The part of Iran with Baloch population was actually part of balochistan. It was ceded to Iran by British as part of "The Great Game".
India - Pakistan Standoff 2019
- Thread starter nair
- Start date
- Status
Conversely, I feel we underestimate the potential that exists there. The fine interplay of differing interests in terms of GCC and Iran there, make for an interesting situation. An unstable Baluchistan is a pressure point for Iranians to play with, the dismal socio-economic condition there, an opportunity for GCC to recruit people to send into Baluchistan-Sistan province of Iran. India can potentially upscale it's operations if India can figure out what it wants to actually do with Pakistan.
That, what it wants to do with Pakistan, is not figured out till date, irrespective of whatever is claimed to the contrary. It typifies the dilemma that we face - do we break it or do we contain it? The latter is increasingly difficult without serious up gradation in our efforts to destabilize them, again making us guilty of undertaking exactly what we are accusing them of, not exactly a bright idea. And for the former, we do not have people who have figured out what is the next course of action after achieving the objective.
Do we incorporate the land? Then what to do with the population? And if population too, does it not make the socio-religious balance in India more skewed creating a situation that was existing pre-1947, against the very concept of India as we end up incorporating elements that broke India in the first place? And if we do not incorporate, wouldn't China move in quickly in to territories that may be weak politically, in garb of economic aid and the slow creeping move into territory it undertakes? And if China moves in, don't we land up in the same situation as before, of having a belligerent state on our western boundary again?
On the other hand, status quo in terms of punishing them at will seems to pay short term dividends: politically at home front, diplomatically at International level and militarily in terms of conflict management and sustainable costs. yet it does not address our core security interests.
I have my views on this - on how to address this dilemma, but that is a serious undertaking that I have been putting off for a later date forever, as the ideas may not be suitable for public consumption.
Well, I heard that the fire fight going on in Peshawar between Bad terrorists and Uniformed terrorists were actually JeM. Any one have more information on this? I know baba had mentioned this, but someone else also mentioned these "bad" terrorists were actually JeM who tried to attack Peshawar Cant.
There are two aspects to your post - 1.) What can India do to further the Baloch cause & whether it meshes with India's larger goals in the region which in turn is connected to point 2.) ? 2.) What's India to do with Pakistan?
While one doesn't deny that Balochistan is a pressure & pain point for Pakistan, we don't actually share a land border with Balochistan to undertake operations there as in support Balochistan insugents with money and material. As usual we'd have to rely on the perfidious Iranians or the NDS, both of whose aims doesn't exactly co incide with the Baloch or India too.
The Iranians will utilize the Baloch to score points against the Pakistan establishment for what they've been undertaking in Iran at the behest of their Arabian masters & patrons. Pakistan also has a vested interest in this given the hold Iran has over its Shi'ites, who in turn are insecure due to the Sunni extremist groups acting against them again under the patronage of the GCC - as you've politiely termed them. It's a vicious circle Pakistan has gotten itself into and unfortunately for its neighborhood it's dragging it into the whirlpool, Pakistan has gotten itself into / become.
I shall address the latter half of your post later.
LOBL (Lock On Before Launch) definitely works with AMRAAMs, go ask real fighter pilots on eagle forums. The active seeker can lock targets before launch out to ~10nm.
I will but I'm fairly sure if there are several targets the HMCS can be used to select one. Most missiles also have the ability to have their seeker cued via onboard systems like HMCS of TGP.
You seemed to imply that LOBL didn't work at all though.
Yes. But it depends on the launch mode used. For HMDS/HMCS cueing, it is important that the seeker of the missile is active. By active I mean that even if it is an IIR seeker, it should be functional and if it is an RF seeker, it should be transmitting and recieving. The basic idea of LOAL is to engage snap targets which you get to see suddenly.
@vstol Jockey
Sir , Can our Su 30 MKI Fire their R 77
flying at 55000 Height
That way it can Get a Firing Solution
Because now the PAF is staying at 20 km inside their Territory as per Babaji
Sir , Can our Su 30 MKI Fire their R 77
flying at 55000 Height
That way it can Get a Firing Solution
Because now the PAF is staying at 20 km inside their Territory as per Babaji
Yes. You can get a firing solution as long as the aircraft radar and missile are working fine. all you need is that the target parameters in terms of range must be met.
Well I would never argue that an AMRAAM is the best dogfight missile for snap targets but it will work LOBL, it just won't work very well for over the shoulder shots at close range, but they aren't LOBL anyway.
A simple 2 word answer - dismember it. Containing it would be a short term solution. Which we have been half heartedly trying with obviously mixed results. I disagree with your contention of our reluctance to undertake covert operations in order not to attract the opprobrium that Pakistan does. We need to undertake such operations with enough distance to maintain plausible deniability. In case we aren't, a bit of wink & nudge by our allies may be in order.
We need to build up a case that a N armed Pakistan with a rogue PA is an inherently destabilizing entity not just for the neighborhood but for the general peace & security of the democratic world. This has to be hammered constantly into our western allies & Russia. The former needs to be made aware of the tendency of the Chinese to profit from this dissonance thereby affecting the security situation in the Far East.
The onus of construction & the selling of such a narrative and the solution vis s vis a break up of Pakistan into smaller Nations rests on us. I doubt whether we have ever given serious thought to this. In any event, if we haven't, we ought to.
Our aim should be clear cut. The de fanging of Pakistan and reconquest of PoK. This is essential as apart from being the virtual umbilical cord binding both iron brothers, it's this bit of real estate that's at the heart of the CPEC, China's energy security avoiding the Malacca dilemma and their access to the IOR.This is also Pakistan's gateway to the CAR & ours too should we choose to exercise this choice . Let me go further and second @vstol Jockey 's view that having taken PoJ&K , we need to focus on the Wakhan & annex it too thus cutting off China's access to the CAR ( in a limited way) & the ME permanently.The Chinese need to know their sphere of influence is the Far East & the limits of their reach in their Western borders.
We don't need the population of Mirpuris in the so called AJK. The ones in GB can be retained if they aren't deemed to be a security threat.
The Chinese would, if we neglect to seize PoJ&K NOW, not otherwise. In addition to this, I would advocate taking territory in KPK - Pakistan flanking the Wakhan which would happen to be Swat, Hazara and Chitral too. This must serve as a bargaining chip, when we derecognise the Durand Line and encourage the Pashtuns to reunite promising them recognition if they recognize our taking over the Wakhan in exchange for Chitral.
If this results in the non Pashtuns of Afghanistan feeling insecure, let them. We can think in terms of a Northern Afghanistan, Southern Afghanistan and a Punjabistan as mutual antagonists. Suits our policy too.
I would keenly await your views on this vexed problem & it's solutions.
Last edited:
If PAF is flying its CAP at 20 km inside LOC
We can still target it from within our LOC
A BVR missile fired from a height of 50000 feet can do this job
IAF is a huge disappointment
As long as they are not threatening us and coming less than 10kms of the LOC, we can't fire at them. Let them come within 10kms or enter our area and this time they won't go back.
Contain it (cut their oxygen like economy, increase their commitments without allowing them to sizeup their economy), dismember it (cut off gilgit baltistan portion that stands between us and CA), nuke Pak Punjab in the end by going all out and risking a nuke war if needed (maybe even lie that they tried nuke launch even if they didn't ; WE CANNOT COEXIST WITH THEM).
Can we trick their radar and make it look like they are 50km away when they are actually inside (aim is to make them think they are away)?? Is there some tech like that which can disorient their location reading?
- Status