Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[ShauryaT]

SKher: I am still not clear, maybe I am dense. Hope others understand your post and shed some clarity.

[VikB]

Kher sahab, that post of yours did a fly-past over my head. Bhat is the point?

[VikB]

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

2. It is a documented fact that that the generals in TSP enjoy a good life, like nowhere else and the entire system out there is milked by the boys with guns. They would not give that up too easily.
3. Open source indicators clearly indicate that TSP's nuclear option is reserved only for certain scenarios and even that is in doubt due to point 1
4. This doubt has precedence, for in EVERY war with India, TSP has chosen not to fight and escalate the issue to a point, where the livelihood of the Generals is threatened.
5. Do not believe the western folks, who are happy to portray the India-TSP scenario as a dangerous region, ..... But that is OT.

Shaurya ji, awesome post. Thanks for the insight. Puts lot of things in the perspective.

Nukapuravu - the four side scenario is a good thought. Dont stop that. We are not here to only discuss what is already thought of - a two side war. Given the Chini mind, it would surely know the futility of getting directly involved in confrontation but may get encouraged with possibility of multiple thrusts. Plus it takes rather a short time from things becoming the current - ok types to bad on the BD and Thighland front.

[bhavik]

Rightly Said. China will not attack first. It has no reasons except border disputes, which currently cannot form the basis for a all out war.

Instead, chinis would instigate our trigger happy pig headed western neighbours with
- Nuclear Plants,
- Missiles
- Fighters
- Naval Crafts
and other arsenal ...

Unkill would just keep mum untill it declares pre decided victory in July 2011 in afpak and returns.

And when there is a war china would like to assist pak in all possible ways taking high moral and humanitarian ground invoking long standing friendship with ppl of pakistan.

In some way I feel
I think it is good for india if unkill returns from afpak .. then
1. it would not have any dependence on pakistan
2. india would have some comfort to make precision strikes without affecting unkills supply routes ..

question to my mind is
- will pakistan escalate terror to a point where india has to take action?
- will it result in all out war ?

[ShauryaT]

question to my mind is
- will pakistan escalate terror to a point where india has to take action?
- will it result in all out war ?

The generals will do what is necessary to sustain their power. Today, it is milking the Americans, at the cost of the Pashtuns.

For India to take decisive meaningful action, that can result in medium-long term benefits, she has to do many things. The more we react in a knee jerk fashion in response to some terror attack, the lower our benefits and higher are the risks. We need a counter insurgency strategy in place, that take s the war inside the enemy's house, without a massive conventional strike. Also, at the same time, build decisive capacities for a conventional strike, to overwhelm the enemy in a meaningful space and time.

[skher]

SKher: I am still not clear, maybe I am dense. Hope others understand your post and shed some clarity.

Kher sahab, that post of yours did a fly-past over my head. Bhat is the point?

This must be with regard to my last post.The point was to attempt a summary of the discussion thus far.
But if I explain my thoughts on the last post in detail right now, I am afraid I shall derail the thread beyond repair.

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

My previous post was a mish mash of probable goals and objectives for India (FANA/NEFA Himalayas) and China.

The events in asterisk denoted what imo can be percieved as the triggers for war-like reactions from our side.

The "China Theater" section dealt with the things that the Chinese might attempt in order to provoke action from our side.Indirect proxies like Burmese rebels are likely to be used.Direct action would involve diplomatic and economic pressure.

- Whats in it for Burma? What does it risk and what are the gains for that risk?

In exchange,Burma gets American support(Oil/pipeline contracts) and recognition as a Pakistani league democracy in 2012.


P.S.:Sincere apologies to admins for the c**** remark,shall not be repeated in full.

[DavidD]

Hello, first, allow me to introduce myself. I am a Chinese who immigrated to the U.S. right before my teenage years, and I consider myself fairly well tuned to both the Chinese and American cultures. I'd like to offer some different perspectives. In a war, it's important to understand your enemies as well as you do yourself(Suntzu's Art of War), but I see relatively little accurate discussion regarding Chinese intentions and capabilities, so I'd like to offer my opinions in these areas.

First, China won't start this war. The best way to win a war is to do so without firing a bullet, and the Chinese will try everything to achieve their objectives without fighting. I read some pages of the War in Tibet thread linked on this page, and I was honestly shocked to find out that many on this board thought China would initiate something post-Olympics. That's simply ridiculous. BY FAR the preferred route China wishes to take is to grow a gigantic economy that dwarfs every other nation on earth so that they will have little choice but to comply with Chinese demands without the use of force. With that in mind, preserving stability while China grows to that status is of paramount importance. The only way China would go to war with anybody, Taiwan and India included, is if another country threatens to derail such a process through the use of force--e.g. an Indian or American naval blockade.

Secondly, in a war, quantity matters. A recent RAND report states that on the VERY FIRST DAY of war across the Taiwan strait, a combined ~400 aircrafts will be lost on both sides(241 Chinese, 147 American/Taiwanese). That's assuming kill ratios of 27:1 for the F-22, 4.5:1 for the F-15, and 2.6:1 for the F/A-18E/F(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -taiw.html). It is extremely unlikely that India will enjoy similar kill ratio advantages given its relatively less advanced(compared to the U.S.) fighters and SAM installations, so you can expect losses to be fairly close to 50:50. Thus, assuming that an aerial war of similar intensity(we are, after all, talking about a fairly short but fairly intense regional conflict, right?), both countries' aircraft stocks will be depleted rather quickly. After that, it will depend on each country's abilities to replace the lost assets.

