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

[Martian]

"that is hypothetical. we will never know 'cos that never happened."

"During Chiang's rule, the Kuomintang became rampantly corrupt, where leading officials and military leaders hoarded funding, material and armaments. This was especially the case during the Second Sino-Japanese War, an issue which proved to be a hindrance with US military leaders, where military aid provided by the US was hoarded by various KMT generals. US President Truman wrote that "the Chiangs, the Kungs, and the Soongs (were) all thieves" , having taken $750 million in US aid.[12] The Kuomintang was also known to have used terror tactics against suspected communists, through the utilization of a secret police force, whom were employed to maintain surveillance on suspected communists and political opponents. In “The Birth of Communist China”, C.P. Fitzgerald describes China under the rule of KMT thus: “the Chinese people groaned under a regime Fascist in every quality except efficiency.” [13]" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

If the KMT had continued to rule China, India's GDP could be higher than China's today. In my opinion, I don't believe that the Indian government is incompetent; I think it is average to slightly above-average. India is unfortunately located next to China, where a super-focused CCP is setting world records for industrialization and growth.

 

[ppgj]

"During Chiang's rule, the Kuomintang became rampantly corrupt, where leading officials and military leaders hoarded funding, material and armaments. This was especially the case during the Second Sino-Japanese War, an issue which proved to be a hindrance with US military leaders, where military aid provided by the US was hoarded by various KMT generals. US President Truman wrote that "the Chiangs, the Kungs, and the Soongs (were) all thieves" , having taken $750 million in US aid.[12] The Kuomintang was also known to have used terror tactics against suspected communists, through the utilization of a secret police force, whom were employed to maintain surveillance on suspected communists and political opponents. In “The Birth of Communist China”, C.P. Fitzgerald describes China under the rule of KMT thus: “the Chinese people groaned under a regime Fascist in every quality except efficiency.” [13]" See Kuomintang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you think CCP is not corrupt. even chinese members in the forum admit that. the fact is what would have happened? is still hypothetical. how do deduce KMT would have been the same as they were before? lot of water has drained in decades.

If the KMT had continued to rule China, India's GDP could be higher than China's today.

how do you explain taiwan? they too have prospered.

 

[tarunraju]

"that is hypothetical. we will never know 'cos that never happened."

"During Chiang's rule, the Kuomintang became rampantly corrupt, where leading officials and military leaders hoarded funding, material and armaments. This was especially the case during the Second Sino-Japanese War, an issue which proved to be a hindrance with US military leaders, where military aid provided by the US was hoarded by various KMT generals. US President Truman wrote that "the Chiangs, the Kungs, and the Soongs (were) all thieves" , having taken $750 million in US aid.[12] The Kuomintang was also known to have used terror tactics against suspected communists, through the utilization of a secret police force, whom were employed to maintain surveillance on suspected communists and political opponents. In “The Birth of Communist China”, C.P. Fitzgerald describes China under the rule of KMT thus: “the Chinese people groaned under a regime Fascist in every quality except efficiency.” [13]" See Kuomintang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the KMT had continued to rule China, India's GDP could be higher than China's today. In my opinion, I don't believe that the Indian government is incompetent; I think it is average to slightly above-average. India is unfortunately located next to China, where a super-focused CCP is setting world records for industrialization and growth.

Explain Taipei's success story. KMT allowed for democratic forces, and pieced together a developed entity in ROC.

 

[Martian]

After moving to Taiwan, the KMT reflected on their corrupt behavior (and wondered why they lost support among the people on Mainland China) and changed dramatically. On Taiwan, the KMT pushed through widespread land reform and created one of the world's most equitable (i.e. distribution of wealth) countries. Without losing mainland China, the KMT would never have reflected on their sins and reformed.

The KMT had to lose mainland China and luckily changed themselves dramatically to create the Taiwan miracle (See Taiwan Miracle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Coupled with Deng's reforms and a highly-competent CCP, an industrialized Taiwan invested heavily (to make money) in Mainland China to help spur the economic development of New China.

