Roop wrote:Ramana and others, I would be interested in what you think of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4sQ4npYDY
This is a YT link to a Paki TV show discussing these events (India-China clash in Ladakh). The fellow talking is Dr. Shahid Masood (SM), who I think is well-known to us BRFites. The thing is, unlike what Pakis usually do when discussing India (dismiss us with contempt and say China will kick our azzes and laugh about it) this guy sounds seriously panicked about what India is capable of doing to China in this theater of operations if war breaks out. His voice is screaming and hysterical in fear. And where does his sense of panic stem from, you ask? Well, he keeps referring to an analysis/assessment from Harvard University, written just a couple of months ago, about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Indian and Chinese orbats in theater.
I'm not exaggerating, SM's conclusion from this Harvard report is that India will absolutely
destroy PLA and PLAAF in Ladakh if war breaks out. The panic in his voice was quite delicious and amusing to me at first, but then I thought: What the hell!! Where is this guy getting all this? What is this mysterious Harvard report?
So here I am putting this matter under the scrutiny of the BRF brain trust. Is there anything to what SM says? Anything at all?
Everyone: Serious comments only, please. No dismissive one-liners, rhetorical questions, dhoti-shivering or chest-thumping triumphalism.
Roop garu, Pranams to you and all the gurus of the forum.
I have ruminated for a bit on the report you have mentioned and gave it a read and wish to share some thoughts regarding the same. I wish to divide my reply as per below classifications.
1.The report quoted above. Who are its authors and what are their motivations.? What is the point and ultimate outcome they envision and what recommendations, if any are they offering to GoI? ( I believe this is an important exercise. Listening to just the message without analysing the motivations, character, and precedent of the one carrying the message is a sure shot way to be manipulated and boxed in. This has always been our way. It is profoundly naïve to expect that the message delivered by the messenger is without motive and just a reporting of facts)
2.The Actual India-China Conventional Military comparisons and postures mentioned in the report. How accurate are they and What can be gleamed from them?
3.About your main question, Why is Paki Media going nuts and hysterical regarding the same? What goes of their father ?
4.What could be the thought process behind recent Chinese, behaviour and what can we gleam from the same, especially keeping prior history ( going back to Qing China) and RaviB garu’s Piskological analysis in mind ?
Please excuse in advance for the long post.
Surprisingly, despite the Media spin about the report, the reports main aim is not to determine the Conventional military postures of India and China and compare the two side by side. No. The main thrust of the Report is, unlike the traditional Wisdom in Policy circles, China doesn’t hold the conventional superiority over India. Quite the contrary, it is India that holds the conventional superiority against China. So, this being the case, India no longer needs to invest in its Nuclear capabilities to deter China. It already has enough deterrence capacity without increasing its nuclear capabilities.
My thoughts regarding the argument put forth by the two people who are the authors of the report is not to assume immediately that they are writing from a neutral perspective. ( A common failing especially for us gullible Indians, including me. )
Everyone has an angle to work on, and these worthies are no different. So, let us examine the motivations and thoughts of the authors in detail. ( I am by no means commenting on your thoughts and motivations, just the worthies who authored the report. There is no Blue on Blue here)
One of the authors, a Dr. Alexander K. Bollfrass, is and I quote
” is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich. He was previously a Stanton Nuclear Security postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center and an associate of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. Before earning a PhD in security studies from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, he was a nuclear weapons policy researcher at the Arms Control Association and Stimson Center.”
Ergo, the same breed as that Arms control Wank-er Crap-on, whose deepest desire is to see India Cap, Roll back and Eliminate its nuclear programme. That this is the motivation is apparent from the below quotes. ( Please note however, that this in no way invalidates their analysis of the India-China conventional military balance. Just that we will need to separate the wheat from the Chaff. I’ll be getting to that in a minute.)
I will quote the actual report and my reply below.
In page one, under the heading “Background”
“Based on our analysis of data on the location and capabilities of Indian and Chinese strategic forces and related military units, we conclude that this assessment of the balance of forces may be mistaken and a poor guide for Indian security and procurement policies. We recommend that instead of investing in new nuclear weapons platforms that our analysis suggests are not likely to be required to deter China, New Delhi should improve the survivability of its existing forces and
fill the gap in global arms control leadership with an initiative on restraint and transparency. 
“
Translation : We know that India has the ability to kick the bejesus out of China in any conventional fight. So, please recognise this fact and stop using China as an excuse to develop your nuclear capability, deliverability, ABM and other systems that can in the future threaten us too. In return, we will provide India with some sweet words and a high table in some meaningless and toothless chai-biskoot associations.
