Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[darshhan]

9. So the against Porkis borders would be:
a.) Gujarat
b.) Rajasthan
c.) Punjab
d.) JK

against China
a.) Sikkim
b.) AP
c.) Nagaland [Myamar side]

While creating scenarios with regards to a military confrontation with China I have noticed a tendency amongst most of us.We behave as if we share borders with China only in Ladakh,sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh.We totally ignore Himachal pradesh and Uttaranchal.Any reasons for this.

I know Chinese have occupied aksai chin(part of ladakh) and they covet Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh.But they must be knowing that our defences will be strongest in the above three areas.Hence they have even more incentive for attacking Himachal pradesh and Uttaranchal.

If our defences in H.P. and Uttaranchal are not upto mark they are simply going to attack us here.Remember a chain is as strong as its weakest link.

Guys please shed some more light on this matter.Why do we assume that China is always going to attack us only in ladakh,sikkim or A.P. ?

[skher]

But in 21st century, India will have to take action in hours - not weeks - and that's where the challenge lies.

We do not have the all weather roads and high speed rail links required to ensure our reaction within months, let alone hours. Also in this scenario, the K-word again dominates us emotionally but some resources would be needed to leverage territory north of Tawang.

The simple point is this: Is our army in a position raise sufficient forces from within J,K and Ladakh for all of J&K, Cental airmobile forces for all of N.India and forces from the East for the North-East? That is the most urgent indigenization required.

Why do we assume that China is always going to attack us only in ladakh,sikkim or A.P. ?

This assumption is made such that the government wakes up to the fact these regions are still not nationally integrated, and feel unrewarded(esp. being rebellion free).Hence, the LTC to North East etc.


P.S.: Pargha saar, the entire point is not to prevent a conflict but to angry the Chinkis so bad that they are forced to admit their territorial ambitions (all the Tibetan Buddhist lands within India) in full public view. JMT.

[ParGha]

@ParGha:

Could you please provide any more information about the 2 front war incited by Mao in 1965? reply much appreciated..

Sorry, it is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's Mao which is my source. According to their research, he promised the Paks supporting intervention within days from start of conventional hostilities. It was driven by simple spite - he had been snubbed by Afrricans and Arabs in favor of USSR before his stopover in Pakistan, throwing a grenade onto worldstage seemed a good idea. Demarches were indeed received in India to quit certain posts in Ladhak, or face war. Indians played for time with conciliatory noises, while war raged in Western Front. Eventually the Paks ran out of ammo and sued for peace before the Chinese could complete their prewar motions. Most infuriatingly, for Mao, it was the Soviets who got to play the wise and restrained peacemaker. I can provide exact quotes and details tomorrow from the book.

[Rampy]

Rahul, if we don't know the WHY, we should also assume we don't know the WHAT and the HOW either. The WHAT may range anywhere from simply capturing and holding a few districts in J&K to going all the way to Delhi and Red Fort (a mountain cannot hold two tigers). You can only address what you can do about it.
.

I am not a Guru but IMO If we look at collaboration between Paki and Chini. I guess if China Wants to teach a lesson, it will ask Paki help and they will provide, but if Paki attacks and asks Chini help they may never get (e.g. kargil)
Now if we try and understand Why would China want a war and how far it wants to go, we can predict how far Paki will support them or what kind of help chini would like Paki to provide.
but one thing is sure, China will never want a full Nuclear war..

If above scenario is true than it will be short quick conventional war in east and non Convenational in west ( may be like kargil.. but with lot of Chini support)

[Brando]

While creating scenarios with regards to a military confrontation with China I have noticed a tendency amongst most of us.We behave as if we share borders with China only in Ladakh,sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh.We totally ignore Himachal pradesh and Uttaranchal.Any reasons for this.

While I don't know Chinese military doctrine or the true capability of the Chinese army with regards to India, I do know something of the terrain of Himachal and Uttaranchal and I can tell you, that in it would almost impossible, even for the engineering might of the Chinese to spearhead an attack through the lofty ranges of the Himalayas into Uttaranchal and Himachal. Where as the Ladhakh plateau and the low hills of Arunachal would be much better proposition strategically. Also, it would be almost impossible for the Chinese to maintain logistics through the heights of the Uttaranchal and Himachal for any length of time as they would be a perfect area for the Indian Army to fight a guerrilla war that would decimate any invaders.

