If India has to go for a two fronts war against China and Pakistan...

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
I am sure Ray sir doesnt mean too. Your people try to deflect, he had some ideas to engage you.

Besides we are a democracy. We are all allowed to sport different view. Not the whole of India agrees with Ray sir's views. I respectully didnt some posts back.

But hey I think two front war is worth fighting. and that was the intent since begining. Ray sir I think you can agree that if we are forced to loose our king then we can surely take out everything outside of CCP leaving the CCP to rule over ......... well nothing.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Gautama still there. You guys went away and saddled the world with CCP.

Hope the best for you but the survival tendencies in me tell me to wish even better for ourselves.

Dont get disheartened Indians are only slow to start but sure to finish.

The fight is still not on. Only the preparation has. We still have our destiny in our hands.
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
793
I think Arab countries will join Pakistan regardless of what Israel does, this has been proven in all the previous wars.
i cant rememeber any such thing ...only Jordon helped Pakistan in 1965..
 

tigerhill

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
88
Likes
1,326
Country flag
I had a question

In the conflict with CHINA

Will we be in a position to launch a counter offensive into Aksai CHIN??

This is because , this is all dependent on the terrain
WHo is in a better position at this place??


For a fact we cant use our strike corps in AP as the terrain is impossible , to make gains


Are we strategically better of in the ladakh sector??

Or will we only be defending??
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
793
terrain is equally a hinderance for both. But it's said infrastructures are far better in Chinese side...so they will be in advantageous position when it needs a quick deployment of force and artilleries. If our top-guns dont come out of their slumber....you understand..

But India has more airbases than China in the proximity of border from where fighters can operate in Ladakh and China.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
i cant rememeber any such thing ...only Jordon helped Pakistan in 1965..
Just check how arab nations have voted on the kashmir issue in the UN, google China, indonesia, Iran help to Pakistan in war and you will get more info, and who has financed pakistan's nuclear program.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
You have the option of engaging me on my grounds too. I was merely trying to do engage you with new and should i say entirely relevant points. Common starting point is not the point of war (is war a race under olympic rule) or do you want to say it is (in which case there may be no point discussing with you)
Well, since you've invited me. So what? It does not tell me one bit how an Indian soldier will fight nor how a Chinese soldier will fight. All you are telling me is that history will force the Indian soldier to fight ... and that is an axiom I will assume without needing nor wanting to go into your history.

think we should not worry even about 200000 extra men on border. But Indians usually accept the position the past, present and future are all rolled into one and hence even a small engagement requires past present and future preparation and perspective.
What? Do I need to read Alexander and Porus to understand what the Chinese and Pakistanis are doing? A big fat zero.

Do I need to understand the current Pakistani and Chinese deployments. Oh hell, yeah!

Should I be thinking that Pakistan and China are getting BATTLESTAR GALACTICAS just to kill India?

Past. Present. Future. Military men are telling you what to look for.

You could be right though we may not be on the same plane. We seem to be on our respective planes. Ahh… You give me no satisfaction.
You're not the one who have to tell little girls why their daddys ain't coming home no more. And before you accuse me of going on a tangent, let me tell you this. Your answer HAS to make sense to that little girl and that girl don't know Alexander nor a bunch of rocks from a comic book.

Yeah, military men on this board have done that.

Ek bar to marna hi hai yaar. Dard watan waaste ho to better no.
I'm Canadian. Ethnic Chinese. I speak English, Cantonese, French, and Mandarin in that order. I read, write English and French, and read Chinese.

f we are walking past each other that means we are both besides each other's context. It does not mean I am out of context.
Oh yeah, you sure the hell were out of context.

In fact looks like you are out of context by trying to restrict all possibilities other then the ones that you are comfortable with. BTW how many times Indians didnt agree with western views. How many times Indians went on to do what they thought fit even after repeated western pressure (which was directed for western benefits most times entirely oblivious to 1/5th of humanity)
I don't care! The ONLY thing I've been trying to tell people here is how the Chinese will fight and why they will fight the way they do. I've gone into detail about their doctrines and their developments.

You, on the otherhand, has been trying to feed things into this discussion that has absolutely zero effect on the battlefield.

If I was visiting your military museums, oh hell yeah, I would love you as a guide but if you were trying for a spot as my 2IC, I would have busted you down to private and digging latrines instead of being on the front lines. Because right now, you will get people killed by trying to impose your views that has absolutely zero effect on the battlefield.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
terrain is equally a hinderance for both. But it's said infrastructures are far better in Chinese side...so they will be in advantageous position when it needs a quick deployment of force and artilleries. If our top-guns dont come out of their slumber....you understand..
The Chinese are better but not that much better. Stocks are in place so that the 15ABC don't have to carry their stocks in but this is the 15ABC we're talking about, ie light infantry. The stocks in place cannot and will not support their best mech armies, ie the 38th and 39th Group Armies.

In other words, it would still be a p!ssing contest.

