India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by Rudradev »

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ho ... tan-191577
There is another possible future for Afghanistan, and while not pretty, it is strategically far preferable for the United States: a military stalemate, in which the Taliban holds some of the country and the government while friendly militias hold another big chunk.
Michael O'Hanlon in the National Interest. Says essentially what I was arguing earlier. The US has abandoned its 2001-2020 nation-building game (perpetually on defensive, never having the initiative, and trapped in a situation where less than 100% success = failure).

Instead, the US is now playing a game of denial (their objective is not to control Afghanistan, but to deny control of Afghanistan to the Taliban or any power who backs it). The US faces a much lower cost of prosecuting the war and takes much less of a propaganda strike in case of any successes by the Taliban. Conversely, the Taliban is on the hook until it succeeds in capturing the whole (or almost the whole) of Afghanistan.

Now (in the war of perception, which is as important as the military conflict itself) the onus is squarely on the Taliban to gain control of the whole of Afghanistan. The US will deny it this victory using stand-off munitions and airstrikes to support the Taliban's opposition-- for now, that opposition is the ANG, but it need not always be. The approach is similar, for the moment, to the one Russia took when stabilizing the Assad regime in Syria. Don't try to liberate all of pre-2013 Syria but fight for a stalemate where the key centers of political legitimacy and economic power are perpetually denied to the Islamist insurgents.

This allows Kabila theory to be used in the opponents' favour. We had discussed this several years ago on BRF. The idea is that Kabilas (armed camps or organized militias) in the Islamic world need to maintain their supremacy and prestige with a continuous series of visible "wins", garnered at a high rate of success. From the Umayyad Caliphate to the present, a decline in the pace of wins, leading to stagnation, is the first step towards rapid decline and overthrow.

This was used in 1996 by the Pakistanis who created the Taliban to take advantage of a prolonged stalemate in Afghanistan and seize Kabul. After many years of continuous battle the earlier combatants (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Sibghatullah Mojadeddi, Ahmad Shah Massood etc.) had few gains to show for themselves. The very fact that Taliban were capable of winning some battles quickly, and dynamically changing the ground situation at a fast rate, made them appear unbeatable.

Of course at that time the Taliban were backed by not just Pakistan but Qatar, KSA, UAE, and tacitly the US (which was an unchallenged hyperpower back then). Now, it's mostly just Pakistan. China is trying to make some headway as a godfather of Taliban, but it remains to be seen how effective they will be... their hesitations, especially with regard to Xinjiang blowback, are considerable.

This can be viewed in contrast to the Kashmir situation. From 1990 to about 2003, Pakistan kept sending jihadis recruited from the international Islamist tanzeems to try and fight a jihad in Kashmir. They did a lot of harm and murdered many innocents, but in the end they were always killed without achieving any political goals. The Indian state never budged an inch.

After a long time of this, the "air goes out of the Kabila's tyres" so to speak. They need to push the long-drawn-out, inconclusive conflict onto the backburner and instead emphasize other conflicts where victories are easy, dramatic, and rapid (this is one reason why JeM, HuJI, and other Deobandi groups which were initially Kashmir-oriented shifted much of their focus to Afghanistan in the late '90s).

If a Kabila is seen to get stuck in a stalemate, it's in deep trouble-- other Kabilas seeking to oust it from the position of supremacy will take its place. That's why a Taliban incapable of taking over Afghanistan after the US withdrawal will find itself in an increasingly compromised position over time. They will have to take their jihad elsewhere to maintain their prestige with dramatic attacks and a quick pace of results. India has to ensure that the place they take it is KPK, Krrachi, and Baluchistan.

As for the territorial integrity of Afghanistan itself-- Biden has never been a champion of preserving that. Even as Obama's VP in 2008, he advocated for a partition between the Pashtun south and a remaining rump Afghanistan in the north. A consolidated Pashtun state may find it tough going to seize the north, especially if US B-52s and other national birds are slowing the pace of their conquests and increasing the costs. So they may well decide to look across the Durand line for a more politically expedient conquest.
Last edited by Rudradev on 12 Aug 2021 02:45, edited 3 times in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramana »

Thanks ldev for answering.
In old days our members could do independent research and analysis.
Nowadays need to be spoonfed.