But not to unduly discount the Chinese who may pull a Hannibal on India ( Hannibal the military genius from ancient Carthage who brought elephants over the Alps to attack the Romans in 220 BC), the Indian Army has formations in Uttaranchal like the Garhwal rifles and others that could beat back or at the very least hold the line in those ranges till sufficient artillery and reinforcements arrive to support them. Then, there is the proximity to Delhi that Himachal and Uttaranchal share giving them much greater support logistically and also from the Indian Air Force that could easily support them via the air. Also, compared to Ladhak and Arunachal, the Uttaranchal and Himachal regions have much better infrastructure as well a more patriotic civilian population.

IMO these factors discourage Himachal and Uttaranchal from being prime targets for any Chinese aggression.

[NRao]

I recall this topic discussed on BR about 10ish years ago.

The consensus then was that India could fight an offensive was against Pakistan and a defensive one against China and hold. The issue was how long could each participant go one for.

[shiv]

Excuse me folks. May I ask you to put on your thinking caps?

If a gang of thugs attacked your house and you only had a knife for protection, would you wait for them to first rape your wife and daughters and then kill your sons before you pulled out your knife? Would you, at the start of the attack start thinking philosophy and say "Maybe these guys ar only probing my defences. They will just try and humiliate me and go away. I can live with that" If you do that you are an idiot and deserve to be killed..

A combined and coordinated Pakistan China attack would deplete our forces rapidly to the extent that we would have to start thinking defeat or nuclear war.

This is where my analogy comes in. Should we wait till ours sons are murdered and wives raped before we pull out the knife? This is a no brainer. We have to threaten, and then use nuclear weapons early and not spend time doing "japa" like rishis imagining that an attacker is attacking for timepass or merely trying to punish us to gain echandee.

The only reason to be well prepared at the border areas is to have our people present on the spot to recognise an attack before or as soon as it comes and delay the attackers while we mate our nuclear warheads.

Every one of you knows that Pakistan is a threat. Everyone here knows that China is a bigger threat. How come everyone is talking conventional war? Has it been pre-decided that India has agreed to lose such a war? Wake up!! Such a combined war can have only one response - a nuclear response.

For chrissake - we are so sooo scathing of our leadership and call them weak and go rahrahrah behind Brahm Chellaney. But when we are faced with just talking about the scenario our own wishy-washiness of thought comes to the front and we don't talk about the simplest and most obvious response. Nuclear war.

China and Pakistan need to know that in order to do a combined attack on India they had better plan a nuclear attack right from the beginning. Losing such a war while we debate the philosophy of a Pakistan China attack cannot be an option.

[Brando]

^^ Agreed, nuclear war would be inevitable. Sadly, the Chinese do not believe the Indian political establishment has the temerity to "push the button" as it were. While the Pakistanis have repeatedly stated openly that they would empty their nuclear stockpile. A combined Pak and Chinese nuclear strike on India would make a second strike from India very difficult given the sheer missile superiority of the Chinese and the warhead glut. India currently lacks sufficient nuclear shelters and bunker space to engage in a post nuclear conflict. Also, India's inability to respond swiftly with a nuclear second strike and its lack of long range Missile launch and tracking due to the concentration on Pakistan has made it vulnerable to Chinese IRBM/ICBM and SLBM attack.

To make the Chinese aware of Indian leaders ability, India would have to drop its no-first use policy and second switch over from passive nuclear deterrence to active nuclear deterrence posture of standby "hot" warheads. Not to mention, build sufficient bunker and nuclear shelter capability to house sizable portions of military, scientific and industrial capability.

However, any such nuclear conflagration would rapidly involve the entire world as the fallout from such a nuclear conflict would be global and the Russians, Americans and Europeans would quickly band together to punish the aggressor/s.

[shiv]

Sadly, the Chinese do not believe the Indian political establishment has the temerity to "push the button"

Unless you can point a Chinese source this sentence needs to be corrected to "I believe that the Chinese do not believe the Indian political establishment has the temerity to "push the button"

I write this deliberately and yes there is piskology here. Maybe not you, but a lot of people who speak of Indian leaders weakness. It is called a cognitive trap. "I think like this therefore everyone else thinks like this"

"I think Indian leaders are weak, therefore I believe that the Chinese too think like me and believe that Indian leaders are weak."

