Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[Manish_Sharma]

Precisely the reason why India must have thermonuclear weapons., a bit off the topic, but China will have sooo much to lose when a couple of Indian Hydrogen bombs land on their heads than the way bit smaller fission warheads at present.A two front war ., baby you got it.The strategic scenario changes when India fields fusion weapons even in the tens of missiles.
China wont prefer to attack India but let their dirty work done by PK while they cheer at the sidelines.Just because they could very well lose their economic infrastructure and lose their superpower status will prevent them from involving directly against India.

Kit this is what I had posted in Deterrence thread some time back:

[quote="Manish_Sharma"]

Above I have just tried to get an idea of How many missiles/warheads would be needed to send the lizard back economically by 100 years. In this my idea was to hit industrial cities/refineries/ports.

As you can see that A SINGLE YELLOW STAR IS EQUIVALENT OF 3 WARHEADS OF 40KT EACH (Salted of course 2 warheads with Gold isotops and one warhead with cobalt 60). So each STAR means 1 missile with 3MIRVs.

Now on the map ONE DARK GREEN DOT means one type of industry if you see many bunched together that means that many types of industries. The list of type of industries you can see on the top of the map.

So as I counted in end it came to 35 STARS WHICH EQUALS TO 105WARHEADS AND 35MISSILES(3MIRVD ON EACH MISSILE OF COURSE).

Since somebody had mentioned that Army is factoring in failure rate of 50% warheads. If we add to that failure of missiles and ABM too then I have to increase the number 3 times.

This way the number that comes is 315 warheads + 105(3 warhead MIRVd) Missiles to ensure 80-90% destruction economywise.

I have here discounted the army targets totally 'cause I don't know where and how many of them are there. Secondly the idea was to hit economic + population targets. This way a partly dying chipanda could have also a window to hit other enemy targets of its own, like Japan US and RU etc. thus inviting their retaliation+preventive strikes too.

Since we consider testing too expensive because of sanctions, the least can be done is to make missile launch sites buried deep in mountains far away from the population centers. With ABMs on top of mountains to protect them from pre emptive strikes. Also this way the enemy has to use SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS ARSENAL ON TRYING TO TAKE OUT THESE SITES RESULTING IN LESS WARHEADS FOR POPULATION CENTERS OF OUR COUNTRY.
Then the other part is ON trains, mobile launchers + Arihants.

For now I think China wouldn't want even 10% of this to happen for getting Arunachal Pradesh, but few years from now some unforeseen situation may change it some water issue......... something.

So 315 warheads for Chipanda +105 Agnis.

AS I SEE NOW, EVEN 15 OF THESE WARHEADS OF 40 KTS TAKE OUT ALL THEIR 10 REFINERIES AND SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL AREA + 3 GORGES DAM AND TIBET CHINA RAIL LINK AND YOU HAVE CHINA 100 YEARS BACK!

[Vikas]

What is this craze with "TAMIL NADU" by wet dreamer Pakis? What have poor Tamilians charmed Pakis with ?

[Kanson]

It is better to have an ambiguity. It helps a lot. But at the sametime, you passed the messg by these leaks to your adversaries rather than raising unneccesary eyebrows, like Iran currently doing. Those want to know will know what you mean. Job finished.

Maintaining ambiguity is good bhayya...but what purpose is it serving? except we BRFites discuss about that till 25th hour...If there is an absolute mandate of No-NFU....the message is enough clear....like Iran as you've said...recent reports are suggesting that Iran has NF to make 2 bombs and it is openly threatening to wipe Israel if there is any attack from US/NATO. Still no US/NATO/Israeli action on that except UN sanctions. And Iran pulled it off nicely with the help of Turkey and Brazil..and Russia's hidden help...I think their clear mandate is helping them...otherwise...Iran would have become Oil-Walmart for the west..ditto with Noko...a power like USA couldn't do anything

According to me the ambiguity should not be between NFU or No-NFU...it should rather be at what stage of a war the Indian nukes will be used...this ambiguity will actually make our foes to re-think their plans....

With no-NFU announced, the moment Paki or Chini forces advance their formations..and both being nuclear nations..we have a valid reason to ready our nuclear vehicles to code red...now this is the info that should leak..signaling our foes to halt...if they don't..they are only risking of getting nuked..now question is will they afford to get nuked? With 2 hostile nuclear nations on either side...we cannot afford to be soft and let them take our land piece by piece...

My humble opinions Kanson..educate me if this line of thinking is not better for India.

I dont know whether i'm scantified enough for this discoure..
Question to be asked is what is the purpose of declaring FU to the whole word. What you want to achieve by declaring FU. Every action has pros & cons. If you see, our sworn enemies are only two in the polity of around 200 nations. US & SU has plans for throught out the world. So they can declare a FU. For the benefit of only two nation why I should announce that in a loudspeaker. I can very well approach them in private and let them know what we can do. This can be done with one-to-one meetings with diplomats in the diplomatic language. That is what Pak did during the 80s.