With that said, how quickly can India replace its lost assets, and at what price vis-a-vis China? I feel like this is a VERY important part of the analysis that many have neglected to touch. It won't take but a week before peace-time stocks for both countries are exhausted or at least severely strained, and everything will need to be replenished. The toughest to replace will of course be the fighter planes(assuming a relatively light naval war, as I don't think either side is stupid enough to fight in seas in the other country's backyard any time soon), due to their relatively long times required for construction and their prices. China will most certainly rely almost exclusively on indigenous products, and with the recent induction of the WS-10A turbofan engines, they can produce its frontline fighters(the J-10s and J-11s) with 100% indigenous components. And believe me, with China's industrial and manufacturing base, they will be able to churn them out pretty quickly especially if they had time to prepare prior to the war.

Now, what will India do? How quickly can India manufacture MKI's, LCA's, and other aircrafts vis-a-vis China? How quickly can India purchase additional aircrafts from abroad? China will obviously apply severe pressure on any country that tries to sell India weapons, and given the fact that China's trading with Russia, Europe, and the U.S. dwarfs that of India's, they will undoubtedly have significant clout. You also have to keep in mind the fact that weapons manufacturers would love to make a killing selling weapons to India, and given India's need, they'll be able to essentially set any price they want. Heck, they won't hesitate(and they haven't in the past) to conduct war-profiteering using their own countries, it's unlikely that they'll cut India a break. The state-owned Chinese arms companies, on the other hand, might have more difficulty attempting such strategies.

In the end, I believe that neither side has enough to gain to start a war, and the terrain along the border and the current preparedness of both sides essentially preclude any sort of quick and DECISIVE conflict. If India and China go to war in the near future, the only beneficiaries will be Russia and the West. Thus, it is in both country's interest to avoid a conflict, but instead focusing on cooperative growth to the point where the two countries' economies are so intertwined that any war talk is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. By then, global power will have almost certainly shifted to Asia, centering around the two Asian giants. Although two powers will most likely clash eventually, as power is a zero-sum game, it will then be mostly a war of policies and economies rather than of missiles and bullets.

[darshhan]

Welcome to BRF Dingyibvs.

Even we are not interested in fighting with China.I have tremendous respect for chinese people,their culture and their contributions.

But it is China which has stoked the fire by collaborating with Pakistan.We Indians are definitely not going to forget that.

It is china which supplied pakis with nuclear knowhow among other things to encircle india.Do you really think in case of Indo-pak war which may turn in a nuclear conflict,china will remain unscathed.We can't allow that for sure.

By cooperating with a terrorist country like pakistan China might be digging its own grave.In a nuclear war large economy counts for very less.

[RamaY]

dingyibvs,

Welcome to BRF. I agree with Darshan's on this point.

If PRC has no intention of starting a war with India, then India has no need to poke at PRC.

That said, in the event of nuclear exchange with Pak, PRC will have to pay the price for clandestinely supplying Pakis with nuke-weapons. Such an event will end PRC's dream of world-dominance prematurely. One way to preempt it is for PRC to cleanup the mess w.r.t Pakistan and take its nukes back. With its suicidal behavior Pakistan is not far from pressing the trigger of the gun that is aimed at its head, and as the neighboring nations India and PRC will end-up cleaning the paki bloodstains in their border regions.

If PRC is as wise as you project, it would start working with India in finishing Pakistan, the Zambi of Asia.

PRC has to understand one thing. Inspite of its spectacular economic growth (taking your extreme scenario) PRC will fail to win worlds trust and respect (different from the economic interdependence) unless it starts cleaning up the mess it has been creating around the world. It has to learn from the mistakes USA/West has made and have been making, unless PRC's goal is to become US of 21st century, which would lead to its eventual decline in 22nd century.

[brihaspati]

I may be wrong, but I think most posts here are taking up one of two extreme positions :
(a) Indian leadership is weak (both political and military) and will panic and give up before a combined/coordinated attack by China and Pak [a variation is that India is materially "weak"]
(b) Indian leadership is cunning and not weak but pretending to be weak in a calm and calculating manner. [Variation : India is fully materially perpared]

One of the diversionary arguments raises the issue : is there really any motivation for China to attack India at all?

Lets take up the two extreme positions first : both positions are simplifying situations quite a bit. When we model, we simplify. So in this thread also we are simplifying depending on our own pet inclinations perhaps. Reality could be much more complex. No command structure in large and complex modern societies can be absolutely homogeneous in intent, character, and capability. This remains true for both military and civilian side. Thus for both China and India and even Pakis - we can safely assume at least three groups - present in both the military and civilian leadership. This would be (1) aggressive/jingoistic (2) appeasers (3) middle roaders/wait and watch/will do nothing until winning side emerges and then join them.

Historically, jingos have an advantage in conflict situations. Assuming that a conflict situation is present, things can move only with initiative subject to limitations of resources and environment. The middle roaders in all three may have the initiative snatched out of their hands by jingos or the middle-roaders may decide to let the jingos dance. If the jingos are successful, they can take advantage of victory. If the jingos fail, they can lean over to the appeaser group and save their skin.

What will actually happen in such a bi-partite or tri-partite conflict will initially depend on the jingos but if a quick victory is not available, the middle-roaders will take over and compromise. The long term growth of the conflict will obviously be also dependent on material conditions.

