Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 20:44

nukavarapu wrote:
2.) If Burma and BD have realized that India is already weakened considerable due to the war with Porkistan and in no position to challenge the domination of China in asia, would Burma and BD still challenge China's advances and welcome an invasion or side with China so that they do not risk any offensive from China against themselves?.

It's like this. If you had to break into a neighbor's house would you rather break down the door or would you choose to place a ladder, climb to a small ventilator in the attic, cut though steel bars protecting it and then break in?

The terrain though Myanmar is difficult and any Chinese invasion coming via Myanmar will be held up by geography and terrain itself. Forget this Myanmar thing. There are a few passes which the Chinese can use to attack India directly and they are better off using those than taking this insane route via Myanmar.

The next question is what do you mean by "India weakened by war with Pakistan"? Can you elaborate? Unless you or someone else cooks up some new scenario as to how this can happen - that is a loose and baseless assumption.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 20:49

nukavarapu wrote:
4.) If Indian leadership does think strategically, and decides and provides an assurance to Burma and BD about complete military support in case of an chinese invasion, would it be actually in a position to do so? If it still goes ahead, a weakened India with Burma and BD can put a combined offensive and restrict china? Especially when China is not waging any war and all its military assets are available for full fledged assault.

Saar please look at a map.

How would China invade Bangladesh? And why?

Why would China invade Myanmar?

What makes you think that China has no other military issues? Can you provide references for that?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 20:52

nukavarapu wrote: I am not trying to cook up any scenario. I was thinking in line of a nuclear war between us and porkis. They will be very much annihilated but I am not sure what effects it will leave on us. After confronting a nuclear war, I assume we will be Considerably weakened. If you have an argument that why we will have nuclear war to begin with, then I don't have an answer to it. Just an assumption that the neighbors to the west are way too trigger happy and they will use the nuclear option as soon as they get a chance.

Once we have had nuclear war with Pakistan, if China attacks we will nuke them with whatever we have left, and we will have some left in silos in the east, reserved especially for China. After a nuclear war has occurred it would be totally pointless to fight a conventional war with China. It would be silly of them to think they can get a walkover.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 22 Jun 2010 20:56

I guess when we compare China and Bakiland.. we have to remember that China would only want to check us and keep us under their thumb... with that respect they will even be happy to make us a kind off protectorate (dont shoot me) ... But Bakiland wud like to nuke us left,right,centre ... so thats the difference in attitude, threshold and aggression that we need to compare... in any case... we are facing a 0.5 front war in Kashmir ans 0.5 front thru Maoism... in a naked conflict I still think we would fight a 1.5 front war... it will take China some effort to supply Bakiland and they will only expend themselves so much to defeat us... and not annhilate us...

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 22 Jun 2010 20:59

nukavarapu wrote:
if by any case BD aligns with China as an ally, they cross over to BD from Burma and attack the WB border.

If everyone here is convinced that the invasion via Myanmar is a far cry, then I would be more than happy to accept that.

I would suggest that you start looking at google maps
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 36&t=p&z=7

Turn on the TERRAIN option and start working out your theories of the troops will move from China, to Burma and to BD to India. Let everyone know what kind of sensible resources you need to carry out that operaiton and how long you will take it.

The fallacies of your theories will stand out

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 21:00

nukavarapu wrote: If everyone here is convinced that the invasion via Myanmar is a far cry, then I would be more than happy to accept that.

Bangladesh is a swampy country full of rivers running through. It is a logistics nightmare. Invading India via Myanmar and Bangladesh is like passing one's right hand behind ones head to try and put food in the mouth from the left side.

Better to invade directly via existing routes. They can certainly do that and are likely to do that is they want to. But why they might want to do that and how they can build up the force levels to overwhelm India are two unanswered questions.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 22 Jun 2010 21:03

One of the question that has not been considered is "For how many days India can be fighting before we run out of ammunition".
Rumor is that PM Shastri agreed to ceasefire in 1965 when he was told (Wrongly though) that Indian forces were dangerously low on ammunition. Would that situation arise again if we are fighting 2 front war against China and Pakistan.I don't know.
But on the flip side, wouldn't Pakistan and China be worried about taking the war to logical conclusion within a given time frame before they too ran out of their bullets/missiles/SAM's etc. Anyways attacking forces need more of everything as compared to defensive formations.