Otherway to say is NFU is for the peacetime only. At wartime, we are guided by the pragmatic consideration of what is needed to keep the country safe. (diplo speak )

[RamaY]

What is this craze with "TAMIL NADU" by wet dreamer Pakis? What have poor Tamilians charmed Pakis with ?

That comes from Paki-Musharrafs because Pakis are TFTA Aaaaryans and Tamils are SDRE Dravidians.... And rest of India is filled with Evil Brahmins and Baniyaas...

[archan]

we will be crushed in such a situation and we will loose control of Kashmir, North east, tamil nadu. Huge losses in Gujarat , Punjab and rajhastan. Civil war will break out in allmost all major states of India with naxal leaders leading the revolt. Naxals will start attacking Public assets and police station in Major Towns and cities and most muslims will align with the invading forces. India as a country will break down into some 10-15 smaller regions. Jai Hind.

Let us all just say Allah O Akbar and hand over the power in Delhi to the Pakistani Army. That will solve all our problems. No need to struggle onlee.

[archan]

@blueleaf

Your posts would have been sensible if your handle was some greenleaf or redleaf.

Regards,
Orangeleaf

He will be history soon.

[abhischekcc]

Manish, do you have a list of major Chinese refineries with their locations?

TIA

[shiv]

FU/NFU is OT for this thread IMO.

I am an NFU supporter because

FU is like saying "Mine is bigger!". If you say that, everyone will say "Let me see if it is bigger or not. Show it. I will show if you show" You will show only if you have guts.

NFU is "I will wait for you to show and then I will show". If the other guy has guts, he will show and then you must show. But it does not stop you from showing it you are desperate.

NFU puts the following doubt into an adversary's mind:
"I have to nuke him first after which he will nuke me. But how can I believe his story? He could be lying about NFU. So he may suddenly escalate"

You can dismiss FU as "bravado" but that has a 50% probability of being right or wrong.

But you cannot dismiss NFU as bravado because nuclear retaliation will be 100% certain if you use a nuke against an NFU state. At the same time if you have faith in the other guy's NFU doctrine - it may be dangerous for you. He has a nuke in his hand and he says he will not use it first. How can you be sure that he will stick to his NFU promise in a war? The NFU promise may not be worth the paper it is written on.

[Venkarl]

valid points above...I am sure we can defend our positions on our west....but with our engagements on both the sides...how can we hold our positions in the NE conventionally? Chinese with their huge conventional force coupled with NE based terrorists..how long will we be able to keep them off our lands while we hold pakis on the east? will we still stick to NFU policy while our NE lands being threatened by Chinese? we have to remember that mainland India and NE are connected by chicken neck strip...this time China will not attack to teach us a lesson {like what they say}, but to take entire Arunachal Pradesh..and any other land as a buffer/bonus

if this topic is OT..so be it..my opinion is to strike off NFU policy and continue as retaliation onlee ...may be I didn't substantiate my points like you gurus...but I stand by my point.

Added Later

US, Russia, UK, France and Nato have refused NFU policy....and though China says NFU..I don't trust them...when these powers have it ...why not us?

[Venkarl]

@blueleaf

Your posts would have been sensible if your handle was some greenleaf or redleaf.

Regards,
Orangeleaf

He will be history soon.

AoA...menny qitab-e-goats to jhyu

[munna]

X-post from internal security thread

I don't know exactly how things are in Punjab, everything seems calm on the outside, perhaps some BRFite from there might shed some light. I know there were some minor churning taking place during the BJP days.

Gagan saab some tazaa maal.

I had a chat with a very senior political scientist and prolific author from Punjab. As per him the P landers had moved in to open the khalistani front against India ever since the loss of strategic depth in Afghanistan. Some of the key operatives that were sheltered in P-land during the early 2000s such as Rode, Panjwar, Neeta, Wadhawa Singh and Gajinder Singh were ordered to get active or be ready to be "betrayed". These chaps apparently got in touch with the families of the ex-militants who had suffered under the police in some cases. Such folks were then asked to indulge in sporadic (big time failures) acts which were foiled by an alert internal intelligence set up of police.
There IS money, smuggling and weapons but not enough footsoldiers or extremism and on top of that the police has managed to do its job admirably well. This is the good news.

Now the bad news. People may remember that about a few months ago there was violence in Ludhiana where the migrant wrokers had suddenly mobilized and fought pitched street battles with authorities on streets.

Naxals ‘fuelled’ Ludhiana arson

Ludhiana, June 26
The migrant violence in Ludhiana, that shook the entire state in December last, could have been fuelled by Naxalites. The state police has received strong indications of a Naxalite hand behind the arson, said Director General of Police, PS Gill.
The state police head, who was here to flag off the Queen’s Baton relay, said Maoists were spreading their tentacles in Malwa region.

Indicating the involvement of a particular group of Bharti Kisan Union (BKU) in Naxal operations, the DGP said: “The Naxals make their mass base by harping on social issues. They are trying to rope in kisan bodies.”