[Gyle_S]

China and Pakistan need to know that in order to do a combined attack on India they had better plan a nuclear attack right from the beginning. Losing such a war while we debate the philosophy of a Pakistan China attack cannot be an option.

Shiv Saar
And how do you propose GOI advertise this after they publicized the No First Use policy?
Or do you think that China/Pak will nonetheless interpret India's No First Use Policy as 'nuke attack even for limited conventional war?'

[shiv]

Shiv Saar
And how do you propose GOI advertise this after they publicized the No First Use policy?
Or do you think that China/Pak will nonetheless interpret India's No First Use Policy as 'nuke attack even for limited conventional war?'

Why advertise? We (Indians) do not trust the Chinese or Pakistanis to tell the truth. But we trust Indians to tell the truth. This is another instance of a cognitive trap in which we say "Indians are telling the truth about NFU and the Pakis and Chinese too will believe that and will make their military doctrines based on an Indian promise that they won't use nukes first"

[shiv]

War is costly and dangerous business for anyone and in the absence of a clearly defined end point there can be utter disaster for the person who starts the war, despite the fact that he may have successfully hurt his adversary.

A) For Pakistan and China
Why would Pakistan start a war if they thought they could lose more than they gained?
Why would China start a war if they thought they could lose more than they gained?

Would Pakistan's gains in war be more than enough to compensate for losses?
Would China's gains in war be more than enough to compensate for losses?

For Pakistan and China to cooperate and start a war:
1) What's in it for China to cooperate with Pakistan? Could the war end up being Pakistan's gain, China's loss? Will Pakistan back out of a war when they have gained or lost something leaving China doing the fighting? What guarantees and agreements can be reached?

2) What's in it for Pakistan to cooperate with China? Could the war end up being China's gain, Pakistan''s loss? Will China back out of a war when they have gained or lost something leaving Pakistan doing the fighting? What guarantees and agreements can be reached?

B ) For India

As far as India is concerned, we will be under attack. None of the above calculations are known to us, but it is easy to surmise that in every case, both Pakistan and China will be looking for gains that are more than losses. That gives us the key to fighting such a war. India has to inflict upon both China and Pakistan losses that cannot be compensated by a border war. the simplest method for India to inflict such losses would be nuclear war. If we can quickly impose such losses by conventional war, I would like to hear what anyone knows about the topic. But there can be no buggering about fighting a prolonged two front war. Both Pakistan and China will have to be made to feel pain really fast and right under the asses of their leaders.

If India thinkers have not figured this out already, we do not deserve to exist as a nation.

[shiv]

@ParGha:

Could you please provide any more information about the 2 front war incited by Mao in 1965? reply much appreciated..

Here is some information from a booklet about the 1965 war printed in 1965. I have the whole booklet pdfed - maybe I will put it on rapidshare

Click on image

[Brando]

Sadly, the Chinese do not believe the Indian political establishment has the temerity to "push the button"

Unless you can point a Chinese source this sentence needs to be corrected to "I believe that the Chinese do not believe the Indian political establishment has the temerity to "push the button"

I write this deliberately and yes there is piskology here. Maybe not you, but a lot of people who speak of Indian leaders weakness. It is called a cognitive trap. "I think like this therefore everyone else thinks like this"

It's true that I think Indian politicians lack the moral capacity to send 1 billion people to war and live with the consequences but me and others who have reached this conclusion would not be alone in thinking so. Firstly, recent history of the sub-continent has shown India reluctant to engage in open war, be it Kargil or the Parliament attack or even 26/11 . Even American and Western analysts have come to same conclusions. (Link: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/gaug ... t-ii-india ). You can call it wisdom, cowardice, restraint, what ever but the reluctance to flex military might is definitely noticeable and has been observed both within and outside India.

While the Chinese are cautious of rocking their economic boat, they remain confident that things will go much like 1965 again in their favor. They have said as much in numerous articles in their English press.

[Manish_Sharma]

Isn't the 'why' OT for this thread. Should we not assume that a war has broken out on both the fronts of India already and then conventionally.

Doesn't matter why. It could be that an earthquake in in china makes a river disappear in the cracks of earth and for more water they need to divert Bramhaputra or anything, life is so unpredictable! And as this war 'has' to be fought 'cause due to each country's compulsion.

