Is CHINA getting ready to attack INDIA?

sesha_maruthi27

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,803
Country flag
Still we need assistance ..?
May be, at some stage if we are not able to defend.........

As per the media which is hinting that IA might not be well prepared to thwart of the chinese as they have numbers in fighters and men.......
 

sesha_maruthi27

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,803
Country flag
The Russian military is not capable of facing China.
Then how will India face the chinese?

With the equipment what Russia have, if Russia itself cannot face china then what can India do?

We have enough troops but the equipment and ammunitions i have a small doubt about the preparedness of IA, not in the part of training but in the part of ammunition and arms......
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Then how will India face the chinese?

With the equipment what Russia have, if Russia itself cannot face china then what can India do?

We have enough troops but the equipment and ammunitions i have a small doubt about the preparedness of IA, not in the part of training but in the part of ammunition and arms......
It is not about equipment. The Russian equipment is way better than Chinese. The issue is the number of troops and the number of equipment that matter too.

Russian armed forces is around 350000 strong, PLA is 2.2. million strong. In around 10 years the Chinese are set to have at least 20000 to 30000 tanks and an equivalent number of artillery and support. The Russians are expected to have 2000 modern tanks.

The strength in numbers is simply lopsided. More over, there are no Himalayas protecting the Russians from any Chinese onslaught. So why would the Russians even fight China?

The situation was completely different during Soviet times, but Russia is no longer the Soviet Union.

Russia would fight China only if the Chinese invade Russia, which is not going to happen any time soon. The question should be whether we will help them when the time comes, not the other way around.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Indo-China border is made up of three folds of Hinalayan ranges called Shivalik, Himadri and Himachal. The Shivalik is towards China and has less heights, The Hinadri has higher heights and Himachal has the highest peaks. The border betweem India and China runs inbetween Shivalik and Himadri. So hills become higher as Chinese come towards India while they become smaller as Indians go towards China. The tallest peaks are part of Himachal fold. The plateau of Tibet is part of Shivalik fold. The Pamir knot is also called Jambudwip as per Indian mythology which all hindu members must have heard being recited and named in every Yagna they conduct as per vedic traditions. So, except for certain parts of Leh and NE, chinese will get defeated badly. Please remember, The new mountain strike corps is not for any of these theatres but for Sikkim and Uttranchal border where we have far superior advantage and that happens to be heart of Tibet also.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
It is not about equipment. The Russian equipment is way better than Chinese. The issue is the number of troops and the number of equipment that matter too.

Russian armed forces is around 350000 strong, PLA is 2.2. million strong. In around 10 years the Chinese are set to have at least 20000 to 30000 tanks and an equivalent number of artillery and support. The Russians are expected to have 2000 modern tanks.
You are overestimate the pocket of China. Unless we want to bankcrapt ourselves or expect the world war 3 coming, there is no way China is going to build such an army.

The strength in numbers is simply lopsided. More over, there are no Himalayas protecting the Russians from any Chinese onslaught. So why would the Russians even fight China?

The situation was completely different during Soviet times, but Russia is no longer the Soviet Union.
Russians have something as the same as Soviet--10000 nuclear warheads which provide better protection than Himalayas.

Russia would fight China only if the Chinese invade Russia, which is not going to happen any time soon. The question should be whether we will help them when the time comes, not the other way around.
The possibility of China invading Russia is only little bit higher than Chinese invasion of Mars.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
It may be true when it comes to India-Pakistan, but not when it comes to Russia-Georgia or even a future China-Vietnam conflict.

There is no guarantee international pressure will work if China decided to invade India.
But international strategic balance will work if China decided to invade india or vice verse! No one wants to see either side dominant from south east asia to south asia.

