India-China 2020 Border conflict

[Ayushraj]

General zorawar singh of jammu(sikh empire) captured gilgit baltistan, ladakh , askai chin. He even captured kailash mountain for a period of time. Thus he shaped jammu and Kashmir.in 1 st half of 19 th century. You can imagine temperature and suffering without any current type of support.

 

[MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00]

Not winter camouflage, those are US Army arctic clothing, hence UCP camo. Process of finalizing Indian armed forces camouflage for different terrain is in progress.

I literally don’t see the point in buying old American Arctic Clothing when we can literally make these kinds of equipment in India with UCP or some other pattern fit for our terrain. I don’t understand Army logic in wasting on money stuff like these which can be supplied from within the country itself.

 

[SimplyIndian]

Where is the money honey?

No 3 economy and having usd 580 billion forex reserves. Not a prob to arrange money.
US is having huge defense budget, but it's tax revenue is vwry less.

Why?

Of course we can not print $$$, but we have leverage with 600 billion dollars.

And that 85 billion will be spread across 5 years. It is accounting mechanism so that military should not wait till next budget, they have 85 billion credit limit for next 5 years. Tho actual budget will be more or less same with 10 20 percent increase

 

[mist_consecutive]

I literal don’t see the point in buying old American Arctic Clothing when we can literally make these kinds of equipment in India with UCP or some other pattern fit for our terrain.

Pattern/Camo is not the issue, it's the clothing itself. Although I have no information about it, I will presume US winter clothing is superior for harsh winter climate than those synthetic-wool stuffed jackets which makes you look like an oil barrel.
China too has ordered artic clothing from European countries instead of manufacturing them which makes me think it is not all about warmth but also breathability and freedom of movement.

Rest assured, we have started to make such winter clothing (read it somewhere, month-old news).

Edit: https://www.military.com/equipment/extended-climate-warfighter-clothing-system-gen-iii

404

404

adsinc.com

 

[ezsasa]

I literal don’t see the point in buying old American Arctic Clothing when we can literally make these kinds of equipment in India with UCP or some other pattern fit for our terrain.

Orders for arctic clothing is given one year in advance, nobody knew in Jan 2020 that there is gonna be additional requirement hence the emergency purchase.

You also have to take this into consideration...

3 MH-60R , 3 Naval Guns, from U.S military stockpile being delivered to India are not coincidences. People wanted to see how "strategic partnership" with U.S looks like, now you see it. can you imagine these things happening prior to 2014, i can't.

 

[ClawReed787]

 

[Deadtrap]

 

[Instr]

We are in a similar position but people dont want to accep

Problem is, India really doesn't have many cards to play, and this anti-Chinese set-up is a waste of Indian time, money, and resources.

Currently, the nominal GDP ratio is 5.80. This has grown from the old 5 ratio, and will remain roughly stagnant over time, perhaps inching toward India's favor, but probably not below 5 in an appreciable span of time. When it comes to India trying to match Chinese military spending, the Chinese can just spend more money; I've calculated that the cost of China trying to destroy all of India's border bases (including airforce bases, so on) would be around 200 billion, which is equivalent to a year of China's current military budget.

When you consider the new Cold War that's brewing, between China and the United States, India faces no threat from the United States, due to extreme distance and the lack of US interests in its immediate vicinity (Pakistan is on China's side, so Pakistan will receive less US support as time goes on), while India has active border disputes with China.

India CAN choose to get on the United States' side, hoping that it's joining the winning side, but this feels like traditionally bad Indian strategy again (see: Prithiviraj, joining the losing Soviet side during the Cold War). In dealing with the China threat, it can either oppose it, go neutral, or join it. If it opposes it, by joining the US side and eventually importing F-35s, it means that India ends up spending money (which is the entire Chinese strategic goal) that can't hope to ever match Chinese spending. If it goes neutral, hiding behind its nuclear weapons (and India should focus on its nuclear deterrence capability instead of its conventional capability), it saves a lot of money. If it joins China (and it won't, due to competing nationalist visions), it can further save on nukes, but as I've said before, India is unlikely to do so.