It may get otherway around that war starts with China and porkis join in.

But for this thread we should only discuss Mil capabilities/stock(weapons, vehicles and fuel)/infra/strategies.

[biswas]

[quote="NRao"]Follow on:

IS there a window for Pakistan AND China to execute such a two-front war?

I think so. And, that window is closing pretty fast. IMHO, a two-front war can occur in about the next 5ish years and will decline rapidly after 2015.[/quote]

Why this date? China is growing faster than us and at a bigger base too. There is obviously a window for Pakistan, but there is no window for China.

[shiv]

But for this thread we should only discuss Mil capabilities/stock(weapons, vehicles and fuel)/infra/strategies.

Why not nukes?

Are we setting up a story here?

First we say "never mind why a war starts."

Then we say let it be conventional war

The course of a war is intimately related to why it is started. And nukes are also a factor that can modify war.

In real life, when we cut out a lot of reality, we describe the attitude as "blinkered" which the Kannada knowing starter of the thread described as "kup munduk". We want a blinkered discussion that leaves out reality?

It is possible that some people have a penchant for discussing and pointing out situations in which India might lose - the rationale being that they are patriots and want India to be safe and prepared and want to continuously point out how we are weak and unprepared. Fine let that be. But what about the other side of the coin. Supposing India kicks Paki and China butt comprehensively in conventional war. Are we expecting that they will not use nukes?

Why then the allergy to discuss reality?

[shiv]

It's true that I think Indian politicians lack the moral capacity to send 1 billion people to war and live with the consequences but me and others who have reached this conclusion would not be alone in thinking so. Firstly, recent history of the sub-continent has shown India reluctant to engage in open war, be it Kargil or the Parliament attack or even 26/11 . Even American and Western analysts have come to same conclusions. (Link: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/gaug ... t-ii-india ). You can call it wisdom, cowardice, restraint, what ever but the reluctance to flex military might is definitely noticeable and has been observed both within and outside India.

While the Chinese are cautious of rocking their economic boat, they remain confident that things will go much like 1965 again in their favor. They have said as much in numerous articles in their English press.

But Brandoji just look at what you are doing. You are first reading Indian leaders minds and attributing weakness to Indian leaders and say that you are right because others say it. Then you are reading Chinese leaders minds and saying that they too accept this.

If this was a serious discussion I would dismiss such a statement as one which is highly debatable if not lacking in credibility. In fact if we actually believe what you are saying it would be extremely valuable intel information to trap the Chinese with appropriate misinformation. Similarly Chinese public information may be designed to convey a certain impression. At the very least your reading of Indian AND Chinese minds may be wrong. or else mind reading would be big business. But on BRF, for a highly biased discussion full of wild pre-conditions I am sure what you say should be able to fit in.

Secondly. The Chinese achieved nothing in 1965

[Manish_Sharma]

But for this thread we should only discuss Mil capabilities/stock(weapons, vehicles and fuel)/infra/strategies.

Why not nukes?

Are we expecting that they will not use nukes?

Why then the allergy to discuss reality?

Of course nukes too are going to be part of it, if you remember eversince you started the 'Deterrence' thread, I wanted to go beyond the Deterrence and discuss importance of 'nuking the the adversary to Pashan yug instead of Kansya yug'. If you remember you had pointed out "Manish I read your points but this is OT for Deterrence thread, If you will start a thread regarding this then we can discuss".

I didn't start the thread myself exactly due to reason you are pointing out for the starter of this thread. I felt I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to do that.

And yes what is wrong if some people are more focussed on discussing weakness of India and point out, you are free to point out capabilities/strengths of India to kick porki-panda butt.

Perhaps in deep unconcious they are waiting for someone to point out how wrong they are and thats why they point out or exaggerate the indian weakness.

[Gyle_S]

Why advertise? We (Indians) do not trust the Chinese or Pakistanis to tell the truth. But we trust Indians to tell the truth. This is another instance of a cognitive trap in which we say "Indians are telling the truth about NFU and the Pakis and Chinese too will believe that and will make their military doctrines based on an Indian promise that they won't use nukes first"

Shiv Saar,
There is no trap here. Military doctrines are probably based on precedents. India has not set aggressive precedents lately (Handling of Kargil, Parliament Attacks, Mumbai Attacks). Do you believe that China, if it so serves their needs, will hold back from limited area warfare with India after India's NFU and given the recent Indian response to misadventures by foreign elements.