Gill said Pakistan’s ISI was still training militants to strike in Punjab. ‘‘We have confirmed reports that many militants were being trained there. The latest case is that of Bakshish Singh, a dreaded militant arrested in Amritsar recently,” he said.

The DGP, however, said the police was well equipped to handle any eventuality arising out of the situation. ‘‘Being a border state, the police is keeping a strong watch on all such activities. We are well aware of the enemy within the country and across the country. We would not allow anybody to hold the state to ransom,” said Gill.

Refusing to comment on the importance of dialogue between India and Pakistan vis-a-vis terrorism, the DGP said it is entirely a political issue. ‘‘The leaders have to decide how to go about it,’’ Gill said.

So the danger lies in a tie-up between the various Kisan Organizations, Naxalites and Khalistanis. The Punjab Police is well aware of the danger and has doubled its efforts to penetrate and bring under control any new variety of fundoos out there. However over the years some kind of rural stress is visible in the Southern districts of Punjab and that may be a vulnerable place from the position of Mao-pests especially since these very areas have a history of naxalite violence in the 1970s.

So can these groups be activated in case of hostilities with TSP?

Yes, but in terms of footsoldiers they are really over the hill. Unlike some other state polices Punjab police has been able to fight back and put a lid on the insurgents. The impact of any such activation during hostilities will be negligible, however more worrisome angle is the reactivation of Naxalis in the south-Punjab aka Malwa belt. We need to watch that...

[Prasad]

FU/NFU is OT for this thread IMO.
....

Shiv,
I have a naiive question, if you will. What exactly stops us from FU, if we see reason to do so. We could claim we're all peaceful onlee, we are the mahatmas scions and ahimsavadis onlee. But when the time comes and we're threatened, drop the darn bomb on the invaders and claim, well not out fault, those guys threatened our land and we're well within our rights to nuke anybody to preserve our country. Why the heck don't you argue over why they attacked in the first place!

Possible?

[Prem]

The Paki Ahmadi has made sense , Indians need to arm 5 Million jawans with heavy weapons and let them loose on Lahore and Islamabad. Their target, to clean the land for Indian settlement and turn Pakistan into Palestine. Folks dont forget population bulge , Chinese will be running out of mojo soon while Indians will be overspiling with half a billion young SDRE ready to spread Dharmabeej. Take the economy past 10T in 15-20 years and we have whole Bhoo to Poo on.

[ShauryaT]

FU/NFU is OT for this thread IMO.
....

Shiv,
I have a naiive question, if you will. What exactly stops us from FU, if we see reason to do so. We could claim we're all peaceful onlee, we are the mahatmas scions and ahimsavadis onlee. But when the time comes and we're threatened, drop the darn bomb on the invaders and claim, well not out fault, those guys threatened our land and we're well within our rights to nuke anybody to preserve our country. Why the heck don't you argue over why they attacked in the first place!

Possible?

Shiv is probably sleeping now, so I will butt in:)

The point is moot. Nobody asked India to have an NFU policy. The policy is not binding to any international treaty. The policy rests on the credibility of the GoI. If the policy, which is unambiguous as of now, is broken by the GoI, for ANY reason, it is the credibility of GoI that has to be managed. What is this credibility worth and to whom and when, is up for debate.

[ShauryaT]

US, Russia, UK, France and Nato have refused NFU policy....and though China says NFU..I don't trust them...when these powers have it ...why not us?

India's NFU policy is borne from India's own world views. All you have to do to change it is elect a government that wants to change it.

[ramana]

The NFU is good as it stands for if we change then it will need more proofing. So who needs to know about Indian NFU? PRC? It has already proliferated to TSP for it fears the Use policy whether First or No First. Those who have first strike policy or dominance strategy need the FU policy. Indian doesn't have that so no need for it.

[Samay]

It is amazing to see FU-NFU being discussed upto such a length in BRF.

I would say this whole story about NFU/FU is bogus and is a work of bogus people lurking somewhere in our own ruling corridors. Going by complexity of this issue, ,this is a derogatory term

Now, this term NFU,from where it originated ? ,who used it first, USSR,USA,Britain,France,china,?

If we have to look from where our policy makers catched this term like they took the term 'secularism' (and 'arth ka anarth kar dala' ie did everything anti secular in the name of secularism .lets not get into such issues ,but point is to make is that this term NFU which is highly embedded in our policy making)
is actually copied from china ,ooh !, the same country which coined the term 'Hindi -chini bhai bhai' and we accepted it with garlands .

We know the chinese are good at deception ,but more interesting thing for them is that their neighbour is always ready to be decieved , sometimes by british east India company,sometimes by pakistan ,and most of the times by USA and China.

There is no such thing as NFU in practical terms and FU is not suitable to be discussed .

There is an open doctrine in PLA circles ,which was even mentioned in western media, that PLA had openly supported FU of tactical nukes as and where it gets an opportunity and that first use will be done in the cover of claimed self defence. This is their standing .
Whether we are clear or not about FU ,but they are d$% clear about it,speaks their arsenal of nuke missiles.