===

As mentioned elsewhere, the likely Chinese strategic goal in "messing" with India is PRECISELY to get India to spend more money on armaments. While India has a very good debt profile right now (very low federal debt, reasonably high state debt, low private and corporate debt), the increase in spending will affect India's capability to make infrastructure (both soft and hard) investments. The more India buys armaments to offset China, the less India spends on what matters.

And that's the real reason India can't match China; China might have a two-front problem if India joins the fray on China containment, but China is starting from a 5-6x GDP ratio. India, potentially, can develop its economy to match China on a 1:1 ratio or better (larger population means higher potential economy), but unless it makes the hard infrastructure (roads, rails, irrigation) investments and soft infrastructure investments (education for the masses, reform of caste inequity), it can't achieve its potential. And the more China distracts India, the less India will focus on achieving its strategic potential.

So the entire Ladakh thing is a trap, and India has 100% fallen into it. The Chinese are not the Japanese, who originally were obsessed with war, but rather strategists and merchants. They're focused not on taking serious Indian territory (i.e, UP, Bihar), for which the insurgency would be dreadful to combat, but to convince Indians to overspend on military, when the Chinese already have a program of military modernization and are committed to offsetting the United States.

 

[AMCA]

 

[DownWithCCP]

Problem is, India really doesn't have many cards to play, and this anti-Chinese set-up is a waste of Indian time, money, and resources.

Currently, the nominal GDP ratio is 5.80. This has grown from the old 5 ratio, and will remain roughly stagnant over time, perhaps inching toward India's favor, but probably not below 5 in an appreciable span of time. When it comes to India trying to match Chinese military spending, the Chinese can just spend more money; I've calculated that the cost of China trying to destroy all of India's border bases (including airforce bases, so on) would be around 200 billion, which is equivalent to a year of China's current military budget.

When you consider the new Cold War that's brewing, between China and the United States, India faces no threat from the United States, due to extreme distance and the lack of US interests in its immediate vicinity (Pakistan is on China's side, so Pakistan will receive less US support as time goes on), while India has active border disputes with China.

India CAN choose to get on the United States' side, hoping that it's joining the winning side, but this feels like traditionally bad Indian strategy again (see: Prithiviraj, joining the losing Soviet side during the Cold War). In dealing with the China threat, it can either oppose it, go neutral, or join it. If it opposes it, by joining the US side and eventually importing F-35s, it means that India ends up spending money (which is the entire Chinese strategic goal) that can't hope to ever match Chinese spending. If it goes neutral, hiding behind its nuclear weapons (and India should focus on its nuclear deterrence capability instead of its conventional capability), it saves a lot of money. If it joins China (and it won't, due to competing nationalist visions), it can further save on nukes, but as I've said before, India is unlikely to do so.

===

As mentioned elsewhere, the likely Chinese strategic goal in "messing" with India is PRECISELY to get India to spend more money on armaments. While India has a very good debt profile right now (very low federal debt, reasonably high state debt, low private and corporate debt), the increase in spending will affect India's capability to make infrastructure (both soft and hard) investments. The more India buys armaments to offset China, the less India spends on what matters.

And that's the real reason India can't match China; China might have a two-front problem if India joins the fray on China containment, but China is starting from a 5-6x GDP ratio. India, potentially, can develop its economy to match China on a 1:1 ratio or better (larger population means higher potential economy), but unless it makes the hard infrastructure (roads, rails, irrigation) investments and soft infrastructure investments (education for the masses, reform of caste inequity), it can't achieve its potential. And the more China distracts India, the less India will focus on achieving its strategic potential.

So the entire Ladakh thing is a trap, and India has 100% fallen into it. The Chinese are not the Japanese, who originally were obsessed with war, but rather strategists and merchants. They're focused not on taking serious Indian territory (i.e, UP, Bihar), for which the insurgency would be dreadful to combat, but to convince Indians to overspend on military, when the Chinese already have a program of military modernization and are committed to offsetting the United States.