But India has more airbases than China in the proximity of border from where fighters can operate in Ladakh and China.
Check the weather, there's about 6 weeks of the year where fighters and air support is effective.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
It is so good to find that Chinese find their Great Helmsman, Mao to be the greatest idiot in humanity!
No, Sir. They have not. Mao's giagnatic portrait is still on Tianamen Square.
Mao kicked the opium addict Chinese to be men for a change!
He did more than that. For what it's worth, he was the better leader between himself and Chiang Kei Shek. Under Chiang, China would have been nothing more than another Pakistan.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
The India-Pakistan War Of 1971: A Modern War

President Nixon was probably concerned
that the balance of power in Asia would be upset and he was
anxious not to jeopardize the effort to develop closer
relations with China. 7/ The U.S. needed a stable Asia and
support of China to implement the planned withdrawal from
Vietnam.
Although slow in coming, on April 13 China expressed
support for President Yahya's efforts. Chou En-lai stated
that should India attack Pakistan, China would fully support
the Pakistani people and government to safeguard "State
Sovereignty" and national independence. The phrasing was
important as it did not state full support for the unity and
integrity of the nation as Pakistan wanted. From April
onwards, China provided economic and military assistance
appropriate to their statement of support; that is,
sufficient to guarantee only that in a war with India the
Western wing would survive, but not necessarily the Eastern
wing. Both India and the Soviet Union had long standing
disputes with China. China's interests would be served by
continuing to have Pakistan interposed between the U.S.S.R.
and India. Should West Pakistan cease to exist, then China
would be surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. On the other
hand, continuing rivalry between Pakistan and India over
East Pakistan would divert India's attention away from her
border with China. Thus survival of West Pakistan was
important to China, while the dispute in East Pakistan would
add to the rivalry between India and West Pakistan to ensure
that India's attention would be diverted from her Northern
border with China.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,966
Likes
48,916
Country flag
Saudi Arabia funded Pak nuke plan: Report

Saudi Arabia funded Pak nuke plan: Report

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Sunday, November 10, 2002 at 1608 hours IST


New Delhi, November 10: After reports about North Korea supplying nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan, a former official of the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) has said that Saudi Arabia has been financing Islamabad's nuclear and missile programme purchases from China.


Quoting reports, DIA's senior China analyst Thomas Woodrow said in a research paper that "Saudi Arabia has been involved in funding Pakistan's missile and nuclear programme purchases from China, which has resulted in Pakistan becoming a nuclear weapon-producing and proliferating state."
There was also a probability that Riyadh was "buying nuclear-capability from China through a proxy state with Pakistan serving as the cut out," Woodrow said in his recent paper, entitled "The Sino-Saudi Connection". The report was put on the website of his group, US.F209.

Stating that Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan had "toured the uranium-enrichment plant and missile production facilities in Kahuta" in Pakistan just after the May 1999 nuclear tests, he said the Saudi Minister "may also have been present in Pakistan" during the test-launch of its nuclear-capable Ghauri missile.




"If riyadh's influence over Pakistan extends to its nuclear programmes, Saudi Arabia could rapidly become a de facto nuclear power through a simple shipment of missiles and warheads," the former DIA officer said.


http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pakistan-04c.html

Pakistan's Nuke Money Trail

the nuclear black market has to interact with the legal economy at some point leaving critical clues to the boarder involvement of others
by Kaushik Kapisthalam
Atlanta (UPI) May 12, 2004
There have been many contradictory reports about Pakistan's nuclear program both leading up to and following the bizarre confession by Pakistani nuclear figure Abdul Qadeer Khan and his subsequent pardon by President Pervez Musharraf. In this context, one can infer interesting conclusions by following the money trail and correlating it with the involvement of foreign nations or persons in the Pakistani nuclear program.
Mohammed Beg, former European director for Pakistan International Airlines, later alleged that Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi personally supervised transfers of suitcases filled with U.S. dollars to Pakistan on PIA flights, sometimes up to $100 million in a single flight.

After dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq overthrew and later executed Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979, the Pakistani military took firm control of the nuclear program. ! Thanks to the Afghan jihad, Pakistan was by then swimming in cash, both due to direct aid from the United States as well as contributions from the Saudis.

However, despite ambitious goals, Pakistan lacked the scientific base necessary for the many thousands of sophisticated components needed for a nuclear weapons program. But by leveraging his European contacts, Khan set up a network, supervised by the Pakistan Army's Special Works Organization as well as the Inter Services Intelligence spy agency that could acquire virtually any desired item from Western European nations and many from the United States and Canada. During this time, failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International played a critical role in financing this Pakistani nuclear smuggling ring. In 1992, a report from a U.S. Congressional sub-committee headed by current Democratic presidential frontrunner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said that there was "good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance ! Pakistan' s nuclear program.

By the late 1980s Pakistan had acquired the ability to make an atomic device as well as the nuclear fuel needed for it.