This is more in tune with what the "Western world" perceives wars will be in the future. If this was the case, then there is no need for the Americans to continue building up their military with newer technology that are primarily meant for conventional wars, and in the numbers they are planning. But the West was so sure after WW1 that there would be no WW2. Sorry, but we don't want to be caught with our pants down.
USA is seeking a global dominance status which requires its overwhelming military edge over every potential enemy in any corner of the planet. In the same time, China and India are pursuing the status of regional power which is requiring far less military power. So, you are not to be caught with pants down, on the contrary you are suggesting India to wear 2 pants everyday while you shirt off!

What's the guarantee the fight for resources won't go nuclear or even a limited war? Both countries will eventually have to deal with scarcity as the economy grows. Even a continent like Africa may not be enough. As the scientists are saying, we are going to need two or three whole planets to sustain the world economy.
If a war will occur due to resources, highly likely it would be initiated by india instead of China. Currently China has the money and political influence which are needed in the competition of resource while India lack both! I really don't see there is any resource that India can buy China out unless they are within India.

As of today we don't really have a reason to go to war for. However we are the only country in the world today that's building up its military openly citing the Chinese bogeyman.
I would prefer we don't go to war, but I would also prefer not be be caught with our pants down when it happens.
My friend, if today's economic trend continue, there is no need for either side going to war. For Chinese, we will win without fighting. For India, you won't have enough fanical and material resources to build a powerful enough army to fight a war.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
No one is contesting this. Our political dispensation & recent economic travails have constrained us.
The fact is your economic and military weakness have been contrained you since the beginning!

@no smoking Were you smoking something while posting this...?[/QUOTE]

Then answer some questions:

Did india's weapon become the backbone of any SOC country? NO, but USA did!
Did india provide any military guarantee to any SOC country?NO, but USA did a lot!
Did india provide any meaningful military assistance to any SOC country during war time? No, but USA did more than once!

If india didn't prove itself in any conflict involving SOC country before, why SOC country should look up to India as their major hope in their confrentation with China. If India is not their major hope, why they bow to China if India lost?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Now I wish to ask you a few questions,
1. Who controls IOR and Malacca St. other than US Navy?
If your major military offensive acitivy need a permission of another country in certain area, who do you think is in control? India or USA?

What will be the effect of blockage of fuel supplies to China of this shipping lane?
There will be certain level of effect but not critical. Currently, China is importing half of its oil consumed annually and 50% of these importation is going through IOC. Considering the future change (new source such as Canada, central asia; land oil pipeline), I would say the blockage would affect around 25% oil usage of China in peaceful time. But if war begins, China can reduce the civilian usage and replace with domestic oil with higher cost. So, in general, blockage of sea lane will impact Chinese economy but won't stop China's industry and military machine!

3. Which economy will get bigger jolt from such a war, Indian-which has four parallel economies or Chinese which is export oriented?
Even thoug Chinese domestic consumers only counts a smaller percentage of Chinese products, it is still bigger than India's whole economy! And where is india's four parallel economies?

4. In case of a nuke war, when both side kill over 75% of the population of eachother, which nation will have extended lines of communication over inhospitable terrain, India or China?
As a country who had been preparing a nulcear war with at least one of the 2 super nuclear powers in any time before 1990s, I do believe China has a better Chance to beat India in a nuclear war and after a nuclear war.

5. India may be behind in terms of Industrialisation but an ordinary ironsmith of India makes better and more reliable guns than what best of chinese industry can produce till date.
Yes, that is why you guys decided to stop using your own gun and turn to foreign suppliers? And that is also why your soldier was using WW2 weapon when they are facing terrorists in Mumbai?

6. India was not at all effected by the sanctions put against us by US after 1998 nuke tests. In fact our economy started growing at over 6% as a result of that which had never grown at even 5% till then. The biggest consumer of indian produce are Indians. We are the industry and also the Market. That is not the case with China.
The sactions is not economic block but technologcial sanction which prohibited india from purchasing high-end military technologies! That is also one of reasons your LCA was delayed so many years!