On the leadership question, Do the countries that do business with us really envisage our leadership to be weak and spineless ? After all perception matters a lot when you plan for a war.
Just like posters here tend to think that all leaders in China are strategically smart, patriotic and aggressive, Op-eds in various newspapers and blogs across the globe present Indian leadership in the same light. No one has accused MMS of being a wimp , submissive or a weak PM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 21:03

nukavarapu wrote:What are the chances of Chinese bums being used by Porkis during the initial confrontation with us?

100%

All Porki bums are Chinese.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 22 Jun 2010 21:04

nukavarapu wrote:
if by any case BD aligns with China as an ally, they cross over to BD from Burma and attack the WB border.

If everyone here is convinced that the invasion via Myanmar is a far cry, then I would be more than happy to accept that.

If we assume that China-BD strike up a pact which lets BD keep some territory in Assam or WB ( since BD faces land flooding due to global warming and its huge population ) such a scenario is possible... it will take up some real commitment from China, but you never know in a future conflict such secret pacts can happen... they can occupy the small strip of land that connects us to NE and link up with BD and cut that part off India... share the spoils with BD and Myanmar and put us down...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 21:07

nukavarapu wrote:Taking an advantage of our weakened state, Chipanda may force us with a treaty. We avert an invasion but lose Arunachal.

Saar - I object to this statement. Do you mean China taking Arunachal is not an invasion? What is the difference between this and a leader who is a wimp/traitor? Why talk about others being weak - are your above words a typo or did you mean the post to be as stupid as it sounds.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 21:09

sawant wrote:
If we assume that China-BD strike up a pact which lets BD keep some territory in Assam or WB ( since BD faces land flooding due to global warming and its huge population ) such a scenario is possible... it will take up some real commitment from China, but you never know in a future conflict such secret pacts can happen... they can occupy the small strip of land that connects us to NE and link up with BD and cut that part off India... share the spoils with BD and Myanmar and put us down...

Excuse me saar. If Bangladesh starts sinking due to global warming do you think India will shoot them if they try to come across the border as refugees? Please think what we will do.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 22 Jun 2010 21:13

shiv wrote: Excuse me saar. If Bangladesh starts sinking due to global warming do you think India will shoot them if they try to come across the border as refugees? Please think what we will do.

Would BD prefer refugee status or an extra piece of land for future security... ? Would we overburden NE states with BD refugees ?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Jun 2010 21:14

sawant wrote: If we assume that China-BD strike up a pact which lets BD keep some territory in Assam or WB ( since BD faces land flooding due to global warming and its huge population ) such a scenario is possible... <snip><snip><snip><snip> share the spoils with BD and Myanmar and put us down...

Say BD gets some extra territory, do you think India will not go after that territory after the lost war?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2010 21:19

sawant wrote: Would BD prefer refugee status or an extra piece of land for future security... ? Would we overburden NE states with BD refugees ?

Off topic. Bangladesh refugees would be spread out over other parts of India in camps. And we could export them to Australia I guess.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 22 Jun 2010 21:20

SwamyG wrote: Say BD gets some extra territory, do you think India will not go after that territory after the lost war?

Yes.. ideally India would in a few years time... hopefully ... and I hope BD wud think that too

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Jun 2010 21:55

sawant wrote:
If we assume that China-BD strike up a pact which lets BD keep some territory in Assam or WB ( since BD faces land flooding due to global warming and its huge population ) such a scenario is possible... it will take up some real commitment from China, but you never know in a future conflict such secret pacts can happen... they can occupy the small strip of land that connects us to NE and link up with BD and cut that part off India... share the spoils with BD and Myanmar and put us down...

Finally, there is a post, with some sensible thoughts, if not legs. This scenario was explored by the US, during the hey days of the cold war. Only if BD/Myanmar were more capable, could this be envisaged but not without a full scale war with India. If one includes all the Bengali Dialects, WB + BD + NE, then you have a 60%+ majority region, with a common language. This region could become a viable state. In an all out two front war, with China's full participation to partition India along these lines, is something that can be imagined. But, then all sides should be ready to risk HUGE for India will not give this up, without a fight, including nuclear. If in the hey days of a severely weak India with PRC + US in the mix not willing/able to pull this off, the chances of this happening in today's nuclear India are near zero.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 22 Jun 2010 21:59

Guys let us stay on the topic.The thread is starting to look "Chinese invasion of asia and the effects of global warming".