Now the question of motivation:

Does China have motivation to perpetrate military aggression on India? Yes and no. Yes if a quick victory can be envisaged. No if it is likely to stagnate. So any actual war move will depend on how Chinese leadership perceive their victory prospects can be. In this sense, if India makes too good a job of pretending to be weak this can precipitate Chinese preparations to instigate a war.

People forget that China itself is a complex dynamic of several groups jockeying for supreme power and a share of the new global power attributed to China as a nation. The competitors are : "pragmatist Maoists" or post-Maoist Maoists, neo-Maoists, party-elite-dynasties, anti-Maoists, PLA-imeprialists, PLA-anti-corruption. I had posted about these trends in PRC thread before so not posting again. Chinese power structure stands on two legs - the CPC and the PLA. The neo-Maoists, PLA-imperialists will act the jingos, but almost all the others except the anti-Maoists will form the middle-roaders. The bulk of the power structure being middle-roaders does not preclude aggression from jingos. Various calculations can lead to this - letting the jingos have their way can be a win-win situation for the middle-roaders. If the jingos fail - then they can be blamed fro the fiasco and eliminated. If the jingos win, the credit can be taken. The actual excuses to start a war will depend on the jingos perceptions. This can be anything from further aggravation in the Uyghur region, an invented excuse in Tibet, or even subterfuge conflict situations in such unexpected quarters as the Myanmar border, or Paki occupied western India. Dealing with corruption and popular unrest can lead to haggling between the PLA jingos and middle-roaders to allow the jingos a freer hand to instigate war.

A similar situation goes for Pakis. I am inclined to the position that we give more credit to Paki courage and jingoism than it actually derserves. This should not be taken as pampering complacency. I am simply saying that most Pakis are not brave enough - and they show the common reactions to defeat and loss as most other armies, many desert, many take cover, many surrender to the entities most sympathetic/"law abiding" among the enemy. The same three-group pattern will also be present among the Pak leadership - with more of the middle roaders pretending to be jingos. The actual jingos are likely to be even less in proportion compared to China. this is why all Pak military adventures start with big bangs but fizzle out in the long run - showing that the middle-roaders dominate who utilize the jingos to see if they can gain anything.

From this view, the most likely behaviour of the Paki command will not be to use up their nuclear warheads, but preserve them. In fact even if the occupation gov in Islamabad is on the verge of collapse, they would try to shift the nukes to a safe third country willing to host them - like KSA or Iran. [Yes, I am aware that many will say KSA is not a safe-haven and Iran is Shia]. If India can maintain the illusion that it is not out to completely destroy the very concept of Pakistan - until the very last moment, no nuke retaliation will take place.

[shiv]

Secondly, in a war, quantity matters. A recent RAND report states that on the VERY FIRST DAY of war across the Taiwan strait, a combined ~400 aircrafts will be lost on both sides(241 Chinese, 147 American/Taiwanese). That's assuming kill ratios of 27:1 for the F-22, 4.5:1 for the F-15

A China-Taiwan-US war scenario assumes that China wil sit back and take those losses and possibly lose without going nuclear. Why have 100000000000 aircraft/ships if one is just going to lose a war? That scenario sounds implausible to me and probably has been cooked up someone who is no more capable of sussing geopolitical compulsions than many of us on here.

The same questionable assumptions arise with the India-China conflict. Never mind the usual assumptions of Chinese ramping up production. Supposing India kicks Chinese ass in such a war - will China just produce another 1000000 weapons or start thinking nukes? Apply the same desperation to India.

So this sort of "27:1 ratio for bwabla vs byabra" should be taken for what it is worth.

China is fully capable of launching a limited war with India and anyone who says no, especially a Chinese who claims wisdom from China is clearly not taking chinese lack of wisdom about a lot of things into account.

Oh yes it is unlikely - but it becomes more unlikely when India is ready to kick ass. It's as simple as that.

[ShauryaT]

PRC has to understand one thing. Inspite of its spectacular economic growth (taking your extreme scenario) PRC will fail to win worlds trust and respect (different from the economic interdependence) unless it starts cleaning up the mess it has been creating around the world. It has to learn from the mistakes USA/West has made and have been making, unless PRC's goal is to become US of 21st century, which would lead to its eventual decline in 22nd century.

Is not happening. "Power flows from the barrel of a gun" is the motto. PRC is determined to follow western paths. Be it following the communist path or the current US led path of economic progress along with an unabashed dash to capture the world's resources. It is determined to form geo-strategic alliances to deflect opponents and competitors. It is determined to dominate ALL of Asia, in the short to medium term and use EVERY element of statecraft available at its disposal, except for overt war, if it can be avoided in the pursuit of this goal of Asian dominance in the short-medium term.

"Hoping" that the Chinese state will "learn from the mistakes of the West" (Whatever they are) is fruitless. The Indian state better prepare accordingly and not be under any illusion of any such hope. BTW: I am not clear on what you are alluding to as the "mistakes" of the west. Maybe it is OT.

It is in PRC interest to keep India off balance and lock her down to subcontinental issues. Towards this goal, PRC shall use ALL assets available at its disposal to keep this challenge from rising up. That is and will be the reality.

[RamaY]

It is in PRC interest to keep India off balance and lock her down to subcontinental issues. Towards this goal, PRC shall use ALL assets available at its disposal to keep this challenge from rising up. That is and will be the reality.

ShauryaT garu

I was addressing our new member. He made couple of points
- That any war between PRC and India will be disastrous to both nations so PRC wouldn't start one. But they already started a Proxy War by propping Pawkis.