7. Lastly, every north Indian has seen wars and also their forefathers have fought wars. Just like every American had to fight for survival to claim America. Please do not under estimate our genes.
China needs to understand that they are facing a nation which has lernt its lessons from 1962, 1965, 1971, 1967, 1987 and 1999. Chinese army is illequipped has no battle experience to fight large scale wars. Experience is the cheapest thing to buy provided you get it second hand.
No one under estimate you, my friend. On the contrary, you are over estimating yourself!
The fact that you keep talking about 1962, 1965 or even 1999 proves that you don't have any idea what this war is about and where is the battlefield. Yes, my friend, this war is not about land or population, it is fighted for the resources, markets and votes! It is happening everywhere but Sino-india border! Currently, you are not winning this war! Oh, you are not even a major competitor!
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
If your major military offensive acitivy need a permission of another country in certain area, who do you think is in control? India or USA?



There will be certain level of effect but not critical. Currently, China is importing half of its oil consumed annually and 50% of these importation is going through IOC. Considering the future change (new source such as Canada, central asia; land oil pipeline), I would say the blockage would affect around 25% oil usage of China in peaceful time. But if war begins, China can reduce the civilian usage and replace with domestic oil with higher cost. So, in general, blockage of sea lane will impact Chinese economy but won't stop China's industry and military machine!



Even thoug Chinese domestic consumers only counts a smaller percentage of Chinese products, it is still bigger than India's whole economy! And where is india's four parallel economies?



As a country who had been preparing a nulcear war with at least one of the 2 super nuclear powers in any time before 1990s, I do believe China has a better Chance to beat India in a nuclear war and after a nuclear war.



Yes, that is why you guys decided to stop using your own gun and turn to foreign suppliers? And that is also why your soldier was using WW2 weapon when they are facing terrorists in Mumbai?



The sactions is not economic block but technologcial sanction which prohibited india from purchasing high-end military technologies! That is also one of reasons your LCA was delayed so many years!



No one under estimate you, my friend. On the contrary, you are over estimating yourself!
The fact that you keep talking about 1962, 1965 or even 1999 proves that you don't have any idea what this war is about and where is the battlefield. Yes, my friend, this war is not about land or population, it is fighted for the resources, markets and votes! It is happening everywhere but Sino-india border! Currently, you are not winning this war! Oh, you are not even a major competitor!
The four economies of India are, Black money, Gold holdings with Indians within India, White economy which we all know is just above $ 2 trn and another $1.4 trn stashed abroad.
Our forex reserves are more than our entire debt. You have recently ordered an internal audit of your debt which stood at $1.7trn in 2011 and is considered even higher today. This figure is more than your total forex reserves. So, tell me which economy is in better shape.
We do not need permission from USA to fight anyone anywhr on earth.
If China is not preparing for war than why are you doing what you are doing and why have you started asking India to freeze troop levels and stop build up of Infra on our own side of Border. What scares you and why these demands? Did we ever stop you or make such conditions ever to China?
 

Dinesh_Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
518
Likes
231
Sir,

I can't believe we were so blind that not one person in Official Capacity raised one 'peep' when China, as per various media reports, built High Altitude Railway Lines, 4 lane all weather roads, tunnels, etc. close to our border. I understand sometime in 2008-09 timeframe, sudden reports started coming.

Personally, I find hard to believe suddenly happnd overnight - -such capacity needs atleast 2-3 years at extremely fast pace. Here in India, similar capacity would have taken a decade, that too, with western help.

Before that, HIgh Altitude Railway as Engg. Wonder even came on Dscovery.Channel.......thats when many 1st heard of it.....

Why officials were silent for this period................???

build up of Infra on ............... Did we ever stop you or make such conditions ever to China?
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,111
Sir,

I can't believe we were so blind that not one person in Official Capacity raised one 'peep' when China, as per various media reports, built High Altitude Railway Lines, 4 lane all weather roads, tunnels, etc. close to our border. I understand sometime in 2008-09 timeframe, sudden reports started coming.

Personally, I find hard to believe suddenly happnd overnight - -such capacity needs atleast 2-3 years at extremely fast pace. Here in India, similar capacity would have taken a decade, that too, with western help.

