Is Air force capable of Two Front War?

[ace009]

Oh I certainly don't think democracy is perfect, and I like that quote by Churchill; it's spot on. The problem when criticising democracy is if people dismiss it outright and say that it's no better than monarchism, fascism, communism, tribalism, theocracy, etc... then what exactly are we left to conclude with other than going back to those sorts of depraved systems? Let's just say it's something I don't endorse.

The US has made plenty of mistakes in the past, many of which you will note were propped up by Henry Kissinger at one point or another (Pinochet is a good example of this). Batista was certainly not good, but he killed less people than Castro did, which is a bit of a grey area. Some of these regimes were also set up to counter Soviet influence under Reagan, and I know they weren't democratic either but they were still nowhere near as oppressive or genocidal as those supported by the communists. Just look up the statistics for any given country. The days of American direct intervention into a country to bring about democracy is unpopular ever since Vietnam, and people are lazy and complacent; they would complain less if CIA handled it rather than going on in the ground. Had they not have responded, then you would get the other response of 'well America hasn't done anything about <insert country we haven't intervened yet that is run by a dictatorship>' which serves to do nothing more than be defeatist. America can't intervene in every dictatorship tomorrow, be victorious, place a successful democracy there within 10 years, and simply leave like many people seem to think how this all works. It's sad to say this but unless the US is openly attacked somehow, people will always want to have it both ways. Many people also forget or perhaps haven't realized that the Americans did encourage European countries to give up their dreams of colonialism, particularly the British after the second world war; so I would say their attempts to bring about democracy outweigh their attempts to do otherwise.

I think the line about whether the US solely protects its interests or not is counter-intuitive, one-sided, and bulldozed into the ground in the greater scheme of things. It is suicidal for any country to go for a prolonged war with another without some kind of economic incentive involved, but if that's some kind of major counter-argument; then they are asking the impossible. Perhaps people would prefer the US to go back to the days of isolationism, during the first and second world wars, and before then. Apparently the world was a much better place then, lol.

As for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc... there were many local people who were incredibly grateful for Americas intervention in 2003 to remove Saddam from Iraq; one of the worlds most calculated and brutal dictators since Hitler and Stalin. My criticism towards American involvement here is about how the CIA brought the Baathists to power, how Jimmy Carter gave the green light for the Iran-Iraq war to happen, and how 1993 should have seen the end of Baathism in Iraq; not just Kuwait. Instead the intervention was delayed another 10 years, and Bush/Blair overconfidently put far too much emphasis on WMDs rather than the other point of regime change. Despite all this, Iraq now has a shot of moving on from decades of oppression under Saddam, and it's not something that will happen at the click of a finger like some people expect. Same for Afghanistan; this is a country that has been torn apart by different super powers over the last two centuries, aswell as tribalism, and where time has stood still for 1000 years. Expecting a flourishing democracy there in 10 years is beyond unrealistic, as it looks as if it may take at least a few more decades for everything to normalize.

Iran has been controlled by the kinds of 'anti-western' government that you would think people would love and support (well, they did initially lol), if not for the fact that it has shown itself to be incredibly nihilistic and at the same time, wanting to get its hands on nuclear weapons. Just like how many Iranians cheered when the Israelis carried out Operation Opera, there are many Arabs, and even some Iranians who would like to see a similar thing happen to the Iranian nuclear program; although you wont hear that in the media.

Dude - the statistics of whether the "US-supported" dictators or the "Soviet-supported" dictators were more genocidal, is a moot point. Firstly, most of such statistics is disputed by one side or another. No one knows the true figures and far less acknowledges them. Possibly, the dictators on one side was marginally better than another, so? It is not an option for the champion of democracy to support any dictatorship, far less a "genocidal' one - right? And don't give me the "lesser of two evils" BS.
About the Iranian government, believe me, being an atheist, I am more opposed to ANY theocracy than you can ever be. However, I consider their nuke program less of a risk to the world than the Pakistani Nuke program, for which as you may know, the Pak govt got very little international flak, and have kept receiving US military and economic help, whether their governement was a democratic one or a dictatorship. So, my point stands - US (and the west) champion democracy ONLY as and when it helps their own strategic interests.