Nuvkrapu ji.I understand your point.What you are stating is that China will be looking for uncoventional ways(including different routes for attacking india through other countries) to surprise India while it is fighting with pakistanis.

Now if that is the case then why limit them to burma and bangladesh.They can attack through nepal,sri lanka or even maldives.For defending Indo-nepal border we will need to deploy army in U.P.,Bihar and uttarakhand.For protecting an invasion through Sri Lanka we will need to deploy troops in Tamil Nadu.

By this measure will need some 2 to 3 million troops or otherwise we will end up stretching our current army which will ensure that we wouldn't even be able to defend ourselves on Indo-tibet border where combat is most likely to flare up.

It is not possible for any army to deploy each and every border.This is also indicative of a defensive mindset.The army should station itself where probability of war is highest and should be able to take initiative in case of war.Accordingly troops and firepower should be concentrated.There is no point in deploying 5 battalions here and 5 battalions there.

The idea being even if enemy does manage to spring a surprise on you and capture 50 sq miles of your territory you should be able to capture 500 sq miles of his territory.

Also if you want to counter any surprise the best way to do it is to enhance your intelligence collection and analysis.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Jun 2010 22:08

nukavarapu wrote: Just an assumption that the neighbors to the west are way too trigger happy and they will use the nuclear option as soon as they get a chance.

The assumption is invalid, due to the following reasons.

1. Indian non-proportionate response is a guarantee, which is likely, to leave the generals without a state. (In case you did not realize, TSP does not have an army, the army has a state).
2. It is a documented fact that that the generals in TSP enjoy a good life, like nowhere else and the entire system out there is milked by the boys with guns. They would not give that up too easily.
3. Open source indicators clearly indicate that TSP's nuclear option is reserved only for certain scenarios and even that is in doubt due to point 1
4. This doubt has precedence, for in EVERY war with India, TSP has chosen not to fight and escalate the issue to a point, where the livelihood of the Generals is threatened.
5. Do not believe the western folks, who are happy to portray the India-TSP scenario as a dangerous region, where folks are trigger happy to kill by the millions. Look at your own sources for information, read up on what the TSP generals say, on what Indian analysts and military men say. India-TSP wars, have one of the least casualty rates. There is a theory that BOTH really do not want to fight each other. But that is OT.

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 22 Jun 2010 22:56

nukavarapu wrote:I had done my scenarios with the Terrain option and could see road connectivity. Because of the terrain, the roads are via hilly ranges, that only increases the distance from point A to point B, but somehow I did not see why it is not possible. Maybe I missed something. I will rework on Google Maps.

okay now that you know how the road winds up and down and around,

do the following maths.
1. how many roads are there to support your axis of advance?
2. How many trucks do you need to transport and support a division worth of troops (10,000 soldiers). how many total troops do you wish to send to do an invasion of india via burma, bd etc
3. How long they will take to traverse a particular stretch of road - if they travel from A to B - what is the length of the convoy? what is the total time for this invasion force to come to india's door steps?
4. how many roads etc are there for them to simultaneously inject troops along their advance line - or do the troops have to walk?
5. during all this, how many aircraft do the chinese need to do top cover .

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Jun 2010 23:11

nukavarapu wrote:^^^ ShauryaT -- You mean to say that they keep on provoking us with Asymmetric warfare with a deep confidence that we would never retaliate? I certainly do not agree with your view. If If I go by your post, it seems that the paki jernails are uber confident that no matter what they do, we will never retaliate in full scale war. You mean to say that Kargil, Parliamentary attacks and Mumbai were exercised with a full confidence that we will never retaliate?

In fact the history has proven that they have tried not once but many times to get us into a full blown war situation but it never escalated for whatever reasons -- certainly not related to protect the comfort of jernails. My theory might be flawed but thinking that the porkis do not wish to go to war with us is being very naive.

