Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 18:52

We do not have someone covering our backs. The US is a pretender. When the time comes, it is only russia i will keep my faith in. We are yet to return their favour during the BD liberation war. India should start propping up the russian economy and make sure they stay around for a long time.

A two front war should include the russians.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 20:41

In case of a war, nobody will involve directly! the best help that can be expected is arms supply which the U.s , Israel and Russia would surely do!

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 20:42

And ajatshatru, India never supported Soviet invassion of Afghanistan

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 20:45

Ajatshatru wrote:
Till Taiwan is not de facto annexed by China, China will hesitate in acting against India.
Bhailog, is China ready for a two-front war i.e. let’s say China attacks India (so in the midst of a war with India) and using this opportunity, what if Taiwan declares formal independence....is China then capable of fighting a two-front war simultaneously (as any attack on Taiwan would also draw USA in this war)?

The best I know is Taiwan's autonomy is protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION. that is the ONLY reason why China does not invade Taiwan.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 20:48

And No Country in the world will want to be in a war with the U.S and Russia. They CAN annhiliate the opposition! But even they wouldn't interfere DIRECTLY if China attacks India over Tawang or Sikkim!!!! they would offer moral support and arms aid!

anchal · Post by **anchal** » 03 Jul 2010 21:03

Kanan wrote:
The best I know is Taiwan's autonomy is protected by the U.S CONSTITUTION. that is the ONLY reason why China does not invade Taiwan.

Kanan, can you please elaborate this line? It is news for me!

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 03 Jul 2010 21:05

Then i guess we're all by ourselves.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 21:14

3. As defined under the US Constitution and numerous Supreme Court cases, by virtue of living in a territory subject to US jurisdiction, the Taiwanese people

have fundamental rights under United States laws, including the US Constitution,

are entitled to be protected under the "common defense" umbrella of Article 1, Sec. 8, whereby Congress has authorized the US Dept. of Defense to assume full responsibility for the "national defense" needs of all states and territories subject to US jurisdiction,

have the Fifth Amendment right and Fourteenth Amendment right against deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,

have the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, including deprivation of citizenship, being "stateless," and/or conscription into service in a Chinese rebel army,

have the Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection of the laws, etc.

may not be deprived of the Fifth Amendment right to travel (including the right to apply for a US passport) without due process of law, which requires a notice and a hearing.

4. According to the SFPT, the TRA, and the "One China Policy," and with reference to the definition of "passport" provided in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the United States, as specified in INA 101(a)(30), there is no way that the Republic of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs can be construed as the competent authority for issuing passports to native Taiwanese persons in Taiwan.

Specifically, there are no international legal documents which can prove that Taiwan has ever been incorporated into the territory of the ROC or the PRC,

Under international law and US constitutional law, there is no legal basis for classifying native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens,

According to the US Dept. of State's Foreign Affairs Manuals, native Taiwanese persons should be classified as "US non-citizen nationals."

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 21:15

Anchal I hope the above post helps!!!

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 03 Jul 2010 21:24

More for you Anchal: here goes....

Taiwan Relations Act:

The act authorizes quasi-diplomatic relations with the "governing authorities on Taiwan" (the Republic of China government) by giving special powers to the American Institute in Taiwan to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international obligations previously made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated. One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Carter upon the establishment of relations was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; that termination was the subject of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter.

The act provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities". The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.[2]

The act does not recognize the terminology of "Republic of China" after Jan. 1, 1979. It defines the term "Taiwan" to include, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan (the main Island) and Penghu, which form the Taiwan Province and Taipei and Kaohsiung cities. The act does not apply to Jinmen, the Matsus, the Pratas or Taiping Island.

The act stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".

This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to the ROC in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. following legally non-binding Three Joint Communiques and the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy (which differs from the PRC's One-China Policy). The Taiwan Relations Act does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has adopted a policy of "strategic ambiguity" in which the U.S. neither confirms nor denies that it would intervene in such a scenario.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 03 Jul 2010 21:37

Am no expert, but seeing members discussing Taiwan attacking China just because of a war with India I couldn't help but pose these questions to you.

A. Why would Taiwan attack China just because China together with Pakistan is on war with India?

1. Does Taiwan has any territorial ambitions on which it could hold on in the mainland?
2. Would Taiwan be able to annihilate or at least disable the PLA, PLAAF and the PLAN that the Chinese will not retaliate back once it takes care of India?
3. Do the Americans have to support Taiwan if Taiwan initiates a war against China?

