India-China 2020 Border conflict

[Instr]

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?



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



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.



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.



Ah, you Chinese? Then wear your flag gracefully!

That's what I've been trying to point out to you. The Chinese don't need to move assets away from SCS / Taiwan theater.

Funny thing is, India is a bit like China in this regard, but China actually has islands in its ocean and that's its primary focus. But China has a dual land/naval orientation, which is tied together by an air force. The thing is, India is a land problem, not a naval problem, and things like Taiwan / SCS are naval problems, not land problems.

In other words, when India opens a front on containing China, what gets drawn in is the PLAGF, and to a lesser extent, the PLAAF. The PLAN can't actually deploy against Kolkata / Mumbai because of the logistics distance. So when you're thinking you're drawing Chinese resources away, you're drawing away the part of the Chinese military that's otherwise remaining unused.

And, well:

Why China Is Winning Against India

The military standoff in the Himalayas is often seen as a stalemate between two nuclear powers. But New Delhi cannot afford the status quo.

foreignpolicy.com

The point being made here is that the InN already had a budget cut because of the Chinese threat. If the Chinese are oriented toward the SCS / Taiwan as their primary mission, the deployment of ground forces has already reduced the InN's ability to intervene in SCS / Taiwan.

===

I'll bring in another analogy. India's position vis-a-vis China right now is similar to China's position vis-a-vis Japan in the early part of the 20th century, although there are quite a few differences (India is more unified than China was versus Japan in the early 20th century, a few insurgencies here and there, but otherwise federal government. The RoC had most of its territory controlled by warlords paying nominal obeisance to the Nationalist government). Unfortunately for China, it was a pre-industrialized society facing an industrialized society, and what's more, Chinese nationalists screwed up. Apparently Chiang Kai-Shek / Jiang Jieshi was seeking to build up against the Japanese forces, but Chinese nationalists forced Chiang's hand into opening the war early. Moreover, if you look at India's present sanctions against China, it resembles China's May Fourth boycotts against Japan, which actually forced Japan to take a military-centric approach instead of a trade-centric approach in expanding its regional dominance.

The end result was that Chiang sacrificed his best divisions to defend Shanghai from the Japanese, to achieve only a delaying action. Chiang, likewise, saw his political system wrecked by years of war against the Japanese, including an uprising against Nationalist levies. The Chinese saw virtually no success against the Japanese, in contrast to the Soviet resistance against the Nazis. Afterwards, the Nationalist system was so weakened that it was unable to stop the Communists, exploiting contradictions created by the war, from defeating them and taking China.

In the same way, Indian nationalists are calling for a hard offset (i.e, major purchases of military equipment) versus China that's unaffordable. I am telling you that a softer offset (i.e, focusing on nuclear deterrence) is more affordable and deters China without allowing China to mushroom Indian defense budgets.

If Indian attitudes are as what they appear, and we can expect a hard build-up in Indian military capabilities, I will wait to see what happens to India's defense spending as a percentage of GDP. If it goes up to 5%, that is good for China, because the taxes and debt involved will weaken and slow India's economy, giving China more time to deal with its primary antagonist, the United States. That's mission accomplished.

===

FYI, contacts in Cong suggest that Indian politicians and analysts know what the strategic balance is and what's happening. But they can't control the bottom elements (i.e, you) from forcing a hard line.

 

[sorcerer]

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.

chinese pulled back because china PLA had more casualties because of extreme cold than they could replenish. India knows china will escalate and is standing ground.

 

[Instr]

chinese pulled back because china PLA had more casualties because of extreme cold than they could replenish. India knows china will escalate and is standing ground.

This is something that's really shocking to me, not that this is true, but that Indian nationalists would prefer to think this way. You do realize that the Chinese are a 10k GDP per capita country (in nominal terms) and that the most developed provinces (analogues to Tamil Nadu, Kerala) are virtually equivalent to Japan and Korea, right?

The logistical challenges are real; the Chinese have neglected Tibetan infrastructure for quite some time, although there are programs to change this. But the ability to pay for supply (and recall that they make most of the military supply) is there.