Regarding the concept of corruption, it is relative. When Arafat died, they found 5 billion US dollars in his personal/wife's accounts. Arafat stole 5 billion dollars from the aid money that was donated to tiny Palestine.

China has a $4.3 trillion dollar economy. Russia has a $1.7 trillion dollar GDP. Russians own half of the expensive yachts on the French Riviera. Chinese elite own virtually no yachts. Saudi royal family has countless palaces. Chinese elite don't have any Saudi-sized palaces. CCP corruption is a fraction of what it could be.

In my opinion, a list of highly improbable events occurred that lead to the creation of New China. I believe that India wouldn't have to worry too much about its northern neighbor if any of the following happened:

1) KMT stayed in power on Mainland China
2) KMT went to Taiwan and stayed very corrupt
3) No Taiwan Miracle
4) No massive Taiwanese investment in Mainland China
5) No Deng Xiaoping (i.e. died during exile or from sickness)
6) If the military had not agreed to be the last of the 4 reforms (i.e. military was the last priority)

I'm sure you can come up with other significant factors. New China caught everybody by surprise because it was a highly improbable event.

"China's accompliments "unbelievable," says Kissinger"
See http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/05/content_12181703.htm

 

[ppgj]

After moving to Taiwan, the KMT reflected on their corrupt behavior (and wondered why they lost support among the people on Mainland China) and changed dramatically. On Taiwan, the KMT pushed through widespread land reform and created one of the world's most equitable (i.e. distribution of wealth) countries. Without losing mainland China, the KMT would never have reflected on their sins and reformed.

you are looking from only one side whereas there are many angles particularly 'cos you raised a hypothetical question?
1. how do you deduce KMT would have behaved the same way?
2. how do you assume CCP is not corrupt?
3. it was possible a chinese revolution would have happened.
4. who knows they would have ended being democratic!

as i said all these are hypothetical.
anyway since we are going off topic, i end it here.

 

[no smoking]

Explain Taipei's success story. KMT allowed for democratic forces, and pieced together a developed entity in ROC.

Sorry, people, if you don't know sth, you can ask instead of sticking to your 'democratic' analysis.

When did Taiwan started its democratic reform? 1992-the year Li DengHui, the so called "the father of democracy" com into power.

When did Taiwan became one of the "four little dragon of Asea"? between 70s and 80s.

So, taiwan's economy has nothing to do with democracy. On the contrast, it was linked to the dictators of Chiang and his son.

Then how did this economic miracle happend?
1. Land reform, once KMT retreated to taiwan, they started the land reform by force. To be noted, this policy was rejected by KMT during their rulling in mainland because many members of this party were big land owner in mainland.

2. When they came to taiwan, the whole china's national treasure was moved to this island, which became the financial basis for their currency reform.

3. In 1949, no only Chiang's army retreated to taiwan, almost all of chinese top rich familis and top domestic scentists, experts in all fields run with them. This means that all china's intellegence, private funds was concentrated on the building of this islands.

4. The one and most important one: USA financial aid - In order to support KMT's resistance to the potential invation from communism.

 

[VayuSena1]

going war with china is like commiting suicide and am sure if congress in power will never win but will loose a huge chunk of land like pok and akshai sin

I second you on that, Natrajan. Couldn't be more clearer.

 

[ahmedsid]

I second you on that, Natrajan. Couldn't be more clearer.

Now, How could you second such a vague and illogical comment from Natarajan? I mean, wasnt it the same congress which gave us 71?? I am not a congress fan or anything, But before people make such biased comments, I would like to ask them, Which party other than the Congress, fought a war like 71?? Was it BJP with the mishap called Kargil, in which we kicked out intruders from our own Home and called it a Victory? Did we gain anything in this war other than proving that our Intelligence was a Mess and the Bus Diplomacy failed miserably? Was it operation Parakram, which was again, waste of Money, without achieving any real tangible results, other than words of comfort from Pakistan??

The Best thing is to Leave Politics out, One thing we should all try to see to it, is that, not be like Pakistanis. Pakistanis call their Leaders gaddars, Traitors, sell outs etc. But I wouldnt dare call our current leaders any of that. Can you? If so, then I have nothing more to say.