Never is a strong word, like never say never.

If wishes were horses, they would get their 72 on a place called earth. Having a wish, is different from having a capability.

They do asymmetric warfare, precisely because, it is usually under a certain threshold. I am not justifying but stating a fact. 30,000+ killed so far and counting.

India has looked at a disproportionate response scenario a few times, but the risk/reward ratios have not been worth it. Either the risks have to go down or the rewards have to go up or both need to go up, but the rewards should be proportionately higher. With the current state of affairs and capability levels, the ratios are just not there to justify a massive traditional response. Hence the asymmetric warfare continue. Until, the Indian state figures a new way out.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 22 Jun 2010 23:12

My 2 cents.

I believe that there is a slight chance of India fighting a Chipanda-Porki combine. China has never actively intervened in any Indo-Pak war and that was when we had no nukes. For whatever reasons that might have held China back in our previous wars, today's India is a nuclear power & a military giant when it comes to conventional weaponry and this makes any participation by China a very risky affair with a fairly big chance of China being embarrassed & beaten back. My view is that China, for all its posturing and saber rattling, knows that attacking India offers no easy & quick gains. Unless their objectives are to win a few small border posts from where they can enjoy the view better & paint more rocks, it makes little sense for China to push India to a corner knowing very well that the reaction will be devastatingly fierce, all the claims of Indian leaders being weak notwithstanding.

Why will China risk attacking India when
a. it knows it will suffer massive losses
b. it knows grabbing a big chunk of territory will be extremely hard
c. it knows India is no pushover
d. attacking India invites greater influence of the US & Europe in the subcontinent
e. it could finally end up into a nuclear free-for-all with all their major cities in ruins, never mind what happens to India.

I am no expert but if I try to think on the behalf of the PLC Government, I'd be piss scared to push India to a wall where it could potentially invite nuclear retaliation while risking embarrassment in a conventional war even before that, leading to unrest at home & could even result in loosening of the Communist hold on China. I'd be happy to lead my lap dog, the Porkis to the butcher, hand him a few nukes, hoping he lobs a few into India and watch the fun sitting at the sidelines. Why to stain my clothes, no?

Imho, weak leaders or not, our small 25kt SDRE nukes are enough to scare Chipandas.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Jun 2010 23:34

Chandragupta wrote:My 2 cents.

China has never actively intervened in any Indo-Pak war and that was when we had no nukes.

Technically, in Kargil 1999, there was no intervention, even with nukes.

Why will CI'd be happy to lead my lap dog, the Porkis to the butcher, hand him a few nukes, hoping he lobs a few into India and watch the fun sitting at the sidelines. Why to stain my clothes, no?

Precisely what they are doing.

Imho, weak leaders or not, our small 25kt SDRE nukes are enough to scare Chipandas.

A whole other debate, and has a dedicated thread.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Jun 2010 02:30

nukavarapu wrote: Added Later

They already had their F-16s in air during IAFs operation in Kargil. They even locked on our Mirages. The only reason they did not fire because the Mirages were in our airspace and in our side of the border. If due to any reason, if the Mirages had crossed over, they would had definitely be shot at. If under this circumstances, if we had lost our Mirage to a F-16, would the situation stop from getting escalated to a full blown war? A full blown war was averted only because of restraint shown by India.

You are confusing my point on PRC with TSP actions. The issue is not about avoiding a war, it is about, what a war can achieve and at what costs and risks. BTW: Who do you think, were above our mirages?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Jun 2010 02:55

nukavarapu wrote:if they can pull it off, they have a whole country to rule with weekly bakshish from Chipanda masters.

The burden is on you to show how will they? Trust me, I have my pet scenarios also, which are equally foolish and wishful, but it works the other way around. Like recapturing Tibet and POK/NA. So, even I believe in a two front war!

In this scenario, we have magically been able to increase our defense budget to 4+% of our increasing GDP - for 20 years running, Have US and Russia both in our pocket, have 20+ mountain divisions, ability to air lift an entire division in one go, been able to use the mule tracks to cross the karakoram ranges and take advantage of Chinese internal turmoil to push the PLA out of Lhasa and have magically ensured that it will not escalate to a nuclear war. Wishful enough?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Jun 2010 04:21

Let us get back to the topic. I think we are beating Nukavarapu-garu's thoughts too much.

