The China India Equation

[W.G.Ewald]

lol @ Indians still thinking China wants to invade to occupy territory - seems India is still preparing to fight the last war, while China is preparing to fight the next one

A snappy but inaccurate statement. China continues its territorial probing with troops, but India only responds with words.

 

[t_co]

A snappy but inaccurate statement. China continues its territorial probing with troops, but India only responds with words.

Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught you that land invasions are horrifically inefficient ways for a nation to get what it wants, even when military success was basically certain and the opposition was diplomatically unpopular, to put it mildly.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught you that land invasions are horrifically inefficient ways for a nation to get what it wants, even when military success was basically certain and the opposition was diplomatically unpopular, to put it mildly.

That is why China is just nibbling at India instead invading, I guess.

 

[ice berg]

That is why China is just nibbling at India instead invading, I guess.

Will you prefer the American way instead? When was the last time an indian died because of PLA?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Will you prefer the American way instead? When was the last time an indian died because of PLA?

Your first question is too ambiguous.

Your second question evades the issue of Chinese incursions into India with armed troops.

Has IA been going into China to confront PLA? Please provide examples.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Will you prefer the American way instead?

Psycho-political projection: This contraction of words labels the political application of the word projection in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, ""¦in a psychoanalytic context, it describes the unconscious process in which the individual attributes to others his or her own emotions and impulses. Sigmund Freud regarded it as a common defence mechanism, used by the ego to control unacceptable feelings, thereby helping to reduce anxiety."

 

[ice berg]

Your first question is too ambiguous.

Not at all if you know about US interventionism.
Here is abit history for you.

Overseas interventions of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The put it this way: In what way are those armed conflicts better than the Sino-India negotiations taken into the context that none of them has fired at each other for decades? Sometimes this simple fact is lost on jingoism.

Your second question evades the issue of Chinese incursions into India with armed troops.

Has IA been going into China to confront PLA? Please provide examples.

See my answer above. As regarding to the patrols, your question shows your ignorance. I am amazed that you dont even know that there is no actual agreed line of actual control (LAC) on the ground; each side has its own perception of where it lies. That means both sides patrol according to their own perception of where the line lies.

Chinese troops crossed Line of Actual Control 150 times this year - India - DNA

Both sides conduct patrol up to their perception of the LAC. There was a face-off with the patrol. But after a usual banner drill between the two sides, both of them disengaged peacefully," Army sources said. India is likely to raise the issue at an upcoming flag meeting. India and China have major differences of perception of the LAC at several places.

An official said that Chumar has been regularly targeted by the Chinese troops because the Indian Army has better defensive capabilities there. The recently-developed infrastructure and construction of bunkers in the disputed area have further irked the Chinese."The Chinese Army keeps patrolling to maintain their claim, especially in Chumar, since we have an advantage because of the terrain," said an official.

In fact, the construction of bunkers and other observatory post by the Indian side was the major trigger for the Chinese setting up tents post in Daulat Beg Oldie in April. The Chinese retreated only after India agreed to their demand to dismantle the bunkers at the disputed site.

My point is that peaceful negotiations are better than armed conflicts.

 

[LalTopi]

lol @ Indians still thinking China wants to invade to occupy territory - seems India is still preparing to fight the last war, while China is preparing to fight the next one

What does China want?

 

[ice berg]

Psycho-political projection: This contraction of words labels the political application of the word projection in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, ""¦in a psychoanalytic context, it describes the unconscious process in which the individual attributes to others his or her own emotions and impulses. Sigmund Freud regarded it as a common defence mechanism, used by the ego to control unacceptable feelings, thereby helping to reduce anxiety."

You know you are running out of arguements when you have to conduct psychoanalysis by copy paste. I usually leave those to the professionals.
Those people usually spend less time on internet picking up concepts they dont know about. Internet can never replace real education.Fortunately.

 

[Ray]

You know you are running out of arguements when you have to conduct psychoanalysis by copy paste. I usually leave those to the professionals.
Those people usually spend less time on internet picking up concepts they dont know about. Internet can never replace real education.Fortunately.

He happens to be a professional soldier and not a wannabe as some!

And he understands it better because of his experience!

 

[Ray]

lol @ Indians still thinking China wants to invade to occupy territory - seems India is still preparing to fight the last war, while China is preparing to fight the next one

If China is not a territorial hound, then what's going on all over to include SCS?

 

[LalTopi]

