arshyam wrote:Too much Tom Clancy-ish thinking going around here. BRF is better than this.
1. How would US "supplies" help change the geographical challenges to maintain logistical support? Kindly explain.
2. Why would the US expend money and manpower to support our need for strategic depth? If they had a problem with China that requires military intervention, won't it be easier to use their navy on the eastern seaboard? Why would they choose this difficult route instead?
3. How well has "US supplies" helped its own troops to sustain in Afghanistan? Isn't Tibet an order-of-magnitude increase in difficulty?
4. If it were that easy to deal with China via the Himalaya and Tibet, why didn't the allies with all their resources at their command, attack Japanese positions in China from Arunachal? Why did they resort to, at best, sustenance-level of supplies to Chiang Kai-shek's troops over the hump? Getting Japan off China would have been worth the cost, wouldn't it?
5. Conversely, why did the Japanese choose to attack India via Myanmar and not China? India was the key to the allied effort in Asia (and Europe too, if food supplies were considered), and would have been a humongous strategic prize for the Japanese, not to mention Bose's attempt to throw the Britshits out of desh. It would have ended the allied effort in Asia in short order. Given these obvious benefits, why didn't they think about it?
Lastly, as a thought exercise, kindly do some research into what it takes to supply 1 of our brigades stationed in, say Lhasa, and share your findings. Routes (road + air), requirements for 1 brigade worth of troops, time taken for a single convoy, amount of material to be sent daily, ammunition, manpower to secure the route, etc. For this theoretical exercise, you can dismiss any Chinese challenge to this supply route.
So, you don't want to look into specifics. Oh-kay.
Sravan wrote:US maintains the biggest arms repository known to man. They can out manufacture and have huge reservoirs of ammunition and guns. Walmart can ship more weapons to their citizens vs our OFB companies to our military. If you are planning to fight a war of attrition, you want them on your side.
So now Walmart will handle our logistics? Will they do priority ground to, say, Shigatse? If they are really that good, why are the US forces still struggling so much in Afghanistan?
Sravan wrote:Regarding why they will help us. It is easier to hold Tibet from India vs from China. Tibet is naturally separated from China with climate. We simply need to offer them a logistics supply chain through India. US would be all over this to drive forward an attack without facing the full wrath of China’s military.
Yet again, why would the US want to hold Tibet? What's in it for them? And what makes you think the Chinese military, whatever its capability, will not attack a US thrust via Tibet?
Sravan wrote:Civilizations are naturally separated by Climate.
So it is your submission that Tibet and India share the same climate?
Sravan wrote: If we can create a supply chain to the alpine climate, then we can truly create a buffer between India and China.
This is exactly the million-dollar question I am asking you to think through. If it were that easy, why wasn't it done in the past? WWII was a great opportunity to attempt it, wasn't it? What happened then?
Sravan wrote:US benefits because the war would have a low human capital cost, a huge wealth of resources and future security around the water supply for its allies.
Fight the Chinese to a last Indian, I see. Definitely Tom Clancy.
Sravan wrote:If the US allied with France and defeated Britain, we can ally with the Quad and achieve the same.
Again and again you keep going on about this fantasy, not to mention the false equivalency between fighting for one's own homeland vs liberating someone else's - please share any indication that the Quad is some sort of military alliance? India herself has been quite clear that it is not a military pact, so why would US, Japan and Aus suddenly team up with us to counter China, putting their people and economies on the line? Do they have the same level of problems and imminent threats we have with the Chinese? Sure, as I said above, they'd be happy to fight the Chinese to the last Indian, but that again goes back to the question - what would be our objective? Please note that as a jingo, I too would love to fight the Chinese to the last American/Korean/Russian/whatever, but does that mean I could? Let's be real.
Saar, don't get me wrong, you have good imagination and write well. But it is too much for this thread to handle. I'd suggest the scenario thread. Thanks.