Why/How/When/If PRC attacks India is one question.

What/How/Where India draw its battle lines is another question. Here I am assuming that India is not initiating the war with China

{Is there any scenario where India would initiate a war with PRC?}

I would like to bring the focus on to India's defense preparedness.

What would India need to defend against PRC+TSP joint action:

Before 2012
India is a $1.3T economy with $25B defense budget.

- Limited AIIIs, Shauryas etc.,
- On naval front Arihant, Vikramaditya etc are not operationalized
- On Airforce front MRCA, LCA, PAKFA etc are not operationalized
- On BMD front PAD/AAD are not operationalized
- Brahmos is yet to reach it full production levels
- on Armed Forces front no significant air-lift/special-ops capacity exists. Yet to modernize to T-90/Arjun levels. Pinakas - started coming out. Lack of Bofors/Howitzer guns.
- Limted Akash missiles
- <2 Military satellites

Before 2015
India is a $1.5T economy with $35B defense budget

- Nuclear Forces - AIII, Shaurya in reasonable numbers
- On naval front Arihant, Vikramaditya are operationalized

- On Airforce front MRCA, LCA, started to join the forces in limited numbers.

No PAKFA
- On BMD front PAD/AAD are operationalized to some extent

- Brahmos reaches full production levels

- on Armed Forces front LIMITED air-lift/special-ops capacity exists. LIMITED T-90/Arjun levels. Good no. of Pinakas. limited supplies of Bofors/Howitzer guns.
- Good no.of Akash missiles
- <5 Military satellites

Before 2020
India is a $2T economy with $50B defense budget

- AIII, Shaurya in reasonable numbers

A IV is in pipeline.
- Brahmos & Nirbhay in pipeline
- Arihant I and II, Vikramaditya, IAC operationalized
- MRCA, LCA in good numbers (Total 200 Nos?), PAKFA initial batches
- PAD/AAD fully operationalized
- Brahmos reaches full production levels
- Brigade level Special Ops capacity
- Air Lifted machanized divisions
- Arjun/T-90 complete induction
- <10 Military satellites

Before 2030
India is a $4T economy with >$100B defense budget and all the goodies that come with it...
Assured membership in UNSC type organization

Before 2050
India is a $10-15T economy with >$250B defense budget and all the goodies that come with it...

Feel free to add...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Jun 2010 04:25

Contd...

Another dimension we may want to look at would be

- How public opinion changes during these periods.
- How our threats evolve (TSP may go down/stagnate; PRC will grow; BD Land may get desparate; Burma my realize its history; and so on)
- Technology trends (I would put it in 10/20 year Technology-Jumps. For example we may start seeing 6th Gen fighters in 2025 time frame. May start seeing UCAVs in late 2010s and so on)
- Indian Governance structure and external influences/strings etc.,

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jun 2010 05:30

RamaYa
By 2015 we will be way pass 2 Trillion mark.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 06:07

nukavarapu wrote: They already had their F-16s in air during IAFs operation in Kargil. They even locked on our Mirages. The only reason they did not fire because the Mirages were in our airspace and in our side of the border.

This story that came from Kaiser Tufail 10 years after Kargil tells an interesting sub story on this thread.

The earlier pages of this thread have been peppered with arguments (not by you) to show how Indian leadership is weak (Kargil was used as an example) and predictions of the future to say how Indian leaders will not use the weapons they have because they are scared/bribed/whatever. Pakistan on the other hand is said to be a country that will risk everything in an all out war, including nukes.

Then we get to this page and you are using an example of Kargil war where Pakistan did not even admit that its troops were fighting, did no send its air force even when the IAF was used and are you trying to argue that locking on to Indian MiGs from Pakistan and not firing missiles is some kind of great brave achievement? What a laugh!

It only proves that Pakis have weaknesses and fears. This F-16 story is one such (possibly cooked up in Pakistan to save exhandee) story to save face and do an equalequal with the Indian story of MiG 29s locking on to Paki F 16s that appeared in 1999. The IAF was already in the war, ready for the PAF to join. The PAF did not join. So what the hell does this storyreveal about the PAF? What is the point in saying they would have joined? Sound a bit like my aunt who might have been my uncle if only..

