India-China 2020 Border Dispute - Military and Strategic Discussion

[prasadr14]

One of the reasons China might back off for now is the weather. There's already catastrophic flooding in Southern China. Looks like from next week, there will be huge rainfall that threatens PLA with mountain torrents in Tibet and Xinjiang.

If that happens,
we should send in Bihar and Punjab regiment boys for some cross border fun before they leave - so that they can remember us for a long time.

 

[Kumata]

One of the reasons China might back off for now is the weather. There's already catastrophic flooding in Southern China. Looks like from next week, there will be huge rainfall that threatens PLA with mountain torrents in Tibet and Xinjiang.

I am hearing that their DAM's are in danger as well.. talk of chinese maal...

 

[DownWithCCP]

Wasn't the corps commander level talks supposed to happen from around 27-30? Delayed?

 

[tarunraju]

Wasn't the corps commander level talks supposed to happen from around 27-30? Delayed?

There was a report that M2M talks have stopped, since the PLA isn't living up to what's agreed in them.

 

[DownWithCCP]

There was a report that M2M talks have stopped, since the PLA isn't living up to what's agreed in them.

And probably the PLA does not listen to their diplomats so even the diplomatic channels have failed to yield intended results. (This is just a conjecture)

 

[Sehwag213]

And probably the PLA does not listen to their diplomats so even the diplomatic channels have failed to yield intended results. (This is just a conjecture)

Yes.
In China this is order

CCP
PLA
MEA

In INDIA

GOI
MEA
IA

So PLA can easily refuse what their MEA agreed on

 

[Indrajit]

Interesting article, didn’t surprise me but still necessary eye opener for some.

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict? | Lowy Institute

As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict?

VASABJIT BANERJEE TIMOTHY S. RICH
As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a
fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

Rivers and snow in the Himalayas along the border between China and India (NASA Johnson/Flickr)Published 30 Jul 2020 07:00

  The recent military standoff between India and China in the Galwan Valley raises a fascinating question about the attitudes of the American public towards Asia’s great powers.
We know from extensive polling that the American people are increasingly sour about China. A March 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center, as the Covid-19 pandemic began to unfold, showed two thirds of Americans have negative perceptions of China. Almost the same number considered “China’s power and influence a major threat” – an opinion also influenced by party identity, a point of significance as the US presidential election draws near, with 72% of Republicans viewing China negatively (an increase of 2% from 2019), while 62% Democrats did the same (an increase of 3% from 2019).
Yet what about India? Polls have shown Americans are more sympathetictowards India, and this includes differences depending on political affiliation. But would this attitude extend to backing New Delhi in a conflict with Beijing?
This question is important as the US has increased diplomatic and military cooperation with India, both bilaterally as well as via multilateral groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which has Australia and Japan as its other members.
Most surveys explore the relationship between the US and China or between the US and India, rather than US opinions about conflict between China and India. To explore this question, we recently conducted a poll to directly compare US public views on potential military or economic strife between China to India.
To account for these factors, we conducted a web survey via mTurk with 1,012 American respondents on 7 July 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned one of two versions of a prompt:

• Version 1: If India and China were engaged in military conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?
• Version 2: If India and China were engaged in economic conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?

Our findings presented in the following chart show that 63.6% of responders would have the US support neither India nor China if they were to engage in military conflict with each other, compared to 60.6% regarding economic conflict with each other. For those who did choose to support one of the countries, however, it was overwhelmingly in favour of India. For a military conflict between India and China, 32.6% preferred that the US support India, as opposed to 3.8% who preferred that the US support China. For an economic conflict, 36.3% respondents preferred US support for India, while 3.1% preferred US support for China.

Accounting for partisan identification, however, provided a more nuanced picture. One the one hand, a comfortable majority of 66.7% of Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter a military conflict, while 59.5% Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter an economic conflict. On the other hand, for those who do support the US supporting one of the countries, 27.8% prefer that the US support India and 5.5% prefer the US support China in a military conflict, while an even greater 37% prefer that the US support India and 3.5% prefer China in an economic conflict.
These trends were also prominent among Republican respondents, of whom 49.7% preferred that US not support either country during a military conflict and 54.8% during an economic conflict. Among Republicans who preferred that the US support one of the two countries in a military conflict, 47.1% preferred supporting India and 3.2% chose to support China. For an economic conflict, 41.9% chose to support India, while 3.2% chose to support China.
That Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
These findings about partisan identity and US foreign policy are two-fold. First, among the Democrats and Republicans who prefer the US take sides during a China-India conflict, India is overwhelmingly favoured.
Second, that Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
Although we do not know what explains such a shift, it may have been caused by President Donald Trump’s remarks and actions about China related to how it runs its economy and is trying to militarily dominate neighbours. Moreover, one may assume that during an actual conflict, those hesitant to choose a side, regardless of partisanship, would be more likely to favour the fellow democracy.
China’s broader actions in the region, especially as it thwarts democratic efforts in Hong Kong and pressures Taiwan, could similarly push Americans to have a more favourable view of India in any conflict. The challenge for Indian officials, as well as US officials sympathetic to India, is to find ways to increase American public knowledge of China-India disputes and the importance of India as a strategic partner.