On a different note, nukes are mostly good only as a deterrent. I can not comprehend of India-Pak-China post a nuclear war. Can anyone else? How many millions die, how many billions $ lost, how many decades back do we find ourselves? BTW the analogy that you gave earlier of a robber in house raping your mother daughter and you have a knife would you kill him is not appropriate. The real analogy would be if you had a bomb would you blow your wife daughter parents cousins family along with the robber.

By releasing NFU, India might have done a strategic mistake (maybe someone will enlighten what we gained). They need nukes to deter China and if we go against NFU when/if China achieves conventional superiority in a limited war (edited):
1) Our situation on international stage turns quite bleak.
2) China nonetheless nuke the bejesus out of us.

Bottom line, your argument of nuking everyone right from the start does not seem convincing enough.
Your argument that even after NFU and recent precedents by India, China would stop short of any misadventure also seem unsound to me. But again it is my opinion.

This is precisely the reason we should discuss conventional warfare too on two fronts although all three countries possess significant nukes.

[kgoan]

Shiv:

A beautiful series of posts.

Let me point out however the flaw in the thinking that prevents folks from grasping your point: There is no, not *one*, single piece of information on how India would fight a nuclear war.

Its impossible to blame the folks on the forum and, come to think of it, all our chattering classes when their standard refrain to Pakee/Chini bastadry is "but what to do, think nukes yaar, peace onlee is the solution".

Because the "kill them all by launching a nuke strike FIRST" is so completely outside Indian conceptual thought processes.

And it will remain so until *some* credible Indian source begins to discuss it openly, and throughly until it begins to percolate into the standard discourse.

And we all know that the only place that can discussion can start is BR. But BR doesn't want to be, as Ramana said, someone elses "bag-carriers".

Fair enough. The last episode of being someone elses bag carriers is now burned into everyones conciousness, n'est cest pas?

But since BR won't do it, and *No One* else in India can (at least no one with BRs street cred), and *NO ONE* with "real" credibility *EVER* will, thats that then.

Reality sux sometimes doesn't it?

[ashthor]

I dont know how many of us have visited Mt. Kailash and Manasarovar via lipulekh pass in Uttarakhand. One can view the road infrastructure. Lots of roads and bridges are being build.

There is a road right all the way right up to the pass @17,500 ft. A bus awaits for the pilgrims right at the bottom of the mountain. While on the indian side one has to trek 3 days to get to the pass.

They have the advantage of the terrain.

[Gyle_S]

I dont know how many of us have visited Mt. Kailash and Manasarovar via lipulekh pass in Uttarakhand. One can view the road infrastructure. Lots of roads and bridges are being build.

There is a road right all the way right up to the pass @17,500 ft. A bus awaits for the pilgrims right at the bottom of the mountain. While on the indian side one has to trek 3 days to get to the pass.

They have the advantage of the terrain.

I believe GOI deliberately did not develop NE road infra lest Chinks advance too far too fast for decades. May be the same logic here.

BTW is it possible for Chinks to force their way through Nepal if they so desire? They have G219 running parallel to Nepal border all the way. Are there any passes where Chinks might intrude directly to the plains of UP/Bihar?

G318 goes down to Kathmandu.

[Manish_Sharma]

Shiv:

A beautiful series of posts.

Let me point out however the flaw in the thinking that prevents folks from grasping your point: There is no, not *one*, single piece of information on how India would fight a nuclear war.

Its impossible to blame the folks on the forum and, come to think of it, all our chattering classes when their standard refrain to Pakee/Chini bastadry is "but what to do, think nukes yaar, peace onlee is the solution".

Because the "kill them all by launching a nuke strike FIRST" is so completely outside Indian conceptual thought processes.

And it will remain so until *some* credible Indian source begins to discuss it openly, and throughly until it begins to percolate into the standard discourse.

And we all know that the only place that can discussion can start is BR. But BR doesn't want to be, as Ramana said, someone elses "bag-carriers".

Fair enough. The last episode of being someone elses bag carriers is now burned into everyones conciousness, n'est cest pas?