===

I guess posting here is just to see how Indian nationalists would react to being told they're being Vietnamized. As it turns out, Indian nationalists don't care and the big question is how much India will expand its defense spending and whether Indian politicians will have the sense to back down. I assume no to the latter, to the former, it's worthwhile to wait and see.

There is still another solution, and that's moving American bases onto Indian soil. But for the Chinese, this is also a success, insofar as it forces the Americans to spend more on global logistics and split forces between more theaters.

 

[sorcerer]

In the same way, Indian nationalists are calling for a hard offset (i.e, major purchases of military equipment) versus China that's unaffordable. I am telling you that a softer offset (i.e, focusing on nuclear deterrence) is more affordable and deters China without allowing China to mushroom Indian defense budgets.

If Indian attitudes are as what they appear, and we can expect a hard build-up in Indian military capabilities, I will wait to see what happens to India's defense spending as a percentage of GDP. If it goes up to 5%, that is good for China, because the taxes and debt involved will weaken and slow India's economy, giving China more time to deal with its primary antagonist, the United States. That's mission accomplished.

===

India got enough nukes to keep china and pakistan away. Anyway nuclear deterrence is the end of the world decision which Is never useful in skirmishes that china pops up.
In order to retract chinese position..chinese needed to be taught valuable lessons like in Galwan where them chinese learned a few things the hard way .

china or not..India need to up her defence spending to upgrade and include new machinery. Today it could be china..tomorrow it could be USA or Australia.It is always good to be prepared.

About the slowing down the economy part thats china throwing some caution to its "dearest" friend India ,..not out of scare..but out of pure love for India's economy.
India is already reconfiguring the industries and policies. The economic restructuring at home will keep India dry and heavy.
Meanwhile china would need to figure out "how to" in the post covid economics.

 

[mist_consecutive]

@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.

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

I have heard this term a lot from Chinese folks, and I appreciate the thought.

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.

Your assumptions -

• India upscaling its spending on the defense sector as part of GDP is going to slow-down economic growth irreversibly.
• Indian economy won't improve in the future because of the above fact.

The truth will be probably somewhere in the middle. We don't have to upscale or maintain our defense spending each year, we don't need to match China bullet by bullet. We just need to defend the Himalayas, which itself is a good detterent.
Most of the Indian economic schemes are actually focused on socialist-oriented plans to uplift the poor and bring a basic education and development toward the masses. We have the world's largest youth population, which we can either enroll in the military, or in the factory, according to the necessity It needs to be stressed upon, India has yet not reached the industrial revolution, and only inching towards it due to socialist schemes of our govt. So if the need arises, India can keep its economic growth up.

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.

So you will be assuming China spending 10,000 conventional missiles (with enough range) on India, assuming within a month (otherwise we will just recover).
Problem is, that leaves China greatly vulnerable. If it was just a black-box India vs. China, your argument might have made remote sense.

However, what you are ignoring -

• India can/will retaliate, and possibly world-powers too, pulling you into a world-war, with (NATO + India + Japan + Phillipines) vs. (China + Pakistan).
• Our missile forces can eliminate your supply lines and bases too. Repairing the same will take time (money you have).
• Any such large-scale attack will impose a trade embargo + cut-off of naval shipping routes. Your economy + production capacity will tank in such a case.

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.

Sure, I don't expect you folks to anyway, because it does not concern China.

And please, Vietnam? A war-ravaged divided country with no economy (at that time). And yeah, our whole North-Eastern border with China is dotted with the vast tropical hilly forest just like Vietnam. So just take that Vietnamese guerrilla force, add airpower, intelligence, and modern weapons, you will get your situation in a fight with India.

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.

Forget what I said above, nationalistic chest-beating will matter to you, if you get on India's bad side. Because Indians are nationalistic, emotional, and with a long memory.
It will mean, every single Indian will be an enemy of China, directly or indirectly, every Indian youth ready to pick-arms to fight China, every single Indian working hard for the betterment of the nation, their spirits focused upon one enemy.