 

[civfanatic]

^^ If you ask me, Iran has the right to obtain nukes if it wants.

 

[AOE]

Dude - the statistics of whether the "US-supported" dictators or the "Soviet-supported" dictators were more genocidal, is a moot point. Firstly, most of such statistics is disputed by one side or another. No one knows the true figures and far less acknowledges them.

Historical revisionists and nazi-sympathisers use the same argument to deny the holocaust ever happened, does that mean their argument is correct or moral? Your point is exaggerative. Most statistics on the Soviet Union, even conservative figures still show it to be one of the most destructive regimes in human history. Same goes for the PRC, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.... Communism has claimed the lives of more than 100 million people in the last century. Everywhere communism has taken hold and become the one-party state of any given country, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have perished, individual freedoms are suppressed, political enemies are murdered, etc... While the US has supported similar regimes, around half the time they have supported a sizable amount of democracies in the past and present. Try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Possibly, the dictators on one side was marginally better than another, so? It is not an option for the champion of democracy to support any dictatorship, far less a "genocidal' one - right? And don't give me the "lesser of two evils" BS.

Yet here you commit the moral equivalency/tu quoque fallacies; that somehow the US and USSR are as bad as each other because of (apparently) inaccurate statistics. This is what I was talking about in my previous response. Would you say that democracy is as bad as fascism using the same logic? I doubt it. These are sweeping statements and you need to bring up specific examples of genocide for argument, rather than vaguely allude to it.

About the Iranian government, believe me, being an atheist, I am more opposed to ANY theocracy than you can ever be.

That maybe the case, but how would you suggest such a regime be removed? No nation in human history has changed government without some level of violence, and usually the financial or military support of another powerful country; whether it be the American, Russian, or French revolutions. So please explain to me how the theocracy there is going to be toppled without western involvement?

However, I consider their nuke program less of a risk to the world than the Pakistani Nuke program, for which as you may know, the Pak govt got very little international flak, and have kept receiving US military and economic help, whether their governement was a democratic one or a dictatorship.

US support for Pakistan has been on and off over the last 50 years, similar to how support for India has been on and off, and no; the US did stop all military and economic support when they first obtained nuclear weapons from China. It only resumed when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, which is a grey area. Pakistan is a country that I think the US has made mistakes with and I've stated that numerous times already. Go to my introduction thread and click on the three part video series where Christopher Hitchens says that the whole Af-Pak mentality is ridiculous, and that we should be supporting India for a change. On a similar note; you seem to be ignoring instances where America has supported real democracies in the past and present; such as South Korea, and Taiwan (for example). Both of those regimes originally had martial law enacted due to fear of invasion, but now they're thriving examples of democracies. Does that mean we shouldn't have supported them against Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung?

So, my point stands - US (and the west) champion democracy ONLY as and when it helps their own strategic interests.

The funny thing is people will believe that in the face of contrarian evidence, and will only start singing a different tune when their country is invaded by totalitarians.

^^ If you ask me, Iran has the right to obtain nukes if it wants.

The Iranian theocracy claims it isn't, and swore on a stack of qurans, and also to the EU, UN, and the rest of the world that it wouldn't do so. Ahmadinejad let the cat out of the bag when he stated publicly that some of the new long range missiles he obtained a few years ago was part of Irans nuclear weapons program, so on what grounds; legally or morally, does the regime there have to justifiably gain such weapons?

 

[Oracle]

^^ If you ask me, Iran has the right to obtain nukes if it wants.

Even the Taliban, TTP and Al-Qaida has the right to obtain nukes. Get a grip on your statements mate!

 

[Armand2REP]

^^ If you ask me, Iran has the right to obtain nukes if it wants.

India Bans Iran Nuclear-Related Trade

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 2 Apr 2011 12:23

NEW DELHI - India has banned trade in all goods and services with Iran that could help Tehran pursue development of nuclear weapons, a government statement said.

The changes were made in new foreign policy trade rules to conform with a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear and missile development program, said the commerce ministry.

India sits as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

The changes posted on a government website on April 2 ban trade in all equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

The export ban comes as India has been struggling to work out a long-term method to pay for oil imports from Iran.

Iran is the second-largest crude supplier to India after Saudi Arabia and supplies up to 14 percent of the country's oil import needs. India imports around 80 percent of its crude oil.