- That PRC's intention is to grow its economic interests so wide and deep that alone will bring the whole world kneeling at their SunTsu's feet. I was pointing to him that PRC cannot wish to hurt India thru Pakis and hope India to take it quitely.

That brings us to the subject of this thread "Are WE ready for a two-front war?" How/who/when/where it will be triggered is one thing and India's preparedness is a different thing. What about a scenario where PRC does nothing but strengthen its border defenses where as Paki does a kamikaze attack? Should India spare PRC???

[Yagnasri]

I think this item is the best tread started for a long time. The raise of India in Economic terms and present weak spots in preparation of our defence forces will give a sense of urgency to take steps to China to do something more than garlanding India with a string of Pearls. As the 100% export orianted nation feels the recession and wish to divert the peoples mind war will become a usefull tool. But Chinese leadership is also quite pragmatic and will think twice before take any steps which is not in line with its stated Peaceful rise policy.

Best thing for India to do is be prepare hard,fast and vigilent.

[aditya.agd]

China will attack India if it feels that India will overtake China economically. There is a sense of competition in the chinese leadership mindset which is often reflected in their India bashing from time to time. That will translate into military recourse.

Indian military needs to develop a 2.5 simultaneous wars doctrine so that we may not have the 1962 debacle happening again.

Currently, we are not even prepared to fight Pakistan i feel.

[ShauryaT]

- That PRC's intention is to grow its economic interests so wide and deep that alone will bring the whole world kneeling at their SunTsu's feet. I was pointing to him that PRC cannot wish to hurt India thru Pakis and hope India to take it quitely.

But we did sit quietly. One of the most precious tools available to a nation is its nuclear arsenal. PRC's decision to proliferate them to and through TSP, was a direct and mortal challenge to India. The Indian response to it has been meek and weak. The weak shall not rule the earth. At the very least, shall not deter the strong.

That brings us to the subject of this thread "Are WE ready for a two-front war?" How/who/when/where it will be triggered is one thing and India's preparedness is a different thing. What about a scenario where PRC does nothing but strengthen its border defenses where as Paki does a kamikaze attack? Should India spare PRC???

What India should do and will do are two different things. Assuming there is a nuclear attack from TSP, my read is it is unlikely, that India will retaliate against PRC, if PRC does not actively engage.

My read of TSP itself launching a nuclear attack on India, in response to even a deep thrust is near zero and zero for a massive conventional border war, especially in disputed areas. Indian inaction, in forming a non conventional response, to TSP initiated terrorism, is a failure of the Indian state and its leaders, no excuses.

[ShauryaT]

China will attack India if it feels that India will overtake China militarily. Our militaries need to develop a 2.5 simultaneous wars doctrine so that we may not have the 1962 debacle happening again.

Currently, we are not even prepared to fight Pakistan i feel.

The past belies your assertions. Check what happened with PRC in 1967 and 1986 and 1999.

[ShauryaT]

I think this item is the best tread started for a long time. The raise of India in Economic terms and present weak spots in preparation of our defence forces will give a sense of urgency to take steps to China to do something more than garlanding India with a string of Pearls. As the 100% export orianted nation feels the recession and wish to divert the peoples mind war will become a usefull tool. But Chinese leadership is also quite pragmatic and will think twice before take any steps which is not in line with its stated Peaceful rise policy.

Best thing for India to do is be prepare hard,fast and vigilent.

Rudradev has a nice post in this thread, that addresses this concern. Please read his view.

[RamaY]

I am confused...

1. The probability of TSP using nukes in response to a deep thrust or a massive conventional border war with India is near-ZERO.

2. PRC's nuke-weapon proliferation to TSP.

The first point tells me that India can pursue a conventional punishment against TSP, with an assurance that it will not become radioactive. I would love this scenario as this is exactly what India needs as it can sufficiently defeat TSP below radioactive-line.

Then PRC's weapon-proliferation is not for TSP but as a deterrence weapon against India FOR PRC. So any nuke usage by TSP must be seen as PRC's use and responded accordingly, right?

[darshhan]

It is in PRC interest to keep India off balance and lock her down to subcontinental issues. Towards this goal, PRC shall use ALL assets available at its disposal to keep this challenge from rising up. That is and will be the reality.

ShauryaT garu

I was addressing our new member. He made couple of points
- That any war between PRC and India will be disastrous to both nations so PRC wouldn't start one. But they already started a Proxy War by propping Pawkis.

- That PRC's intention is to grow its economic interests so wide and deep that alone will bring the whole world kneeling at their SunTsu's feet. I was pointing to him that PRC cannot wish to hurt India thru Pakis and hope India to take it quitely.

That brings us to the subject of this thread "Are WE ready for a two-front war?" How/who/when/where it will be triggered is one thing and India's preparedness is a different thing. What about a scenario where PRC does nothing but strengthen its border defenses where as Paki does a kamikaze attack? Should India spare PRC???

Ramay ji.That's why I believe we will have to change our nuclear doctrine.First we will have to do away with our NFU(No first use) policy.

The other change that is required in our nuclear doctrine is even more important.Currently our nuclear doctrine states that in case a nation attacks us with nukes or any WMDs we will attack that nation with our nukes.The retaliation will be massive.For eg. If pakistan attacks us with nukes then we will also retaliate against pakistan with the full force of our nuclear arsenal.This is what the current doctrine states.

