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

[Yan Luo Wang]

^6 Actually GoI is much clever, they know that China is not capable of helping pakistan, the examples are 1965, 1971 and 1999. And pakistan is any way not capable of helping China.

Having the Indian Army facing off against the threat of a two-front war, is hardly a good situation to be in.

In fact, it seems like an awful situation to be in. That's my opinion of course, maybe you have more insight into the specifics.

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

The real question is whether China would want to get involve in a war for Pakistan surely not unless India is suffering terribly then Chinese would step in to give the last blow.Furthermore China seems to forget it has a potential Islamic insurgency with Uighur as everyone knows our neighbour is the epicentre for terrorist activities i believe China must not be blinded by so called "short-term gains"..

The real thing for China would be a strong Pakistan which can keep India distracted while it races to the top of the world..

That is a good post.

China, like any other country, will care first and foremost about our own strategic interests. That means access to Gwadar, pipelines from the Middle East, Karakorum highway, Xinjiang border issues, etc. If India took away PoK, then that would be a serious blow, since we would no longer have a land-link to Pakistan (and thus would be cut off from Gwadar).

China will also have an interest in "saving face"... it would look bad if we allowed an ally to take TOO much of a beating, without helping out. Back in 1971, we were not strong, and India waited till Winter before they attacked (to prevent us from crossing over). So we had a good excuse that time. China in 2011 though, the expectations would be higher.

Where the red lines are, no one really knows. But we can make some good guesses.

 

[nitesh]

Having the Indian Army facing off against the threat of a two-front war, is hardly a good situation to be in.

In fact, it seems like an awful situation to be in. That's my opinion of course, maybe you have more insight into the specifics.

The fact is that after 1962 and then once pakistan has given away Aksai Chin to China illegally, IA always prepared for two front war, so there is nothing awful about that. This situation has been gamed by security establishment. In 1967 when Chinese tried to be smart, they got kicked around, again in 1987. The only question is, do China and pakistan have the will to fight to geather against us, or both are happy with some coward terrorist attacks. India is taking the blows from quite some time, once the patience gives away, then all bets are off.

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

India is taking the blows from quite some time, once the patience gives away, then all bets are off.

And what exactly is going to happen when "all bets are off"?

 

[nitesh]

And what exactly is going to happen when "all bets are off"?

The next war will be for dismemberment of pakistan and freeing Tibet.

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

The next war will be for dismemberment of pakistan and freeing Tibet.

Ah yes.

Then you can hardly expect me to wish you well.

In fact, I hope you lose very badly.

I don't see any way, for India to beat China/Pakistan combined. If you were to make an attack on both China and Pakistan at the same time, that would be certain defeat for you.

 

[JBH22]

The next war will be for dismemberment of pakistan and freeing Tibet.

Please you sound like Zaid Hamid given the present situation of both political and military this situation is highly hypothetical.

 

[A.V.]

If the Indian government was clever, they would ally with one side, against the other.

If India and Pakistan were allies for example, and both were hostile to China, that would be an incredible headache for us. Especially since we need Pakistan for geostrategic reasons.

Luckily, the Indian government hasn't done that.

There is a misconception that Indian government hasnt done enough against china strategically.

1> for every inch of gas and oil field china got in africa india invested back and acquired.

2> FTA with asean and chinese are vulnerable there so the rush for pakistani port.

3> For every step china takes , india does enough to deter it its a new cold game .


The problem is this IN a COMMUNIST nation If you HAVE 2 Mangoes they count and propagate it as 10 ( i know this myself , see my flag i lived in a communist nation myself )
but in a democratic setup if u have 2 mangoes , you are projected as having .5 because the rest 1.5 is analysed as incompetent.

Thats the way the world works .

 

[nitesh]

Ah yes.

Then you can hardly expect me to wish you well.

In fact, I hope you lose very badly.

I don't see any way, for India to beat China/Pakistan combined. If you were to make an attack on both China and Pakistan at the same time, that would be certain defeat for you.

I have no problem with what you wish, I know that the war will be not short, but yes the war will be in that direction

 

[nitesh]

Please you sound like Zaid Hamid given the present situation of both political and military this situation is highly hypothetical.

What is wrong in my statement?

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

The problem is this IN a COMMUNIST nation If you HAVE 2 Mangoes they count and propagate it as 10 ( i know this myself , see my flag i lived in a communist nation myself )
but in a democratic setup if u have 2 mangoes , you are projected as having .5 because the rest 1.5 is analysed as incompetent.
Thats the way the world works .

China is now communist in name only. We have had a market economy since 1978.

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China has the 2nd largest market economy on Earth, and we are the number one exporter as well. Our "private sector", drives most of our GDP growth.

Even the mere existance of a "private sector" in the Chinese ecomomy, is against the most fundamental principles of Communism.