India's central bank, in response to U.S. pressure, said in December oil and other import payments could not be made through a Tehran clearing house which Washington alleges is being used to bypass sanctions against Iran.

The decision meant India no longer had a means to pay for the fuel.

India and Iran have been negotiating for months on ways to resolve the payment deadlock on a long-term basis and salvage the trade, which is worth around $12 billion annually.

Late last month, Germany's Handelsblatt business daily said India was set to pay Iran for billions of dollars worth of oil imports by channeling funds to Tehran via the German central bank.

There has been no comment from India but earlier, government officials said such a route could be a way to break the payments deadlock.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6130118&c=ASI&s=TOP

 

[civfanatic]

Even the Taliban, TTP and Al-Qaida has the right to obtain nukes. Get a grip on your statements mate!

Please do not compare an entire nation of 75 million people to few extremist groups.

Does India have the right to obtain nuclear weapons?

 

[civfanatic]

India Bans Iran Nuclear-Related Trade

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 2 Apr 2011 12:23

NEW DELHI - India has banned trade in all goods and services with Iran that could help Tehran pursue development of nuclear weapons, a government statement said.

The changes were made in new foreign policy trade rules to conform with a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear and missile development program, said the commerce ministry.

India sits as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

The changes posted on a government website on April 2 ban trade in all equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

The export ban comes as India has been struggling to work out a long-term method to pay for oil imports from Iran.

Iran is the second-largest crude supplier to India after Saudi Arabia and supplies up to 14 percent of the country's oil import needs. India imports around 80 percent of its crude oil.

India's central bank, in response to U.S. pressure, said in December oil and other import payments could not be made through a Tehran clearing house which Washington alleges is being used to bypass sanctions against Iran.

The decision meant India no longer had a means to pay for the fuel.

India and Iran have been negotiating for months on ways to resolve the payment deadlock on a long-term basis and salvage the trade, which is worth around $12 billion annually.

Late last month, Germany's Handelsblatt business daily said India was set to pay Iran for billions of dollars worth of oil imports by channeling funds to Tehran via the German central bank.

There has been no comment from India but earlier, government officials said such a route could be a way to break the payments deadlock.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6130118&c=ASI&s=TOP

More sucking up to the West by the GoI. Unfortunate, but perhaps necessary.

 

[tprop988]

The two front war doctrine for the Indian Armed Forces is a gradual shift from the one on one posture. The IAF is acquiring new fighters for the effective implementation of this doctrine. But the present scenario is really disturbing. I am not saying that the Chinese is hell bent on going to war against us with the Pakistanis following suite but recent military exchanges between our two rival nations does send shivers down my spine. At present with only two squadrons of the SU-30MKI aircraft in the Northeast along with some Mig-21 FLs and Mig-27s. The IAF needs more aircraft in the region in order to fight off any misadventure from the Chinese side. The IAF can no doubt hold its own against the PAF. The inventory of fighters in the PAF is hardly any match for the IAF except the F-16s. Its the eastern side that gets me worried. With hardly any infrastructure near the Line of Actual Control, I doubt whether our armed forces will be able to withstand the Chinese. On the other hand, there has been massive infrastructural development on the other side which includes the two laning of highways leading right up to the Macmohan Line.
With the current attitude of the Indian Government of "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" we hardly are prepared for any massive offensive launched from our Eastern neighbour. Our Border Roads Organisation has been an utter disappointment in this regard, when even nearly 50 years after the Chinese last launched their offensive to claim their "Southern Tibet" i.e. our very own Arunachal Pradesh, what they have constructed are roads which can just accomodate foot soldiers. Thus, in this the IAF comes into play but the current squadron level strengths in the NE region is really a concern. What the IAF needs here is atleast 3-4 squadrons of the Sukhois on maximum alert basis, plus some additional squadrons of Mig-21 Bis, Mig-29SMTs as well as some Jaguars or Mirage-2000s for the strike role. This calls for additional airfields. These additional airfields will eventually help in the rapid deployment of the forces in case of a major war as these can perform as Forward Operating Bases for the Indian Army as well as the IAF. Plus there isnt enoughs SAMs to downplay any Chinese intrusion on the Indian Air Space. The SAM batteries needs to be rapidly deployed in various strategic locations. Delays in the Akash SAM programme has been a real concern. The government needs to deploy missile batteries as well along the LAC for use in a conventional role as it would significantly mulptiply the country's capabilities to strike military targets inside the Chinese territories.
In case of a two front war, the Indian Navy can play a significant role in chocking Pakistan's trade routes just like the '71 war as the Pakistani Navy is hardly a decent match for the Indian Navy. Thus the western side can be forced to prematurely withdraw from the aggresive stance to a defensive stance. But hoping that the US or in that case any of the world's major powers is going to help India in fighting off the Chinese is very wrong due to the fact that no one wants to risk another world war for this regional conflict. So we will have to hold our own in such a scenario with no outside help. For that case IAF needs to speed up the manufacturing lines of the Sukhois plus the MMRCA deal. The same applies to the Tejas induction and manufacture,leave alone the FGFA and the AMCA. The IAF needs atleast 45-50 squadrons to fight a two front war. Our various defence aquisations has been too long delayed for varied reasons (including high level corruption) and I just hope that we Indians dont have to pay the price for such discrepancies