The new doctrine will ensure that if Pakistan uses nukes against us then we will retaliate against both Pakistan and its sponsors(Country/countries who helped pakistan to get nukes).No need to name the sponsors.That will help maintain the ambiguity.Ofcourse we all know that the primary sponsor is PRC.

In fact in case of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan we should ensure that if we put 15 nukes on pak then we should atleast detonate 150 on PRC.

[Kanson]

Hello, first, allow me to introduce myself. I am a Chinese who immigrated to the U.S. right before my teenage years, and I consider myself fairly well tuned to both the Chinese and American cultures. I'd like to offer some different perspectives. In a war, it's important to understand your enemies as well as you do yourself(Suntzu's Art of War), but I see relatively little accurate discussion regarding Chinese intentions and capabilities, so I'd like to offer my opinions in these areas.

First, China won't start this war. The best way to win a war is to do so without firing a bullet, and the Chinese will try everything to achieve their objectives without fighting. I read some pages of the War in Tibet thread linked on this page, and I was honestly shocked to find out that many on this board thought China would initiate something post-Olympics. That's simply ridiculous. BY FAR the preferred route China wishes to take is to grow a gigantic economy that dwarfs every other nation on earth so that they will have little choice but to comply with Chinese demands without the use of force. With that in mind, preserving stability while China grows to that status is of paramount importance. The only way China would go to war with anybody, Taiwan and India included, is if another country threatens to derail such a process through the use of force--e.g. an Indian or American naval blockade.

......

Thus, it is in both country's interest to avoid a conflict, but instead focusing on cooperative growth to the point where the two countries' economies are so intertwined that any war talk is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. By then, global power will have almost certainly shifted to Asia, centering around the two Asian giants. Although two powers will most likely clash eventually, as power is a zero-sum game, it will then be mostly a war of policies and economies rather than of missiles and bullets.

My reply is a variant of the reply from drashhan and RamaY.
It is probably correct when you say China wont start a war and tries to win without firing a bullet. You know how it tries to win w/o firing a bullet ? It is by outsourcing the task to Pakistan. How to tackle the problem? To correct the problem, is it not correct to take out the root-cause of the problem which is China ?
What China tries to do is when global power shifts to Asia it makes sure that the whole power rest with China by making India focussing on her neighbours. Thats what the real game is. So your argument doesnt hold any water.

[darshhan]

By red flags do you mean naxals?

If you indeed mean naxals then the chances of PRC giving a tactical nuke to naxals is very low.Till now no state not even china has given nukes to non state actors.

However if they do so then we can open our nuclear arsenals for tibetan resistance warriors.

[RamaY]

I think we need to play the big man's game. No need to say this or that. Just do what you want. Isn't that what all the big guys have been doing all along, breaking the very treaties and four-letter b*tard children they give birth to?

My assessment is that India is "defensively" ready for a two front war. This assumes that losing a few million Sq. KM here and there will not scratch the thick "civilizational" skins of Indian leadership and public.

But India can be truly ready for a two front war with in 3-5 years time. But it would require -
- Leadership vision
- National Purpose (set by above)
- Industrial Infra (set by above two)
- Technology Development (set by above 3)
- Qualitative + Quantitative deployment (set by above 4)

My gut feel is that properly done, this initiative alone will add 1% additional growth to our GDP growth.

[darshhan]

Nuvkrapu ji, There is no one source of naxal weapons.The flow of weapons to naxal is very distributed.Some are looted from police and paramilitary forces.Some are countrymade in local firearms factories in their areas of influence.Yet others would be procured from arms smugglers who might source these from myanmaar and bangladesh.I doubt if naxals would be dealing directly with myanmaar and because of the distances involved.I am not saying that this is not possible but dealing through arms smugglers would be the logical option.

Coming to the issue of whether myanmaar and bangladesh are actively supporting naxal movements by supplying them weapons.This statement assumes that myanmaar govt has complete monopoly on smuggling that goes out of myanmaar.This is not true.There are vast ungoverned places in myanmaar which are contested by both burmese army as well as the various insurgent outfits which are fighting against myanmaar govt.These insurgent outfits are sophisticated enough in some cases to manufacture their own kalashnikovs.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008 ... -and-ammo/

So you see myanmaar govt might not be in control of the arms smuggling.Now members of myamaar's various security agencies might be involved in this cross border smuggling in their individual capacity for monetary purposes.But that's most likely indicative of corruption rather than ideology.I seriously doubt if Myanmaar govt is consciously and deliberately building up naxalites to destabilize India.

Bangladesh is a bit different.Islamic ideology does play a role here and the islamic radicals in their intelligence and security agencies are definitely acting against india.But again arms smuggling from bangladesh is miniscule compared to myanmaar.Bangladesh is mostly a preferred point for crossing over to India as far as islamic terrorists and ISI agents are concerned.For drugs,guns and north eastern insurgents it is burma.There might be some overlap between the two but that is it.Another point to note is that current govt in Bangladesh headed by sheikh Hasina is the most pro-India govt in bangladesh in years.


By the way for your information even our naxals have managed to manufacture kalashnikovs on their own which are of good quality.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 460469.cms

If you wish to discuss more on naxal issue perhaps we can shift to "the red menace thread" in the strategic discussion forum.

[skher]

But Chinese leadership is also quite pragmatic and will think twice before take any steps which is not in line with its stated Peaceful rise policy.