You've got the buzzwords eh "caste inequality", "education for masses" add in some "religious extremism" as well while you can. What is your solution to the problem then? Lay low and let the Chinese do what they want to, the amount of damage that would do to our geopolitical position would be unprecedented with a spillover effect to the economic side of things as well, I have written a detailed answer as to why the Chinese actions was a huge blunder on the Defense Budget thread, even with conservative estimates India is set to match China in years from now.

 

[Instr]

Supposedly, according to an SCMP article, the Chinese aren't expecting the Indians to escalate over the winter, so they had a bunch of their troops pull back for the winter, around 10k.

中方坦克 in the picture is "Chinese side tanks", which seem to be ZTQ-15 light tanks. The Chinese tents are noted "中方帐篷". For your picture, the Chinese seem overmatched; the Chinese include Indian IFVs on the Indian side (2) and there seem to be 3 T-72s or T-90s on the Indian side. So you can cheer up somewhat. In this case, as I've noted elsewhere, for defending a fortified border, the ZTQ-15s aren't up to snuff and are more suited to wars of maneuver, but as I've said before, the Chinese aren't taking this seriously (and depend more on their artillery support) and want to force the InA to waste money and logistics on the border. From their perspective, putting T-72s vs ZTQ-15s implies that they're winning since the ZTQ-15s have lighter logistical footprints. But I wouldn't want to be the PLA manning that border position, since if the InA opens fire, they're screwed.

 

[Cruise missile]

Pattern/Camo is not the issue, it's the clothing itself. Although I have no information about it, I will presume US winter clothing is superior for harsh winter climate than those synthetic-wool stuffed jackets which makes you look like an oil barrel.
China too has ordered artic clothing from European countries instead of manufacturing them which makes me think it is not all about warmth but also breathability and freedom of movement.

Rest assured, we have started to make such winter clothing (read it somewhere, month-old news).

Edit: https://www.military.com/equipment/extended-climate-warfighter-clothing-system-gen-iii

404

404

adsinc.com

Chinese will most probably reverse engineer them.

 

[Instr]

You've got the buzzwords eh "caste inequality", "education for masses" add in some "religious extremism" as well while you can. What is your solution to the problem then? Lay low and let the Chinese do what they want to, the amount of damage that would do to our geopolitical position would be unprecedented with a spillover effect to the economic side of things as well, I have written a detailed answer as to why the Chinese actions was a huge blunder on the Defense Budget thread, even with conservative estimates India is set to match China in years from now.

Like I said, since India is a nationalist and prideful country, it's best off focusing on nuclear weapons to offset China. The Chinese are likely to set up a nuclear build-up themselves to offset the United States, but likely want an Indian build-up to serve as an excuse.

When it comes to conventional warfare on the border, the Chinese can lose the first battle, or the first few battles, but if they want to reinforce heavily (i.e, move assets away from the Taiwan and SCS theaters) they can do so. In such a set-up, the InA may be able to hold, but they will get bled (and if you read up on what the Chinese did to Vietnam, that's exactly what they did there) in both lives and materiel. And that's what the Chinese want to do; they can spike Indian defense spending to 5% of GDP, while keeping their own defense spending around 3% of GDP, and they can keep the situation favorable.

===

As for the Indian economy relative to China, this year India's GDP per capita fell below Bangladesh's in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. The COVID-19 crisis, likewise, is going to drop India's GDP by 7% this year.

At some point in time, I expect India to be more strategically powerful than China's, but as with all questions of time, the question is when. And between then and now, the Chinese can impose military pressure on India to force it to overspend and wreck its own economic growth potential.

China, likewise, is likely to overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP within the next 5 years (not 2028, but 2025 since the USD is being challenged). We can use the Chinese vs US paradigm as an example of the rate of present work. China's GDP typically grew at 5% relative to that of the United States before Chinese growth GDP began dropping. If say, India and China have the same relationship in terms of GDP growth, in 30 years (let's say 2049), India can drop the gap to 25% of China's GDP, but India will still have a lower GDP than that of China's. Remember, that's 30 years time, and that's assuming a best case scenario for India, and ignoring the fact that the INR keeps dropping while the RMB is likely to appreciate (around 25%) in the same span of time.