But since BR won't do it, and *No One* else in India can (at least no one with BRs street cred), and *NO ONE* with "real" credibility *EVER* will, thats that then.

Reality sux sometimes doesn't it?

Exactly, if you will check out from the very first post of this page on deterrence thread:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=680

[ashthor]

They can roll down from lipulek pass....if they want to no doubt about that. Hardly any infrastructure till Dharchula

It is heard that the local ghodawalas are resisting the building of the roads as it will cut into their income of transporting pilgrims.

[ShauryaT]

Through the events of 1965, 67, 86, 99 - there was one key message that was sent out loudly, by the GOI, which our adversaries heard clearly. What is it? 1962, was the "lesson", not what the Chinese wanted to teach, but something, we did not take seriously before? Which, we should have learnt in 1948.

The message is loud and clear. The bottom line is the territorial integrity of India will be defended at all costs. The will to do so exists, the capability to do so, has been demonstrated. I see absolutely zero evidence that GoI will allow our ability to defend our borders to be degraded to force levels, which will allow our adversaries an easy ride, on this score. 1984, closed the only real strategic space that the Chinese, might have been interested in.

So, this debate should really not be a debate at all.

The question is, do we have an adversary or combined resources of adversaries, who have the will, capability and motive, to cross these red lines and hope to gain something meaningful, through a territorial incursion - I think not.

So, the debate really needs to move on to other areas, where the red lines are not exactly clear. The scenarios for them are many - but not traditional and I believe they are likely.

These may take shape in the form of economic competition for resources, proxy wars, non-conventional wars, control of sea lanes and other strategic assets in the region. Many of these will be cold wars, some can become hot. It is in these non-territorial areas, where there is a question on what the GoI may be willing and able to do? 71, is the only clear precedent. 2001/2002 was another lesson for India that, it is difficult to take a non-conventional war settled through conventional means, especially if the adversary is well prepared, against you and your own force levels are not to the mark, where you can overwhelm these adversaries, within meaningful and profitable time and space constraints.

It is in these areas, where I think the Chinese and even Pakistan are scoring over India and the Indian response, both in intent and ability has been insufficient leading to losses, both in blood and sweat - directly and indirectly.

The examples for these non-traditional areas are too many to list here and some may not even recognize them as losses.

[shiv]

I can not comprehend of India-Pak-China post a nuclear war. Can anyone else? How many millions die, how many billions $ lost, how many decades back do we find ourselves?

Better to start doing that right now. Scenarios exist and even I wrote a nuclear attack scenario on Pakistan - it exists on the deterrence thread.

Let me go completely off topic to explain how and why psychologists and psychiatrists figured out the way people think - because this is the method leaders and think tanks use to anticipate the other person's thinking. But it is not as intuitive as one may think.

While talking to patients (mostly normal people who might have had a bad experience), psychologists discovered that they were listening to detailed stories of events they (the psychologist) would reach conclusions that seemed quite obvious to them. But they were surprised to discover that the people they spoke to did not reach the same conclusions or have the same thoughts. The people, each with different experiences and perhaps different cultural backgrounds reached completely different conclusions from the psychologist. Psychologists then realised that they were making a serious mistake if they assumed that the other person had the same thoughts that the psychologist himself had and they called this a "cognitive trap" - a mistake that the psychologist himself (or any human) could make. That is the "trap"

Now how is a cognitive trap important in this discussion?

Notice that Brando has said that Indians in general are unwilling to fight.

kgoan has said "kill them all by launching a nuke strike FIRST" is so completely outside Indian conceptual thought processes."

And you have said:"I can not comprehend of India-Pak-China post a nuclear war. Can anyone else? How many millions die, how many billions $ lost, how many decades back do we find ourselves?"

We are all Indians and we seem to share similar thoughts about nuclear war.

But Assuming that the Chinese are similarly worried or reluctant to think about this is a serious mistake. The Chinese are a different culture and clearly (Mao's statement to Kissinger) Mao was willing to accept several hundred million deaths.

It is a cognitive trap to imagine that just because Indians are reluctant to contemplate or plan nuclear war, the Chinese will think like us and not plan such a war.

That is why we simply must set aside our inhibitions and talk about it. This is too vital a subject to be wishy washy. Nuclear war will be forced down our throats if we go about like this.