 

[tarunraju]

True. When you're at war, politics takes the back seat. Here's the same "Congress that won us 1971". It's soldiers that fight, Generals who plan, and Government which pays, at the end of the day. Congress has done a commendable job in making sure 26/11 was dealt with in a way that was best for us. Instead of a callus response (which could have erupted into a pointless, and costly war), we proactively stepped up our defenses. When it comes to diplomacy, I trust the UPA the most. They've given us careful, calculated, and silent diplomats.

 

[qilaotou]

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

Fighting two front war is beyond India's capacity.

 

[Daredevil]

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

Fighting two front war is beyond India's capacity.

Said who??. Can you backup your one-liner statement. Indian armed forces have contingencies to fight the two-front war with china and pakistan.

 

[Vladimir79]

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

Fighting two front war is beyond India's capacity.

Why not? It isn't like China will be able to pour everything it has at India.

 

[qilaotou]

Said who??. Can you backup your one-liner statement. Indian armed forces have contingencies to fight the two-front war with china and pakistan.

India does not have enough quantity of good fighter planes, long distance fire power or numbers of proper air defence systems against missile strike (BMs and LACMs). Another reason might be the lack of capable logistic compensation of war material loses. It may or may not be true that India even needed to order munitions in the 1999 war. In order to fight a large scale war India must have a good stockpile of munitions and assurance of material supply.

As I see it PLA has developed many tactics to face various scenarios in a war with US and possibly its allied forces in east asia. One of the tactics would be use of cluster munition or EMP tipped SRBMs and LACMs to disrupt enemy's valuable targets such as airports, commanding centers and power supply stations. I have not seen that India is well prepared to cope with such a scenario.

 

[Vladimir79]

India does not have enough quantity of good fighter planes

Considering the Su-30MKs are the only good quality fighters you have, and PAF only has a handful of F-16 50s, I would say you don't have enough.

long distance fire power or numbers of proper air defence systems against missile strike (BMs and LACMs).

If you aren't going nuklear, your BMs and LACMs don't have the CEP to hold much strategic value either so their ABM is irrelavent.

Another reason might be the lack of capable logistic compensation of war material loses. It may or may not be true that India even needed to order munitions in the 1999 war. In order to fight a large scale war India must have a good stockpile of munitions and assurance of material supply.

Russia will be happy to supply munitions. We can be the arsenal of democracy.

As I see it PLA has developed many tactics to face various scenarios in a war with US and possibly its allied forces in east asia. One of the tactics would be use of cluster munition or EMP tipped SRBMs and LACMs to disrupt enemy's valuable targets such as airports, commanding centers and power supply stations. I have not seen that India is well prepared to cope with such a scenario.

If China starts ripping nukes in the atmosphere you are going to have more trouble than just India.

Considering both sides lack large scale airlift capabilities, this war would turn into a slug fest. No side would gain air superiority due to advanced SAMs. PLA's poor suspension on IFVs and SP artillery would make cutting across hard terrain a hurclean task. With the Chinese bogged down, international pressures would bring them to peace.

 

[Daredevil]

India does not have enough quantity of good fighter planes, long distance fire power or numbers of proper air defence systems against missile strike (BMs and LACMs). Another reason might be the lack of capable logistic compensation of war material loses. It may or may not be true that India even needed to order munitions in the 1999 war. In order to fight a large scale war India must have a good stockpile of munitions and assurance of material supply.

SU-30MKI fighters are the best in Asia. what are you talking about not having good fighters??. China doesn't have a fighter that can match the air-superiority role of Su-30MKI.

As far as intercepting aircrafts we have 39 squadrons of SAMs mainly composed of s-125 pechoras and recently 2 squadrons of Akash SAMs have been inducted. Not to mention few numbers of S-300 SAMs. Moreover, India is developing LR-SAM Barak-8 in collaboration with Israel. Add to this, AAA batteries from Bofors are functional around important military and civilian installations to take care of aerial threats.

As far as coming to anti-missile defense, even china doesn't have a established Ballistic missile defense (BMD) shield. You are as vulnerable to BMs and LACMs as India is. No brownie points to you there.