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jun 2010 06:17

>>>The PAF did not join. So what the hell does this storyreveal about the PAF?
A possibility that they did not want the war to escalate?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 06:26

Chandragupta wrote: I am no expert but if I try to think on the behalf of the PLC Government, I'd be piss scared to push India to a wall where it could potentially invite nuclear retaliation while risking embarrassment in a conventional war even before that, leading to unrest at home & could even result in loosening of the Communist hold on China. I'd be happy to lead my lap dog, the Porkis to the butcher, hand him a few nukes, hoping he lobs a few into India and watch the fun sitting at the sidelines. Why to stain my clothes, no?

Imho, weak leaders or not, our small 25kt SDRE nukes are enough to scare Chipandas.

I think this is a perfectly fair assessment and I have no quibbles.

Many people will see your viewpoint and my agreement with you as if we are both saying "China will not attack" and therefore we are traitors who are asleep and wearing blinkers to boot. Such an argument is only a rhetorical diversion of the discussion from the point I believe that you are trying to make, and I have also been trying to make - that is for the Chinese to attack there is likely to have to be some exceptional circumstance where the result of a direct war can be assessed to be more beneficial and rewarding than using their Pakistan whore to fight India in the name of Islam.

The easiest way to make those "special circumstances" come true is to make two assumptions
1) Pakistan starts a war and beats India.
2) India has weak leadership

Let me restate my question to those who support the above scenario:

"Exactly what kind of war started by Pakistan will stretch India so much and weaken India so much that the Chinese would want to attack opportunistically"

Could we have some details of how Pakistan could start such a war?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 06:53

nukavarapu wrote: how can PAF counter IAF directly on Indian side of the border? If they do that they risk losing face in front of International community and would not get any kind of International support for their actions. If Indian aircrafts would had entered pakistan airspace, PAF would had engaged IAF 100%.

So, if you remove the fog and look at the bald truth, Pakistani soldiers were being massacred on the Kargil heights by an Indian army, air force (and even navy) combine and the Pakistan Air Force did not join and hid behind a thin hijab of an excuse.

Now let me quote another statement you made

nukavarapu wrote:thinking that the porkis do not wish to go to war with us is being very naive.

The way to reconcile the two opposite types of behavior from porkis - one in which they provoke war and another in which they avoid full scale war is available in the reams of literature available about Pakistan.

1) The Pakistani army believes it must provoke war with India in order to justify its self proclaimed status of "Savior of Pakistan and Islam"

2) The Pakistan army's generals and senior officers will remain safely away from any war that might occur. If Pakistani forces are losing they will accept cease fire and declare victory. If Pakiostani forces win, it will not be because the jernails led them to victory

3) The Paki army leadership has openly gambled that if they can hold out for two weeks in a hot war - the UN will force a cease fire.

4) The Pakistan army leadership gambles that India wil not want to attack and occupy Pakjab because of the nuclear threat

5) The Pakistani army has gradually shifted and outsourced much of its active fighting work to irregular forces and jihadis who can be used against India to deniably cause pain while the Paki army itself can maintain its status in Pakistan

If this army, with its generals actually attacked India they would be defeated soon. If India attacked them, they threaten to nuke India. It is not weakness but it is perfectly sensible to not want to be nuked. That means that the Pakistani army is safe from attack from India, and as long as that army does not commit suicide in a disastrous direct war with India that army can survive in power forever.

This also means that despite many battle defeats the Pakistani army has made Pakistan "safe" from Indian invasion. India is rightly scared to invade Pakistan. But the Pakistani army is not going to invade India either because its policy is not to invite direct retaliation but to use jihadis against India. It is India's problem to punish Pakistan without invading Pakistan. To that extent the Pakistani army has already won its legitimacy.

But in no way does this mean that Pakistan can get India into a terrible battle that India starts losing so that China can invade.

In fact exactly the opposite has happened in Pakistan

The jihadis who are dying continuously while the porki army is sitting pretty is now up in arms against the Paki army. By various estimates between 80,000 and 140,000 porki troops (4 to 7 divisions) are currently holed up fighting the Taliban doing work for the US master.