[shiv]

Here is a scenario I wrote about one Indian nuclear bomb on Rawalpindi/Islamabad
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 87#p767587

[SGupta]

China and Pakistan need to know that in order to do a combined attack on India they had better plan a nuclear attack right from the beginning. Losing such a war while we debate the philosophy of a Pakistan China attack cannot be an option.

Is there not a scenario planning group within the Indian forces or another think tank that should have planned for this? This is a question. Debates will occur with the political leadership but the generals, air marshals, and admirals of the Indian forces had better be very single minded.

One more opinion here and one I am likely get jumped on. India is not ready for a one front war let alone two, depleted squadron strength in the IAF, depleted artillery strength, subs that sit for repairs for 2-3x longer than they should, the list goes on ....

[ShauryaT]

One more opinion here and one I am likely get jumped on. India is not ready for a one front war let alone two, depleted squadron strength in the IAF, depleted artillery strength, subs that sit for repairs for 2-3x longer than they should, the list goes on ....

The opinion that India does not maintain enough force levels to wage an offensive war against even Pakistan exists in informed circles too, so no one should jump on you for stating this.

However, understand that all India seeks to do is defend herself in a two front war. A defensive position requires different levels of force than an offensive one. Are you saying with all our problems, India does not maintain such adequate defensive force levels. If so, will request you to back it up.

[shiv]

One more opinion here and one I am likely get jumped on. India is not ready for a one front war let alone two, depleted squadron strength in the IAF, depleted artillery strength, subs that sit for repairs for 2-3x longer than they should, the list goes on ....

This is a perfectly fair comment. But like the rest of this thread it is just one straw in the wind - an ad hoc point in a meandering and rudderless discussion among a group of people from a nation that just does not seem to pop up too many people who publish detailed and well researched open source studies of strategic issues.

And if a joint China Pak attack is not one such issue, I don't know what is.

On another note the Russian defence doctrine is based around disproportionate nuclear retaliation because they just do not have the population to defend their huge land. As long as you have that thought out - it is a perfectly good doctrine to have.

It is a fault in our thinking process that makes us feel that our military and civilian leaders are telling the truth when they say "No first use" or "Irrelevant borders" but feel they are lying when they talk about nuclear retaliation. The human mind will believe whatever it wants to believe based on its inherent biases, and that is why an ad hoc, poorly researched thread can be pointless at best and actually do more harm than good if allowed to go out of hand.

1) We must stick to reality in all its ramifications - from motivation and planning to execution of war and not leave out what is inconvenient, distasteful or horrifying
2) We must research and quote from authoritative texts so that we do not have to rely on personal biases to make a point (like "Islam is egalitarian, so caste cannot exist among Muslims")

[NRao]

They have the advantage of the terrain.

They also have the benefits of Newton's Laws.

[shiv]

The terrain in the Kargil area is apparently gentle sloes up to the heights from the Pakistai side, enabling Yaks etc to carry loads. On the Indian side it is sheer drops and cliff faces. Going up and stocking posts in Kargil is a different ball game from going up peaks in Arunachal or Himachal.

In those areas the Tibet side is in general over 10,000 feet at its lowest and remains that way for a thousand km. On the Indian side it rapidly drops to inhabitable levels

The following image shows that the Chinese side is all 10,000 to 15,000 feet. The Indian side is les than 3000 feet.

There is an inherent advantage for India here that we can use



The image below shows the sort of terrain the Chinese will be coming from

[SwamyG]

One more opinion here and one I am likely get jumped on. India is not ready for a one front war let alone two, depleted squadron strength in the IAF, depleted artillery strength, subs that sit for repairs for 2-3x longer than they should, the list goes on ....

Some of the obvious reasons are:
1) Owing to ideology & policies espoused by the Political party at the helm of affairs (OT for this thread)
2) Assurances:
2.1) Unkil assured India will not get into this position. Unkil could have assured of it arm-twisting Pakistan from ever participating in this scenario. If Pakistan did get away Unkil has a leash that allows Pakistan only some much room.
2.2) China has assured India that it will not go against India outright as long as India does not incite trouble in Tibet and agrees to play second fiddle to China's global ambition
2.3) Self-assurances from our armed forces on our capabilities.
3) Complacency, misread of reality- of this scenario from ever occurring.
4) Has already decided on exercising nuclear option. The leadership could have made up their mind over active deterrence instead of passive deterrence. This could have been possibly communicated to Pakistan, Unkil and China; or just lying to the public and other countries.
5) Corruption (OT for this thread)
6) Somebody is breaking up India having infiltrated Political and Armed Forces (or simple arm-twisting) (CT or not, it is OT)
6.1) Russia, America, France itiyadi all are happy to sell arms and ammunition, so I cannot think why any of these countries would work against the interest of their own Corporations & self-interest by not goading, cajoling, blackmailing India to arm itself to the teeth.