Exercising with Russians means PLAGF needs to improve skills.
Also look at size of troops involved!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramana »

Folks while it's tempting please limit discussions here to Indo-Pak-China borders.
Or else it becomes just a Mil Forum Nukkad.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramana »

Will move them to Afghanistan thread
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by nandakumar »

ramana wrote:Thanks ldev for answering.
In old days our members could do independent research and analysis.
Nowadays need to be spoonfed.

Exercising with Russians means PLAGF needs to improve skills.
Also look at size of troops involved!
ramana
I accept your rebuke with all the humility at my command. In my defence I would only say that I seek only such information where I feel I lack the technical competence to find out for myself.
I would never dream of using the forum or the collective knowledge of its members as a sort of Jeeves to Bertie Wooster.
Idev thanks for the detailed explanation. I gets the picture.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by Pratyush »

Prem Kumar wrote:
The fish rots from the head. Small wonder then that when the U.S brokered a ceasefire deal with the Pakis, we nodded our heads vigorously. U.S gets to make a clean exit. China & Pak get their strategic depth.

What did we get??
I have been thinking about this for a few days.

My conclusion is that regardless of what India did. Post balakote the PRC would be coming at India regardless of what happened with TSP.

Because it ended the terror under the nuke threat paradigm for Pakistan.

The Indian ASAT test was a signal to PRC that our shield also has the potential of blinding you. Should you decide to intercede militarily in favour of TSP.

However, the repealing of 370 removed from PRC any option they had of letting things be.

Which brings us neatly to Galwan clashes. Along with the resulting stand-off.

This is the main reason why I believe that PRC will fight a limited was with India just before the onset of winter this year. I don't trust any withdrawal of PLA forces from the standoff position. They can return very quickly.

Now what does all this have to do with the quoted post.

Given the fact that India has always said that we are ready to deal with a two front war situation. This situation is not something that will worry any Indian decision maker. Or even the armed forces.

TSP had it's on reasons for a ceasefire one that is quite seperate from what the Americans might have put pressure on it to agree with.

It could be because of the poor material condition of the TSP military. Or it could be because of non existent economy and the consequent need to seek debt relief from the global lenders. In which case they had to show a ceasefire with India.

Something that the PRC will support for the time being.

The Americans regardless of the physical presence in Afghanistan over the last year had stopped being a factor some time ago. As far as strategic calculus in Islamabad and PRC are concerned WRT, Afghanistan.

Consequently the need to appease the Americans also doesn't exist between TSP and PRC. However, much the Americans would want to try and have a deal with these two.

Because, the PRC in return can simply demand giving up on India at minimum in terms of quad.

If the Americans give up on India in relation to the quad. The Americans can kiss good by any chance to ever compete with PRC in Asia.

A ceasefire on the LOC is a good thing from Indian POV as well. Because it enables the Indian army to refit itself without any major stress for the coming fight.

This is my take on the ceasefire at the LOC.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ArjunPandit »

Pratyush wrote: A ceasefire on the LOC is a good thing from Indian POV as well. Because it enables the Indian army to refit itself without any major stress for the coming fight.
well said pratyush ji...
An imp point that might get buried in your long detailed and informative post is teh above.
A deployment entails staying away from family in a stressful environment. Often in the calculus by outsiders that cost is ignored to avoid demoralizing the forces. However, that remains the reality. A fighting fit force is also psychologically fit as well. Kargil, Siachen are replete of such stories. The forces need to be rotated including vacations and festival seasons. So I dont think it is necessarily a bad decision. Wrt Paxtan we get stronger with every passing day with arrival of more rafales, likely more tejas, artillery guns and improving ammo situation (if problems are still left), improving air defence, and impending S400.
All these are important for fighting war.

Further, The changes in afghanistan have opened up so many possibilties. We have to remember that the raison de etre of Paxtan are
1. access to central asia
2. preventing soviet russia access to warm waters

2 is less relevant after FSU collapse and not happening anytime soon and 1 is seriously impeded by recent paki govt.

With all these china is throwing a spanner and had to come to protect its extortion schemes in pakistan. Remember it is in 10s of billions of dollars plus huge access to a market of 250 million for cheap low quality stuff that can not be exported to western countries going forward and will have to be taken away due to environmental and climate considerations in China or exports (coal plants).