 

[Sanglamorre]

Or they may open new fronts, such as Chumbi, Doklam, Tawang, or even get Pakistan to do something. They know that even our military has limited headroom in the Northeast thanks to the weather there.

While we're preparing on all fronts, we must never dial down our proxy-warfare. The battle against Oli must rage on.

The flooding, if it happens, will wash out their supply lines in Tibet and Xinjiang. And the floods aren't just limited to Tibet and Xinjiang, it's affecting almost all provinces.

About Oli, sometimes I feel it isn't Oil who got honeytrapped, but the Chinese Amb. Who got honeytrapped, such is the desperation to keep him in power :v

 

[vayuu1]

The flooding, if it happens, will wash out their supply lines in Tibet and Xinjiang. And the floods aren't just limited to Tibet and Xinjiang, it's affecting almost all provinces.

About Oli, sometimes I feel it isn't Oil who got honeytrapped, but the Chinese Amb. Who got honeytrapped, such is the desperation to keep him in power :v

In other words oli is Nepali version of sisodia aka handsome

 

[Sanglamorre]

I am hearing that their DAM's are in danger as well.. talk of chinese maal...

Yeah. They had to consciously and continuously flood their "lower value" provinces to save the more valuable cities. People are pretty angry about that, especially since CCP presenter it as something like "People of XYZ province gloriously sacrificed their province for the greater good".

 

[Sehwag213]

Interesting article, didn’t surprise me but still necessary eye opener for some.

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict? | Lowy Institute

As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict?

VASABJIT BANERJEE TIMOTHY S. RICH
As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a
fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

Rivers and snow in the Himalayas along the border between China and India (NASA Johnson/Flickr)Published 30 Jul 2020 07:00

  The recent military standoff between India and China in the Galwan Valley raises a fascinating question about the attitudes of the American public towards Asia’s great powers.
We know from extensive polling that the American people are increasingly sour about China. A March 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center, as the Covid-19 pandemic began to unfold, showed two thirds of Americans have negative perceptions of China. Almost the same number considered “China’s power and influence a major threat” – an opinion also influenced by party identity, a point of significance as the US presidential election draws near, with 72% of Republicans viewing China negatively (an increase of 2% from 2019), while 62% Democrats did the same (an increase of 3% from 2019).
Yet what about India? Polls have shown Americans are more sympathetictowards India, and this includes differences depending on political affiliation. But would this attitude extend to backing New Delhi in a conflict with Beijing?
This question is important as the US has increased diplomatic and military cooperation with India, both bilaterally as well as via multilateral groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which has Australia and Japan as its other members.
Most surveys explore the relationship between the US and China or between the US and India, rather than US opinions about conflict between China and India. To explore this question, we recently conducted a poll to directly compare US public views on potential military or economic strife between China to India.
To account for these factors, we conducted a web survey via mTurk with 1,012 American respondents on 7 July 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned one of two versions of a prompt:

• Version 1: If India and China were engaged in military conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?
• Version 2: If India and China were engaged in economic conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?

Our findings presented in the following chart show that 63.6% of responders would have the US support neither India nor China if they were to engage in military conflict with each other, compared to 60.6% regarding economic conflict with each other. For those who did choose to support one of the countries, however, it was overwhelmingly in favour of India. For a military conflict between India and China, 32.6% preferred that the US support India, as opposed to 3.8% who preferred that the US support China. For an economic conflict, 36.3% respondents preferred US support for India, while 3.1% preferred US support for China.

Accounting for partisan identification, however, provided a more nuanced picture. One the one hand, a comfortable majority of 66.7% of Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter a military conflict, while 59.5% Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter an economic conflict. On the other hand, for those who do support the US supporting one of the countries, 27.8% prefer that the US support India and 5.5% prefer the US support China in a military conflict, while an even greater 37% prefer that the US support India and 3.5% prefer China in an economic conflict.
These trends were also prominent among Republican respondents, of whom 49.7% preferred that US not support either country during a military conflict and 54.8% during an economic conflict. Among Republicans who preferred that the US support one of the two countries in a military conflict, 47.1% preferred supporting India and 3.2% chose to support China. For an economic conflict, 41.9% chose to support India, while 3.2% chose to support China.
That Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
These findings about partisan identity and US foreign policy are two-fold. First, among the Democrats and Republicans who prefer the US take sides during a China-India conflict, India is overwhelmingly favoured.
Second, that Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
Although we do not know what explains such a shift, it may have been caused by President Donald Trump’s remarks and actions about China related to how it runs its economy and is trying to militarily dominate neighbours. Moreover, one may assume that during an actual conflict, those hesitant to choose a side, regardless of partisanship, would be more likely to favour the fellow democracy.
China’s broader actions in the region, especially as it thwarts democratic efforts in Hong Kong and pressures Taiwan, could similarly push Americans to have a more favourable view of India in any conflict. The challenge for Indian officials, as well as US officials sympathetic to India, is to find ways to increase American public knowledge of China-India disputes and the importance of India as a strategic partner.