 

[arya]

The two front war doctrine for the Indian Armed Forces is a gradual shift from the one on one posture. The IAF is acquiring new fighters for the effective implementation of this doctrine. But the present scenario is really disturbing. I am not saying that the Chinese is hell bent on going to war against us with the Pakistanis following suite but recent military exchanges between our two rival nations does send shivers down my spine. At present with only two squadrons of the SU-30MKI aircraft in the Northeast along with some Mig-21 FLs and Mig-27s. The IAF needs more aircraft in the region in order to fight off any misadventure from the Chinese side. The IAF can no doubt hold its own against the PAF. The inventory of fighters in the PAF is hardly any match for the IAF except the F-16s. Its the eastern side that gets me worried. With hardly any infrastructure near the Line of Actual Control, I doubt whether our armed forces will be able to withstand the Chinese. On the other hand, there has been massive infrastructural development on the other side which includes the two laning of highways leading right up to the Macmohan Line.
With the current attitude of the Indian Government of "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" we hardly are prepared for any massive offensive launched from our Eastern neighbour. Our Border Roads Organisation has been an utter disappointment in this regard, when even nearly 50 years after the Chinese last launched their offensive to claim their "Southern Tibet" i.e. our very own Arunachal Pradesh, what they have constructed are roads which can just accomodate foot soldiers. Thus, in this the IAF comes into play but the current squadron level strengths in the NE region is really a concern. What the IAF needs here is atleast 3-4 squadrons of the Sukhois on maximum alert basis, plus some additional squadrons of Mig-21 Bis, Mig-29SMTs as well as some Jaguars or Mirage-2000s for the strike role. This calls for additional airfields. These additional airfields will eventually help in the rapid deployment of the forces in case of a major war as these can perform as Forward Operating Bases for the Indian Army as well as the IAF. Plus there isnt enoughs SAMs to downplay any Chinese intrusion on the Indian Air Space. The SAM batteries needs to be rapidly deployed in various strategic locations. Delays in the Akash SAM programme has been a real concern. The government needs to deploy missile batteries as well along the LAC for use in a conventional role as it would significantly mulptiply the country's capabilities to strike military targets inside the Chinese territories.
In case of a two front war, the Indian Navy can play a significant role in chocking Pakistan's trade routes just like the '71 war as the Pakistani Navy is hardly a decent match for the Indian Navy. Thus the western side can be forced to prematurely withdraw from the aggresive stance to a defensive stance. But hoping that the US or in that case any of the world's major powers is going to help India in fighting off the Chinese is very wrong due to the fact that no one wants to risk another world war for this regional conflict. So we will have to hold our own in such a scenario with no outside help. For that case IAF needs to speed up the manufacturing lines of the Sukhois plus the MMRCA deal. The same applies to the Tejas induction and manufacture,leave alone the FGFA and the AMCA. The IAF needs atleast 45-50 squadrons to fight a two front war. Our various defence aquisations has been too long delayed for varied reasons (including high level corruption) and I just hope that we Indians dont have to pay the price for such discrepancies

well same thing i am thinking but fact is that no we cant face two front

we are lacking in numbers and quality

MMRCA, PAKFA, Mca will take at least 5-6 for induction and our lca2 will be also at least 3 yrs

