TonyMontana wrote:Do you want to know the real tragedy? I, as a Chinese, must defend against any threat against China. And I dare say that's the view of most Chinese. India's rise and/or her reactions to the CCP's action are contrary to Chinese interests. So it is my duty to work against India. Like the earlier example of German/French soldiers in the trenchs. We could've been the bestest friends. But alas, we stare at each other across no man's land. And when the order comes, we have to do our best to try to stick a bayonet in your gut. As you will to us. So where does that leave us? A vicious cycle of young men dying for the mistake of old men.
But that's the human story isn't it?
In fact wars are technically between leaders of nations, but the outcome of wars are dependent on the extent to which either leader/government can depend on his generals and soldiers to consider it their "duty" to fight a war.
This is where the US got it wrong in Vietnam and is still struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan people it was a more compelling duty to fight the Americans despite losses, poverty and destruction of the economy. For the US destruction of the economy acts as a brake to warfighting.
This is what prompted me to start the thread on "War for geopolitical gains". Powerful nations (Pakistan is also powerful) sometimes try to wage short sharp wars for quick gains, gambling that their economy will not be affected greatly while the military victory will have lasting benefit. Just like the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan tried this with India several times and failed and that failure ultimately reflected in the economy of Pakistan. China did it to India and succeeded at a time when China was still in turmoil but under a powerful leader.
The problem about war is that if calculations go awry the economy starts getting affected. And when the economy gets affected the people get affected. That is the real test of leadership. If the war can be kept going by inspiring the people that this is a just war that requires every citizen to do his duty. This puts the leadership under dual pressure, with the war on one side and the domestic fallout of the war at home. As long as the entire population is convinced that a just war is being fought the war can go on. But if the population are unconvinced about the need for war, it can go the wrong way for the leadership.
That means that no national leadership should start war lightly. In terms of India and China it means that China must assuredly punish India if India starts a war and India must assuredly punish China if China starts war. The leadership of each nation, who are a the position to start wars even for small gains should understand in no uncertain terms that war will mean punishment of the nation and economy causing the leadership real stress.
Peace can be maintained if this understanding is reached on both sides. But if one nation starts acting like it is ready to start war it can mean one of several things:
1) The national leadership is posturing because the leadership sees a threat from the other side.
2) The leadership of one side believes an adversary is weak and can be taken advantage of militarily.
3) The leadership of one nation believes that it can browbeat and intimidate the other nation's leadership.
In all cases the response is a credible military build up. So there will be peace between India and China as long as each side's appreciates the other's ability to do damage. In the long term history will continue. There will be great relations between India and China. As long as the political leadership to not "misunderstimate"
the other side's ability to make trouble.