What are we doing then ?Its called passive and lazy development .
The indigenous missile development program called the IGMDP is on oxygen, only focused upon certain missile range extension of Agni3,but not critical developments like asats,icbms etc ,give credit to MMS .
We dont need only tested prototypes,we need a good number of 5000,8000 km range missiles ready in our arsenal asap.

If war starts tomorrow, we dont stand a chance,because our stone henge weapons dont stand a chance against a barrage of thousands of cruise missile from both paki and chinese cruise missiles at crucial locations.It is certain that chinese toy industry would be providing most of the pieces of cruise missile to pakis in huge quantities . Not to mention the arsenal of IRBMs targeted at India, we dont have credible air defence .

All these vital areas are lacking proper thrust (by design or because of some natural mental disease )from the GoI ,because babus are policy makers but they do not fight wars, .In such cases(if it occurs so early) our sole defence should be to nuke them first without warning and political drama ,but we need a lot of nukes and missiles to nuke them.
But we are short of both,so whats the conclusion? It is that we are defenseless and not ready for a two front war
I wont look at the situation being an Indian PM (as previously asked) ,but I will see it other way round that is....

If I were a chinese general,I would be excited because americans are losing, isi is winning,naxals are winning, Indian communication systems are rigged ,even on papers its armed forces arent prepared factually ,country allows anti Indians like pseudo seculars,jihadis,western agants to breathe freely and,,,its center is ruled by a man who only knows when to rise or fall CRR/SLR, then,..

now is the time , within a couple of years to initiate an adventure ,backed by suicidal jihadi nation, isnt it a good plan to emerge victorious??

What do our gurus make of it,shiv,ramana,acharya,...anyone??
Our first priority should be 500 active nuclear weapons and delivery systems .

[Manish_Sharma]

Manish, do you have a list of major Chinese refineries with their locations?

TIA

Abhishek, the 10 blue dots you see on the map in my post are the chinese oil refineries.

In case you want them by name then this is the only link left on net, though until few months back there were so many:
http://oil-maps.businessbloging.com/China-map-ref-la.jpg

[shiv]

now is the time , within a couple of years to initiate an adventure ,backed by suicidal jihadi nation, isnt it a good plan to emerge victorious??

Yes it is a good plan.

As long as it works.

The devil is in the details. In the sketch view you have provided the Chinese/Pakis have a winner.

if you go back in this thread you find that there are other winner scenarios for the Chinese and Pakis. If everything works as stated.

Unrelated to this topic, but more related to my piskological quests - it is technically feasible to cook up a perfect clockwork like scenario such as the one you have described where India massively attacks and defeats both countries. (if everything works as per plan). We are willing to see that as "fiction" (eg Sanku's story) but when we try to be "serious" only defeat scenarios come to mind.

You will never find Indians on BRF writing down "Victory for India" scenarios seriously. If anyone does that a hundred people will argue. We are more interested in looking for scenarios where we are weak and we will be overwhelmed because this seems to be a general belief among Indians. As I stated earlier, we make our minds think that way (that we will lose) because we (Indians) say to ourselves "We have a history of losing. We lost in the past because of because of blahblhablha. Those blahblhablah scenarios are still true. So we are going to lose again". Ideally on BRF we would like some tough military type guy to come and say "Naah we can't lose because we have sooperdooper secret weapon". That would all make us sit back with relief and stop biting our nails in anxiety (for about 1 week), worked up as we are with our conviction that we exist only to lose.

Like I said this is an interesting psychological commentary on us. Not a military scenario.

If you go to policy circles in say China and you presented them with your scenario as an ideal one, they would dissect it with a fine comb to see if it was feasible and go down to every last detail if they were interested.You have not done any such fine analysis to see what might go wrong with the plan.

So when you make such a plan and ask "gurus" whether it will work or not there are only 2 answers, Yes or no.

If a "guru" says "no it won't work because of blabla" - then he will rapidly be asked to explain every little detail as to why the Chinese/pakis won't win. Detail that was never provided in the original "We are definitely going to lose" scenario

If the guru says "We will definitely lose" it is a conversation stopper. It just confirms our fears. We have had it. We are screwed. Just as we always suspected.

No?

[shiv]

.but with our engagements on both the sides...how can we hold our positions in the NE conventionally? Chinese with their huge conventional force coupled with NE based terrorists..how long will we be able to keep them off our lands while we hold pakis on the east?

A policy of "holding" is wrong.

We have to go on the offensive and hit where it hurts them

Where will it hurt Pakistan?
Where will it hurt China?

[kit]

.but with our engagements on both the sides...how can we hold our positions in the NE conventionally? Chinese with their huge conventional force coupled with NE based terrorists..how long will we be able to keep them off our lands while we hold pakis on the east?

A policy of "holding" is wrong.

We have to go on the offensive and hit where it hurts them

Where will it hurt Pakistan?
Where will it hurt China?

