Indian and Pakistani war plans are changing, in ominous ways, as India improves its mechanized forces faster than Pakistan can. In response, Pakistan has developed better short range ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads. India also has short range missiles, but they also have a "Cold Start" capability for their non-nuclear forces. This was something the Russians developed during the Cold War. What it came down to was the ability to launch an attack on Western Germany, with a dozen or more mechanized divisions, with only a few hours warning. NATO improved its ability to quickly respond to such an attack, and that included having nuclear weapons ready to be used if the Russian Cold Start forces got too far into West Germany. This use of "tactical" (shorter range and less powerful) nuclear weapons turned out to be disaster in disguise. It was eventually realized that "going nuclear" would likely lead to escalation, and ultimately a large-scale use of nuclear weapons, and the destruction of the world as we knew it.
Escalation meant going to a general US-Soviet nuclear war. For Pakistan and India, it is worse because there is no theoretical firebreak of fighting on someone else's soil--even "tactical" nukes chew up the terrain and people of India and Pakistan--as I discussed five years ago.
Not that there isn't a use for a Cold Start doctrine on a narrow front. Having the ability to win a Kargil-scope fight quickly without having to slowly mobilize distant mechanized forces would be very useful against Pakistan (or China, for that matter) to make gains (or deny the enemy gains) before the threat of escalation to nuclear weapons puts pressure on India to accept a ceasefire. You always want to have the edge when the ceasefire goes into effect.
India likes to ridicule the notion that India wants to conquer Pakistan. And rightly so. India would be foolish to want to own that mess with a UN seat (sorry, that's the way it is). So why would India create a Cold Start doctrine for their entire army that gives India the capability to launch a broad offensive into Pakistan with no or little advance warning? Seriously, the worst outcome that would happen in a war under those conditions is an escalation to widespread use of nukes against cities. The second worse outcome would be that India succeeds and conquers Pakistan. The third worst outcome would be that India destroys Pakistan's army and then withdraws their army--not wanting to own Pakistan--leading to chaos in Pakistan as the Pakistani army loses the ability to hold Pakistan together (remember, the Pakistani army believes the very survival of their army is key to Pakistan's survival as a state).
UPDATE: Welcome Bharat Rakshak readers.