 

[arya]

The two front war doctrine for the Indian Armed Forces is a gradual shift from the one on one posture. The IAF is acquiring new fighters for the effective implementation of this doctrine. But the present scenario is really disturbing. I am not saying that the Chinese is hell bent on going to war against us with the Pakistanis following suite but recent military exchanges between our two rival nations does send shivers down my spine. At present with only two squadrons of the SU-30MKI aircraft in the Northeast along with some Mig-21 FLs and Mig-27s. The IAF needs more aircraft in the region in order to fight off any misadventure from the Chinese side. The IAF can no doubt hold its own against the PAF. The inventory of fighters in the PAF is hardly any match for the IAF except the F-16s. Its the eastern side that gets me worried. With hardly any infrastructure near the Line of Actual Control, I doubt whether our armed forces will be able to withstand the Chinese. On the other hand, there has been massive infrastructural development on the other side which includes the two laning of highways leading right up to the Macmohan Line.
With the current attitude of the Indian Government of "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" we hardly are prepared for any massive offensive launched from our Eastern neighbour. Our Border Roads Organisation has been an utter disappointment in this regard, when even nearly 50 years after the Chinese last launched their offensive to claim their "Southern Tibet" i.e. our very own Arunachal Pradesh, what they have constructed are roads which can just accomodate foot soldiers. Thus, in this the IAF comes into play but the current squadron level strengths in the NE region is really a concern. What the IAF needs here is atleast 3-4 squadrons of the Sukhois on maximum alert basis, plus some additional squadrons of Mig-21 Bis, Mig-29SMTs as well as some Jaguars or Mirage-2000s for the strike role. This calls for additional airfields. These additional airfields will eventually help in the rapid deployment of the forces in case of a major war as these can perform as Forward Operating Bases for the Indian Army as well as the IAF. Plus there isnt enoughs SAMs to downplay any Chinese intrusion on the Indian Air Space. The SAM batteries needs to be rapidly deployed in various strategic locations. Delays in the Akash SAM programme has been a real concern. The government needs to deploy missile batteries as well along the LAC for use in a conventional role as it would significantly mulptiply the country's capabilities to strike military targets inside the Chinese territories.
In case of a two front war, the Indian Navy can play a significant role in chocking Pakistan's trade routes just like the '71 war as the Pakistani Navy is hardly a decent match for the Indian Navy. Thus the western side can be forced to prematurely withdraw from the aggresive stance to a defensive stance. But hoping that the US or in that case any of the world's major powers is going to help India in fighting off the Chinese is very wrong due to the fact that no one wants to risk another world war for this regional conflict. So we will have to hold our own in such a scenario with no outside help. For that case IAF needs to speed up the manufacturing lines of the Sukhois plus the MMRCA deal. The same applies to the Tejas induction and manufacture,leave alone the FGFA and the AMCA. The IAF needs atleast 45-50 squadrons to fight a two front war. Our various defence aquisations has been too long delayed for varied reasons (including high level corruption) and I just hope that we Indians dont have to pay the price for such discrepancies

well same thing i am thinking but fact is that no we cant face two front

we are lacking in numbers and quality

MMRCA, PAKFA, Mca will take at least 5-6 for induction and our lca2 will be also at least 3 yrs

 

[binayak95]

i was talking about in future when america would be out of Afghanistan. and what do u think then if such a scenario would occurs.wait and how are they going to threat us by positing sanctions nnaaaaaaaaah it wont work

I agree that Russia or more likely the US will intervene on India's side if China and India gear up for war, which whether u like it or not is happenig sooner or later. And why just US? There are many more countries which would love to take on China in a mass scale war. No one is Taiwan, Tibet and ofcourse Japan.

 

[Oracle]

I agree that Russia or more likely the US will intervene on India's side if China and India gear up for war, which whether u like it or not is happenig sooner or later. And why just US? There are many more countries which would love to take on China in a mass scale war. No one is Taiwan, Tibet and ofcourse Japan.

No one would be taking sides. India would have to fight her wars alone.

Foreign intervention is possible just before nukes are tossed, which are highly unlikely.