Then Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg openly called for a Pakistan-Iran strategic alliance that included nuclear co-operation. An aide to then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recently revealed that Gen. Beg and a senior Iranian military official met with Sharif and informed him of a deal to sell nuclear technology to Iran for an additional $12 billion. We now know that Pakistan did transfer nuclear technology to Iran around this time. We also know that sometime later, Libya also approached Pakistan and obtained nuclear technology for further cash transfers to the tune of more than $100 million.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto recently mentioned in an interview that she had sanctioned the purchase of ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

Wester! N analyst s now believe that Pakistan transferred nuclear technology to North Korea in return for the missiles since it lacked foreign exchange during the mid 1990s. The recent Saudi connection is also important. After Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998, Saudi Arabia provided almost a billion dollars worth of free oil supplies to Pakistan every year. In 1999, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan became one of the few foreigners to tour secret Pakistani nuclear facilities -- places where even former elected Pakistani prime ministers weren't welcome.

Another pointer to the financial aspect of Pakistan's proliferation was revealed in 2000, when the Pakistan Commerce Ministry issued advertisements in prominent English language Pakistani papers announcing intended sale of enriched uranium, plutonium and 17 types of equipment, including nuclear power reactors, reactor control systems and many other similar technologies. Days after this, the Pakistan government withdrew the! Ads and said that they were a "mistake." Despite this Gen. Beg commented that selling "surplus" nuclear material to fellow Islamic nations was a "respectable way of earning money."

The bottom line is that an analysis of the money trail shows that the drivers behind Pakistani nuclear proliferation were essentially those of a state and not some rogue individuals. Even though Khan and some of his assistants may have had a major role in the nuclear network, the Pakistani Army essentially supervised it.

That oversight is not dependent on whether goods were coming in or going out of Pakistan. As the 2000 advertisement saga shows, the Pakistan government was seriously pursuing the usage of its nuclear technology as a tradable commodity. The huge sums of money involved also point to state involvement.

Given this, it would not be possible to break this nuclear network without bringing to account the various Pakistani state entities, o! Vert and covert, and their representatives abroad. Unfortunately, by buying Musharraf's incredulous claims of no state involvement and focusing on Khan, the United States and its allies are ensuring that the nuclear network remains alive, albeit more underground.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
Sorry to butt in.
Still request you to pls allow me. Israelis have there own survival issues. Obviously large majorities in the world may not recognise that in bilateral relations but that does not make them any less important. There survival issues will keeep them out of the conflict

ooooooor am i wrong.
Survival issues ?
Who threatens Israel now ?


The countries who threatened Israel are now US allies, with majority of their military hardware being western. Syria is an exception, but they can't hope to overwhelm Israel without any allies.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Survival issues ?
Who threatens Israel now ?


The countries who threatened Israel are now US allies, with majority of their military hardware being western. Syria is an exception, but they can't hope to overwhelm Israel without any allies.
Mostly your point is valid. But i hope you realise that the security related military+diplomatice efforts that the Israelis+US have been so assidiously trying to take are going to suffer a lag compared to the desired situation.
For Israelis to be really secure this should have been the case in 60(s)-70(s) when even dumb weapons like nucs were esoteric weapons and print ruled. Technology is changing fast (biotech, chemtech, new media propaganda) and remember peak oil has only just started. The situation is still much more challenging for them.

See threats to plans comes not from the enemy that you know (howsoever big), it comes for the want of the horse shoe nail.
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,668
Likes
28,003
Okay, people, scratch the nuclear option O

Just by looking at the map, I see a very easy counter ... in which none of you has ... or too stupid to see (and I am thinking the latter). Fall back 60 miles on the Tibet front and 100 miles on the Pakistani Front and you will DESTROY TWO armies and I mean Armies as in 60,000 men per Army.

But from what is written, you would rather lose a million Indians than to lose 1 inch of Indian soil.
China and Pakistan can afford to lose 60,000. They can make up the numbers. Hence the reason of India's wariness of losing any more Indian soil. However, India has always practiced strategic depth. But I recall one exchange between us regarding how India would like to fight on the fence where you like to take the fight to the enemy's house as opposed to fighting in your home.
 

sky

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
340
Likes
25
nazi germany lost world war2 because it fought a war on 2 fronts,we should learn the lessons from history so we dont make the same mistakes.taking on pak and china should be avoided unless we have no choice,say they attack first.if this happens we need to be able to transport huge amounts off people /weapons/logistics.to where ever there needed fast.i have read on a thread we bought 6 hercules c130 transport planes and are looking to buy more.this is a step in the right direction .
DOES ANY ONE HERE KNOW A DATE WHEN OUR ARMED FORCES WILL HAVE MODERNISED BUY.WE ARE SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY ON CAPEX BUT IS THERE A DATE BY WHICH WE HAVE SET OURSELFS.this in referance to the 2020 thread title
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
China and Pakistan can afford to lose 60,000.
Can't speak for Pakistan but judging from the reaction on the NLI, I doubt the ruling party can stand that. Tianamen Square proved the days the CCP can lose 30,000 men in 30 days with nothing to show for it are long gone.

But I recall one exchange between us regarding how India would like to fight on the fence where you like to take the fight to the enemy's house as opposed to fighting in your home.
And I still think that but this is about options and falling back to destroy entire armies is a well thought out well practiced art.

The Steppes Peoples have butchered more than one Han Dynasty army this way.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top