===

There is ONE other option that India can pursue, which is to attempt industrialization based off military necessity. Industrialization is something that India has failed to do because of the byzantine Indian legal and social framework (as well as the need for better educated workers, compare the Indian literacy rate to that of Vietnam's). But that also entails pulling back at some turn-- the industrialization is the point, not offsetting China fully, which is impossible.

===

That said, overall, India can't fight China, and only racist derogation of "Chini" and "Chinks" (as you call Northwesterners) would make India think it's possible. Even if India were to obtain a superior military balance, it'd still have the logistical problem that it'd have to cross the Himalayas, which is precisely why the Chinese wanted to set the Sino-Indian border there, not at Qinghai.

===

One of the biggest problems with Indian political culture is that India is the regional hegemon and wishes to devote resources to maintaining this regional hegemony. Beyond the border disputes, Sino-Indian tensions are fueled by the fact that China is moving into India's region. What is less likely than another full Sino-Indian War at this rate is not India engaging China or China engaging India first but one of the Indosphere nations picking a fight with India (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh) using China as cover. That's where the real problem lies.

 

[shade]

Like I said, since India is a nationalist and prideful country, it's best off focusing on nuclear weapons to offset China. The Chinese are likely to set up a nuclear build-up themselves to offset the United States, but likely want an Indian build-up to serve as an excuse.

When it comes to conventional warfare on the border, the Chinese can lose the first battle, or the first few battles, but if they want to reinforce heavily (i.e, move assets away from the Taiwan and SCS theaters) they can do so. In such a set-up, the InA may be able to hold, but they will get bled (and if you read up on what the Chinese did to Vietnam, that's exactly what they did there) in both lives and materiel. And that's what the Chinese want to do; they can spike Indian defense spending to 5% of GDP, while keeping their own defense spending around 3% of GDP, and they can keep the situation favorable.

===

As for the Indian economy relative to China, this year India's GDP per capita fell below Bangladesh's in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. The COVID-19 crisis, likewise, is going to drop India's GDP by 7% this year.

At some point in time, I expect India to be more strategically powerful than China's, but as with all questions of time, the question is when. And between then and now, the Chinese can impose military pressure on India to force it to overspend and wreck its own economic growth potential.

China, likewise, is likely to overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP within the next 5 years (not 2028, but 2025 since the USD is being challenged). We can use the Chinese vs US paradigm as an example of the rate of present work. China's GDP typically grew at 5% relative to that of the United States before Chinese growth GDP began dropping. If say, India and China have the same relationship in terms of GDP growth, in 30 years (let's say 2049), India can drop the gap to 25% of China's GDP, but India will still have a lower GDP than that of China's. Remember, that's 30 years time, and that's assuming a best case scenario for India, and ignoring the fact that the INR keeps dropping while the RMB is likely to appreciate (around 25%) in the same span of time.

===

There is ONE other option that India can pursue, which is to attempt industrialization based off military necessity. Industrialization is something that India has failed to do because of the byzantine Indian legal and social framework (as well as the need for better educated workers, compare the Indian literacy rate to that of Vietnam's). But that also entails pulling back at some turn-- the industrialization is the point, not offsetting China fully, which is impossible.

===

That said, overall, India can't fight China, and only racist derogation of "Chini" and "Chinks" (as you call Northwesterners) would make India think it's possible. Even if India were to obtain a superior military balance, it'd still have the logistical problem that it'd have to cross the Himalayas, which is precisely why the Chinese wanted to set the Sino-Indian border there, not at Qinghai.

===

One of the biggest problems with Indian political culture is that India is the regional hegemon and wishes to devote resources to maintaining this regional hegemony. Beyond the border disputes, Sino-Indian tensions are fueled by the fact that China is moving into India's region. What is less likely than another full Sino-Indian War at this rate is not India engaging China or China engaging India first but one of the Indosphere nations picking a fight with India (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh) using China as cover. That's where the real problem lies.

Go back across the Great Firewall, Chang.

 

[Instr]

Go back across the Great Firewall, Chang.

I've been commenting to Indian friends about embarrassing levels of racism on DFI. But that's what I'm here for.