Before that, HIgh Altitude Railway as Engg. Wonder even came on Dscovery.Channel.......thats when many 1st heard of it.....

Why officials were silent for this period................???
We had known these all along but never protested as it was being done on thr side of Border. We do not have war on our mind so we are not bothered about what they do. We want to be prepared and we have evry right to do what we want in our territory. We protested their activities in POK only. The protests by China to our own Infra development can only be viewed as their discomfort with our military strength.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
You are overestimate the pocket of China. Unless we want to bankcrapt ourselves or expect the world war 3 coming, there is no way China is going to build such an army.
Don't count on it. Your current economy is as big as what the Soviet Union was. Let's not forget your economy will be bigger than the American economy by the end of the decade. You underestimate the pocket of China.

Russians have something as the same as Soviet--10000 nuclear warheads which provide better protection than Himalayas.
There is a limit beyond which conventional superiority will outstrip 10000 warheads. There is a chance you have that many as well.

The possibility of China invading Russia is only little bit higher than Chinese invasion of Mars.
The same analogy about war existed a decade before WW2.

USA is seeking a global dominance status which requires its overwhelming military edge over every potential enemy in any corner of the planet. In the same time, China and India are pursuing the status of regional power which is requiring far less military power. So, you are not to be caught with pants down, on the contrary you are suggesting India to wear 2 pants everyday while you shirt off!
Both our countries will outspend the US year on year in the next two decades.

If a war will occur due to resources, highly likely it would be initiated by india instead of China. Currently China has the money and political influence which are needed in the competition of resource while India lack both! I really don't see there is any resource that India can buy China out unless they are within India.
Not necessary that India will have to be the aggressor. The situation may warrant both to go to war.

My friend, if today's economic trend continue, there is no need for either side going to war. For Chinese, we will win without fighting. For India, you won't have enough fanical and material resources to build a powerful enough army to fight a war.
Okay.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
It may be true when it comes to India-Pakistan, but not when it comes to Russia-Georgia or even a future China-Vietnam conflict.

There is no guarantee international pressure will work if China decided to invade India.



This is more in tune with what the "Western world" perceives wars will be in the future. If this was the case, then there is no need for the Americans to continue building up their military with newer technology that are primarily meant for conventional wars, and in the numbers they are planning. But the West was so sure after WW1 that there would be no WW2. Sorry, but we don't want to be caught with our pants down.



True, but this is not guaranteed. As you mention in your next line...



What's the guarantee the fight for resources won't go nuclear or even a limited war? Both countries will eventually have to deal with scarcity as the economy grows. Even a continent like Africa may not be enough. As the scientists are saying, we are going to need two or three whole planets to sustain the world economy.

As of today we don't really have a reason to go to war for. However we are the only country in the world today that's building up its military openly citing the Chinese bogeyman.

I would prefer we don't go to war, but I would also prefer not be be caught with our pants down when it happens.
Your first question actually exemplifies my point. Conflicts like Russia/ Georgia; Israel/ Arabs; USA/ Iraq; or a potential showdown between China and Vietnam all examples of criteria #1* on my list (mentioned below).

I'm not sure why an assessment of current ground realities should be considered a "Western perspective". A majority of us live in a globalized economy and are interconnected in ways never seen before. China knows its dominant role in the present day global economy and their leaders are well aware that this is no time for a large scale war. Their priorities are simple, global economic dominance not territorial expansion (as it was in the 60s).

United States isn't expanding it's conventional military as much it's re distributing its resources to increase its presence in Australasia. This move falls into the "power projection and showmanship" category. Both China and the USA will show off their military might but neither one of them will initiate a full scale war because it's not in the interest of either party.

In regards to natural resources:
The concept of expansive powers warring over natural resources (in foreign countries) is defunct. You may see Russia pummel Ukraine or Ethiopia getting into it with Eritrea over resources because both these conflicts meet criteria #1* and #2* respectively... but again, India and China do not fall into these categories.