China is in for a leadership change, and the Little Emperors' though intelligent are not particulary patient for the change of guard to occur.

http://www.economist.com/node/15959312

Mr Wen’s article, however, does hint at a recurrent political problem. It describes how Hu instructed Mr Wen to sneak out of an official guesthouse and visit a village under cover of darkness, to find out what peasants were really thinking. “Remember, do not inform the local government”, Hu was quoted as saying. A quarter of a century later, Chinese leaders remain almost as prone to deception by underlings.

War is a powerful way to signal a policy change and consolidate influence internally.

PRC has, through various means, tested the negative impact of foreign aggression. It has found to its surprise that so long as the superpowers are placated and oblivious proxies like N.Korea/Pak/Burma/Iran are used, everybody is fine with "Made in China".

So did North Korea really sink that warship without knowledge that the PR of China was fully behind them?

And what was the reaction afterward? No reprisal attacks.No war.

Something similar is likely in the Indian Ocean.

P.S.:Even job losses on China's account are blamed internally - Obama didn't say a word about Beijing, but showered insults on our outsourcing business in Bangalore.
Peaceful rise is more deceptive than "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai" - China is not region specific anymore.

[RamaY]

skher garu,

It already happened to/in India in the guise of cross-border terrorism. We all know the hands holding the leash of mad-dog, Pakistan.

In that sense, war with TSP is never a one-front attack. In 1948 India fought with TSP+UK, Afterwards with TSP+USA and so on... This is what Gen. Padmanabhan wrote in his book

[skher]

It already happened to/in India in the guise of cross-border terrorism. We all know the hands holding the leash of mad-dog, Pakistan.

In that sense, war with TSP is never a one-front attack. In 1948 India fought with TSP+UK, Afterwards with TSP+USA and so on... This is what Gen. Padmanabhan wrote in his book

But the Gen. faced a lot of heat from the third front - our polity/babus, as he could not "mobilize quickly" and parakram remained a parakram - no prasadam.

This is what is different in 2012 - we desperately do not want war (mended fences around Pokharan just recently / double digit growth) as we're just growing but china+US desperately want action by us, as they just started receding.

Chimerica(far more accurate) regain economic strength(arms sales) and EU support if "weakling" India falls or is humiliated.

If something is not done urgently about rail network and road infra contracts, we shall be very close to that "lesson".
Also, we are surrounded by failing states who aren't particularly cheerful about Incredulous India (Lot of promises, little timely delivery).
We are steadily losing ground in our oasis of Kabul...the Dragon would slither in.

Save a jittery/freezing EU,neighbour to Prussia [Putin Russia] and NATO/US, we are all alone circa 2010-2012.

OT, but we cannot ever make a choice...if we accept the ones thrust on us through elimination.

[ShauryaT]

---In response to RamaY...Could not make the quote feature work.

Parakram and India's cold start doctrine, is living proof that the Indian armed forces, do not believe for a second, that their room for a conventional strike against TSP does not exist. There are red lines, but a significant space exists. There is other material out there to validate this theory further. The issue at hand is not if there is room for a conventional strike, the issue is what does it seek to achieve, at what costs and risks and what capacities exist to minimize the costs and risks and maximize the gains. IMO, a conventional strike, is worthwhile, only if it results in medium to long term gains against TSP. For short-medium term gains, non conventional routes do exist and are open for exploration. Short term defined as 10-30 years, medium term as 25-50 years.

PRC's proliferation to TSP, is to assure that TSP exists as a state and not for its own deterrence, as PRC has more than enough to deter India. As long as TSP exists as a state, it will seek to destabilize India, in one way or the other (remember, the definition of TSP is, it is not India). The effect will be India would never get out of this quagmire and be locked down to the sub continent, while China continues to march on to general Asian dominance. Whoever dominates Asia, dominates the world. Has always been the case.

[ShauryaT]

Also, skher, Your post has great rhyming. Aspiring poet? Keep it up.

[RamaY]

ShauryaT garu,

What you have said is a well known theory. Did it work in the past 60 years? I don't think so. The migraine called TSP kept on increasing from one level to another. When One asks the question, Is TSP a smaller threat than it was in 1948?; one will get the answer.

There are two reasons for it. The first and major portion of the problem is Indian leadership, not TSP or its 3.5 friends. One may say India was not strong, not rich, doesn't have enough toilets and so on. I have only one answer to them.

USA didn't wait till 1945 to realize its manifest destiny, it kept on building that dream block by block. Same with PRC. It occupied Tibet in 1950, when it was a weaker force on paper compared to India; no one knows the reality due to JLN's health issues. It befriended TSP well before 1970s, which made USA to (correctly) assess that TSP could be a good interocular between them... and the list goes on. On the other hand India has done very little geopolitically since 1947. What IG did in 1971 is an exception but she couldn't complete the task.

Second problem is TSP's sponsors. No matter how long we wait, how innovative we are; they will enter the picture. So it is wise to count them in our strategy from the beginning.

There cannot be a short/medium/long-term solution to TSP. There is only one solution. One may execute it over a long period (your scale of 10-25-30 years) but the solution is one and only one - Complete destruction of ideology of TSP (every Indian knows the definition of it).

Now it is PRC, that needs to make a right assessment in its best interests. It could be one of the three - (1) with us, (2) against us, (3) stay neutral. In each of the scenario PRC would get different payoff. I am sure PRC knows what they are and smart enough to make its own choice.

