Discussion in 'China' started by blueblood, Sep 3, 2015.
DF-21D, the "carrier killer".
I'd take this all with a grain of salt. People complain about all armies in the world. Making jokes like "China blah blah or Russia is just rusting junk" but the truth is, when people say such things about the top 5 militaries on the planet, then perhaps people need to reevaluate what you think a "good" military is.
China has some problems, but how many of these aren't shared by most nations? Also these American reports are usually stating China's current capabilities, as in "this year China can't do ___", but keep in mind the same reports usually say they have improved several fold over the last few years and keep improving. So most of these short comings are not likely to apply in 5-10+ years.
Better to slightly over estimate China's strength and be pleasantly surprised in a battle, than to underestimate it and pay the price during wartime.
Now, I understand how come USA was losing her ground in dealing with China. For a committee which is supposed to know everything in China, making such a report is really a big blow to its reputation: Do they have any idea of the position of Wen Jiabao? He is the premier not chairman, nor the member of CMC. How is he supposed to command air force? Can any American department head (except defence department) to order the motivation of US force?
Western media keep writing off Indian Military for the lack of a joint chief of staffs, too.
They are not wrong in doing so. Tri services commands are absolutely necessary and there is no way to circumvent it.
So nothing substantial to add to the topic I see. How about you dispute the points made one by one, you know the ones that state structural flaws with each service?
China's military power depends upon the kind of opponent it faces.
If it faces Japan, Japan will be annihilated. If it faces USA, China will be annihilated.
But what matters is how many opponents are out there who can 'really' annihilate you. The answer to that question puts your military in the original position.
By reading this article and mixing the above mentioned rationale US report is completely based upon a war scenario between USA and China without any alliances and third party interventions.
USA is warning China indirectly. That's it.
Wow, you want me to argue with a report can't even get the basic fact right? Sorry, I got better way to waste my time.
Come back when you have grown a spine.
There is. You need a ballsy prime minister. Indira Gandhi achieved more without a tri-services command (breaking enemy-state number one apart into two equal parts in a military conflict), than the US ever did with one.
If the Chinese soldiers have the hunger and determination to fight a war then they can win. Lets not forget how Japanese fought for their emperor and their country against the odds. And that was a tiny country with tiny human resources. Now China of today is a mammoth compared to then Japan, who are catching up in technology, they also train with Russia and Pak who are no mutt's in war.
I beg to differ.
Though Indira played a part in diplomacy in the months leading up the war, diplomatic corps was the real hero on that front.Had it been up to Indira, invasion would have had started in April 1971 with India as the aggressor and would have been bogged down in the marshy terrain of Bangladesh and its infamous annual flooding.
SAM Manekshaw and Jagjivan Ram deserve far more credit than Indira.
Now that we have cleared the above issue let's move on to another. Let me provide you two examples where joint command would have done wonders.
Kargil - One of the bone of contention between IAF and IA was the role of air force in an army led campaign. IA wanted IAF to use choppers to provide support to the troops. IAF tried but due to lack of proper equipment the effort failed. IAF then geared up for air interdiction much to the displeasure of IA. Another bone of contention was the whitewashing of the extent of intrusion and scale of mobilization required.
26/11 - Delays in the arrival of NSG is still a controversial topic. But things could have been different if a joint command was there. Instructors from Belgaum and Mhow and Garuds from Pune would have had found their way much before NSG.
Minor hitch. Inter-branch incidents like this happen in the US military all the time.
NSG is not a military branch. It's under MHA, and a joint command couldn't have done shit until MHA called in the military.
I think China is in a stage where it wants to win a war without fighting one.
Minor hitch in a minor conflict can lead to major blunder in a major war. Most people don't realize the "jointness" of US armed forces. Fourth or fifth largest military in the world was reduced to rubble in a matter of weeks, something Chinese watched in horror.
NSG use IAF transports so MHA has to call in the military right from the beginning. Under a unified command, aviation assets would be dedicated for such incidents.
@pmaitra @sob please move OT posts to chit chat thread.
Separate names with a comma.