India-China Border conflict

[Joe Shearer]

I am facing some difficulties with my system, that does not allow me to cut and reply to sections of a post, rather than to the whole post. As soon as it resolves itself, it may interest you to consider the following points:

What are the clear strategic points in Tibet that we can hold. I guess it is difficult. China will have plain movement to take out any Indian ingression.

Every discussion about Indian involvement in war gets bogged down at some point in the question of what territory will be acquired, and what retained, during a ceasefire or a peace treaty negotiation to follow. Why? What are we, real-estate developers, to constantly worry about what land we have got? Next we will start worrying about building permission on that land, and the cost of re-rolled iron bars.

Both in the case of Pakistan, and in the case of China, I submit that we need not remain handcuffed to a land-acquisition frame of mind. Our goal in both cases, more so in the case of Pakistan than in the case of China, should be to fight a war of attrition that causes the enemy serious damage to the number of tanks, other armoured vehicles, personnel carriers and artillery pieces that he has. It need not be, and should not be a war objective to take lives; that is an immoral objective, to be set up on its own, quite apart from the painful losses of war themselves.

So it is possible to think of war objectives that do not include a question of how much real estate we will be left holding at the end.

Even after conflict, I doubt any side will gain territory. All will be back to where they were.

Yes, well, here we are again, but this time, we have options. We have to be careful to choose our options for the right reasons. What is a right reason for fighting Pakistan - a war objective that will, it is to be hoped, be illustrated in the war game to be held shortly - may not be the right reason for fighting China.

It must already have occurred forcefully to readers that destroying their hardware is not going to impact the Chinese mind-set. They will probably politely giggle and ask for a couple of overtime shifts on their factories to restore all their losses. No, the battle will not be about land, it will not be about demolishing a large number of tanks and dropping down a large number of aircraft, it will be a mind-game.

Ever since 1962, there has been a fear in every Indian mind about war with China. Far from adopting the disastrous 'forward policy' of the infamous Bijji Kaul era, we now look fearfully at every step near the border that the PLA takes, rather than taking counter-measures, or taking bolder measures, against them. A fire-fight against China will have the enormous good effect of banishing this ghost from our minds. It will also bring into their minds the unwelcome realisation that India is not to be pushed around, and can hold her own in pitched battle.

We should take some targets on the east coast of China through missiles in the beginning of conflict. That will put some fear in them.

Why not? But maybe in an indirect manner?

 

[Love Charger]

I am facing some difficulties with my system, that does not allow me to cut and reply to sections of a post, rather than to the whole post. As soon as it resolves itself, it may interest you to consider the following points:


Every discussion about Indian involvement in war gets bogged down at some point in the question of what territory will be acquired, and what retained, during a ceasefire or a peace treaty negotiation to follow. Why? What are we, real-estate developers, to constantly worry about what land we have got? Next we will start worrying about building permission on that land, and the cost of re-rolled iron bars.

Both in the case of Pakistan, and in the case of China, I submit that we need not remain handcuffed to a land-acquisition frame of mind. Our goal in both cases, more so in the case of Pakistan than in the case of China, should be to fight a war of attrition that causes the enemy serious damage to the number of tanks, other armoured vehicles, personnel carriers and artillery pieces that he has. It need not be, and should not be a war objective to take lives; that is an immoral objective, to be set up on its own, quite apart from the painful losses of war themselves.

So it is possible to think of war objectives that do not include a question of how much real estate we will be left holding at the end.



Yes, well, here we are again, but this time, we have options. We have to be careful to choose our options for the right reasons. What is a right reason for fighting Pakistan - a war objective that will, it is to be hoped, be illustrated in the war game to be held shortly - may not be the right reason for fighting China.

It must already have occurred forcefully to readers that destroying their hardware is not going to impact the Chinese mind-set. They will probably politely giggle and ask for a couple of overtime shifts on their factories to restore all their losses. No, the battle will not be about land, it will not be about demolishing a large number of tanks and dropping down a large number of aircraft, it will be a mind-game.