My thoughts are similar.Deny the chinese any access to overseas trade , blockade the indian ocean outreaches, destroy all merchant vessels and otherwise carrying any type of chinese cargo, declare indian ocean as out of bounds to all chinese navy/ships and declare a state of war against any chinese flag carrrying vessel.Blockade hong kong and prevent ships from entering / leaving the port.Remove the NFU clause officially, declare any action against any indian flag carrier as a act of war,encourage tibetan nationalism and recognize Tibet as a separate nation.Declare that there wont be any 'soft' response to state sponsored terrorist activity, any such action would lead to a 'possible' Indian nuclear first strike against all terrorist targets in PK including Islamabad.Remind other nation states that the time for 'talks' and 'protests' are over and that it believes only in 'action'.Deny the chinese any surveillance capability by blinding or covert destruction of their intelligence gathering ships/satellites/humint assets.Gift some nuclear and ballistic missile capability to taiwan and vietnam, 'encourage' their nationalism

[shiv]

The world's best method to remove the NFU clause officially is not by words, but by nuking someone after declaring NFU.

[kit]

In all regards a massive nuclear first strike against PK can be justified.And frankly India does not need any specific provocation from PK for that as of now.So that would be indeed 'surprising' to PK and CN as well ! ,What better example can stop the chinese from thinking of going to war with India ? I think that is the answer to the main question of this thread.Only thing now required is some ****s for the Indian politicians.
A total decapitation , no less surgery will work on a rabid dog.

[JimmyJ]

Wow if things were this easy !! Someone makes it sound like there is nothing to lose. I remember George Bush Jr., after all the chest thumping that he and his colleagues did after 2001, US is still stuck in Afghan. May be they should have dropped a 100 nuclear bomb in Afghan. Since it is America, they could have easily justified it too.


But I guess there are people who are still sensible..

India to post 'offensive' corps along China border

Presently, Indian Army is engaged in raising two mountain divisions along the border with the giant neighbour. The proposed strike corps and two independent brigades would be separate from the two divisions being raised, he said.

[Venkarl]

.but with our engagements on both the sides...how can we hold our positions in the NE conventionally? Chinese with their huge conventional force coupled with NE based terrorists..how long will we be able to keep them off our lands while we hold pakis on the east?

A policy of "holding" is wrong.

We have to go on the offensive and hit where it hurts them

Where will it hurt Pakistan?
Where will it hurt China?

I am new to this kind of discussions...Thanks to you and Kanson for coming up with valid arguments which only initiated my naive brain to do some research on NFU/FU..in that process..I've went through other nuclear powers' doctrines...barring West and Russia(who stuck to FU anyways)..my focus was on pakis and chinis...me thinks that Pakis will be extinct with the arsenal we have...so my main focus was to keep Chinese off our lands..be it in a conventional or non-conventional war..

the following quote from this link

.. During the 1970s and 1980s, reports that China had considered using nuclear weapons as a means of response to a conventional Soviet attack led many Western analysts to doubt the reliability of China’s NFU pledge. Today, observers continue to question whether China’s pledge prohibits use of nuclear weapons on Chinese soil, particularly in response to a foreign invasion or a war in Tibet or Taiwan. ..

tells me that the Chinese will go nuclear way saying phuk with NFU policy if an offensive on their land by a foreign power is launched. Now if we had a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons deliverable from land, air and sea {that means a solid second strike capability}...China may consider non-nuclear options..with this kind of setup...I will not disagree with you w.r.t "offensive" stance...but I don't think that we have such capability...that is why I used the word "hold" as I don't want anymore land loss...may be there are better words to depict this..

Now why my opinion is to withdraw from NFU stance and continue as retaliation?

Lets "say" Chinese forces have occupied Arunachal Pradesh and are on the verge of taking over other small states too in a conventional fashion....will we stick to NFU and try to push them back conventionally? what purpose is this NFU serving to MCD without any nuclear retaliation when our lands are occupied? I say we have complete authority to nuke away their formations on our lands....and that is achievable with FU policy only as a retaliation. At that time ,if we think about how world will look at us{as we SDREs are more bothered about how others look at us}, politically we have a valid reason that we nuked them because our lands were occupied. On the contrary, if we use nukes first with active NFU policy...we are only discrediting ourselves.

Added Later--
The other side is, sticking to NFU policy, wait till we are nuked and then retaliate, but is our arsenal huge enough to inflict a major damage in the first strike itself? and be even more punitive in our second strike if there be a reply to our first strike?
--
Humble opinions Sir.

[RamaY]

Mugambo khush huaaa...

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=13109

The Army proposal, now under consideration at the highest levels of the government, envisages an expenditure of Rs 9,500 crore. The cost is primarily for new equipment such as ultra light howitzers and helicopters required for creating these highly mobile units. Units of the strike corps, to be based somewhere in the northeast, would be capable of operating like rapid reaction forces. The strike corps would have two divisions and other support troops, TOI has learnt.