The outcome of the "war for natural resources" between China and India will be decided by technological superiority and economic- geopolitical dominance. Here again, China is winning. Compared to India they have made a lot of headway in their technological ability to extract resources from land and Sea. Secondly their prowess in carrying out large scale projects makes them a more alluring option for resource rich- poorer countries. And lastly their economic might and geopolitical dominance makes it easier for them to convince smaller countries into letting them access their resources.

As per my analysis if India really wants to ensure it's not caught with it's pants down again then it needs to focus on the present war instead of preparing for a past war. I'm not saying India shouldn't modernize its army, it certainly should in order to retain strong deterrence. However the real battle is rapid industrialization through adoption of new technologies, expanding the economy through better policies, increasing human productivity, increasing the standard of living etc. This is where the real challenge is. Failing to achieve this will result in China's ability to overshadow and undermine India at will.



**The only three potential scenarios of large scale conventional conflicts are:

  1. An entirely imbalanced conflict between a powerful country that has an overwhelming military advantage over a weak foe or
  2. A war between two economic pariahs in the under developed world that have nothing to lose.
  3. If one of the erratic/ unstable countries like North Korea completely lose their minds and attack someone.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Your first question actually exemplifies my point. Conflicts like Russia/ Georgia; Israel/ Arabs; USA/ Iraq; or a potential showdown between China and Vietnam all examples of criteria #1* on my list (mentioned below).
With Russia-Georgia I gave an example of how international pressure may not always work.

I'm not sure why an assessment of current ground realities should be considered a "Western perspective". A majority of us live in a globalized economy and are interconnected in ways never seen before. China knows its dominant role in the present day global economy and their leaders are well aware that this is no time for a large scale war. Their priorities are simple, global economic dominance not territorial expansion (as it was in the 60s).
The problem is this kind of thinking is too optimistic. "War won't happen because nobody wants it." The world is less merciful than that.

Please note I am not talking philosophy. The interconnection between economies would only mean the cost of war would go beyond the parties fighting it. Again, not a guarantee that a war won't happen.

United States isn't expanding it's conventional military as much it's re distributing its resources to increase its presence in Australasia. This move falls into the "power projection and showmanship" category. Both China and the USA will show off their military might but neither one of them will initiate a full scale war because it's not in the interest of either party.
Maybe. That's the thing, nobody can guarantee it. Power projection has existed since a long time.

In regards to natural resources:
The concept of expansive powers warring over natural resources (in foreign countries) is defunct. You may see Russia pummel Ukraine or Ethiopia getting into it with Eritrea over resources because both these conflicts meet criteria #1* and #2* respectively... but again, India and China do not fall into these categories.
Very subjective. It may start off as a proxy war between two African powers supported by India and China on either sides.

Earlier we didn't know much about the American and Russian involvement in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Today we know, or we got a hint suggesting that the Russian and American interference was much larger than first thought. The Americans planned an invasion while the Russians had a large fleet in the Indian Ocean and not just one or two subs. There was a British presence in the Arabian sea as well.

The American invasion of India did not work out because the Indian invasion of Bangladesh was even faster. Consider the fact that we were slower, the Americans would have stepped in, the Russians would have stepped in along with the British. Now where would that have led to?

A small proxy war may have led to a global war.

The outcome of the "war for natural resources" between China and India will be decided by technological superiority and economic- geopolitical dominance. Here again, China is winning. Compared to India they have made a lot of headway in their technological ability to extract resources from land and Sea. Secondly their prowess in carrying out large scale projects makes them a more alluring option for resource rich- poorer countries. And lastly their economic might and geopolitical dominance makes it easier for them to convince smaller countries into letting them access their resources.
No point in disputing this.