Ever since 1962, there has been a fear in every Indian mind about war with China. Far from adopting the disastrous 'forward policy' of the infamous Bijji Kaul era, we now look fearfully at every step near the border that the PLA takes, rather than taking counter-measures, or taking bolder measures, against them. A fire-fight against China will have the enormous good effect of banishing this ghost from our minds. It will also bring into their minds the unwelcome realisation that India is not to be pushed around, and can hold her own in pitched battle.



Why not? But maybe in an indirect manner?

There is no morality In war and when 100 years later when history will be written, we will be judged by the area of land we retained or captured or lost .
Tell me single war where people talk about the amount of aircrafts they lost or enemy lost and claim victory?
And if you want to fight a war of attrition, then why not allow chinese to march in Assam, its urban area perfect for war of attrition when compared to pleatues and table lands of ladakh or arunachal.
Even Nehru said that nothing grows in ladakh , so what it's use ?
This cost us aksai chin.

 

[cereal killer]

There is no morality In war and when 100 years later when history will be written, we will be judged by the area of land we retained or captured or lost .
Tell me single war where people talk about the amount of aircrafts they lost or enemy lost and claim victory?
And if you want to fight a war of attrition, then why not allow chinese to march in Assam, its urban area perfect for war of attrition when compared to pleatues and table lands of ladakh or arunachal.
Even Nehru said that nothing grows in ladakh , so what it's use ?
This cost us aksai chin.

There was actually no point of Aksai Chin.. It was easily accessible via Xinjiang. Holding that place further was a futile exercise in any future conflict. Chinese specifically needed it for G219. Nehru's idiotic advisers told him to claim everything up to Kunlun range. If anything we should have exchanged places beyond Eastern ladakh citing Zorawar singh claims. Perhaps complete Demchok portion. Getting close to Ngari prefecture should have been the aim. Aksai Chin is as pointless as they come.

 

[Love Charger]

There was actually no point of Aksai Chin.. It was easily accessible via Xinjiang. Holding that place further was a futile exercise in any future conflict. Chinese specifically needed it for G219. Nehru's idiotic advisers told him to claim everything up to Kunlun range. If anything we should have exchanged places beyond Eastern ladakh citing Zorawar singh claims. Perhaps complete Demchok portion. Getting close to Ngari prefecture should have been the aim. Aksai Chin is as pointless as they come.

Nehru weakened the army which defeated the japs and the Germans. He bloody weakned it.
Ordnance factories were asked to manufacture cups and saucers , was he completely oblivious to the Chinese threat ?
Or was he too idealistic ? Nobody knows but handled 62 situation very badly .
Jitni badi chadar ho ùtne pair phailane chaiye. Our chadar was not big

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no morality In war and when 100 years later when history will be written, we will be judged by the area of land we retained or captured or lost .

On the contrary, morality is everywhere and in everything, and most of all, in war. When history is written, they will write about morality. They still talk about the Siege of Magdeburg; what year was that? They still talk about the pyramids of skulls that Timur's soldiers created in Delhi; which year was that?

Tell me single war where people talk about the amount of aircrafts they lost or enemy lost and claim victory?

Not one.

People talk about the effects of the battle, of the war, not of the equipment lost or gained, but THAT is the difference between a war aim and a war result. THAT is the difference between the algorithm and the result.

And if you want to fight a war of attrition, then why not allow chinese to march in Assam, its urban area perfect for war of attrition when compared to pleatues and table lands of ladakh or arunachal.

Allowing the Chinese to march into Assam will confirm them in their belief that they can walk into India at any time. The idea is to disabuse them, permanently, of that notion.

Second, it hardly makes sense to talk about fighting a war of attrition in the populated, fertile Brahmaputra, when we have the arid plains of Tibet instead.