What India has to do, as a preparation, is to make those payoffs as widely dispersed as possible. For example, the payoff for PRC to be with us in say 2012 must far exceed what it thinks it will get in 2012 and so on. Similarly payoff for PRC to stand against us in 2012 should far exceed what it thinks it will get say in 2012.

Since everyone says that PRC aspires to be a great power and world leader by 2015; then India must make sure that PRC cannot even get 1000miles from that goal, should PRC chose any other option except standing with us. That is deterrence. Threatening with 2 nuke bombs against a nation that sacrificed 30 million in its "Great Leap Forward" and another 20-30 million in "Cultural Revolution" is not deterrence. PRC achieved this (>50 million deaths) feat without using any WMD.

[atma]

Have been reading this thread with interest. I feel myself agreeing with RamaYji's post. I also feel as echoed earlier by others, that there is hardly going to be a real war, but rather a low intensity struggle for domination. India's challenge will be to extricate itself from regional South Asian geoplitics,(where the PRC wants us to be) and rivalries, and face PRC headlong in world forums, reminding the world in general, and PRC in particular that it wishes to share at least on an equal footing the same aspirations, and do our best to deny them aspirations that are not shared. When the PRC realizes that it cannot attain its dream unless it it piggybacked to ours, TSP will cease to be in the equation.

[ShauryaT]

What you have said is a well known theory. Did it work in the past 60 years? I don't think so. The migraine called TSP kept on increasing from one level to another. When One asks the question, Is TSP a smaller threat than it was in 1948?; one will get the answer.

There is no doubt about this. The partition of the state of Pakistan reduced this threat by a wide margin. Had they managed to stay united, we would have faced a bigger threat.

There are two reasons for it. The first and major portion of the problem is Indian leadership, not TSP or its 3.5 friends. One may say India was not strong, not rich, doesn't have enough toilets and so on. I have only one answer to them.

I offer no excuses for the failures of the Indian leadership and its polity.

Second problem is TSP's sponsors. No matter how long we wait, how innovative we are; they will enter the picture. So it is wise to count them in our strategy from the beginning.

Sure, we should factor them, but assuming that "they (meaning the sponsors) will enter the picture" meaning hot, will be a stretch.

There cannot be a short/medium/long-term solution to TSP. There is only one solution. One may execute it over a long period (your scale of 10-25-30 years) but the solution is one and only one - Complete destruction of ideology of TSP (every Indian knows the definition of it).

The ideology is not an Indian problem alone. However, losing lives and living in fear is a problem we face on the street, today. As you said, a great power is built block by block, same goes here, we have to execute block by block.

Threatening with 2 nuke bombs against a nation that sacrificed 30 million in its "Great Leap Forward" and another 20-30 million in "Cultural Revolution" is not deterrence. PRC achieved this (>50 million deaths) feat without using any WMD.

I have a very specific read on the the capacities of the Indian deterrent and the read is, it is enough to have an offensive stance against TSP and be defensive against PRC, both at the same time (in line with the conventional stance). So, assuming just two bombs against PRC - in ANY scenario would be a mistake. Also, do not forget, the "Cultural Revolution" was in a different era. How many millions did China loose to ANY misadventure of ANY kind, post Mao? Let us learn from the past, but not live in it.

[ShauryaT]

When the PRC realizes that it cannot attain its dream unless it it piggybacked to ours, TSP will cease to be in the equation.

I sometimes feel that many Indians are plain jealous of PRC and its achievements and have built a crab in the well syndrome. We need to get out of it. Let PRC do, what it needs to, we should do what we have to. If some day, we shall confront, so be it but till then let us compete. India will not get her due respect, by shouting at world forums, and neither PRC not anyone is going to "realize" anything to give India her due. These dues have to be earned. Every other nation, has shed blood to get there. When India sheds blood to protect her interests, shall we get our dues. That is just the way it is.

[DavidD]

It is in PRC interest to keep India off balance and lock her down to subcontinental issues. Towards this goal, PRC shall use ALL assets available at its disposal to keep this challenge from rising up. That is and will be the reality.

ShauryaT garu

I was addressing our new member. He made couple of points
- That any war between PRC and India will be disastrous to both nations so PRC wouldn't start one. But they already started a Proxy War by propping Pawkis.

- That PRC's intention is to grow its economic interests so wide and deep that alone will bring the whole world kneeling at their SunTsu's feet. I was pointing to him that PRC cannot wish to hurt India thru Pakis and hope India to take it quitely.

That brings us to the subject of this thread "Are WE ready for a two-front war?" How/who/when/where it will be triggered is one thing and India's preparedness is a different thing. What about a scenario where PRC does nothing but strengthen its border defenses where as Paki does a kamikaze attack? Should India spare PRC???

Yes, a nuclear war can easily spread to more than just two countries, which is why everyone will ensure that it will never be used. Having nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them means you will not face existential threat from at least the areas as far as you can deliver them. Pakistan has no reason to conduct a kamikaze attack. If they, or India for that matter, ever come under external existential threat, all powers around the world will apply pressure, and force if necessary to alleviate such threat so that they would not be forced to use nuclear weapons.

Yes, China has been and will continue to try to hurt India in one way or another through Pakistan, but why would you expect otherwise? As stated before, power is a zero-sum game, and the rise of one power will inevitably ebb another power, and sometime that other power is India. As the person you quoted stated, China's goal is to attain more power, and I wouldn't necessarily limit to just all of Asia either. Really, that's pretty much all countries with enough land and resources want, more wealth and accordingly more power.