However the real battle is rapid industrialization through adoption of new technologies, expanding the economy through better policies, increasing human productivity, increasing the standard of living etc. This is where the real challenge is. Failing to achieve this will result in China's ability to overshadow and undermine India at will.
You are right about this again. This still does not create conditions for no war to happen.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
1. China is not comfortable with a prolonged war like scenario, more used to liking of a hit & run tactics. Come with massive numerical superiority and then run back unilaterally... same happened in 1962 war with India & same with Vietnam in late 70's.
No country would like a prolonged war. But certainly the countries like China, Russia have the ability to fight a prolonged war than most of countries in the world, for example Sino-Japan war (8 years), Korea war (2 years).
In the case of 1962 and vietnam, the targets of both wars only requires hit & run tactics. But for your information, there was another war or skirmish with Vietnam, which lasted for 10 years on the border--both side shooting each other every day! Of course the goal of this war was compeletly different!

There was a very valid reasons for China to running back unilaterally back in 1962 war with India, China saw that USA has started tilting towards India as they already started sending arms to India. Moreover the terrain in NE is very difficult to hold on to incase of a counter attacks from Indians.
This is one of reasons, but not a major one.
The major ones are:
1. Chinese army already run out of their supplies.
2. Chinese already got what they were coming for: pushing indian army out of Aksai Chin.

China does not dare to attack any country unless it has a 5:1 numerical superiority in its favor.
In korea war, the ratio was 2.9m chinese vs 1.2m UN forces.

You will see the Chinese did very badly in Vietnam inspite of huge numerical & material superiority against Vietnam.
In vietnam, Chinese did have numberical superiority but Vietnam was the one enjoying material superiority. Vietnam army was equiped with 2 superpowers' 70s weapon while Chineses were still using the weapons designed in 1960s.

The present day Chinese army has very little experience in fighting. Its air force & navy hardly has any fighting experience. So any adventure has all the signs of getting horribly bad"¦
India isn't much better than Chinese on this. If india experienced army can't completely defeat Chinese in first half year, both side will be on the same level. For the country like China, you can't win a war in half years, even USA can't on the land.

From India's perspective we need to keep two things in mind.
1.We have to build the infrastructures as fast as possible say in next 5 years we should be able to reach and deploy very quickly in the border areas"¦
2.India has to increase the boot count into the mountains and build the force to take the fight well into the enemy territory. India needs to have around 500,000 men both active plus reserve armed to its teeth for the China border.
This is the only way to deal with the LIZARDS"¦
Good, that is exactly what China wants you to do. Overspending your money on a war which will not happen unless you own start it.
No indian member in this forum has noticed that India is enjoying the numberic and material superior NOW.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
As per my analysis if India really wants to ensure it's not caught with it's pants down again then it needs to focus on the present war instead of preparing for a past war. I'm not saying India shouldn't modernize its army, it certainly should in order to retain strong deterrence. However the real battle is rapid industrialization through adoption of new technologies, expanding the economy through better policies, increasing human productivity, increasing the standard of living etc. This is where the real challenge is. Failing to achieve this will result in China's ability to overshadow and undermine India at will.
Both are equally crucial: Modernization of Armed Forces to safegaurd our territorial integrity as well as winning the tech. & industrialization battle.

This is not a zero-sum game & focusing on one need not necessarily be at the cost of another. Both can be achieved simultaneously.

This is what India has been trying to do, maybe not fast enough. The crux it, Indian policymakers do know what to do & how to do but they are not doing it, being inebriated in their pursuit of self-serving agendas.

However, it is far from over yet. India would get its act together within 1 year. With a decisive & sane leadership, institutional flaws would be addressed & projects would be hastened. We are moving in the right direction. We just need to move much faster (which we would) & start playing our weight around (asserting ourself in keeping with our natural standing).
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
With Russia-Georgia I gave an example of how international pressure may not always work.
No this is precisely what I'm saying. This example you are listing applies to one of the 3 exceptions which can result in modern day war (condition #1). Let's be honest, there was no substance whatsoever to the intervention on Georgia's behalf when Russia attacked. The reason nobody made a wholehearted effort to prevent a war between Russia and Georgia is because the latter has no significance to the global economy; this is also the reason why Israel can bomb Lebanon or even Syria with impunity; because nobody has a vested economic interest in the latter two. Not all interventions are alike.