As I see it PLA has developed many tactics to face various scenarios in a war with US and possibly its allied forces in east asia. One of the tactics would be use of cluster munition or EMP tipped SRBMs and LACMs to disrupt enemy's valuable targets such as airports, commanding centers and power supply stations. I have not seen that India is well prepared to cope with such a scenario.

You haven't seen certain capability of Indian armed forces to cope with war situation doesn't mean that capability doesn't exist. They are not advertised. You will see it in the right time.

Don't forget that even India can disrupt china's valuable targets using SRBMs (Prithvi and Agni Series) and LACMs (Brahmos).

Not to forget, your main handicap is the range and payload your fighters can carry from the high altitudes of Tibetan air fields while India can happily carry more payload from its plain field air fields. Good luck there.

 

[qilaotou]

Considering the Su-30MKs are the only good quality fighters you have, and PAF only has a handful of F-16 50s, I would say you don't have enough.

Su-30MKs are not considered as fighters in China.

If you aren't going nuklear, your BMs and LACMs don't have the CEP to hold much strategic value either so their ABM is irrelavent.

It's your bias on Chinese weapons. It has nothing to add about Indian capacity of anti missile systems.

Russia will be happy to supply munitions. We can be the arsenal of democracy.

Of course war is good time for weapon sellers.

If China starts ripping nukes in the atmosphere you are going to have more trouble than just India.

Mod Edit : No personal attack, first warning issued

Considering both sides lack large scale airlift capabilities, this war would turn into a slug fest. No side would gain air superiority due to advanced SAMs. PLA's poor suspension on IFVs and SP artillery would make cutting across hard terrain a hurclean task. With the Chinese bogged down, international pressures would bring them to peace.

Nobody can really win the war. It would be question who loose more.

 

[qilaotou]

SU-30MKI fighters are the best in Asia. what are you talking about not having good fighters??. China doesn't have a fighter that can match the air-superiority role of Su-30MKI.

I was saying the numbers of MKI not the one on one match issue. India should have more MKI to be able to fight a large scale war.

As far as intercepting aircrafts we have 39 squadrons of SAMs mainly composed of s-125 pechoras and recently 2 squadrons of Akash SAMs have been inducted. Not to mention few numbers of S-300 SAMs. Moreover, India is developing LR-SAM Barak-8 in collaboration with Israel. Add to this, AAA batteries from Bofors are functional around important military and civilian installations to take care of aerial threats.

As far as coming to anti-missile defense, even china doesn't have a established Ballistic missile defense (BMD) shield. You are as vulnerable to BMs and LACMs as India is. No brownie points to you there.

If PLA has or has not anti missile defence is another issue.

You haven't seen certain capability of Indian armed forces to cope with war situation doesn't mean that capability doesn't exist. They are not advertised. You will see it in the right time.

Don't forget that even India can disrupt china's valuable targets using SRBMs (Prithvi and Agni Series) and LACMs (Brahmos).

Not to forget, your main handicap is the range and payload your fighters can carry from the high altitudes of Tibetan air fields while India can happily carry more payload from its plain field air fields. Good luck there.

My comments were about Indian anti-missile defence and capacity of logistic supply in order to fight two front war.

 

[Vladimir79]

Su-30MKs are not considered as fighters in China.

Consideirng they have the best arial radar in all of Chinese fighters, they are the best fighters.

It's your bias on Chinese weapons. It has nothing to add about Indian capacity of anti missile systems.

If Chinese weapons have poor CEP, they don't need to shoot them down.

You're the one who brought up EMP. You do realise the only way you are going to have one is to rip a nuke in the atmosphere.

Nobody can really win the war. It would be question who loose more.

While there are no real winners in war, someone will come out on top. My guess, the total capitulation of the Pakistani state, and a stalemate in the mountains with China. In that case, India wins.

 

[qilaotou]

You're the one who brought up EMP. You do realise the only way you are going to have one is to rip a nuke in the atmosphere.

There are small conventional devices.

 

[Vladimir79]

There are small conventional devices.

And they have small impact range, like 100 metres. You might as well bomb it considering the limited effects of High-Power microwave EMP.