Long story short, china's moves are contingent upon india's treatment of pakistan, especially POK. Earlier i was thinking that in the forum endgame of pakistan we will have to approach from PoK as we have more legitimacy there, but now it seems we will have to approach from Rajasthan in dismembering or the old dash to indus. While the original plan may have been to take back only PoK but i think now we will have to separate sindhudesh and balochistan.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shaun »

Can gents here kindly explain as I am very armature on this topic , why even though our claimed line is till finger 8 , how come chinese have motor able roads connecting Sirijap Complex with finger 4 ?? Traditionally how we used to do patrolling till finger 8 ??
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by LakshmanPST »

shaun wrote:Can gents here kindly explain as I am very armature on this topic , why even though our claimed line is till finger 8 , how come chinese have motor able roads connecting Sirijap Complex with finger 4 ?? Traditionally how we used to do patrolling till finger 8 ??
We have road upto Finger 4... At Finger 4, there is the edge of the adjacent cliff protruding into the lake... Only a small walkway exists...
We used to patrol upto Finger 8 by walk...
-
AFAIK, Chinese built the road from Sirijap to Finger 4 in 1999 during Kargil war time... I'm not sure whether we took up this issue with Chinese but the road stayed since then...
-
So, Finger 4 to 8 became a kind of grey zone where both sides send patrols...
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shaun »

It means , we used to patrol on the Chinese made motor able roads ??
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4570
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by arshyam »

^^ Yes.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramana »

Nandakumar, No offense ment.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by SSridhar »

In the Afghan scenario, which has a direct bearing on our security now, the lightning speed with which the Taliban are advancing towards Kabul is unsurprising.

More than the inept ANA, the fact is that warlords and their foot soldiers who outnumber the ANA are up for sale all the time. The collapse of resistance is therefore imminent and fast. When the US launched OEF, they bought over the warlords through generous dollops of dollars. PRC is doing the same now.

The undisputed fact is that the Taliban were created by PA/ISI and the US in 1994 and they took over Kabul in 1996. Soon thereafter, the Taliban acted as a host to the AQ virus that was transplanted into their petri dish by the Benazir government in 1998 at the behest of KSA and the US.

Once again, it is the US that has willy-nilly allowed the Taliban to regain control.

After the USSR and the USA (though they can claim that they both withdrew on their own volition), will it be the turn of China within a decade? Until then, we have to be extremely cautious about the evil axis of Af-Chin-Pak, especially so long as Xi rules.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shyamd »

Iran had a choice to resist taleban using their proxies. There was a huge debate in the inner circles for last 1-2 months which was split… intel chief wanted to resist others to do a deal... Supreme leader decided not to intervene against Taleban and impact is for all to see. They prefer the West out of the region (along with Russia and China).

Sun is setting for US domination of the Asian continent with all its resources… US was warned many times not to take on both Russia and China at same time.

Impact for India is that it stays boxed in… Russia and China will continue to pressure India. GOI vision is to become a SK or Japan deep down….
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by SSridhar »

With an implacable West and a 420B dollar BRI deal with China, Iran cannot afford to defy Chinese diktats, more so with China being the single largest contributor and the only hope of vaccines (10 million doses so far out of 14 million total) for a Corona that is ravaging through Iran (pop. 86 million)
Avik
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by Avik »

GOI vision is to become a SK or Japan deep down….
if we can become like Japan/S Korea with their per capita income multiplied by our population, the possibilities are quite a few...

shyamd: with all the attention on the northern part of the LAC, what is happening on the eastern front of the LAC?
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by S_Madhukar »

Avik wrote:
GOI vision is to become a SK or Japan deep down….
I would be super happy if we just focused on that next 20 years. Just do the basics and build an impregnable border to begin with! Connection to the world through economy and trade is good enough, we need not starve our kids to help out neighbours who spite us any way
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2510
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by Deans »