Why do you think India waited till all this happened before raising ne wforces aganst China and Deepak Kapoor making his famous 2 front war statement. These things did not come out of thin air.

If we were prepared for a two front war in 2002 then any weakness of either party, either China or Pakistan makes us better prepared for a 2 front war. Pakistan's preoccupation with its internal war actually makes us stronger wrt to China. That is why Bharat Verma said China might want to fight a quick war - because according to him, after 2012 - Indian military economic development will remove the window of opportunity China has for war and any hope of quick gains.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jun 2010 07:50

FWIW, I do not buy Bharat Verma's idea of a "nervous China attacking India before 2012."

If indeed the Chinese economy begins to collapse, or the CPC runs into political trouble with its people, I don't think they will see any particular advantage to attacking India.

The CPC may well try to export trouble and throw their weight around, but if they do embark on a project of War as Political Theatre, they will stage it in areas where such a war would have resonance with the Chinese people. Otherwise what would be the point?

I can very well see a CPC on the political/economic backfoot wanting to raise hell and drum up nationalism. But the Chinese people, by and large, have no sense of historical animosity towards India. They are not like the Pakis who will instantly forget their internal differences because of their hatred for the SDRE kaffir. They would be much more readily stirred up by an attack on Western proxies... I would put my money on Taiwan as most likely, followed possibly by Japan or South Korea or even the Philippines.

An invasion of Taiwan would be bloody and expensive for the PLA, no doubt, but the reunification (and concomitant expurgation of a "US-sponsored proxy regime") would certainly consolidate the restive Chinese people under the CPC's banner. Compared to this, how much would the CPC gain by pouring the same amount of soldiers, blood and treasure into the Tawang defile, to fight a war whose outcome was by no means certain?

No... when staging a war of Political Theatre the Chinese will look east at their traditional, civilizational adversaries (and at the ultimate American adversary beyond the Pacific ocean.) Not at India.

In fact, if we wanted to make any moves on Tibet/Aksai Chin, that would be the time to do it

khan · Post by **khan** » 23 Jun 2010 08:02

Interesting discussion that is going nowhere.

A couple of observations
* The topic isn't about if Chi-Pak, it is about what we are to do when they attack.
* Those who know aren't talking and those who don't know are. This discussion would be more enlightening if the situations were reversed. I would be interested in a breakdown of sectors and strategies on how deal with the details of a military action (logistics/defense/offence). Unfortunately, there are very few people who seem to know off such things.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 08:08

Correction khangaru

What India will do when they attack has already been posted in detail in the initial pages of this thread.

We will lose. That has already been decided.

Either we have to discuss details of exactly how each battle will pan out before we lose or question the assumptions made about how we will lose.

A questioning of those assumptions is what is going on.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jun 2010 08:24

khan wrote:The topic isn't about if Chi-Pak, it is about what we are to do when they attack.

To my simple mind, it seems that the manner in which we respond will necessarily depend on the manner of the Chinese/Paki attack, and the manner of their attack will be entirely determined by the reasons, goals and objectives for their attack.

i.e. Without discussing if and why they attack, a discussion on what to do in response has no value.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 08:27

Rudradev wrote:
To my simple mind, it seems that the manner in which we respond will depend on the manner of the Chinese/Paki attack, and the manner of their attack will be entirely determined by the reasons, goals and objectives for their attack.

i.e. Without discussing if and why they attack, a discussion on what to do in response has no value.

This is a two sentence summary of what I have been trying to say in 50 less succinct posts.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jun 2010 08:29

Chandragupta wrote:
Imho, weak leaders or not, our small 25kt SDRE nukes are enough to scare Chipandas.

They are until they don't.

But then, the entire history of Indic civilization can be summed up in a precis of Famous Last Words.

skher · Post by **skher** » 24 Jun 2010 02:50

RamaY wrote:
{Is there any scenario where India would initiate a war with PRC?}
....

As a matter of fact,yes. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=760

The above thread started off jingoistically with discussion on pulling off a '71 on the "Roof of the World".However,the thread ended up with the healthy skepticism of our inability of pulling such a stunt and to what end.