4. If Pakistan and China are together in a war against India would they individually need more resource or less?

5. If less, do the Chinese have to shift its major assets from the eastern front facing Taiwan towards India? If no, what difference will it make for Taiwan?

6. In case of an India vs Pak & China what could be the best for Taiwan? Would they play an overt or covert role for that?

I hope you got what I am trying to say.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 04 Jul 2010 01:45

Wars are avoided if posturing and preparations are right.

India should visibly be a bully and behave as Israel, vis-a-vis Pukistan, with zero tolarance. India should also be true to such posturing and be ready with all missiles armed and aimed at the vital localities of Pukistan, which should be fired with in seconds of cropping up of justifyable provocations of the kind of attack on Parliament or attack on Mumbai. War with Pukistan should be over with in hours of starting it with no possibility of escalation, and it has to be a nuclear war, with first use option. There is no escape for India from dealing with Pukistan and removing it from the face of this earth one day or the other. Why to wait in agony for the inevitable? Earlier the better.

As for China, we have just one single option: maching with it gun for gun and man for man.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 04 Jul 2010 05:45

The U.S. constitution does not protect Taiwan, it's not under U.S. jurisdiction either. The whole Taiwan thing is ridiculous, they're not gonna play a part in a sino-Indian conflict. If they are involved, they'll more likely be on the Chinese side. You know what happened during the Sino-Vietnam conflict over the Paracel Islands? The Taiwanese navy allowed PRC ships to pass through the strait to defeat the Vietnamese. Why? Because Taiwan claims those islands for China too, they also claim AP, Sikkim, AC, and whole swaths of Indian, Russian, Mongolian, etc. land.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2010 05:53

Samay wrote:
shiv wrote: 3) For simplicity, assume that China will follow NFU

What lead you to this assumption that china wont use Nukes first ?

Saar. The explanation is already there. In case you missed it I have enlarged the relevant font and colored it with the color "BF0000"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2010 08:55

Next rhetorical question:

If India (or any of the others) can turn a war nuclear and end a war so easily, why prepare for conventional war at all on two fronts?

The idea is IMO to reduce the threat of nuclear war. A local, minor but Kargil type occupation of Indian territory by the Chinese may not be on orders from Beijing but because of local corrupt commanders doing their own thing. If local corrupt Chinese commanders do things like this the Chicoms in Beijing will be too embarrassed to admit that the orders did not come from the top and will try and stonewall, deny or find a scapegoat.

In fact unilateral action by a rogue commander on the ground in AP may be an indicator of loss of control from Beijing and internal rifts. If we declare war on all of China those internal rifts may heal up. So it may be necessary to defeat some local ch**tiyapanti by conventional means. Hence conventional forces need to be strong, vigilant and well prepared and stocked.

I believe we have a tendency to assume that we are disunited and fissiparous while an adversary is always united and resolute. That is an act of cognitive bias.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 04 Jul 2010 09:20

JimmyJ wrote:Am no expert, but seeing members discussing Taiwan ...

Just to clarify, ...
My mention of ‘Taiwan’ is only in the context of how much time India has to get its act together.

The intention was not to imagine for Taiwan to come to India’s aid or US coming to Taiwan’s aid in case of Chinese invasion or US/Russia to come to India’s aid. Taiwan is only interested in not being swallowed by China, which in itself, is of little interest to India. The day it is swallowed, it implies a lot of new ground realities for the whole Free World.
Just my little take on recent Chinese history, it was Chaing Kai-Shek’s (CKS/Nationalists) army that was the professional army fighting around 1936-1945. In fighting the Japanese, Mao’s genius lay in the fact that he left the hard fighting against the Japanese to CKS’s army. A 1000 mile march is not really a march, it is a retreat. It was just written as such for the benefit of history. As the War ended, Chinese Communists broke their pact with CKS and the depleted Nationalist army cut off from its supplies from the Western Allies and took power. CKS’s remnants retreated to Taiwan.

PLA lost 100,000 (at a minimum) men in the Korean War. In 1962, India scored a lot of own goals. As late as 1979 China-Vietnam War, China’s performance has been pathetic. Even the rank structure was not formalized. Everyone was a ‘comrade’. But things are changing now at a rapid pace as we can see.

China is opening roads to Nepal, access from HP(?), Ladakh, AP, Bhutan, Sikkim. There is a maoist govt in Nepal, and it has quietly begin arm twisting Bhutan by opening border disputes with it.