LakshmanPST wrote:
We have road upto Finger 4... At Finger 4, there is the edge of the adjacent cliff protruding into the lake... Only a small walkway exists...
We used to patrol upto Finger 8 by walk...
-
AFAIK, Chinese built the road from Sirijap to Finger 4 in 1999 during Kargil war time... I'm not sure whether we took up this issue with Chinese but the road stayed since then...
-
So, Finger 4 to 8 became a kind of grey zone where both sides send patrols...
Pre 1962, we occupied the area upto Sirjap, east of finger 8. We were pushed back to finger 1 and never bothered to press our claim. The area between finger 8 and 1 became a sort of no mans land, until 1999, when the Chinese started their road building, which more or less made the
area between 4 & 8 de-facto theirs.
It was only in 2017 that we had a motorable road upto finger 3 (not 4) and a camp at 3 and a stronger military presence in the area. Earlier, the road stopped about 10 km short (west) of finger 1. We had infrequent foot patrols. The Chinese patrols could have come upto finger 1 and we
would not have known. The building of the road and camp has solidified our claim upto finger 4.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shyamd »

Avik wrote: if we can become like Japan/S Korea with their per capita income multiplied by our population, the possibilities are quite a few...

shyamd: with all the attention on the northern part of the LAC, what is happening on the eastern front of the LAC?
Attention is only from media perspective. Armed forces and Nat Sec establishment are professionals and aren't distracted by what's in media.

From a threat perspective GOI is always on watch. View is similar to other parts of LAC... usual stuff like winter planning, recon, infra, R&AW/IB interviewing refugees from Tibet. etc. PLA is looking at expanding their infra footprint too. Often the view is PLA dominates the borders... GOI makes PLA sweat too if they want to - none of it makes it to the press...

The recent development is that Xi was in Tibet talking about consolidating border to integrate Tibet. He visited a town close to the border near Arunachal. They are giving subsidies for pro PLA tibetan tribes and Han's to settle close to border areas.
PLA and IA hotline to Sikkim has been set up...

Myanmar border is just as tense from a security perspective.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramdas »

@shyamd: When you say GoI vision is to be SK or Japan, do you mean GoI intends to let the nuclear deterrent atrophy and rely on the west for security ?
Instead, a policy of enhancing the nuclear deterrent, and securing borders while isolated would work well for GoI. GoI should discreetly signal a change from nuclear NFU as well. That would serve India well during its isolation. At the end of the day, a power with a credible nuclear deterrent cannot be pushed beyond a point. Sooner or later, contradictions would surface in the China Pak centric scheme of things. These would lead to opportunities to punish Pak.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shyamd »

I meant from an economic and mil technology perspective… India wants access to the best of western mil and non mil tech/capabilities yet make strides in building indigenous capacity.

Obviously India will never be exactly like Japan and SK but the leaders are aiming for something similar
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramdas »

shyamd wrote:I meant from an economic and mil technology perspective… India wants access to the best of western mil and non mil tech/capabilities yet make strides in building indigenous capacity.
Obviously India will never be exactly like Japan and SK but the leaders are aiming for something similar
If the similarity is as you have suggested in your first 2 sentences above, there is nothing wrong in that, so long as GoI does not go slow on enhancing the nuclear deterrent (looks like the current GoI will certainly not go slow on that front). That apart, it needs to be ensured that liberals are kept very far away from the corridors of power for the next several decades. Liberals are capable of capitulating from any position of strength. The current US humiliation (nothing stopped the US from indefinitely maintaining a low level presence that held the afghan state together) is an outcome of liberal policies...
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

shyamd wrote: Sun is setting for US domination of the Asian continent with all its resources… US was warned many times not to take on both Russia and China at same time.
China is a threat and the US is pivoting to meet it. The posture vis a vis Russia is inexplicable on the surface but if you notice, the posture has remained consistent from the 44th President. 45 tried to change the status quo but he was not in the know and was "tackled". 46 has made some non committal sounds and may change the posture if he is "allowed" to do so potentially based on "let bygones be bygones" if it appears that they have bitten off more than they chew by taking on the two countries together. But unlikely IMO.
Impact for India is that it stays boxed in… Russia and China will continue to pressure India. GOI vision is to become a SK or Japan deep down….
The impact on India is bad. With the western border secure Pakistan will turn back to India. The traditional discounting of Chinese air power vs India because of the altitude handicap for the PLAAF in Tibet can be overcome by basing in Pakistan. That can happen suddenly and without notice. I would also expect Pakistan in it's dogged pursuit of parity with India to get a nuclear powered submarine from China at some point in time.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramdas »

