Army - Articles

Considerable confusion has been caused in the last few years by the loose usage of the term ‘Limited War’. After the Kaluchak terrorist attack on 14 May 2002, a columnist wrote in the Hindustan Times of 31 May 2002 that India was considering tough options including ‘Limited War’ ‘covert operations’ based on a ‘new strategy’ against terrorism and coercive diplomacy. Another gentleman was nearer the mark in The Statesman of 24 June 2002 when he defined limited war as a full-fledged conventional war as opposed to a nuclear one.

            The possibility of a nuclear war between two NWS (Nuclear Weapon States) arose in October 1962 when the USSR deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba. Although the USA’s arsenal of 5000 nuclear warheads gave it a 17:1 superiority over the Soviet arsenal of about 300, the possibility of even one Soviet missile getting through would have caused unbearable damage. The possibility of this catastrophe brought home to all concerned that a nuclear exchange must never be allowed to take place. But, it was only in 1985 that the Reagan-Gorbachev declaration – “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be foughtâ€� – was pronounced.

While ruling out a nuclear war between two NWS, it was conceded that a war between them using only conventional weapons was possible and this was not likely to lead to a nuclear weapon exchange due to the devastation this would cause which could lead to the annihilation of both. Such a war would be a limited war. 

Criteria of a Limited War

The Second World War saw the dissolution of colonial empires. In the new world order that followed the occupation of countries is not acceptable. Secondly, wars are an all absorbing activity when nation’s other activities, trade and commerce, economic and social development come to a halt. The Clausewitzian dictum that ‘War is a continuation of policy by other means’ is not likely to prevail. It is advisable to settle differences by other means; negotiate rather than go to war. As a last resort, if the course of war has to be resorted to, limit your political objective. Total wars are part of history; unconditional surrender as a war aim is unreal, and limited political objectives is what a nation may go to war for as a last resort. The first criterion of a limited war, therefore, is that it has a limited political objective. 

            Of course if hostilities have to be resorted to because the political objective cannot be achieved by dialogue and negotiations, the application of force would need to be optimum. The second criterion of a limited war is that the application of force is the maximum to achieve the limited political objective.

            Since it is preferable to avoid hostilities and a limited war is undertaken as a last resort, the opposing states are open to bargaining. The aim is not to bring the enemy down to his knees but to achieve the political objective as early as possible. An opportunity to bargain and bring an end to hostilities must not be missed; this is the third criterion of limited war.

Military Measures Short of a Limited War

            As differences between States will continue to occur and it will be the endeavour of States to avoid even a limited war, a course of military action open to them is “Punitive Strikesâ€�, which are sometimes referred to as “Surgical Strikesâ€�. To take the unfortunate example of Indo-Pak relations, the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir has been subjected to infiltration by Pakistan armed and trained terrorists operating against both military and civil targets. A proxy war has been conducted by Pakistan. Lately, Pakistan has undertaken not to allow its soil to be used by such elements. In view of recent efforts at rapprochement, it is hoped that infiltration from across the LoC and attacks will cease. If it does not, the course open to India would be to carry out “punitive strikesâ€�. Such isolated military actions can take the form of joint operations against a selected target in an area where air superiority can be established for the limited duration of the operation. Such surgical strikes impose caution on the adversary apart from strengthening belief that infiltration/terrorist action cannot continue without some retribution.