Try that with your countrymen, try telling them they need to go to arid high-altitude extreme cold conditions or wet rainforest to fight some enemies, protecting absolutely nothing, gaining no honor.

 

[sorcerer]

This is something that's really shocking to me, not that this is true, but that Indian nationalists would prefer to think this way. You do realize that the Chinese are a 10k GDP per capita country (in nominal terms) and that the most developed provinces (analogues to Tamil Nadu, Kerala) are virtually equivalent to Japan and Korea, right?

The logistical challenges are real; the Chinese have neglected Tibetan infrastructure for quite some time, although there are programs to change this. But the ability to pay for supply (and recall that they make most of the military supply) is there.

===

I guess posting here is just to see how Indian nationalists would react to being told they're being Vietnamized. As it turns out, Indian nationalists don't care and the big question is how much India will expand its defense spending and whether Indian politicians will have the sense to back down. I assume no to the latter, to the former, it's worthwhile to wait and see.

There is still another solution, and that's moving American bases onto Indian soil. But for the Chinese, this is also a success, insofar as it forces the Americans to spend more on global logistics and split forces between more theaters.

There is no need for Americal soldiers to deal with the inexperienced one child army of china. Afterall these low morale PLA chinese army is behind every war machine ..which is the fundamental truth. china with its rich treasury cant do anything about it. and its a hard pill to swallow for china.

India with its GDP or not has always prepped its defence requirement to keep the adventures away from china, pak and a few others.

 

[Haldilal]

Ya'll Nibbiars Mil Gaya Yun Ma Mila.

 

[Instr]

I have heard this term a lot from Chinese folks, and I appreciate the thought.



Your assumptions -

• India upscaling its spending on the defense sector as part of GDP is going to slow-down economic growth irreversibly.
• Indian economy won't improve in the future because of the above fact.

The truth will be probably somewhere in the middle. We don't have to upscale or maintain our defense spending each year, we don't need to match China bullet by bullet. We just need to defend the Himalayas, which itself is a good detterent.
Most of the Indian economic schemes are actually focused on socialist-oriented plans to uplift the poor and bring a basic education and development toward the masses. We have the world's largest youth population, which we can either enroll in the military, or in the factory, according to the necessity It needs to be stressed upon, India has yet not reached the industrial revolution, and only inching towards it due to socialist schemes of our govt. So if the need arises, India can keep its economic growth up.



So you will be assuming China spending 10,000 conventional missiles (with enough range) on India, assuming within a month (otherwise we will just recover).
Problem is, that leaves China greatly vulnerable. If it was just a black-box India vs. China, your argument might have made remote sense.

However, what you are ignoring -

• India can/will retaliate, and possibly world-powers too, pulling you into a world-war, with (NATO + India + Japan + Phillipines) vs. (China + Pakistan).
• Our missile forces can eliminate your supply lines and bases too. Repairing the same will take time (money you have).
• Any such large-scale attack will impose a trade embargo + cut-off of naval shipping routes. Your economy + production capacity will tank in such a case.

Sure, I don't expect you folks to anyway, because it does not concern China.

And please, Vietnam? A war-ravaged divided country with no economy (at that time). And yeah, our whole North-Eastern border with China is dotted with the vast tropical hilly forest just like Vietnam. So just take that Vietnamese guerrilla force, add airpower, intelligence, and modern weapons, you will get your situation in a fight with India.



Forget what I said above, nationalistic chest-beating will matter to you, if you get on India's bad side. Because Indians are nationalistic, emotional, and with a long memory.
It will mean, every single Indian will be an enemy of China, directly or indirectly, every Indian youth ready to pick-arms to fight China, every single Indian working hard for the betterment of the nation, their spirits focused upon one enemy.

Try that with your countrymen, try telling them they need to go to arid high-altitude extreme cold conditions or wet rainforest to fight some enemies, protecting absolutely nothing, gaining no honor.

I'm not sure to what extent the Chinese actually care about casualties, since the Chinese were savaged in Vietnam, and kept fighting. Assuming that the other side will back down when they've lost an army is a big mistake; that is how Carthage lost against Rome (Rome just kept on sending more armies to the field faster than Hannibal could crush them).