Where did we hear this before?

viewtopic.php?p=892065#p892065

* Develop hardened logistic routes across Indo-China Borders. This is the most important aspect in any future Indo-PRC wars. India must invest heavily in air-borne mechanized divisions which can be moved from one place to another. I strongly recommend five air-machanized divisions consisting of ~300 birds (5x60 birds = 25 for troops + 10 field guns + 10 MBRLs + 5 air-defense role + 10 gunships) which can deploy a 1000 member force unit with field guns, MBRLs etc to any part of Indo-PRC border within 1 hr and every hour there after. This capability can be raised in 3-5 years with ~$5-7B cost.

[ShauryaT]

the following quote from this link

.. During the 1970s and 1980s, reports that China had considered using nuclear weapons as a means of response to a conventional Soviet attack led many Western analysts to doubt the reliability of China’s NFU pledge. Today, observers continue to question whether China’s pledge prohibits use of nuclear weapons on Chinese soil, particularly in response to a foreign invasion or a war in Tibet or Taiwan. ..

Foolish will be a country, that will not use its arsenal to protect, what it deems as worthy. The trick is to figure out, what is worthy, in the eyes of the leaders of a country.

[jamwal]

What is this craze with "TAMIL NADU" by wet dreamer Pakis? What have poor Tamilians charmed Pakis with ?

That comes from Paki-Musharrafs because Pakis are TFTA Aaaaryans and Tamils are SDRE Dravidians.... And rest of India is filled with Evil Brahmins and Baniyaas...

Could be the Tamil-LTTE angle

[Samay]

Foolish will be a country, that will not use its arsenal to protect, what it deems as worthy. The trick is to figure out, what is worthy, in the eyes of the leaders of a country.

Thats what the game (2+ fronts attack/defence) is all about, leadership causes victory or loss, my point was if we have to face both these two evil forces at a time, then we need a leader who can do this,
Neither Hitler nor Nehru type, but someone who is.patriotic and sensible both...but ..Indians remain deluded .. thats what the game of anti-India forces (in Indian politics/media/bureaucracy ) is all about ,to keep them deluded

[Kanan]

Actually in the bygone financial year China grew at 10% and India 7.2%! The fastest and the second fastest growing economies! But to be honest we are like a Maruthi 800 doing 72 mph but they are like a Mercedes M class doing 100mph!

Precisely the reason why India must have thermonuclear weapons., a bit off the topic, but China will have sooo much to lose when a couple of Indian Hydrogen bombs land on their heads than the way bit smaller fission warheads at present.A two front war ., baby you got it.The strategic scenario changes when India fields fusion weapons even in the tens of missiles.
China wont prefer to attack India but let their dirty work done by PK while they cheer at the sidelines.Just because they could very well lose their economic infrastructure and lose their superpower status will prevent them from involving directly against India.

What concerns me is that the Pokhran tests were allegedly a failure! There are some disagreements and contadictions regarding this in the elite scientific community in India........

[DavidD]

The people who believe that nuclear threats are "bravado" are just the correct people on whom nuclear threats should be used. If they have guessed right they are lucky. If they guess wrong they lose unless they too are ready with nukes. There is rationality here, not irrationality. You can never say you weren't warned.

Well, the reason I believe that nuclear threats are "bravado" is precisely because all sides ARE ready with nukes.

[DavidD]

Thats the biggest joke I heard all day. It seems you have no idea about the 10% GDP growth during recession. Its an inflation created by rampant investment in Real Estate creating a huge bubble, far bigger than Dubai or Greece. When exports fell, that was how 10% GDP growth achieved. If you wanna better understand what I am saying, you should hang out in the China Economy thread. Or economy gurus like RamaY explain to you. You have no idea how big risk this bubble carries.

I am no economics guru ... but I just have a data point (between 2007-08)

PRC Nominal GDP Growth
Country(Region)↓................ GDP 2007 (Billions USD)↓....... GDP 2008 (Billions USD)↓ ........ GDP growth↓
People's Republic of China ..... 3,382.445 ................................ 4,401.614 ............................. 30.13%


PRC Trade Balance
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2008 19.5 8.6 13.4 16.7 20.2 21.0 25.3 28.7 29.4 35.2 40.1 39.0 297.0
2007 15.9 23.8 6.9 16.9 22.5 26.9 24.4 25.0 23.8 27.1 26.3 22.7 261.9

So a cursory analysis will tell us that only $36B "nominal" GDP increase derived from exports in 2008 where as the overall nominal GDP grew by >$1T.

Other key factors that could have contributed to such a massive nominal GDP increase are
- Exchange rate
- RE bubble
- Internal consumption

One can do further research to get exact numbers but a $400B RE bubble is plausible in PRC.

$400B in one year is not. The data you provided, as you noted, is raw nominal growth, I was talking about the real growth rate, which was at 8.7%(revised to 9.1% just today) for 2009, 9.6% for 2008, and predicted to be 9.5%(CCB) - 11%(OEDC) in 2010. RE bubble is an issue, but it's not the gigantic $400B a year issue some might think it is.