[ShauryaT]

The terrain in the Kargil area is apparently gentle sloes up to the heights from the Pakistai side, enabling Yaks etc to carry loads. On the Indian side it is sheer drops and cliff faces. Going up and stocking posts in Kargil is a different ball game from going up peaks in Arunachal or Himachal.

In those areas the Tibet side is in general over 10,000 feet at its lowest and remains that way for a thousand km. On the Indian side it rapidly drops to inhabitable levels

The following image shows that the Chinese side is all 10,000 to 15,000 feet. The Indian side is les than 3000 feet.

There is an inherent advantage for India here that we can use

One of the reasons, why these frequent media created threats in Tawang or Arunachal, should be discounted. Not only they are well defended, but we can protect them fairly well, due to the terrain advantage. Keeping an offensive Hun army in the region able to take on the Indian forces, will require us to be at the 1962 levels of preparedness (and worse) along with an incompetent military and political leadership, not able to defend our territory. No way there is any evidence of any such thing.

[RamaY]

My 2 paisa...

I am working on a model to study geopolitical strategies... an idea from that:

The Pak/PRC/US/UK/other nexus against India is not necessarily a zero-sum game, India included. I think India can play its positional strengths in a way that it can reduce the net-impact on its interests by a given competitive nexus.

In this model, the converging factors (w.r.t India) are layed out on one axis where as the diverging factors on the other axis. Each potential competitor is positioned on two-dimensional space given their threat/opportunity perception on India. The area of a nation's perception represent that nations relative strength to influence Indian interests one way or other (+ve/-ve).

The intersecting areas (Red circles) represent the level and depth of cooperation between these players in acting for/against Indian interests. India's bilateral relationships with these nations to be guided with a single purpose of pushing the perception levels in south-east direction (as presented in this picture). The more isolated the compititors' perceptions, the better for Indian Interests.

For example I drew a hypothetical perception matrix in this diagram. Here I tried to present Pakistan, UK, USA and PRC.



I am working on a score card for this model and appreciate feedback/inputs @ ramaydotbrf at guglemahasaya

[NRao]

RamaY,

You just may be interested in a book called: "Predictioneer's Game". Some aspects of this stuff has already been done, and, with very, very good success.

[RamaY]

RamaY,

You just may be interested in a book called: "Predictioneer's Game". Some aspects of this stuff has already been done, and, with very, very good success.

I have that book NRao garu and applied that model to a couple of current affairs. That model deals with individual issues/transactions. I am more interested in building the data repository and associated model to calculate the positions/values which will be input to such models...

Added later: That book gave lot of encouragement (validation of my earlier thoughts) and basic framework to expand my thoughts...

[darshhan]

Does anybody have any idea how many chinese troops would take part in their offensive from tibetan plateau along with the quantity and quality of their equipment.For eg.no of aircrafts,artillery etc. Anything that is present in open source or your own estimates

Then maybe we can workout how many indian troops would we require to counter the Chinese thrust and also the equipment which will be required.

Seperately we can work out the details for the pakistani operation as well.

Once we have requirements then we can see what is available as of now and what needs to be done.Also what we can do to mitigate the situation in short term.

[brihaspati]

Why actually fight where they expect India to fight? Why the need to sweat over how to match up to supply capacity of the Paki+Chinese on Kargil and AP? Will it not be much easier to penetrate further south into the thin Paki neck entering the Valley etc. Turn the two front war into a two front war for them too. Attack from southern sea-board and recognize the Balochs as an independent nation as you go up north, just hold on Kargil. Keep ready attack formation just south of the Islamabad access and wait until the southern front comes up. Hold the lines in the east only. Explore raising hell in the Myanmar-Kunming sector.