Also, TBH, this is precisely the problem with the Sino-Indian conflict. You're saying the Indians are nationalistic, emotional, and with a long memorial, but guess what? So are the Chinese. They're still pissed off over stuff that happened more than a hundred years ago.

The advantage for China is that China can afford to offset India. India can't afford to offset China; as I was about to reply to someone else, India is now in recession again. The fundamental drivers of growth in China were the relatively high education level (which permitted industrialization) and a supportive regulatory environment. The former seemed to have been missing in India, and that's what, I suspect, ruined Modi's attempt to expand the Indian economy.

Problem is, when it comes to India, Jamseti Tata already pointed out the flaws in Indian education even before Independence. Indian education has been a long-term endeavor, pushed for many decades, and I don't see it. Even if, since Amartya Sen complained about India's adult literacy rate (50%), it's risen to about 70%, Indian education, which is needed to support industrialization (there are a lot of cultural habits necessary for industrialization, and it takes literacy to permit such), I think it will take time for the kinks to get ironed out.

===

And TBH, when you talk about honor, you're not talking about an honorable army in your opponent. You're talking about a pragmatic army. They gained no "honor" in fighting what was claimed to be the "third strongest army in the world" (after the Vietnamese defeated the United States). But unlike the United States, the Chinese got what they wanted out of Vietnam. It's a question of duty, not honor, and that's a division between types of armies (warrior armies that seek esteem, soldier armies that seek to do the job and achieve the objective). The Chinese are not the Pakistanis.

That's why I'm saying this chest-beating won't work, and that you're being Vietnamized. The Vietnamese were so hardcore as fighters that mothers strapped their babies with bombs and threw them at Chinese vehicles. Yet the Vietnamese ended up spending lots of money to fortify their northern provinces against China, and by the time the Soviet Union fell, the Vietnamese were neutralized. Meanwhile, the Chinese were expanding their economy drastically.

But hey, suit yourself. As I talk to Indian analysts, we agree that the Chinese have a practice of setting up border disputes to "pressure" countries they have feuds with. The border disputes, for the Chinese leadership, at least, are unemotional, and are simply intended to rile up the other side and get people on both sides killed. If you are being told specifically what the trap is, and you don't care, you deserve what's coming to you.

 

[sorcerer]

This is something that's really shocking to me, not that this is true, but that Indian nationalists would prefer to think this way.

Gobar times also said the same..but hey the "shocking to me" part..wow that was the epic cloak in the cloak and dagger part.

 

[Sanglamorre]

They sent a more polished Kung Flu this time?

 

[Chinmoy]

That's what I've been trying to point out to you. The Chinese don't need to move assets away from SCS / Taiwan theater.

Funny thing is, India is a bit like China in this regard, but China actually has islands in its ocean and that's its primary focus. But China has a dual land/naval orientation, which is tied together by an air force. The thing is, India is a land problem, not a naval problem, and things like Taiwan / SCS are naval problems, not land problems.

In other words, when India opens a front on containing China, what gets drawn in is the PLAGF, and to a lesser extent, the PLAAF. The PLAN can't actually deploy against Kolkata / Mumbai because of the logistics distance. So when you're thinking you're drawing Chinese resources away, you're drawing away the part of the Chinese military that's otherwise remaining unused.

And, well:

Why China Is Winning Against India

The military standoff in the Himalayas is often seen as a stalemate between two nuclear powers. But New Delhi cannot afford the status quo.

foreignpolicy.com

The point being made here is that the InN already had a budget cut because of the Chinese threat. If the Chinese are oriented toward the SCS / Taiwan as their primary mission, the deployment of ground forces has already reduced the InN's ability to intervene in SCS / Taiwan.