It sometimes reads as if what is being advocated is that we should lose the Brahmaputra Valley to win it back again, and give ourselves victory in the struggle for land. Why on earth should we do that? If the war is to be a war of attrition, what difference does it make, except to the civilian population, whether it is being fought in the moonscape of Ladakh, or around Lhasa, or in the Brahmaputra Valley? And if it comes to that, why should we fight where our civilians get hurt, rather than theirs?

Even Nehru said that nothing grows in ladakh , so what it's use ?
This cost us aksai chin.

That is contradictory. It seems that what was being explained about the difference between a war for the sake of gaining territory and for the sake of startling the enemy into a sudden, jolted respect for our military capability has just got lost.

To repeat: no point in grappling with the Chinese about territory (that objective is already lost, because we never made any objection to their occupation of the whole of Tibet, in the first place). Our real purpose should be to instill a fear of India in them. Much like their existing fear of little Vietnam. Since they will not further our objectives by crowding into our territory, we have to take the battle to them.

 

[Love Charger]

I am facing some difficulties with my system, that does not allow me to cut and reply to sections of a post, rather than to the whole post. As soon as it resolves itself, it may interest you to consider the following points:


Every discussion about Indian involvement in war gets bogged down at some point in the question of what territory will be acquired, and what retained, during a ceasefire or a peace treaty negotiation to follow. Why? What are we, real-estate developers, to constantly worry about what land we have got? Next we will start worrying about building permission on that land, and the cost of re-rolled iron bars.

Both in the case of Pakistan, and in the case of China, I submit that we need not remain handcuffed to a land-acquisition frame of mind. Our goal in both cases, more so in the case of Pakistan than in the case of China, should be to fight a war of attrition that causes the enemy serious damage to the number of tanks, other armoured vehicles, personnel carriers and artillery pieces that he has. It need not be, and should not be a war objective to take lives; that is an immoral objective, to be set up on its own, quite apart from the painful losses of war themselves.

So it is possible to think of war objectives that do not include a question of how much real estate we will be left holding at the end.



Yes, well, here we are again, but this time, we have options. We have to be careful to choose our options for the right reasons. What is a right reason for fighting Pakistan - a war objective that will, it is to be hoped, be illustrated in the war game to be held shortly - may not be the right reason for fighting China.

It must already have occurred forcefully to readers that destroying their hardware is not going to impact the Chinese mind-set. They will probably politely giggle and ask for a couple of overtime shifts on their factories to restore all their losses. No, the battle will not be about land, it will not be about demolishing a large number of tanks and dropping down a large number of aircraft, it will be a mind-game.

Ever since 1962, there has been a fear in every Indian mind about war with China. Far from adopting the disastrous 'forward policy' of the infamous Bijji Kaul era, we now look fearfully at every step near the border that the PLA takes, rather than taking counter-measures, or taking bolder measures, against them. A fire-fight against China will have the enormous good effect of banishing this ghost from our minds. It will also bring into their minds the unwelcome realisation that India is not to be pushed around, and can hold her own in pitched battle.



Why not? But maybe in an indirect manner?

Or as one memebr here said, few months ago

His aquitance is in the army ,deployed on the LAC.
They perform yajna on the mountain tops in full view of Chinese, sending them a message

Or see this thing, mind games can be played without war too.
And as far as fear of Chinese is concerned.i think we are already over it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nehru weakened the army which defeated the japs and the Germans. He bloody weakned it.
Ordnance factories were asked to manufacture cups and saucers , was he completely oblivious to the Chinese threat ?
Or was he too idealistic ? Nobody knows but handled 62 situation very badly .
Jitni badi chadar ho ùtne pair phailane chaiye. Our chadar was not big

I think that is a hopelessly naive vision of what happened in those days.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Or as one memebr here said, few months ago

His aquitance is in the army ,deployed on the LAC.
They perform yajna on the mountain tops in full view of Chinese, sending them a message

View attachment 153132
Or see this thing, mind games can be played without war too.
And as far as fear of Chinese is concerned.i think we are already over it.