ldev wrote:I would also expect Pakistan in it's dogged pursuit of parity with India to get a nuclear powered submarine from China at some point in time.
Possible given China' s machinations. This is why India too should no longer be satisfied with minimum deterrence and embark on a nuclear buildup as far as numbers go that Pak can never match without bankrupting itself. The buildup should be towards a fully credible deterrent vis a vis China, giving India the ability to shift from the NFU stance. Such a buildup is also needed because the ongoing Chinese buildup is towards a massive arsenal capable of executing any nuclear strategy, incl. counterforce. So, India's arsenal should be able to survive such a potential attack and still fully obliterate 15-20 major cities. Hope GoI is cued to these developments and taking the necessary measures. The alternative, in the long run, is to surrender to the China Pak axis.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

ramdas wrote:
ldev wrote:I would also expect Pakistan in it's dogged pursuit of parity with India to get a nuclear powered submarine from China at some point in time.
Possible given China' s machinations. This is why India too should no longer be satisfied with minimum deterrence and embark on a nuclear buildup as far as numbers go that Pak can never match without bankrupting itself. The buildup should be towards a fully credible deterrent vis a vis China, giving India the ability to shift from the NFU stance. Such a buildup is also needed because the ongoing Chinese buildup is towards a massive arsenal capable of executing any nuclear strategy, incl. counterforce. So, India's arsenal should be able to survive such a potential attack and still fully obliterate 15-20 major cities. Hope GoI is cued to these developments and taking the necessary measures. The alternative, in the long run, is to surrender to the China Pak axis.
As you may be aware, China is building 2 separate missile silo fields of 100-125 missile silos each. That is 250 additional silos capable of housing ICBMs. According to the FAS article linked below, that means that China will have either a minimum of 415 or 875 warheads ICBM warheads depending on whether they MIRV their DF-41s. And of course they have the medium range DF-26 and DF-31 which can specifically target India.

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/07/ ... ilo-field/

On a side note, at a recent WH press conference there was a question about whether the US talks to India or considers India's nuclear forces in the context of QUAD. The response was interesting, I'm paraphrasing, " That while India is a valuable partner it is not a treaty ally and so we do not have these conversations"!!
yensoy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2494
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by yensoy »

ldev wrote:
shyamd wrote: Sun is setting for US domination of the Asian continent with all its resources… US was warned many times not to take on both Russia and China at same time.
China is a threat and the US is pivoting to meet it... But unlikely IMO.
Russia might only be for shadow boxing purposes. US can continue to hone its military machine giving Russia as an excuse when the real threat they are planning for is China; but it may not be wise to escalate the rhetoric against China currently (any more than it already has escalated).
I would also expect Pakistan in it's dogged pursuit of parity with India to get a nuclear powered submarine from China at some point in time.
Nuke sub costs a hell of a lot of money, new delivery systems and paraphernalia. Why do they need nuke subs when they have an overt first use stance? Besides Pak Army will never let the Navy wield so much power and budget.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

yensoy wrote: Nuke sub costs a hell of a lot of money, new delivery systems and paraphernalia. Why do they need nuke subs when they have an overt first use stance? Besides Pak Army will never let the Navy wield so much power and budget.
Pakistan will get a nuke sub when it suits China's strategic purpose to give it one.....to try and contain the Indian Navy, so funding will not be the issue. Left up to Pakistan, they will want one today. As far as inter service rivalry goes, that has been largely eliminated in the Pakistan armed forces after the formation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. The last major clash was during the induction of PNS Babur in the mid 1990s. The glue that holds it all together is the competition/rivalry with India.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by shyamd »

ldev wrote: China is a threat and the US is pivoting to meet it. The posture vis a vis Russia is inexplicable on the surface but if you notice, the posture has remained consistent from the 44th President. 45 tried to change the status quo but he was not in the know and was "tackled". 46 has made some non committal sounds and may change the posture if he is "allowed" to do so potentially based on "let bygones be bygones" if it appears that they have bitten off more than they chew by taking on the two countries together. But unlikely IMO.
Apparently the debate re: Russia has re-invigorated in the admin. The issue is at an institutional level on both sides and trust at leadership (Putin) level.
The impact on India is bad. With the western border secure Pakistan will turn back to India. The traditional discounting of Chinese air power vs India because of the altitude handicap for the PLAAF in Tibet can be overcome by basing in Pakistan. That can happen suddenly and without notice. I would also expect Pakistan in it's dogged pursuit of parity with India to get a nuclear powered submarine from China at some point in time.
Nat Sec planners in GOI are working on what happens next... Without a doubt there will be changes.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramdas »

@ldev: even the 415-875 count may be an underestimate. First, there is at least one other field being built up in addition to the two mentioned in the FAS report. Second, the DF-41 may have more MIRVs (6 ?). So China is sprinting to parity with the US/Russia, if not more. To maintain balance, a buildup is required on our side as well.