===

I'll bring in another analogy. India's position vis-a-vis China right now is similar to China's position vis-a-vis Japan in the early part of the 20th century, although there are quite a few differences (India is more unified than China was versus Japan in the early 20th century, a few insurgencies here and there, but otherwise federal government. The RoC had most of its territory controlled by warlords paying nominal obeisance to the Nationalist government). Unfortunately for China, it was a pre-industrialized society facing an industrialized society, and what's more, Chinese nationalists screwed up. Apparently Chiang Kai-Shek / Jiang Jieshi was seeking to build up against the Japanese forces, but Chinese nationalists forced Chiang's hand into opening the war early. Moreover, if you look at India's present sanctions against China, it resembles China's May Fourth boycotts against Japan, which actually forced Japan to take a military-centric approach instead of a trade-centric approach in expanding its regional dominance.

The end result was that Chiang sacrificed his best divisions to defend Shanghai from the Japanese, to achieve only a delaying action. Chiang, likewise, saw his political system wrecked by years of war against the Japanese, including an uprising against Nationalist levies. The Chinese saw virtually no success against the Japanese, in contrast to the Soviet resistance against the Nazis. Afterwards, the Nationalist system was so weakened that it was unable to stop the Communists, exploiting contradictions created by the war, from defeating them and taking China.

In the same way, Indian nationalists are calling for a hard offset (i.e, major purchases of military equipment) versus China that's unaffordable. I am telling you that a softer offset (i.e, focusing on nuclear deterrence) is more affordable and deters China without allowing China to mushroom Indian defense budgets.

If Indian attitudes are as what they appear, and we can expect a hard build-up in Indian military capabilities, I will wait to see what happens to India's defense spending as a percentage of GDP. If it goes up to 5%, that is good for China, because the taxes and debt involved will weaken and slow India's economy, giving China more time to deal with its primary antagonist, the United States. That's mission accomplished.

===

FYI, contacts in Cong suggest that Indian politicians and analysts know what the strategic balance is and what's happening. But they can't control the bottom elements (i.e, you) from forcing a hard line.

Could you just honestly point out in simple language what gibberish you are typing here and from which university you got this screwed up logic of Indo-China conflict only limited to land border?

 

[ClawReed787]

Let's wait for summer .

 

[Automatic Kalashnikov]

Bcc

 

[another_armchair]

This is something that's really shocking to me, not that this is true, but that Indian nationalists would prefer to think this way. You do realize that the Chinese are a 10k GDP per capita country (in nominal terms) and that the most developed provinces (analogues to Tamil Nadu, Kerala) are virtually equivalent to Japan and Korea, right?

The logistical challenges are real; the Chinese have neglected Tibetan infrastructure for quite some time, although there are programs to change this. But the ability to pay for supply (and recall that they make most of the military supply) is there.

===

I guess posting here is just to see how Indian nationalists would react to being told they're being Vietnamized. As it turns out, Indian nationalists don't care and the big question is how much India will expand its defense spending and whether Indian politicians will have the sense to back down. I assume no to the latter, to the former, it's worthwhile to wait and see.

There is still another solution, and that's moving American bases onto Indian soil. But for the Chinese, this is also a success, insofar as it forces the Americans to spend more on global logistics and split forces between more theaters.

Kerala a developed state? Get down from that coconut tree and you will see the situation on the ground is a lot different. It is downright pitiful but that's for another thread.

 

[another_armchair]

I'm not sure to what extent the Chinese actually care about casualties, since the Chinese were savaged in Vietnam, and kept fighting. Assuming that the other side will back down when they've lost an army is a big mistake; that is how Carthage lost against Rome (Rome just kept on sending more armies to the field faster than Hannibal could crush them).

Also, TBH, this is precisely the problem with the Sino-Indian conflict. You're saying the Indians are nationalistic, emotional, and with a long memorial, but guess what? So are the Chinese. They're still pissed off over stuff that happened more than a hundred years ago.

The advantage for China is that China can afford to offset India. India can't afford to offset China; as I was about to reply to someone else, India is now in recession again. The fundamental drivers of growth in China were the relatively high education level (which permitted industrialization) and a supportive regulatory environment. The former seemed to have been missing in India, and that's what, I suspect, ruined Modi's attempt to expand the Indian economy.