Communism = No ownership of private property or private businesses. And obviously, communism requires a control economy, rather than a market economy.

 

[A.V.]

China is now communist in name only. We have had a market economy since 1978.

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China has the 2nd largest market economy on Earth, and we are the number one exporter as well. Our "private sector", drives most of our GDP growth.

Even the mere existance of a "private sector" in the Chinese ecomomy, is against the most fundamental principles of Communism.

Communism = No ownership of private property or private businesses. And obviously, communism requires a control economy, rather than a market economy.

nobody is denying what you just said about the market and gdp , china does have a commanding position.

That is not the point i was making , i wa strying to tell you the thing which you said that india has not done enough to counter the chinese influence.in Its own way india has done more than enough to deter china. compare the india of early 90s from today its a stark difference.


another point which i made in my previous post , in a communist nation the press is allowed to post what the plus points are , and the negatives are well hidden from general public, not same in a democratic setup.

the golden principal what chinese government says you take your word for it , bit when india says the news people dig up and analyse it and show the real point can you expect that in there.

Until and unless you see both sides of the story u never know the actual fact , i have live din a nation of controlled press and a nation of semi controlled press , and its amazing to feel the differences.

 

[ace009]

What is wrong in my statement?

Why should India care about "dismembering" Pakistan? The way things are moving, Pakistan will implode on it's own - why should India risk it's neck/ butt to "dismember" it's already troubled neighbor?

As for freeing Tibet - if you mean India will wage war in Tibet for the liberation of Tibet, then I suggest you your head-checked by some shrink. Even the Tibetan Government in exile (read the Dalai Lama and his minions) will not like that to happen. That would undermine everything that the Buddhist monastic Government in exile has been trying for the last 40 years.

 

[meet]

situation is that pakistan has attacked india and afterward china has also attacked and has occupied many territories of eastern region of india. Now what should Govt of india and Defence ministry should do?
1.Govt of india must talk with russia because there is no chance for india to fight in both fronts. This must be the first priority for GOI
2.Now if Russia has refused to come into war GOI must insure that their is supply of warheads and weapons to india.this must be done as 2nd priority.
3.Now if Russia has refused this also then india have to go alone in war.
4.What to do now? 1.mobilization of more troops to the eastern front,western front will require less troops
5.Next priority must be regaining all the occupied regions at ANY COST this will be highest priority for defence forces.
6.If this not accomplished india must making another objective to occupy some regions of china or pakistan.
7.If this objective not accomplished india should defend its regions at all cost.
8.If this doesnt happens than india must pressurise for cease fire so its remaning regions are not occupied.
9.At last india must use its nuclear warheads either to defend or as offence to regain regions.
10.if this does not work than Game ends for india.

 

[ace009]

situation is that pakistan has attacked india and afterward china has also attacked and has occupied many territories of eastern region of india. Now what should Govt of india and Defence ministry should do?

Occupied many territories? What was IA and IAF doing? napping? Playing tag with each other? Playing hide and seek with IN?

1.Govt of india must talk with russia because there is no chance for india to fight in both fronts. This must be the first priority for GOI

Seriously? That is the first priority of GOI? Go to Russia? Who is the Big brother or what? Considering the fact that in conventional weapons, India has better equipment (Tanks, Aircraft, ships) than Russia - that is our FIRST step?

2.Now if Russia has refused to come into war GOI must insure that their is supply of warheads and weapons to india.this must be done as 2nd priority.

IF Russia has refused? What gave it away? OF COURSE THEY WOULD REFUSE. They are still rebuilding their economy. No matter how much they rattle their sabres, they do not want to be part of another nations war. Especially with China (unless they are attacked) because China is their number one customer and supplier.

3.Now if Russia has refused this also then india have to go alone in war.

Supplies and weapons from Russia might be easier to get, however, the prices might be higher considering the Russians will have to supply the other side too, who are their number two defense customers - you know number one is fine (India), but they cannot give up on good business from number two (China).

4.What to do now? 1.mobilization of more troops to the eastern front,western front will require less troops

Really? Why? Because in the Western front we have only 3343 km of border with Pakistan, 1400 km of Border with China in the west and an astounding 2100 km of Border with China in the east - what will we do with more troops on the east? Chase the crows away?
Defeating Pakistan will always be the first priority, because their fear and jealousy of India is irrational. PRC is a rational player and as long as we can contain them and give them a bloody nose, they will go back across the border - remember 1962? They won, still retreated - have not tried since then. Pakistan was defeated in 1948, then again in 1965 and then again in 1971 - still they had to try in 1999 - get the idea?

5.Next priority must be regaining all the occupied regions at ANY COST this will be highest priority for defence forces.

At ANY Cost? ALL occupied territories? You mean if Pakistan holds 50 sq km of the Rajasthan desert and India holds 500 sq km of Punjab agricultural lands, we have to trade the two to desparately get back the 50 sq km of desert? Hmmmm - I am not sure that is smart. Do you?