 

[binayak95]

No one would be taking sides. India would have to fight her wars alone.

Foreign intervention is possible just before nukes are tossed, which are highly unlikely.

With respect, I disagree. Current American military strategic dictates that the US will not engage China first. The US seeks opportunities int SE Asia where it could take on China.

Can anybody deny that even now RAW and CIA operate clandestinely inside China- a cooperation that has lasted since 1960s when U2s based at Charbatia airfield used fly over China to gather information on Chineese nuclear establishments?

 

[Oracle]

With respect, I disagree. Current American military strategic dictates that the US will not engage China first. The US seeks opportunities int SE Asia where it could take on China.

That opportunity would not come from India. India's immediate strategic goals are economy oriented. India will act only when a war is thrust upon her. That would be again a defensive move, not offensive.

Can anybody deny that even now RAW and CIA operate clandestinely inside China- a cooperation that has lasted since 1960s when U2s based at Charbatia airfield used fly over China to gather information on Chineese nuclear establishments?

That was the 60s mate, unless you are in knowledge of something we in here do not know.

Since I.K. Gujral's tenure, R&AW's ops have seen significant cuts.

Coming back to the topic - India cannot afford a two front war as of now. However capabilities would increase significantly from 2017-18 with the induction of modern military aircrafts. The IAF would then be a force, potent.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

With respect, I disagree. Current American military strategic dictates that the US will not engage China first. The US seeks opportunities int SE Asia where it could take on China.

Can anybody deny that even now RAW and CIA operate clandestinely inside China- a cooperation that has lasted since 1960s when U2s based at Charbatia airfield used fly over China to gather information on Chineese nuclear establishments?

There has also been joint US-India special forces exercises in states neighboring China.

U.S Special Forces to Hold Joint Exercises with Indian Army in Ladakh | India Defence
U.S Special Forces to Hold Joint Exercises with Indian Army in Ladakh

US special forces join Indians on Ladakh mountains
US special forces join Indians on Ladakh mountains

 

[Oracle]

There has also been joint US-India special forces exercises in states neighboring China.

U.S Special Forces to Hold Joint Exercises with Indian Army in Ladakh | India Defence
U.S Special Forces to Hold Joint Exercises with Indian Army in Ladakh

US special forces join Indians on Ladakh mountains
US special forces join Indians on Ladakh mountains

LF, apart from capability enhancement, this is also for domestic consumption as has to been seen as an engagement of two of the Worlds largest democracies. US would never side with India if India goes to war with China, nor would India if US goes to war with China.

Foreign policy dictations would never favour a conflict escalating, or getting nuked in return.

I would agree however that US is keenly interested in providing India with state of the art military equipments, as India is their only salvage against China in SE Asia.

 

[binayak95]

That opportunity would not come from India. India's immediate strategic goals are economy oriented. India will act only when a war is thrust upon her. That would be again a defensive move, not offensive.



That was the 60s mate, unless you are in knowledge of something we in here do not know.

Since I.K. Gujral's tenure, R&AW's ops have seen significant cuts.

Coming back to the topic - India cannot afford a two front war as of now. However capabilities would increase significantly from 2017-18 with the induction of modern military aircrafts. The IAF would then be a force, potent.

Hey I am not saying this with an assurance but someone I know high up in the IAF told me that CIA and RAW are real close and serious when it comes to China, even now

 

[LETHALFORCE]

LF, apart from capability enhancement, this is also for domestic consumption as has to been seen as an engagement of two of the Worlds largest democracies. US would never side with India if India goes to war with China, nor would India if US goes to war with China.

Foreign policy dictations would never favour a conflict escalating, or getting nuked in return.

I would agree however that US is keenly interested in providing India with state of the art military equipments, as India is their only salvage against China in SE Asia.

If India has a war with China other than a short border war it will almost always be as a part of an alliance.

 

[Oracle]

Hey I am not saying this with an assurance but someone I know high up in the IAF told me that CIA and RAW are real close and serious when it comes to China, even now

In here, arguments backed up with sources hold real. Everything else is a fanboy dream.

 

[Oracle]

If India has a war with China other than a short border war it will almost always be as a part of an alliance.

I don't understand why? Why would countries get involved?