Actually it makes sense tbh.
Let's get realistic, Most of the Americans are suffering from War fatigue .
And India does annoy America from time to time.
So why would they go out of their way to help us.

 

[Kumata]

We expect US to give us high end critical military hard-ware with nothing to show to them in return. That's just silly.

Its wrong to say we are not giving them anything in returns...

 

[garg_bharat]

I live too far away from Ideal world...LOL

I am surprised that u r comparing Pak / china and us... Both are parasites .. each one thinking he is eating other one and vice versa.

Now that you have talked of dependence ...is exactly the reason we are not buying any weapon platforms with offensive capabilities from US and only buying passive platforms like P8 or C17's from them ... U know the beauty of this world is that u always have a alternate available...

Last point, US do see us a long term value provider with that counter to china ... and is the reason its keen to sell us only those stuff which he think is necessary for us to counter china...

M777 gun, P8i are definitely offensive weapons.
C17, C130H you can say are non-offensive.
Chinook is non offensive but Apache is offensive. Both platforms require heavy spares support. In case of Apache, all ammo and missiles too.
Many more examples. Just want to show error in your argument.

 

[Kumata]

Actually it makes sense tbh.
Let's get realistic, Most of the Americans are suffering from War fatigue .
And India does annoy America from time to time.
So why would they go out of their way to help us.

War Fatigue.., their economy runs on WAR's ...

 

[Sehwag213]

War Fatigue.., their economy runs on WAR's ...

A major reason Trump got elected because he promised to bring their troops back home.
So Trump voter base is fed up of war in Iraq and Afghanistan at least

 

[Kumata]

M777 gun, P8i are definitely offensive weapons.
C17, C130H you can say are non-offensive.
Chinook is non offensive but Apache is offensive. Both platforms require heavy spares support. In case of Apache, all ammo and missiles too.
Many more examples. Just want to show error in your argument.

Correct and for these we have alternates should US chose to show us their end user agreement... my error of judgement was deliberate.... May be we have Old hardware as backup for these but we do have it....so our element of risk is less..

now consider we buy f16's and US showing their EUA on us at critical times.. what alternates do we have... Nothing.... that's the point...

I can replace Apache with Our own Heli's.. they might be less capable but do server the purpose.... like wise for Others

 

[Kumata]

A major reason Trump got elected because he promised to bring their troops back home.
So Trump voter base is fed up of war in Iraq and Afghanistan at least

yup.. and he tried as well to get out but stakes are way too high....

 

[garg_bharat]

Interesting article, didn’t surprise me but still necessary eye opener for some.

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict? | Lowy Institute

As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Which side would the US public choose in an India-China conflict?

VASABJIT BANERJEE TIMOTHY S. RICH
As American attitudes towards China sour, India, as a
fellow democracy, doesn’t appear to automatically benefit.

Rivers and snow in the Himalayas along the border between China and India (NASA Johnson/Flickr)Published 30 Jul 2020 07:00

  The recent military standoff between India and China in the Galwan Valley raises a fascinating question about the attitudes of the American public towards Asia’s great powers.
We know from extensive polling that the American people are increasingly sour about China. A March 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center, as the Covid-19 pandemic began to unfold, showed two thirds of Americans have negative perceptions of China. Almost the same number considered “China’s power and influence a major threat” – an opinion also influenced by party identity, a point of significance as the US presidential election draws near, with 72% of Republicans viewing China negatively (an increase of 2% from 2019), while 62% Democrats did the same (an increase of 3% from 2019).
Yet what about India? Polls have shown Americans are more sympathetictowards India, and this includes differences depending on political affiliation. But would this attitude extend to backing New Delhi in a conflict with Beijing?
This question is important as the US has increased diplomatic and military cooperation with India, both bilaterally as well as via multilateral groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which has Australia and Japan as its other members.
Most surveys explore the relationship between the US and China or between the US and India, rather than US opinions about conflict between China and India. To explore this question, we recently conducted a poll to directly compare US public views on potential military or economic strife between China to India.
To account for these factors, we conducted a web survey via mTurk with 1,012 American respondents on 7 July 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned one of two versions of a prompt:

• Version 1: If India and China were engaged in military conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?
• Version 2: If India and China were engaged in economic conflict, would you support the US aiding India, China, or neither side?