I'm dingyibvs, I think I'm gonna ask the mods to change my name to David.D

[DavidD]

Oh it's a misunderstanding, I completely agree with what you said. What I meant by lost territory is large chunks of land in Tibet, not the disputed territories. If China loses a conventional war over the disputed territories, they'll just take it for now. No sense in going all out for a land where "not a blade of grass grows." India didn't see the logic in it in the 60's, and nothing about those areas has changed since then, so China won't see the logic in it now either. As I've stated before, the only benefactors in a large scale war between China and India would be Russia and the U.S. due to war profiteering.

Unfortunately Tibet is a disputed territory, if not between India and PRC, but Tibet and PRC.

That's a worthy argument if Tibet is fighting PRC, not India. Besides, it doesn't matter whether a territory is actually disputed or not, it only matters if the two fighting sides consider as disputed, since that's what will shape the reactions. In this case, all Chinese people have been raised to consider Tibet as an integral part of China since the '50s, so in their minds Tibet IS indisputably a part of China and they will react accordingly.

[DavidD]

How much did America's GDP grow during that period? Anywhere even near 10% a year? Nope.

10% of $1 is not the same as 1% of $100; the GDPs were so disparate 10-15 years ago (the time period you made this statement about; plus no one really knows the real growth rate of Chine, not even IMF or the World Bank). Plus, we all like to drum up the sub-prime mortgage issue in the US, trust me when I say you would still be homeless in 2007 with no job and no money (the story would be differnet thought with a job and no money).

As far as cars go, well phone, internet and car penetration has also gone up SIGNIFICANTLY in India over the last decade and is growing at an amazing pace despite lacking the dictatorial communist style of China and therefore the state sponsored infrastructure and showpiece cities.

The American RE bubble was 5-10 years ago, while the Chinese RE bubble is happening now, so it'd be more appropriate to compare China's current GDP vs. America's GDP 5-10 years ago. They're not THAT far apart.

As for India's growth, I said nothing to denigrate India's achievements. I understand full well that India has been growing at a tremendous pace, but I also understand that India, like China, faces many of the same socio-economical problems that plague developing countries, despite being politically different.

[shiv]

A two-front war for India is a three-party war. India, Pakistan and China. All three have nuclear weapons. If even one of them uses those weapons all bets are off.

So any conflict involving all 3 is a "bet or a "gamble" about achieving some ends without making someone go nuclear.

Now according to theory
1) India follows NFU
2) Pakistan does not follow NFU and has nuclear red lines
3) For simplicity, assume that China will follow NFU

India, China and Pakistan get into a war.

Assume India and China continue conventional conflict for a while
What happens on the India Pakistan front?

If India defeats Pakistan, either Pakistan's FU bluff will be called and Pakistan wil get defeated, freeing up Indian forces against China

or

Pakistan will nuke India. Once India is nuked, deterrence os gone and India will be free to nuke everyone including China.

So we get back to the original question "What military aims can be hoped to be achieved by China and Pakistan attacking India together without the conflcit turning nuclear?"

The only situation that remains is the situation that more than one person has fearfully described on this thread

1) China and Pakistan attack India
2) India does not even do what India can do to Pakistan (and has plans for doing) i.e defeat Pakistan conventionally and grab territory in 2-3 weeks while holding China. India gets defeated conventionally.
3) India does not use its nukes despite a convincing defeat of its armed forces and loss of territory
4) game over.

Now if India is going to get defeated by Pakistan conventionally, why are we even bothering to talk about a 2 front war? Every plan that I know of involves inflicting a crushing blow on Pakistan, splitting it or grabbing territory in 2-3 weeks while holding China. Why would these plans fail?

Note that if these plans work. Pakistan will either have to go nuclear or get defeated. If it goes nuclear, we have nuclear war and China gets hit too.

[aqkhan]

A two-front war for India is a three-party war. India, Pakistan and China. All three have nuclear weapons. If even one of them uses those weapons all bets are off.

So any conflict involving all 3 is a "bet or a "gamble" about achieving some ends without making someone go nuclear.

Now according to theory
1) India follows NFU
2) Pakistan does not follow NFU and has nuclear red lines
3) For simplicity, assume that China will follow NFU

India, China and Pakistan get into a war.

Assume India and China continue conventional conflict for a while
What happens on the India Pakistan front?

If India defeats Pakistan, either Pakistan's FU bluff will be called and Pakistan wil get defeated, freeing up Indian forces against China

or

Pakistan will nuke India. Once India is nuked, deterrence os gone and India will be free to nuke everyone including China.

So we get back to the original question "What military aims can be hoped to be achieved by China and Pakistan attacking India together without the conflcit turning nuclear?"