In Page 2.
“What does this data tell us? We assess that India has key under-appreciated conventional advantages that reduce its vulnerability to Chinese threats and attacks. India appears to have cause for greater confidence in its military position against China than is typically acknowledged in Indian debates, providing the country an opportunity for leadership in international efforts toward nuclear transparency and restraint.”
Translation : We beg you, please slow down in your testing and deployment of Nuclear deterrent. Its inconvenient for us and potentially threatening. Please go back to being the Bumbling, Bungling international punching bag you were before 2014. Pretty Please.
The knowledge level of these so called experts regarding the Indian Nuclear Programme can be aptly summarised in the below quote.
“Indian nuclear weapons stand ready for delivery by bombers and landbased missiles. As in China, nuclear warheads are held at separate locations from delivery vehicles in peacetime, although there are reports of pre-mating of some Indian missiles to warheads through canisterization. A nuclear strike order would be issued by the Political Council of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and executed through the NCA Executive Council and military Strategic Forces Command.”
Please refer to this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZpIrZvP0Co
This is the link to a talk by Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar,PVSM, AVSM who was Commander-in-chief of SFC, at the Lawrence Rivermore National Laboratories. It is from December 2014.
Please pay attention especially from 41:16 to 42:51 mins. (Although the whole video is a must watch for anybody wishing to understand the Indian Nuclear doctrine and posture.)
The Vice Admiral clearly mentions that the Mating system on the Indian Missiles is electronic. Thereby allowing to go from a very low readiness level to a very high readiness level very quickly. I hope this also puts paid to the arguments and discussions in the Deterrence thread regarding whether the Indian nuclear warheads are pre-mated with Launch platforms physically or held separate.
What is surprising about this is that this is not some super-secret talk that the Vice Admiral gave at an undisclosed location, It was a public talk given at one of the most high level nuclear think tanks in the US. In what would be considered their backyard. That these guys still speak of the physical separation of the Nuke warhead from Missiles, just points towards their lack of understanding, comprehension and most gallingly, not doing their homework.
My limited point here is that we need to be wary of Powers that are trying to run their own agenda, especially at a sensitive time like this and at the cost of India’s interests (like Jarita garu has mentioned.) These powers’ motivations could be to use India to subdue the Chinese using Conventional means while leaving its Nuclear punch underdeveloped, so that when ( NOT if) the focus of the West’s rivalry shifts to India,( after the Chinese are suitably subjugated) India will not have the ability to threaten their homelands.
They want to avoid the repeat of the mistake they made in allowing the Rise of China to oppose USSR. So, lets take the report, use to drive the point home towards the fact that we enjoy conventional edge in any confrontation with China, but not give it any more credence than that. I would trust Deans garu and RohitVats garu’s analysis anyday more than some two bit gora from Khanland.
Coming to the Conventional Military Postures mentioned, they are perhaps new to people who have not frequented BRF, but not to the people here. The Analysis of Deans garu has explained the military situation with far more clarity of thought than I can hope to. Shiv saar’s exemplary videos are a great resource to understand the terrain and infrastructure around the LAC. RohitVats garus seminal works regarding the same are also very well researched and presented. So I will not embarrass myself in this department by pretending to know more than I actually know and will be brief.
The conventional military balance tilts heavily in favour of India. In terms of Land forces, we have an advantage in terms of shorter supply lines, forward deployed and acclimatised troops, and a favourable numbers advantage, which requires the Chinese to deploy more troops than they hold in the entire Western Theatre Command, to get even a localised force advantage in Ladakh.
Our Formations tasked with Pakistan are different from our formations tasked with the Chinese. It is not appreciated how much of an advantage this is to us in terms of a two front war. We can deploy more forces in theatre than the Chinese and can overmatch anything they deploy, even in the Air Domain.
The part of our Air Force that is deployed against China is more than anything the Chinese have so far deployed and are able to deploy. The Chinese simply do not have the infrastructure in place to forward deploy a sizeable amount of air force to outnumber IAF. To further degrade the PLAAF ability to deploy air power against us is the altitude constraints they would face in terms of reduced fuel and payload capacity of all frontline fighters. They also have insufficient air to air refuelling capacity to meaningfully change the situation in their favour. (Their refuellers converted from Xian H-6 Bombers anyway suffer from a lack of transferable fuel to refuel, especially when compared to the Il-78. Please refer to Vivek Ahuja garu’s to seminal analysis regarding the same. )
So, in conclusion, India’s deployed forces to counter the PLA & PLAAF are already overmatching anything the Chinese deploy in the Theatre. This is all mind you, without having to retask any formation that is tasked with either the Pak Border or CI. This is not the same for the Chinese. To deploy a sizeable number of forces against IA in order to get a favourable ratio of attacker to defender, the Chinese will have to essentially empty ALL their forces in Xinjiang, Tibet ( Deployed to pacify the local population ) Border forces with Russian tasking, and a substantial drawdown and redeployment of forces from the Eastern Commands facing the Japanese, Taiwan, South Korea, and the US. This is not possible for the Chinese.