6.If this not accomplished india must making another objective to occupy some regions of china or pakistan.

Really? If that fails then this? Don't you think it should be a much higher and earlier objective?

7.If this objective not accomplished india should defend its regions at all cost.

What? Defend what regions? At what cost?

8.If this doesnt happens than india must pressurise for cease fire so its remaning regions are not occupied.
9.At last india must use its nuclear warheads either to defend or as offence to regain regions.
10.if this does not work than Game ends for india.

I don't even want to comment on the rest. This is juvenile ...

 

[binayak95]

ace009, the newbie has gone crazy. He makes no sense. Going to Russia for support??? Seriously, if he had said USA, I might have had some sympathy as many people are fooled by the US's double standards.

But his point number 5 reminds me of something. In the 1971 war, our army had marched all the way to the gates of Lahore. It would have been a perfect time to barter that territory for POK

 

[binayak95]

ace009, the newbie has gone crazy. He makes no sense. Going to Russia for support??? Seriously, if he had said USA, I might have had some sympathy as many people are fooled by the US's double standards.

But his point number 5 reminds me of something. In the 1971 war, our army had marched all the way to the gates of Lahore. It would have been a perfect time to barter that territory for POK

 

[ace009]

ace009, the newbie has gone crazy. He makes no sense. Going to Russia for support??? Seriously, if he had said USA, I might have had some sympathy as many people are fooled by the US's double standards.

But his point number 5 reminds me of something. In the 1971 war, our army had marched all the way to the gates of Lahore. It would have been a perfect time to barter that territory for POK

I agree Binayak - although in case of an India-China war, USA might give more tacit support to India (in terms of arms and equipment) than Russia - primarily because USA does not want to sell military hardware to PRC and would LOVE to see the Chinese get a bloody nose - at India's expense of course.

The territory we had occupied in 1971 was indeed given away too cheap. The Indian leaders were happy to get rid of East Pakistan and exchanged all territories with Pak because they calculated that their "generosity" would help Bangladesh get recognized by the rest of the world. And it did help, even China and USA came to accept Bangladesh as a new nation, separate from Pakistan. The Bangladeshi's owe us for that too - which the right wing extremists in their country do not acknowledge any more.

But remember, by the end of 1965 war, India occupied more than twice as much Pak territory as the Pak occupied Indian territory. The Pak territory occupied by India was also richer than Indian territory occupied by Pak. But India exchanged all that too! And for no strategic gains at all! So, the rank stupidity of exchanging occupied territories for almost no strategic gain is more true for territory occupied in 1965 than for those occupied in 1971.

 

[ace009]

kinly remind you .

Soviet industry ouput never caught up with USA's.

during WW II, Soivet's output was just the less 1/3 of USA. Soviet's steel production is just 1/5 of USA's.

in 1950s, Soviet's industry output was 1/3 of USA.s

in early 1960s, Soviet's industry output was 50% of USA's

in 1970s, Soviet's industry output was 70-80% of USA's.

after 1980, Soviet delined.

Badguy, you need to check your sources ...

Soviets produced the largest number of Tanks in WW-2. In the 6 years between 1939 and 1945, SU produced >62,000 light/ medium tanks and >13,000 heavy tanks (total >75,000). Compared to that USA produced ~70,000 light, medium and heavy tanks. Germany produced ~50,000 of light, medium and heavy tanks and UK produced ~25,000 light, medium and heavy tanks.

In aircraft production during WW-2, SU produced >125,000 combat aircraft and a total of ~150,000 military aircraft. Comparatively, USA produced ~250,000 aircraft of all kinds and ~200,000 combat aircraft. Germany produced ~50,000 military aircraft, while RAF produced about ~40,000 aircraft during WW 2.

 

[Tianshan]

Badguy, you need to check your sources ...

Soviets produced the largest number of Tanks in WW-2. In the 6 years between 1939 and 1945, SU produced >62,000 light/ medium tanks and >13,000 heavy tanks (total >75,000). Compared to that USA produced ~70,000 light, medium and heavy tanks. Germany produced ~50,000 of light, medium and heavy tanks and UK produced ~25,000 light, medium and heavy tanks.

In aircraft production during WW-2, SU produced >125,000 combat aircraft and a total of ~150,000 military aircraft. Comparatively, USA produced ~250,000 aircraft of all kinds and ~200,000 combat aircraft. Germany produced ~50,000 military aircraft, while RAF produced about ~40,000 aircraft during WW 2.

check his post, he was talking about industrial output.

not just military

kinly remind you .

Soviet industry ouput never caught up with USA's.

during WW II, Soivet's output was just the less 1/3 of USA. Soviet's steel production is just 1/5 of USA's.