Problem is, when it comes to India, Jamseti Tata already pointed out the flaws in Indian education even before Independence. Indian education has been a long-term endeavor, pushed for many decades, and I don't see it. Even if, since Amartya Sen complained about India's adult literacy rate (50%), it's risen to about 70%, Indian education, which is needed to support industrialization (there are a lot of cultural habits necessary for industrialization, and it takes literacy to permit such), I think it will take time for the kinks to get ironed out.

===

And TBH, when you talk about honor, you're not talking about an honorable army in your opponent. You're talking about a pragmatic army. They gained no "honor" in fighting what was claimed to be the "third strongest army in the world" (after the Vietnamese defeated the United States). But unlike the United States, the Chinese got what they wanted out of Vietnam. It's a question of duty, not honor, and that's a division between types of armies (warrior armies that seek esteem, soldier armies that seek to do the job and achieve the objective). The Chinese are not the Pakistanis.

That's why I'm saying this chest-beating won't work, and that you're being Vietnamized. The Vietnamese were so hardcore as fighters that mothers strapped their babies with bombs and threw them at Chinese vehicles. Yet the Vietnamese ended up spending lots of money to fortify their northern provinces against China, and by the time the Soviet Union fell, the Vietnamese were neutralized. Meanwhile, the Chinese were expanding their economy drastically.

But hey, suit yourself. As I talk to Indian analysts, we agree that the Chinese have a practice of setting up border disputes to "pressure" countries they have feuds with. The border disputes, for the Chinese leadership, at least, are unemotional, and are simply intended to rile up the other side and get people on both sides killed. If you are being told specifically what the trap is, and you don't care, you deserve what's coming to you.

You quoted Amartya Sen. That's appalling indeed.

This calls for an instant ignore if not a ban.

 

[hit&run]

Chinese are desperate to get slapped from us.

They broke the peace and tranquility on the border which was maintained for last 50 odd years.

India ignored their repeated transgressions and kept giving them benefits of doubt.

Chinese behaviour of land mafia like encroachments and salami slicing is noted by watchers world over. Reputed analysts who have been also critical of India at time have ridiculed Chinese for their erratic behaviours and picking up unnecessarily fights with neighbours.

Every now and then our forum gets raided by Chinese propagandists who after first round of reality check from Indians lucidly explaining how they will be culled in mountains start comparing their economy with India’s.

Indian blood shredders do not need money to make Tibet the graveyard of coward Hans.

The rain of molten Tungsten from the hell is coming. Go back to your peace time shelters or there will be no Han left to defend Tibet.

 

[Deadtrap]

Chinese are desperate to get slapped from us.

They broke the peace and tranquility on the border which was maintained for last 50 odd years.

India ignored their repeated transgressions and kept giving them benefits of doubt.

Chinese behaviour of land mafia like encroachments and salami slicing is noted by watchers world over. Reputed analysts who have been also critical of India at time have ridiculed Chinese for their erratic behaviours and picking up unnecessarily fights with neighbours.

Every now and then our forum gets raided by Chinese propagandists who after first round of reality check from Indians lucidly explaining how they will culled in mountains start comparing their economy with India’s.

Indian blood shredders do not need money to make Tibet the graveyard of coward Hans.

The rain of molten Tungsten from the hell is coming. Go back to your peace time shelters or there will be no Han left to defend Tibet.

 

[Cactus09]

Gentlemen, Tejas MK1A has received greenlight.

 

[Haldilal]

Gentlemen, Tejas MK1A has received greenlight.

Ya'll Nibbiars The amount also includes the C 295 aircrafts just saying.

 

[hit&run]

Tibet is far but it belongs to China.

This Chinese bravado proverb only works when PLA behave.

For India Mainland China is far but Tibet is stone throw away.

We will lose 10 million soldiers, 3 major Cities and 5 other cities but there will be no Tibet on your map.

Indian soldiers will die for a military objective of capturing Tibet not defending the LAC.

This is what we are preparing.

Now go check with your Generals if they would like live with this fact that their mainland Cities are possibly safe at the cost of losing Tibet.