This thread deals with our readiness/capability to fight a two front war. Either by us or upon us is for CNN/NDTV to decide.
Sorry to disappoint followers of Goebbels and Mussolini, but there has never been a valid "reason" to fight a war.
Yes, objectives are always delineated, as was attempted on this thread.

IMVVHO, the reasons are important for the context but not relevant on the mil forum.Also, reasons/context are pure speculation, ever changing.
Goals and objectives are far more tangible and can be extrapolated from the present timeline.

To illustrate,WWI was started with the "reason" to avenge the assassination of a neutral prince. But prized territorites and their
defence/capture were planned years before.Goals and objectives were known to all sides a good decade before, in the least.

skher · Post by **skher** » 24 Jun 2010 04:04

Summary

Goals For India
---------------------

Pak Theater

-Regain FANA and KKH.Get Yamri's approval.Else case closed siachen style.
-Bomb Muridke and related infra.Instigate "Kashmiriyat" within locals.
-Simultaneously connect KKH/FANA with Srinagar-Leh-Bilaspur.Create sustainable transport infra.
-Aksai Chin Captured.....used to ferry East Turkestan mercs.
-BSF/CRPF to hold out Western India with IN's support.

Himalayas Theater [2009-2020]

-Road/Rail infra destroyed "eye-opener" to be shut.
-Circular Road/Rail made including Tawang.
-Support migration of NE tribes into Nepal and Bangladesh.
-WB infra built to WWII levels.
-North Bengal(Darjeeling new subdivision) issue resolved.
-Capture Land upto Lhasa with multiple thrusts from all neighouring areas.
-Open camps all along border with SSB retasked.
-Central Tibet to re-issue visas to Indian citizens as well along with stapled certificate from PRC.Office close to Embassy.
-Airdrops along the Hump.NE troops used.
-Organize Tibetan resistance.Captured Naxals/Salwa SPOs train as well for stay behind ops.

#China Theater (AD 2012 PRC pov)

-Rule No. 1 never fight a war, always defend.
-Promise His Holiness Tibet SAR in exchange of his discreet support of "All under Heaven" policy, ie. "one China, Two Systems" in India.
-Economically undermine India and its allies at every fora and by lobbying for more dumping concessions.
-Agree to partially float the yuan to Unkil's satisfaction. Counteract by trebling counterfeiting of Dollars.Teach Unkil silence in exhange.

*Accuse India internationally of having supported Tibet all along and illustrate mil exercises with enemy navies as a example of hostility.Leverage accusation in exhange for opening all mountain passes on border and shredding the forbidden items list.

* 8888 style uprising.Aung Sang re-raised as Benazir type leader, who is surrounded by jernails in mufti to keep her in check. Get Unkil seal of approval in exchange for liberal currency reserve policies. Start big infra projects (rail/road linkup to Yunnan) in Aung Sang Sr.'s name and a student's movement.Amnesty/USAID/World Bank start projects in newest 'democracy'.

*= Flashpoint baits result in increased presence around NE region. Suspicious India matches force levels. False flag ops implicate IA under AFSPA of brutalities. Sustained kabbali style reprisal attacks from burma.Official Burmese assistance results in de facto occupation until armstice.

Burma's Tactical Gains?

-End of isolation.Recognition as transitioning democracy.
-Unkil's full support.Obama speaks of change and peace by removing boots on ground and greenbacks in the air.
-MNCs(Made iN China) like BP and Exxon revive oil projects.
-Pipeline projects connecting to Peking's network given.
-Burmese diaspora engaged.Issues sorted out.
-Indian Naval Blockade does not affect economy.Russian/CIS supplies and air routes supplant..
-Kachins given new sustainable target.
-Burmese Navy redoubles strength in equipment.
-Yangon now waits to move to the winning side, in case that be India.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Jun 2010 04:09

skher wrote: To illustrate,WWI was started with the "reason" to avenge the assassination of a neutral prince. But prized territorites and their
defence/capture were planned years before.Goals and objectives were known to all sides a good decade before, in the least.

I agree with this view that goals and objectives are known to all much before a war starts the "reason" is an emotional excuse. OT: Extrapolate the same ideas, for America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.