@shyamd: India needs to be strictly transactional in interactions with all powers and build up its own capabilities. The nuclear component is the most important of these. Hope GoI fully understands this and is in the process of acting on this.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

ramdas wrote:@ldev: even the 415-875 count may be an underestimate. First, there is at least one other field being built up in addition to the two mentioned in the FAS report. Second, the DF-41 may have more MIRVs (6 ?). So China is sprinting to parity with the US/Russia, if not more. To maintain balance, a buildup is required on our side as well.
The current START treaty extension between the US and Russia, recently extended, expires in 2026. The following is allowed in it:
700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);

800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
There is pressure from the US that China become part of the next round of START. And China wants to ensure that they are at parity or near parity with the other 2 in terms of deployed launchers/warheads before limits are placed on them should they enter into such a treaty. The 2-3 missile silo fields under construction will enable them to reach parity. Each field is about 800 square km so each silo will have to be targeted separately in a counter force strike which exponentially increases the number of warheads required. So India knows going forward what the road map is.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ramdas »

ldev: You have explained some factors motivating China's buildup well. The question is how India should react to it. Do nothing and trust that China's buildup is only targeted at the US ? In this case India is dependent on China's intentions. Those can change anytime, if they have'nt already. What is more likely is that China sees more use for its buildup than what you have mentioned. Coercing India to accept China-Pak hegemony is yet another application of the massive force China is building up, unless India also builds up prioritizing credibility over minimality. That is the correct option. "Way forward is clear" should not mean "status quo" as far as India's nuclear forces go.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by k prasad »

Maybe GoI can start to roll back on our unilateral assent to the one-china policy. One start might be using the terms "Indo-Tibetan border" and the "India-Xinjiang border". If asked, MEA can always say these are provinces under Chinese administrative control, and leave it at that. That language doesn't explicitly negate the one-china policy, but it doesn't confirm it either.

China clearly thinks it is winning the geopolitical game now that the Taliban is in Kabul, and, unlike last time, there doesn't seem to be a strong Northern Alliance as a bulwark. We need to keep geopoltical pressure on them through Tajikistan, pull closer to Iran (US policy be damned... honestly, the US should use India as a way to keep closer relations with Iran while maintaining official opposition), and ensure that the blowback of Taliban control doesn't fall hard on us. 20222 is going to be a difficult year, and we need to be at the top of our game if we are to ensure security.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by SSridhar »

More than inclusion of China in START, it is the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty (500-5500 km) where the US wants China to be included. The US is very vulnerable to this class of missiles and China has an abundance targetting vital US installations in the Western Pacific. IRBMs Like DF26 and MRBMs DF17 & DF21 variants pose the greatest threat to the US.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

Michael P Pregent
@MPPregent
Former Intel Officer | Politics, Terrorism, & Cowboys - over Scotch, Chess, & Guitar | Senior Fellow | Veteran of 3 Wars | H-MINUS | Born in NY - Raised in TX.
Washington, DChudson.org/experts/1076-m…Joined January 2013
2,443 Following
36.5K Followers
^^^^He served in Afghanistan in 2002-2003

And his tweets from earlier today are given below on why the US failed in Afghanistan
13h
We didn't fail in Afghanistan because we stayed for 20 years.

We failed because we fielded 20 different teams with 20 different strategies against a patient and strategic enemy.

An enemy that kept the same team in play and was allowed an offseason and training camp every year
13h
Replying to
@MPPregent
As soon as we allowed safehaven for the Taliban in Pakistan that first winter - we signaled that every year for the next 20 years the group could refit, retrain, & re-arm for the "Spring Offensive."