The only situation that remains is the situation that more than one person has fearfully described on this thread

1) China and Pakistan attack India
2) India does not even do what India can do to Pakistan (and has plans for doing) i.e defeat Pakistan conventionally and grab territory in 2-3 weeks while holding China. India gets defeated conventionally.
3) India does not use its nukes despite a convincing defeat of its armed forces and loss of territory
4) game over.

Now if India is going to get defeated by Pakistan conventionally, why are we even bothering to talk about a 2 front war? Every plan that I know of involves inflicting a crushing blow on Pakistan, splitting it or grabbing territory in 2-3 weeks while holding China. Why would these plans fail?

Note that if these plans work. Pakistan will either have to go nuclear or get defeated. If it goes nuclear, we have nuclear war and China gets hit too.

I think India should immediately use nukes (on Pak), if it gets attacked on two fronts citing threat to existence or it should atleast use a lot of conventional missile attacks to completely annihilate pak capability in a single week. That is probably why India's Brahmos is a golden weapon. India just needs thousands of them to overwhelm pakistan.

[Bhaskar]

Good Point Shiv sir. I would like to reply with my position.
I think many of us believe defeating Pakistan in a span of 2 weeks is a possibility. Our babus have crippled the upgrade for our armed forces for decades.
I agree that the possibility of being defeated by Pakistan is almost zero (considering Pakistan does not use nukes). That said, we have seen how even such a small conflict like the one in 1999 at Kargil took 11 weeks for a decisive Indian victory. Expecting to defeat Pakistan in 2-3 when we are attacked, catching our forces off guard from both borders would be an ambitious dream.

I don't believe China and Pakistan, at least in the coming decade, will ever attack India simultaneously, together as one force. First reason would be that this could trigger a World War and such a big conflict involving 3 nuclear powers would not keep US away from it.
What might happen could be a Chinese aggression, similar to that of Kargil in Arunachal Pradesh. Seeing our current infrastructure in the region and Indian Army's strength in the North-East; it would be wishful thinking to expect that India would give the Chinese any tough battle. Seeing the scenario in Arunachal Pradesh, Pakistan would possibly see the opportunity to strike even in Kashmir. India's infrastructure on its Western borders is much advanced. US pressure, world criticism, China's contentment and India's political unwillingness for further war will put an end to the conflict in the east, giving India more leverage in the West. India should defeat Pakistan in a span of a couple months capturing Pakistani-Occupied Kashmir while Arunachal Pradesh might be seceded to China.

This scenario is based on considering that no countries will use WMD's in civilian populations and China will face harsh criticism from the US and other World powers while all will look for the war to end.

[ManuT]

Since 1962, this has been factored in by IA. In 1971 IA had china facing deployment, moving it only in the end.

In the mid 1990s GoI WAS informed, with eyes open wide, that with things as they were IA is now not in a position to fight a 2 front war. So this is not new. One of the consequences of Peace and Tranquility Agreement was that India was able to move troops from NE during 1999.

Now that understanding has changed in reality since 1999. India cannot rely on Chinese promises at the moment as it getting active about AP and also at various other points.

Problems are, India has the gaps in the recruitment have not been closed or even be reversed. Equipment procurement process is not at a desired level. IA has obsolescence is very high, to fight sharp conflict.

Only with the capabilities for a sharp response, that upsets their bigger plans of World Domination, will deter China. Chinese do not care for losses on the battlefield as the system is not accountable to it's people & press censorship. All it's troops from aksai chin to NE are under one command.

Pakistan is getting target practice in it's 'fight' against Taliban. That they are hand in glove is not the point. Point is, they pick and
choose on whom to do their live fire exercises. Helicopter gunships, integrating closely with infantry is in reality, only being used to fine tune (as Axis Powers did in Spain). Now they are getting to use drones. This teaches them their Use and also Evasion.
Also, since 1999, Pakistan has 'convinced' China, to support lend support to its activities, to act as a check on India, and renege with its commitments with India. The recent probes into Indian territories by China is a result of that cooperation between the two, if only to stretch Indian forces. Difference is, Chinese are only probing at this point, where as, Pakistan are 'willing ponies' for anyone, if only, it gives even a slight edge over India.

That is, in short, the nature of relationship between the two - China and Pakistan, and we just need to be aware of it. Till Taiwan is not de facto annexed by China, China will hesitate in acting against India.

[jamwal]

If Taiwan-US jump in, Japan will be forced into the conflict too.
What if Russia also joins the party citing it's own territorial disputes with China ?

Dispute with some south-east Asian nations over Spartly Islands can be another flash point albeit remote.

[Samay]

A two-front war for India is a three-party war. India, Pakistan and China. All three have nuclear weapons. If even one of them uses those weapons all bets are off.

So any conflict involving all 3 is a "bet or a "gamble" about achieving some ends without making someone go nuclear.

Now according to theory
1) India follows NFU
2) Pakistan does not follow NFU and has nuclear red lines
3) For simplicity, assume that China will follow NFU

What is the theory?
If pakistan goes nuclear then why china wold risk a 2 front war ?
What lead you to this assumption that china wont use Nukes first ? We have rough idea about PLA .