[DavidD]

Secondly, in a war, quantity matters. A recent RAND report states that on the VERY FIRST DAY of war across the Taiwan strait, a combined ~400 aircrafts will be lost on both sides(241 Chinese, 147 American/Taiwanese). That's assuming kill ratios of 27:1 for the F-22, 4.5:1 for the F-15

A China-Taiwan-US war scenario assumes that China wil sit back and take those losses and possibly lose without going nuclear. Why have 100000000000 aircraft/ships if one is just going to lose a war? That scenario sounds implausible to me and probably has been cooked up someone who is no more capable of sussing geopolitical compulsions than many of us on here.

The same questionable assumptions arise with the India-China conflict. Never mind the usual assumptions of Chinese ramping up production. Supposing India kicks Chinese ass in such a war - will China just produce another 1000000 weapons or start thinking nukes? Apply the same desperation to India.

So this sort of "27:1 ratio for bwabla vs byabra" should be taken for what it is worth.

China is fully capable of launching a limited war with India and anyone who says no, especially a Chinese who claims wisdom from China is clearly not taking chinese lack of wisdom about a lot of things into account.

Oh yes it is unlikely - but it becomes more unlikely when India is ready to kick ass. It's as simple as that.

I don't think you read the article, because it states that China would WIN that war. So yes, it assumes that China will take those losses, but it doesn't assume that China would just sit back. In fact, it predicts that China would keep throwing more at the conflict and eventually win it without going nuclear. With the level of preparedness of the two sides, I don't think it's very likely that either side will simply "kick ass", at least in terms of casualties and loss of equipment. Both sides would lose plenty and in very quick fashion.

[darshhan]

Yes, China has been and will continue to try to hurt India in one way or another through Pakistan, but why would you expect otherwise?

Dingyibvs you are right on this one.

[darshhan]

But Dingyibvs enough is enough.If pakistan doesn't mend its ways it is going down and will probably take china along with it.Giving nuclear knowhow to Pakistan and meddling in Indian subcontinent is easily the worst strategic decision that has been taken by Chinese communist party.Chinese leadership thought they were playing smart when they gave nuclear weapons to pak in order to restrict India.Well they couldn't have been more wrong.

If it ever comes to a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan , China is going to pay the price for a mistake that has been committed by the chinese communist party leadership.

[DavidD]

But Dingyibvs enough is enough.If pakistan doesn't mend its ways it is going down and will probably take china along with it.Giving nuclear knowhow to Pakistan and meddling in Indian subcontinent is easily the worst strategic decision that has been taken by Chinese communist party.Chinese leadership thought they were playing smart when they gave nuclear weapons to pak in order to restrict India.Well they couldn't have been more wrong.

If it ever comes to a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan , China is going to pay the price for a mistake that has been committed by the chinese communist party leadership.

I'm sorry, but I have to call your bluff here. India is not gonna attempt to eliminate Pakistan militarily anytime soon, with conventional or nuclear weapons. If you had your finger on the launch button, you'd agree with me too. So no, it's not "enough" yet. Yes, if there's a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, China might be involved as well, but they're betting that it won't happen. The cost of a nuclear conflict is simply too large than any potential benefit to be justified, and it's not even remotely close. It's the same reason that the PRC has not yet attempted to retake a conventionally armed Taiwan yet. However, the difference here is that I do foresee a day when maybe the cost-benefit ratio tilts the other direction across the Taiwan strait, but I cannot foresee a day when a nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India may be justified.

[darshhan]

Dingyibvs, I am not interested in any war.But if Pakistan doesn't mend its ways trust me anything can happen.You must have heard of mumbai terrorist attacks.In case you haven't here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks

These attacks were planned and orchestrated by Pakistanis who have have complete support and backing of China.And this is just one attack.Pakistan has a history of orchestrating terrorist attacks in India,Afghanistan and other countries in which hundred of thounsands civilians and security personnel have been murdered.When you say India should not attack Pakistan you are indirectly saying Indian blood is cheap.It is not so.

By supporting and sponsoring a terrorist and islamic fundamentalist country like pakistan China has made itself a party to this conflict knowingly or unknowingly.

While India is a peace loving country and wants good relations with all the countries the actions of Pakistan and its primary sponsor China are simply not helping the cause.In fact what kind of Country proliferates nuclear weapons technology to a terrorist country like Pakistan.Is it just stupidity or plain hatred against India.

If you think in future we are going to accept these terrorist strikes against India without doing anything you are mistaken.We are going to take action against Pakistan.We don't have to do it tomorrow or anytime soon.We have all the time.Maybe we will do it in next 5 years or next 10 years.But when the time for action comes we are not going to forget the fact that Pakistani nuclear and missile arsenal was built up by China.And if that conflict becomes nuclear whether initiated by Pakistan or by India , China will also face the consequences.In fact majority of Indian nuclear warheads will be destined for China.

By the way we don't even have to eliminate Pakistan.They are themselves doing such a good job of destroying their own country.All the investment that China made in Pakistan is getting destroyed as Pakistan gets more and more radicalised.Even China will not be safe from this radicalisation.Already lot of uighur extremists are getting trained in Pakistan.So you see even China's stability is in question by supporting Pakistan.

[darshhan]

Dingyibvs

Chinese proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and other countries.

http://www.nci.org/i/ib12997.htm

http://www.nti.org/db/china/npakpos.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

For Chinese missile exports to Pakistan check out the following links

http://www.nti.org/db/china/mpakpos.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/ ... index.html