No insurgency can be defeated if it has a safehaven
.
Michael P Pregent
@MPPregent
·
13h
And when that safehaven is in the territory of an "ally", well, that's why we are where we are.
This is what serving US intelligence officers are saying, laying the blame for this debacle openly on the safe haven provided by Pakistan to the Taliban and the unwillingness of the political masters in DC to unleash the US armed forces to go after the Taliban in Pakistan.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

SSridhar wrote:More than inclusion of China in START, it is the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty (500-5500 km) where the US wants China to be included. The US is very vulnerable to this class of missiles and China has an abundance targetting vital US installations in the Western Pacific. IRBMs Like DF26 and MRBMs DF17 & DF21 variants pose the greatest threat to the US.
The US has withdrawn from the INF because of it's lack of delivery vehicles in the 500km to 5500 km range. Withdrawing from the INF means that in theory the US can deploy some of the stored ~5000 warheads from inventory and utilize them in the vehicles it is developing. But so far the vehicles being developed in this class such as the hypersonic AGM-183a do not appear to be designed for the nuke role.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by ldev »

ramdas wrote:ldev: You have explained some factors motivating China's buildup well. The question is how India should react to it. Do nothing and trust that China's buildup is only targeted at the US ? In this case India is dependent on China's intentions. Those can change anytime, if they have'nt already. What is more likely is that China sees more use for its buildup than what you have mentioned. Coercing India to accept China-Pak hegemony is yet another application of the massive force China is building up, unless India also builds up prioritizing credibility over minimality. That is the correct option. "Way forward is clear" should not mean "status quo" as far as India's nuclear forces go.
How many Agni 5s, some with 5 MIRV 200 kt warheads and how many Agni 5s with single warheads will be required for the following targets:

10 largest Chinese cities which account for 70% of China's GDP - 1 Agni 5 with 5 warheads per city, 200 kts, dispersed airburst - 10 missiles, 50 warheads

10 largest Chinese ports + 3 Gorges dam - same requirement as above - 10 missiles, 50 warheads

30 largest Chinese refineries - 200 kt Single Warhead - 30 missiles, 30 warheads,

30 largest power plants - 200 kt single warhead - 30 missiles, 30 warheads.

And these have to be missiles that have survived a first strike. So the total looks like 80 Agni 5s and 160 warheads of 200 kt. If this number has to definitely survive a first strike, gross it up by whatever your estimate is of the casualties on account of the first strike e.g. at a 50% rate, you need 160 Agni 5s and 320 warheads. And this is just for China. But this will deter China because after absorbing this, China will cease to be a modern economy.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by SSridhar »

ldev wrote:The US has withdrawn from the INF because of it's lack of delivery vehicles in the 500km to 5500 km range. Withdrawing from the INF means that in theory the US can deploy some of the stored ~5000 warheads from inventory and utilize them in the vehicles it is developing. But so far the vehicles being developed in this class such as the hypersonic AGM-183a do not appear to be designed for the nuke role.
I won't continue much on this issue because it may not be germane to this thread. The US is working on a variety of missiles like GLCM (Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles), Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) which have immediately benefitted from withdrawal from INF (range being increased from 499 to over 1000 Kms), and Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). The US study appears to suggest that a depth of 700 - 1500 Kms behind the Chinese enemy line needs to be targeted for blunting the Chinese A2/AD strategy and these types of assets would do that job. As part of this cornucopia is the Strategic Long Range Canon which can fire a shell to over 1000 Kms. Projects will linger until end of this decade though.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by rkhanna »

Rudradev wrote:https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ho ... tan-191577
There is another possible future for Afghanistan, and while not pretty, it is strategically far preferable for the United States: a military stalemate, in which the Taliban holds some of the country and the government while friendly militias hold another big chunk.
Michael O'Hanlon in the National Interest. Says essentially what I was arguing earlier. The US has abandoned its 2001-2020 nation-building game (perpetually on defensive, never having the initiative, and trapped in a situation where less than 100% success = failure).

Instead, the US is now playing a game of denial (their objective is not to control Afghanistan, but to deny control of Afghanistan to the Taliban or any power who backs it). The US faces a much lower cost of prosecuting the war and takes much less of a propaganda strike in case of any successes by the Taliban. Conversely, the Taliban is on the hook until it succeeds in capturing the whole (or almost the whole) of Afghanistan.