 

[mist_consecutive]

Problem is, India really doesn't have many cards to play, and this anti-Chinese set-up is a waste of Indian time, money, and resources.

Currently, the nominal GDP ratio is 5.80. This has grown from the old 5 ratio, and will remain roughly stagnant over time, perhaps inching toward India's favor, but probably not below 5 in an appreciable span of time. When it comes to India trying to match Chinese military spending, the Chinese can just spend more money; I've calculated that the cost of China trying to destroy all of India's border bases (including airforce bases, so on) would be around 200 billion, which is equivalent to a year of China's current military budget.

When you consider the new Cold War that's brewing, between China and the United States, India faces no threat from the United States, due to extreme distance and the lack of US interests in its immediate vicinity (Pakistan is on China's side, so Pakistan will receive less US support as time goes on), while India has active border disputes with China.

India CAN choose to get on the United States' side, hoping that it's joining the winning side, but this feels like traditionally bad Indian strategy again (see: Prithiviraj, joining the losing Soviet side during the Cold War). In dealing with the China threat, it can either oppose it, go neutral, or join it. If it opposes it, by joining the US side and eventually importing F-35s, it means that India ends up spending money (which is the entire Chinese strategic goal) that can't hope to ever match Chinese spending. If it goes neutral, hiding behind its nuclear weapons (and India should focus on its nuclear deterrence capability instead of its conventional capability), it saves a lot of money. If it joins China (and it won't, due to competing nationalist visions), it can further save on nukes, but as I've said before, India is unlikely to do so.

===

As mentioned elsewhere, the likely Chinese strategic goal in "messing" with India is PRECISELY to get India to spend more money on armaments. While India has a very good debt profile right now (very low federal debt, reasonably high state debt, low private and corporate debt), the increase in spending will affect India's capability to make infrastructure (both soft and hard) investments. The more India buys armaments to offset China, the less India spends on what matters.

And that's the real reason India can't match China; China might have a two-front problem if India joins the fray on China containment, but China is starting from a 5-6x GDP ratio. India, potentially, can develop its economy to match China on a 1:1 ratio or better (larger population means higher potential economy), but unless it makes the hard infrastructure (roads, rails, irrigation) investments and soft infrastructure investments (education for the masses, reform of caste inequity), it can't achieve its potential. And the more China distracts India, the less India will focus on achieving its strategic potential.

So the entire Ladakh thing is a trap, and India has 100% fallen into it. The Chinese are not the Japanese, who originally were obsessed with war, but rather strategists and merchants. They're focused not on taking serious Indian territory (i.e, UP, Bihar), for which the insurgency would be dreadful to combat, but to convince Indians to overspend on military, when the Chinese already have a program of military modernization and are committed to offsetting the United States.

You sound somewhat knowledgeable, but it's mostly extrapolation of incorrect facts over fear tactics of 9-foot Chinaman syndrome.

When it comes to India trying to match Chinese military spending, the Chinese can just spend more money

We are not trying to match China's military spending. We don't need to, we are not trying to conquer China, or even Tibet (in near future). China needs to defend itself from India, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the biggest, the USA.

I've calculated that the cost of China trying to destroy all of India's border bases (including airforce bases, so on) would be around 200 billion, which is equivalent to a year of China's current military budget.

Show me your calculations, Einstien!

India CAN choose to get on the United States' side, hoping that it's joining the winning side, but this feels like traditionally bad Indian strategy again (see: Prithiviraj, joining the losing Soviet side during the Cold War). In dealing with the China threat, it can either oppose it, go neutral, or join it. If it opposes it, by joining the US side and eventually importing F-35s, it means that India ends up spending money (which is the entire Chinese strategic goal) that can't hope to ever match Chinese spending. If it goes neutral, hiding behind its nuclear weapons (and India should focus on its nuclear deterrence capability instead of its conventional capability), it saves a lot of money. If it joins China (and it won't, due to competing nationalist visions), it can further save on nukes, but as I've said before, India is unlikely to do so.