A less bullish view on the new MSC

Countering China: too little, too late - Livemint

The much-awaited political approval to create a new army strike corps—the first in nearly 25 years—is being regarded as an appropriate and adequate measure to counter China's growing military prowess, especially along the long disputed line of actual control (LAC) with India. Though of crucial military import, the first-ever dedicated mountain strike corps might achieve very little by itself and might have come too late.
While there is an impression that this pronouncement was in response to the Depsang Valley confrontation earlier this year, alas, no Indian government—especially this one—has ever made decisions with such alacrity. In reality, this new strike corps has been a long time coming. Its genesis dates back to a concept developed by late army chief K. Sunderji in the wake of another eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with China at Sumdorong Chu in 1987.
Sunderji promoted the idea of establishing RAMIDs—Reorganized Army Mountain Infantry Divisions—which would have helicopter-based mobility to counter China, particularly in the northeast. This was akin to his idea for RAPIDs—Reorganised Army Plains Infantry Divisions—which could also operate under nuclear conditions while confronting Pakistan. The army embraced the RAPID concept (today there are at least six such divisions) but the RAMID idea was implemented piecemeal.
The new strike corps is the logical but long overdue culmination of Sunderji's initiative.
However, 2013 is not 1987 and a traditional army strike corps alone will not be effective in the nuclear battlefield scenario of the 21st century.
For that, there will have to be greater integration and coordination not only with the air force and navy but also with India's nuclear forces. Indeed, the prospects of any future confrontation with China escalating to the nuclear level cannot be ruled out.
This is why the proposal was sent back to the services with instructions that they should draw up a common plan and ensure greater integration, which, sadly, still remains only on paper. While some reports suggest that there are plans to deploy ballistic and cruise missile in the region, these will have to be closely integrated with the operational plans of the new corps. Beyond this, the corps will also have to be integrated with India's space assets, which are crucial in any modern battle.
In this sphere India is lagging behind. In 2012, according to the US department of defence annual report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2013, China "launched six Beidou navigation satellites" and "completed the regional network as well as the in-orbit validation phase for the global network, expected to be completed by 2020. China launched 11 new remote sensing satellites in 2012, which can perform both civil and military applications". During the same period India launched a mere two satellites.
Unsurprisingly, the new corps might easily be dubbed the "Yankee corps" given that most of its crucial equipment—ultra-light howitzers, helicopters and special operations aircraft—are of American origin.
This underlines the inevitable premise that to counter China, India needs some US wherewithal.
Coincidentally, the US connection to Panagarh (the location of the new corps headquarters) dates back to World War II; from 1942-1945 the airport was used as a supply transport airfield by the United States Army Air Forces Tenth Air Force and as a repair and maintenance depot for B-24 Liberator bombers.
Finally, for the corps to be an effective deterrent against China, the LAC will have to be clearly demarcated and the border issue resolved. Without such clarity, the corps will remain a mere fly in the ointment.

W.P. S. Sidhu is a senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, New York University. He writes on strategic affairs every fortnight.

 

[t_co]

What does China want?

Guarantees of free and unrestricted shipping through the IOR; expulsion - or at the very least, a shut-down - of the Tibetan government in exile.

Neither of these has much to do with worthless rocks on the border.

 

[LalTopi]

Guarantees of free and unrestricted shipping through the IOR; expulsion - or at the very least, a shut-down - of the Tibetan government in exile.

Neither of these has much to do with worthless rocks on the border.

You already have the former - unrestricted access to the IOR. As for the Dalai Lama, you will have to come up with more creative solutions than 'expulsion' or 'shutdown'. How about direct negotiations with him? Are you afraid of that? If you don't, then in the meantime we only get stronger everyday on the border and you are not strong enough to attack us in the interim. We can wait. But better to have meaningful talks, if you are up to it.

 

[t_co]

You already have the former - unrestricted access to the IOR. As for the Dalai Lama, you will have to come up with more creative solutions than 'expulsion' or 'shutdown'. How about direct negotiations with him? Are you afraid of that? If you don't, then in the meantime we only get stronger everyday on the border and you are not strong enough to attack us in the interim. We can wait. But better to have meaningful talks, if you are up to it.

Thanks for the reply, although I think our posts are answering questions on two different timeframes here. Neither of those two issues are short-term ambitions of China vis a vis India.

With respect to the IOR - at the moment - even if India wanted to guarantee free/unrestricted shipping through the IOR, it could not do so. The IN is too weak for that - India would need to double the size of its maritime patrol aircraft fleet, modernize the eqpt and airframes, and get at least 2 more carriers going (to ensure one CVBG is patrolling the IOR at all times) before India has that diplomatic 'gift basket' it can use to horse-trade with.

An aside: why would China be comfortable with such a muscular Indian Navy? Because the Arctic ice is melting, and China will soon have the choice of two shipping routes to Europe - granted, both would still have to transit US monitored straits (Malacca, Bering, and GIUK) but the fact that the remainder of those trips are going through the home turf of Russia and India - plus big navies for each - gives comfort to Chinese strategic planners. Why? Because it means that no single nation, apart from an increasingly overstretched US, will have a monopoly on Chinese shipping any more, and what's more, with the proper alliance setup, China can utilize the navy of either Russia or India to keep at least one sea lane around Eurasia open for its own merchant marine, even in defiance of large outside military forces. Basically, China wants global sea lanes to be under no one's domination - and if that starts with India telling the PLAN to GTFO of the IOR, that's great so long as it tells the USN to do it too.

With respect to the second item, the expulsion/shutdown wouldn't have to happen overnight. What would be appreciated in the near-term would be a cessation of the covert support and de facto protection India provides to the TGIE and other Tibetan independence movements. Bereft of that support, China can then pursue full-spectrum mop-up operations against them at will, while India only need to sit back, watch the fireworks, and munch on popcorn.

 

[Tenzin]

Well India is pretty much lacking in infrastructure and defence in the eastern front especially ib the Tawang sector.