..........................As for the territorial integrity of Afghanistan itself-- Biden has never been a champion of preserving that. Even as Obama's VP in 2008, he advocated for a partition between the Pashtun south and a remaining rump Afghanistan in the north. A consolidated Pashtun state may find it tough going to seize the north, especially if US B-52s and other national birds are slowing the pace of their conquests and increasing the costs. So they may well decide to look across the Durand line for a more politically expedient conquest.

To add on to the gyan.

https://sofrep.com/news/the-us-didnt-le ... is-a-mess/

"There Are at Least Five Wars Going on in Afghanistan Right Now"

A war between ethnic groups, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek, and 30-some-odd smaller ethnic groups that join the larger factions just to survive.

There is a centuries-long war among the Pashtuns, especially the Ghilzai tribe versus Durrani. The Durrani tribe of Pashtuns has ruled the country pretty consistently since the 1740s with some interruptions by the Ghilzai. This was most notably during the period when the Soviets ran Afghanistan in the late 1970s to late 1980s and modernist factions within the Ghilzai and Tajiks adopted a weird hybrid of Islamist Communism.

The more religiously-minded Ghilzai led the Taliban (who also contained factions of Durrani-Pashtuns) and overthrew a Tajik government run by Mohammed Najibullah who was himself an Ahmadzai-Ghilzai tribe member. When the U.S., in turn, toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks in 2001, we somewhat put the Durranis back in charge, in the form of the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was a Tajik-led coalition of Hazara, Uzbek, and Pashtun-Durranis. Except that the current President of Afghanistan is an Ahmadzai-Ghilzai like Najibullah.

If this seems overly confusing, it is.

There is also a war between the more moderate urban Afghans versus the more strictly religious people living in the rural farming areas. The urbanities embraced officially atheist communism from the Soviets but had to season it with Islam in order to placate the more religiously conservative rural population. For a while, Afghanistan was an Islamist, secular communist state. The problem with a society trying to be Islamist and atheistic Communists at the same time should be obvious. The result was a civil war which resulted in the Soviet occupation of the country.

Then you have a proxy war going on between Pakistan and India. Both countries want to exploit Afghanistan for their own reasons. India sees a pro-Indian Afghanistan as enabling it to squeeze Pakistan from two directions. India gave aid to the Northern Alliance after the September 11th Attacks. On the other hand, the Taliban were supported by the Pakistanis.

Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a kind of redoubt to retreat into should the Indian army invade them. In the Afghan mountains, they could regroup and stage a counter-offensive. Pakistan also has a rather belligerent and large population of Pashtuns in its northern provinces that it has to keep placated. Pashtuns make up about 15 percent of Pakistan’s population. There are also 1.1 million refugees from Afghanistan in Pakistan; most of them are Pashtuns.

The Northern region of what is now Pakistan has served as a haven for Pashtuns fleeing ethnic violence for hundreds of years. Should Pakistan support any other ethnic faction in Afghanistan other than the Pashtuns, it might find itself fighting its own civil war. The current prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, is himself Pashtun. His family comes from a village called Qila Niazi in Gardez which is located 140 miles south of Kabul.

There is also a war against Iranian intervention. Iran is there because both the Pashtuns and Tajiks are Iranic peoples, speaking Farsi, sharing cultural and religious ties to Iran for over 1,000 years. Instability in Afghanistan causes tens of thousands of refugees to flood into Iran, which then has to feed and house them. Many are forcibly conscripted to go and fight in Syria and Yemen.

Finally, you have the U.S. war against the Taliban.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by Paul »

^This has been gleaned from Pashtun Civil war thread. All discussed in BRF a decade and a half ago.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020 - Part 2

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:
SSridhar wrote:More than inclusion of China in START, it is the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty (500-5500 km) where the US wants China to be included. The US is very vulnerable to this class of missiles and China has an abundance targetting vital US installations in the Western Pacific. IRBMs Like DF26 and MRBMs DF17 & DF21 variants pose the greatest threat to the US.
The US has withdrawn from the INF because of it's lack of delivery vehicles in the 500km to 5500 km range. Withdrawing from the INF means that in theory the US can deploy some of the stored ~5000 warheads from inventory and utilize them in the vehicles it is developing. But so far the vehicles being developed in this class such as the hypersonic AGM-183a do not appear to be designed for the nuke role.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2510219#p2510219
Post Reply