India was forced to join the US side. We were living happily, occasionally violating Pakistan just for lolz, balancing between Russia and USA, and trading peacefully with China. We did not want to be part of this cold war, we were pushed into it by China.

And we don't need the dodo F-35, Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 will work just fine for us. Going neutral is not an option anymore, China cannot expect to grab our territory, ambush our troops during peace-talks, and expect we will trust them anymore.
By ambushing our soldiers in Galwan, China had made sure to buy the hatred of the local population and a permanent animosity towards it.

And now, even if some sellout govt. tries to go neutral over China, it will be either coup, rebellion from the local population, or both.

As mentioned elsewhere, the likely Chinese strategic goal in "messing" with India is PRECISELY to get India to spend more money on armaments. While India has a very good debt profile right now (very low federal debt, reasonably high state debt, low private and corporate debt), the increase in spending will affect India's capability to make infrastructure (both soft and hard) investments. The more India buys armaments to offset China, the less India spends on what matters.

We are already underspending on our military, our defence budget is among the lowest in the world as %age of GDP. We can afford to spend much more, especially during these difficult times.

So the entire Ladakh thing is a trap, and India has 100% fallen into it. The Chinese are not the Japanese, who originally were obsessed with war, but rather strategists and merchants. They're focused not on taking serious Indian territory (i.e, UP, Bihar), for which the insurgency would be dreadful to combat, but to convince Indians to overspend on military, when the Chinese already have a program of military modernization and are committed to offsetting the United States.

Entire Ladakh thing was a trap, in which foolish China fell itself face-down due to its miscalculation. Now it is trapped in the world's high-altitude arid cold desert, defending almost nothing, against an enemy more experienced, better motivated, well-entrenched, better prepared, but most importantly, defending its homeland.

 

[DownWithCCP]

I've been commenting to Indian friends about embarrassing levels of racism on DFI. But that's what I'm here for.

How's the rice that India is giving you for throw away prices, feeding hungry and drought affected mouths, last time I heard your food security seems to have gone to the dogs.

 

[Instr]

@mist_consecutive

One of the important things is to try to look at things from others' perspective, it helps a lot in terms of strategic calculations.

As for Indian defense spending:

India - ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) 2009-2019 | Statista

This statistic shows the ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) of India in from 2009 to 2019.

www.statista.com

Japan typically spends around 1% of its GDP on arms. The EU average is around 1-2%. The US spends around 3.5%, the Russians spend around 4%, and India spends 2.4%. That's actually a high level of military spending, although if you look at the chart, it's on a downtrend. China actually spends around 2% of its GDP on military spending, and keeps it at that level. It's primarily economic growth that drives improvements on their spending.

===

For cost of neutralization, I estimated a cost of 200 billion or so to account for the 10,000 conventional missiles It'd take for the Chinese to break InAF bases, alongside another 100 billion for logistics development and airbase construction. This is assuming the Chinese just piggyback on the rest of their military build-up, which is aimed at the United States, which has far higher military spending (larger economy, larger percentage of GDP spending, but global obligations). Note that India's military budget this year is 57 billion.

===

As for China being humiliated; I think this is a big cultural difference between China and India. The stories Chinese tell each other are about people like Han Xin, Goujian, Pang Juan, both of whom endured humiliation that was considered necessary to their eventual success. Goujian, for instance, tasted the feces and urine of the king who defeated him, all to convince him that Goujian was neutralized and no longer a threat. About a decade later, he was waving the decapitated head of the man who defeated him.

In general, I don't think the Chinese care that much about Indian chestbeating. Against the Vietnamese, for instance, they took outsized casualties because they underestimated the efficacy of Vietnamese militias, but they eventually got what they wanted; they torched cities, shelled the Vietnamese to pieces, and when the Soviets collapsed, the Vietnamese came cap in hand to the Chinese to end the border dispute on Chinese terms. What the Chinese care about is results, and the results don't matter that much about what Indians think. If the clashes / disputes etc take years to resolve, that's fine, but what matters to them is that they get what they want at the end.

That's not, of course, saying that I accept your Galwan claims, but I'm just saying the nationalistic chestbeating doesn't matter, and a psychological overemphasis on humiliation is unhealthy.