The problem is this kind of thinking is too optimistic. "War won't happen because nobody wants it." The world is less merciful than that.
Please note I am not talking philosophy. The interconnection between economies would only mean the cost of war would go beyond the parties fighting it. Again, not a guarantee that a war won't happen.
What you say here is at the heart of my argument. The impediment to war isn't motivated by some benevolent desire for peace, but rather something far more important... money. It all comes down to the magnitude of the cost that spreads beyond the warring nations. The United States, Europe and basically every rich country with capital has insurmountable financial investments in India and China, and the economic catastrophe due to a Sino Indian war would cost investors billions if not trillions... and frankly nobody will tolerate this. One amusing anecdote comes to mind when putting this into perspective is.... Generals no longer dictate wars, it's General Electric that has the biggest say.

Now if there were to be a war between two nations (my earlier example of Ethiopia or Eritrea) which aren't economically important for multi national investors nobody would blink an eye... sure some talking heads would show up on TV and make overtures of peace etc. but nobody would really care because this isn't costing anyone anything.


Very subjective. It may start off as a proxy war between two African powers supported by India and China on either sides.

Earlier we didn't know much about the American and Russian involvement in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Today we know, or we got a hint suggesting that the Russian and American interference was much larger than first thought. The Americans planned an invasion while the Russians had a large fleet in the Indian Ocean and not just one or two subs. There was a British presence in the Arabian sea as well.

The American invasion of India did not work out because the Indian invasion of Bangladesh was even faster. Consider the fact that we were slower, the Americans would have stepped in, the Russians would have stepped in along with the British. Now where would that have led to?

A small proxy war may have led to a global war.
I'm glad you cited this example, because it illustrates my argument about the paradigm shift. The parameters which shaped the involvement of the US and Russia in the 1971 war no longer exist. This is a very different and complex topic which probably deserves its own thread. But an oversimplified argument here is that proxy wars of this nature were more applicable to ideology than economics (there are exceptions here too, but none that apply to India and China).

On the other hand, if there's one thing every country with aspirations of economic expansion has learned is that destabilizing an unstable resource rich area of interest through a proxy war is a horrendously loss making venture and completely not worth it. The present day strategy is the exact opposite, now nations seeking access to natural resources aim to stabilize a troubled region through economic incentives and then use that as leverage. Unlike in the past when allegiances were sought through fueling guerrilla wars now they're all about who gets lucrative contracts; and the fight among contract seekers is based on who can offer more incentives.

Again, I'm not saying India shouldn't modernize and maintain a state of the art military, but the nation as a whole needs to shift its attention to the present day war instead of the one from the past which has long passed its expiration date.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Both are equally crucial: Modernization of Armed Forces to safegaurd our territorial integrity as well as winning the tech. & industrialization battle.
This is not a zero-sum game & focusing on one need not necessarily be at the cost of another. Both can be achieved simultaneously.
Your country is running on double deficit which means you don't have enough money to push the military modernization and industrilization simultaneously. The signs of this are:
1. You are expecting private money or foreign investment to cover more than half of your infrastructural building, which is proved unrealistic
2. Your R&D is suffering from the lack of money
3. Your education and public health department never got enough fund they need to catch up with other developing countries

[/B]This is what India has been trying to do, maybe not fast enough. The crux it, Indian policymakers do know what to do & how to do but they are not doing it, being inebriated in their pursuit of self-serving agendas.
Yes, India is trying and failing. Indian politicians know what should be done but they can't because they don't have enough money for the multiple projects in the same period. There is no country can do that. USA can't, China can't, Russia can't. What make you think that India can?



However, it is far from over yet. India would get its act together within 1 year. With a decisive & sane leadership, institutional flaws would be addressed & projects would be hastened. We are moving in the right direction. We just need to move much faster (which we would) & start playing our weight around (asserting ourself in keeping with our natural standing).
Ok, what is changed can mek India get its act together within 1 year-such a short period?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top