Yeah, sure.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Or as one memebr here said, few months ago

His aquitance is in the army ,deployed on the LAC.
They perform yajna on the mountain tops in full view of Chinese, sending them a message

View attachment 153132
Or see this thing, mind games can be played without war too.
And as far as fear of Chinese is concerned.i think we are already over it.

And people seriously think that the sight of our soldiers doing yajna will rattle the Chinese? Wow.

 

[Love Charger]

I think that is a hopelessly naive vision of what happened in those days.

Well thats what we are told.
I have read the Himalayan blunder by brigadier john dalvi , he was taken as pow by the Chinese.
Menon and Nehru both were disrespectful to the top army brass.
If you know anything contrary , tell us

 

[Love Charger]

And people seriously think that the sight of our soldiers doing yajna will rattle the Chinese? Wow.

It sends them a message that , we will hold our positions, the peaks are sacred to us .
Thats the purpose.of it.
What wil rattle them , I don't know but they will get a message

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well thats what we are told.
I have read the Himalayan blunder by john dalvi , he was taken a pow by the Chinese.
Menon and Nehru both were disrespectful to the top army brass.
If you know anything contrary , tell us

You know, sometimes I am seriously puzzled by some of these questions. You want to trace the whole history of interlocking civilian fear of the military, of distrust of military methods compared to diplomatic, of the deep-seated hatred for Nehru that Mao was building up, and the intrigues and plotting and playing games among the Army top brass into a short paragraph on a defence forum?

Perhaps some very competent military historian, far more competent than I am.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It sends them a message that , we will hold our positions, the peaks are sacred to us .
Thats the purpose.of it.
What wil rattle them , I don't know but they will get a message

I don't think they get that kind of college kid rivalry message.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have read the Himalayan blunder by john dalvi , he was taken a pow by the Chinese.
Menon and Nehru both were disrespectful to the top army brass.

I am so pleased to learn these nuggets of information.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

There is no morality In war and when 100 years later when history will be written, we will be judged by the area of land we retained or captured or lost .
Tell me single war where people talk about the amount of aircrafts they lost or enemy lost and claim victory?
And if you want to fight a war of attrition, then why not allow chinese to march in Assam, its urban area perfect for war of attrition when compared to pleatues and table lands of ladakh or arunachal.
Even Nehru said that nothing grows in ladakh , so what it's use ?
This cost us aksai chin.

Then they will dig in and will end up keeping it post war. Why let them in in the first place? A few mountains etc which are indefensible is fine, but no major withdrawal.

 

[Love Charger]

You know, sometimes I am seriously puzzled by some of these questions. You want to trace the whole history of interlocking civilian fear of the military, of distrust of military methods compared to diplomatic, of the deep-seated hatred for Nehru that Mao was building up, and the intrigues and plotting and playing games among the Army top brass into a short paragraph on a defence forum?

Perhaps some very competent military historian, far more competent than I am.

Why did Nehru feared the army ?
Did he not say that India dosent even require the army
And no airforce was not used , Nehru was a interesting person

He adopted a very aggressive forward policy , yet when war came for real , Nehru didn't use the airforce

 

[Joe Shearer]

Then they will dig in and will end up keeping it post war. Why let them in in the first place? A few mountains etc which are indefensible is fine, but no major withdrawal.

I was beginning to wonder if I had gone bonkers.

Thank you for intervening, and preserving the remnants of my sanity.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why did Nehru feared the army ?
Did he not say that India dosent even require the army
And no airforce was not used , Nehru was a interesting person

He adopted a very aggressive forward policy , yet when war came for real , Nehru didn't use the airforce

If we ever discuss the military history of 1962, remind me of all these doubts.

 

[Love Charger]

I don't think they get that kind of college kid rivalry message.

Uncle , what is college rivalry for you the Chinese have been doing for decades.
They come on our side , leave cigarette packets , mark rocks with China China and leave

We started doing same and more.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Uncle , what is college rivalry for you the Chinese have been doing for decades.
They come on our side , leave cigarette packets , mark rocks with China China and leave

We started doing same and more.

Think about it before leaping to the keyboard.