 

[mist_consecutive]

Like I said, since India is a nationalist and prideful country, it's best off focusing on nuclear weapons to offset China. The Chinese are likely to set up a nuclear build-up themselves to offset the United States, but likely want an Indian build-up to serve as an excuse.

When it comes to conventional warfare on the border, the Chinese can lose the first battle, or the first few battles, but if they want to reinforce heavily (i.e, move assets away from the Taiwan and SCS theaters) they can do so. In such a set-up, the InA may be able to hold, but they will get bled (and if you read up on what the Chinese did to Vietnam, that's exactly what they did there) in both lives and materiel. And that's what the Chinese want to do; they can spike Indian defense spending to 5% of GDP, while keeping their own defense spending around 3% of GDP, and they can keep the situation favorable.

===

As for the Indian economy relative to China, this year India's GDP per capita fell below Bangladesh's in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. The COVID-19 crisis, likewise, is going to drop India's GDP by 7% this year.

At some point in time, I expect India to be more strategically powerful than China's, but as with all questions of time, the question is when. And between then and now, the Chinese can impose military pressure on India to force it to overspend and wreck its own economic growth potential.

China, likewise, is likely to overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP within the next 5 years (not 2028, but 2025 since the USD is being challenged). We can use the Chinese vs US paradigm as an example of the rate of present work. China's GDP typically grew at 5% relative to that of the United States before Chinese growth GDP began dropping. If say, India and China have the same relationship in terms of GDP growth, in 30 years (let's say 2049), India can drop the gap to 25% of China's GDP, but India will still have a lower GDP than that of China's. Remember, that's 30 years time, and that's assuming a best case scenario for India, and ignoring the fact that the INR keeps dropping while the RMB is likely to appreciate (around 25%) in the same span of time.

===

There is ONE other option that India can pursue, which is to attempt industrialization based off military necessity. Industrialization is something that India has failed to do because of the byzantine Indian legal and social framework (as well as the need for better educated workers, compare the Indian literacy rate to that of Vietnam's). But that also entails pulling back at some turn-- the industrialization is the point, not offsetting China fully, which is impossible.

===

That said, overall, India can't fight China, and only racist derogation of "Chini" and "Chinks" (as you call Northwesterners) would make India think it's possible. Even if India were to obtain a superior military balance, it'd still have the logistical problem that it'd have to cross the Himalayas, which is precisely why the Chinese wanted to set the Sino-Indian border there, not at Qinghai.

===

One of the biggest problems with Indian political culture is that India is the regional hegemon and wishes to devote resources to maintaining this regional hegemony. Beyond the border disputes, Sino-Indian tensions are fueled by the fact that China is moving into India's region. What is less likely than another full Sino-Indian War at this rate is not India engaging China or China engaging India first but one of the Indosphere nations picking a fight with India (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh) using China as cover. That's where the real problem lies.

but if they want to reinforce heavily (i.e, move assets away from the Taiwan and SCS theaters) they can do so. In such a set-up, the InA may be able to hold, but they will get bled (and if you read up on what the Chinese did to Vietnam, that's exactly what they did there) in both lives and materiel. And that's what the Chinese want to do; they can spike Indian defense spending to 5% of GDP, while keeping their own defense spending around 3% of GDP, and they can keep the situation favorable.

Moving away assets from Taiwan and SCS will nearly guarantee SCS falling into the hands of the USA. You sure you want to fight over a barren piece of cold-arid desert with no historical meaning or significance to China with 100% of your troops and equipment and lose your shipping routes?

That said, overall, India can't fight China,

We already are, my friend And we are hopeful China will give us some more opportunity.

Even if India were to obtain a superior military balance, it'd still have the logistical problem that it'd have to cross the Himalayas, which is precisely why the Chinese wanted to set the Sino-Indian border there, not at Qinghai.

Laughable, what logistics are you talking about? We already are on the Himalayas, drilling tunnels and making roads, our supply routes and centers are already set-up for Ladakh since 60s. Our airlift capacity is better than average and we can swiftly push supplies if our roads are compromised.

