fighters, badly outdated.
India can easily establish superiority against Pakistan’s airforce. 40 Su-30 would establish equality. More Su-30 would establish air superiority.
Pakistan does not have the ability to win an air war over it’s own airspace. Let alone make successful strikes into India.
Unless of course it repeats last time. Attack with surprise, then hide the airforce from India for the rest of the war until the ceasefire is reached. And that implies their airforce can not win an air fight.
- Posted by Holy CowJunk weapons in Indian defence fleet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygmPIpIB2 7o
in the words of Indian media, exposing the myth of Indian military might.
“IAF armoury is full od ‘duds’, missiles that don’t work and bombs that dont explode”.
USAF officer blows the lid off what they really think of Indian Air Force
Indian Anger Grows Over “Offensive” USAF Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPm aY&feature=related
Lets see how superior are the SU-30 Flankers.
Just as after 11 May 1998 Indian nuclear tests, questions were raised if Pakistan does really have the nuclear capability. Similarly now the skills and capabilities of Pakistan Air Force are under question. Only time will prove.
- Posted by UmairIts very funny to see how much Pakistanis are Deluded about their Air power.
India has more and better equipment, While Pakistanis claim that their pilots are more committed.
How can a committed Pilot stop a R-77 shot from 80 Kms and running in at speed of 4 Mach. Old Sidewinders which PAF have are no match for it.
Comparing Inventory in Numbers and Technology, PAF can NEVER maintain air supermacy over India.
Moreover no one is selling/giving free weapons to them, Even their trusted friend Americans have not delivered all F-16 they ordered despite of Paying in full out of aid money. Chinese gave them JF-17 planes which have not seen any combat. Chinese themselves do not trust these planes and they are still under evaluation.
In actual war PAF will keep their planes on the ground to save losses and later on they will tell lie to their country about they waited somewhere else while Indian bombed somewhere else or It was American pressure.
- Posted by singhOne key question in all this is whether the nature of conflict in all this has changed for both countries. The idea that a civilian installation like Infosys is targeted is in itself new and rather ominous. Are we to expect that a future India-Pakistan conflict will not be confined to two armies slugging it out near the border, (one writer once linkened the three wars to more like a communcal outbreak between groups of soldiers) ? Instead will it be fought in our cities
- Posted by Sanjeev MiglaniGuys, let’s all agree finally that Pak Army/PAF to Indian Army counterparts, is like comparing a head-on collision between a supertanker to yacht. Outdated, 1978 PAF F-16 junk is no match for the superior Indian avionics and aerial maneuverability and sheer overwhelming size of numbers by Indian Military, in every category.
Sure the Paks will be brave, blah blah blah bravado.
At the end of the day, Pakistan will lose all of its military assets and very quickly in a war with India and it won’t be that late before they start assembling nukes to drop over Indian cities.
Pakistan’s only claim to glory is that it will annihilate millions of innocent civilians, having lost a conventional war.
At the end of the day, we are dealing with a mischievous, lying, double dealing, rogue state, that uses terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy and at the same time will threaten to vapourize hundreds of millions of innocent human beings, muslim or not.
Short of war or nukes on India, Pakistan is using terrorism on India as its last option, short of war. India will weather on and keep shooting for the stars.
Pakistan is a rogue terrorist nation and the vise is slowly tightening, despite what Obama claims at the UN to be a friend of Pakistan, while Zardari begs for more free money at UN speech two days ago, with hollow promises.
If the Af_Pak missions fails, or there is another terrorist attack, rest assured there will be a plane drawn up to denuke Pakistan, using any means possible.
- Posted by Global WatcherThe only achivements of an attack on Bangalore by PAF will be -
- Posted by Bangalorewala1) cancelling any possibility of peace with Pakistan
2) improvement in B’lore infrastructure in the wake of reconstruction.
Rest all belongs only in the fanciful imagination of Pak strategist (insult to the word strategist because it is used for the likes of the eternally paranoid Zaid Hamid)