In order to overcome these challenges, the authors hypothesise that the PLA and PLAAF will go for missile strikes from stand off ranges against Indian Air bases to incapacitate the IAF’s ability to influence the land battle by interdicting supply lines running through the open terrain of Tibet.
This here is the most important part of this report, which should also answer our questions about the possibility of the Chinese utilizing their superior number of Rocket Forces to overwhelm the Indian Armed Forces.
“Recognizing this dilemma, instead of a regional aircraft offensive, Chinese strategic planners envision early long-range missile strikes against Indian air bases in the event of conflict. However, India benefits from the greater number and redundancy of regional air bases, and the daunting number of Chinese missiles that would be required to truly incapacitate relevant IAF forces. A former IAF official, referring to the high number of disparate targets per air base, the requirement for at least two missiles per target, and the ability of base officials to repave the blast crater with quick-drying concrete within six hours, has articulated the operational problem:
“To keep one airfield shut for 24 hours, the PLAAF will require 220 ballistic missiles. This will not make any difference to IAF Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 11 operations in the east or in the west since the IAF has a large number of other operational airfields to operate from. If the PLAAF attacks just three airfields, it will require 660 ballistic missiles per day for attacking the runway and taxi track alone. China’s stock of 1,000-1,200 MRBMs/SRBMs will be over in less than two days when attacking just three airfields, with no other major target systems like C2 centres or air defence units being addressed”
The report goes on to add that the above report was before the IAF incorporated Fibre Glass mats for runway replacement into its base defence systems, hence they expect the IAF’s ability to withstand the Chinese Long-range missile strikes is very robust, and has actually been gamed by IAF already. (Which should calm and soothe Jingo hearts substantially.
)
So, the Conventional military comparison of India and China at the LAC will lead to the conclusion that India vastly overmatches the Chinese in terms of Men, Material and Equipment. We can move supplies quickly and our supply routes are shorter. The operationalisation of the MSC (XVII Corps) as proven in the Exercise “Him Vijay” would indicate that the Indian Army is aware of its advantages and has already gamed the scenarios of use of the MSC in Offensive role to capture “Targets of Value” in Tibet. ( Chola saar will be happy
)
Now Coming to the Paki question. Why are the Pakis losing their minds? I don’t mean just Shahid Masood, who anyway is inconsequential, but the whole Pakjabi Civ-Mil establishment. The number of emergency meetings happening in Pakistan would indicate an extreme browning of pants in Pindi. Why is this so?
For a long time, despite their bravado, the Pakis have known that they can not beat India. Just not possible. So, they stuck to the MMS tested method of terror attacks. Except Modi did Surgical Strikes and Balakot. They know based on the “Qatal ki raat” that any further terror attacks on India will mean a total and very public pant uthrao for their entire Qaum and when that happens and if Pakfauj sits silent and accepts the punishment, then the entire Paki nation will want them dead. But if they retaliate, then India will whoop them again. So, what to do?
Enter the Great Yellow hope of the Pakis. PRC and PLA.
The thinking was, If India attacks Pakistan too severely, or goes “ too far”, then China will intervene on Pakistan’s behalf and threaten to cut off Ladakh, Occupy Leh and Arunachal Pradesh and India will have no option but to comply in the face of Superior Chinese Power. Their entire national insurance policy against an all-out Indian attack is that the Chinese will intervene because of Strategic partnership.
The events of June 15th, and afterwards have unnerved them deeply. If China cannot defeat India at the LAC, then how will it help Pakistan ? If the Conventional force balance tilts heavily in favour of India and in future Indians decide to attack Pakistan to punish it for another terror attack, How will China ensure Pak’s survival as a State?
Their entire premise of standing up to India by partnering with China is on shaky ground because of recent events. Pakistan has noticed that the Chinaman doesn’t want to fight India. Chinaman CANNOT fight India.
If that is the case, then who to turn to? Who will they sleep with now to balance India? And most importantly, Is China reliable?
As far as the Pakistanis observe, they are forced to answer that question with ‘No’.
Hence, the panic and hysteria.
Hope I got my point across.
I will continue my post regarding Chinese intentions in Part 2 since this post is becoming long as it is.
)