Instead, let's talk about China's supply routes. Insignificant amount of supplies are created in Tibet region, and 99% of supplies come from mainland China and stored in temporary ghost-towns created in Tibet region. China's supply lines are stretched-thin, more perilous, and vulnerable.

One of the biggest problems with Indian political culture is that India is the regional hegemon and wishes to devote resources to maintaining this regional hegemony. Beyond the border disputes, Sino-Indian tensions are fueled by the fact that China is moving into India's region. What is less likely than another full Sino-Indian War at this rate is not India engaging China or China engaging India first but one of the Indosphere nations picking a fight with India (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh) using China as cover. That's where the real problem lies.

Look who's talking ! Regional hengemon ! Only Pakistan is our enemy, others are on good terms. Nepal communist party tried to sell the country to China. Then it was reminded of its status by India, now it is on backfoot.

I've been commenting to Indian friends about embarrassing levels of racism on DFI. But that's what I'm here for.

Ah, you Chinese? Then wear your flag gracefully!

 

[mokoman]

Like I said, since India is a nationalist and prideful country, it's best off focusing on nuclear weapons to offset China. The Chinese are likely to set up a nuclear build-up themselves to offset the United States, but likely want an Indian build-up to serve as an excuse.

When it comes to conventional warfare on the border, the Chinese can lose the first battle, or the first few battles, but if they want to reinforce heavily (i.e, move assets away from the Taiwan and SCS theaters) they can do so. In such a set-up, the InA may be able to hold, but they will get bled (and if you read up on what the Chinese did to Vietnam, that's exactly what they did there) in both lives and materiel. And that's what the Chinese want to do; they can spike Indian defense spending to 5% of GDP, while keeping their own defense spending around 3% of GDP, and they can keep the situation favorable.

===

As for the Indian economy relative to China, this year India's GDP per capita fell below Bangladesh's in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. The COVID-19 crisis, likewise, is going to drop India's GDP by 7% this year.

At some point in time, I expect India to be more strategically powerful than China's, but as with all questions of time, the question is when. And between then and now, the Chinese can impose military pressure on India to force it to overspend and wreck its own economic growth potential.

China, likewise, is likely to overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP within the next 5 years (not 2028, but 2025 since the USD is being challenged). We can use the Chinese vs US paradigm as an example of the rate of present work. China's GDP typically grew at 5% relative to that of the United States before Chinese growth GDP began dropping. If say, India and China have the same relationship in terms of GDP growth, in 30 years (let's say 2049), India can drop the gap to 25% of China's GDP, but India will still have a lower GDP than that of China's. Remember, that's 30 years time, and that's assuming a best case scenario for India, and ignoring the fact that the INR keeps dropping while the RMB is likely to appreciate (around 25%) in the same span of time.

===

There is ONE other option that India can pursue, which is to attempt industrialization based off military necessity. Industrialization is something that India has failed to do because of the byzantine Indian legal and social framework (as well as the need for better educated workers, compare the Indian literacy rate to that of Vietnam's). But that also entails pulling back at some turn-- the industrialization is the point, not offsetting China fully, which is impossible.

===

That said, overall, India can't fight China, and only racist derogation of "Chini" and "Chinks" (as you call Northwesterners) would make India think it's possible. Even if India were to obtain a superior military balance, it'd still have the logistical problem that it'd have to cross the Himalayas, which is precisely why the Chinese wanted to set the Sino-Indian border there, not at Qinghai.

===

One of the biggest problems with Indian political culture is that India is the regional hegemon and wishes to devote resources to maintaining this regional hegemony. Beyond the border disputes, Sino-Indian tensions are fueled by the fact that China is moving into India's region. What is less likely than another full Sino-Indian War at this rate is not India engaging China or China engaging India first but one of the Indosphere nations picking a fight with India (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh) using China as cover. That's where the real problem lies.

India has no plans for a 2 front war or 1 front war with China.

All defense investment will be usefull in retaking POK or Gilgit Baloch.

This will cut off China and Pakistan , CPEC will be dead.





Nepal picking a fight with India ?