Our findings presented in the following chart show that 63.6% of responders would have the US support neither India nor China if they were to engage in military conflict with each other, compared to 60.6% regarding economic conflict with each other. For those who did choose to support one of the countries, however, it was overwhelmingly in favour of India. For a military conflict between India and China, 32.6% preferred that the US support India, as opposed to 3.8% who preferred that the US support China. For an economic conflict, 36.3% respondents preferred US support for India, while 3.1% preferred US support for China.

Accounting for partisan identification, however, provided a more nuanced picture. One the one hand, a comfortable majority of 66.7% of Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter a military conflict, while 59.5% Democrats prefer to support neither China nor India if they were to enter an economic conflict. On the other hand, for those who do support the US supporting one of the countries, 27.8% prefer that the US support India and 5.5% prefer the US support China in a military conflict, while an even greater 37% prefer that the US support India and 3.5% prefer China in an economic conflict.
These trends were also prominent among Republican respondents, of whom 49.7% preferred that US not support either country during a military conflict and 54.8% during an economic conflict. Among Republicans who preferred that the US support one of the two countries in a military conflict, 47.1% preferred supporting India and 3.2% chose to support China. For an economic conflict, 41.9% chose to support India, while 3.2% chose to support China.
That Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
These findings about partisan identity and US foreign policy are two-fold. First, among the Democrats and Republicans who prefer the US take sides during a China-India conflict, India is overwhelmingly favoured.
Second, that Republican support for India surpassed that by Democrats appears to challenge the belief that Democratic voters are more sympathetic to India.
Although we do not know what explains such a shift, it may have been caused by President Donald Trump’s remarks and actions about China related to how it runs its economy and is trying to militarily dominate neighbours. Moreover, one may assume that during an actual conflict, those hesitant to choose a side, regardless of partisanship, would be more likely to favour the fellow democracy.
China’s broader actions in the region, especially as it thwarts democratic efforts in Hong Kong and pressures Taiwan, could similarly push Americans to have a more favourable view of India in any conflict. The challenge for Indian officials, as well as US officials sympathetic to India, is to find ways to increase American public knowledge of China-India disputes and the importance of India as a strategic partner.

India spends too little on PR in USA. It is basically American Indian community which carries the heavy burden without pay. Even American Indian community is split.

However I must add, India will be even more positive among likely voters. I am not sure if the survey accounted for this fact. A large percentage of Americans take low interest in politics; and their opinion may not count much.

 

[garg_bharat]

Correct and for these we have alternates should US chose to show us their end user agreement... my error of judgement was deliberate.... May be we have Old hardware as backup for these but we do have it....so our element of risk is less..

now consider we buy f16's and US showing their EUA on us at critical times.. what alternates do we have... Nothing.... that's the point...

I can replace Apache with Our own Heli's.. they might be less capable but do server the purpose.... like wise for Others

What if our dear Su30 fall short in war? Absence of EULA will do no good.

You need equipment that works in the threat environment you have. And it is likely such equipment will come with some restrictions. You guys are trying to equate weapons with soap and toothpaste. Not the case.

If you think F16 we buy from America will be restricted against Pakistan/China, make your concern known and draft the contract in such away as to avoid that possibility.

If we can replace Apache with own helicopters, why did we buy in the first place? If there is a war in next three months (highly likely) which local helicopter will replace Apache. I think more a possibility of India begging for more Apache.

 

[Bhadra]

Three More Divisions in Ladakh : The Tweet
​

I was wondering on a tweet posted in the Forum which stated that India is moving 65000 more troops to Ladakh. At the face of it. it appears as nonsensical due to share logistical nightmare it can create. As also the limitation of space.

However we may only be looking at one direction only. Come to think of it - India might at a critical moment forced to do it. If China indeed is aiming to capture DBO and Link up Shaksgam Pass with Karakarom Pass. India will have to option but to hit at the base of Shaksagam Valley and prevent such a linkup.

In that eventuality. Three divisions will hold on and retake DBO from Easter Ladakh and the other three divisions will have to be employed to capture Sakradu and beyond.

Chinese game plan can very easily be thwarted this way.

If China has great advantage of entering POK from Khunjreb and Shaksgam. and tackle DBO from many directions, India on other hand has great advantages in their abilities to interdict G-219 at many places as also thwart Chinese military moves via Indus valley.

This is not a big deal. India only has to move only one out of three strike corps to Ladakh.. and deploy those facing Skardu...
There is military possibility of six divisions being in Ladakh... to prevent worst-case scenario...

Pakistan mara jaiga. ... aur Cheen ko bhagna parega..