Indian side is improving but the not with the pace and urgency it deserves. That’s all.

---
About, India not supporting Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, fact is, India never condemned it not even once. And supported Najjibullah till the end, long after the Russians had taken their bets off him.

---
IMO, US will get involved in any scenario that even looks like has the chances of going nuclear.

In 1962 it came out strongly in favour of India, and might have been the reason for the inexplicable vacating of territory in AP after the ceasefire.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Jul 2010 09:36

Shiv sir,the chinese threat perception about India is different from what India percieves them as .Its more competition oriented than conventional. China has a strange discomfort with India's rising status . So it wants the competition to be removed . Thats why it gave nukes to pakistan .
Therefore either china nukes first or pakistan does so , but FU will be from that side,
as IMHO thats the objective of China's support to pakistan ,ie giving nukes to them.
Fundamentally china will provoke the jihadi forces in pakistan to do that for them ,and get nuked as well. For both china and jihadis , it would be a dream come true.
While on the other hand china wont fear retaliation from India because
a) it didnt used the nuclear weapons,
b)Indian leaders may hesitate to do so, because of the fear of retaliation.

Therefore India's official stand should be that it will nuke the aggressor (pakistan) as well as the states that support it in the nuclear war .
(to clarify things internationally and domestically both, so that no one meddle in our affairs. )

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 04 Jul 2010 09:49

PRC arm twisting Bhutan...that shouldn't be allowed to happen.Don't they come under our defence umbrella.The larger problem is with the psyche of our politicians and the absence of a chicom centric policy and think tanks.

We need to be able to interlink events across the PRC and predict future flash points.Our intelligence ..is suspect is limited to peripheral areas of Tibet.It could be trained locals embedded within the population or our own operatives.Troop movements near the russian far east and areas bordering indo china need to be actively monitored.There is a large ethnic indian presence in Burma,Thailand,Malaysia and Singapore.Can't MI,IB leverage that and monitor their military assets.

I suspect while all our Cartosats and IRSats are focussing on tibet...we may be done in via myanmar.They have a railhead till deep into burmese territory,new air bases are coming up with startling speed.If they can commit air assets in burma....we are toast.Our air defence in the North East isn't exactly exciting either.There seems to be lack of coherence everywhere.The enemy has a plan and is quietly laying it out...we are busy selling CSD liquor.

I can already feel them inserting a DONG FENG up our SDRE a**es.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 04 Jul 2010 14:27

Samay wrote: Fundamentally china will provoke the jihadi forces in pakistan to do that for them

Yes..this is highly possible with their proliferation networks of both Chini and Paki. Once the Jihadis get hold of nukes....then I'd like to see how this NFU ambiguity will help us...

this goddamn NFU is like a nail under our butt while we are armed with super spanky laser guns...

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 04 Jul 2010 21:08

Shouldn't we change this thread name to a multi front war, given that the domestic jihadis, naxal terrorists, NE EJs are unlikely to lie low when the 2 front war begins?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 04 Jul 2010 21:15

We are already in a multifront war, only china has not entered openly ,may be they are just waiting ,so that their seeds bear fruit ,so that they fight India by not fighting it. .

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 04 Jul 2010 21:34

many here may think that my line of thinking is a warmonger's brain at work...but..Allah has given us many opportunities to change from NFU stance to FU as a retaliation when Paki's GHQ and nuclear bases(thrice) were attacked by home grown terrorists...we could have used such incidents to remove this NFU self obligation..Indian media could have been used to flash news that paki's nuclear weapons falling in the hands terrorists inimical to India is highly possible..anyways past is past..no point digging into it...now we cannot change this stance all of a sudden as "south asia" is under spotlight...only thing we can do now is wait and pray to Allah and his messenger for another major attack on Paki's nuclear facility and use that as a reason to change our stance..bigger the attack, stronger the reason of ours will be...and that is what Indian media should do the propaganda...but our main intention should be to signal Chinese to back off and re think their plans of "recovering their lost lands" as the Chinese put it...even on the negotiations table our position might be strong in the event of outbreak...

frankly speaking, I am not for nuclear war....but living with 2 hostile nuclear powers on either side...one has to be aggressive

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2010 18:21

Venkarl wrote:many here may think that my line of thinking is a warmonger's brain at work...but..Allah has given us many opportunities to change from NFU stance to FU as a retaliation when Paki's GHQ and nuclear bases(thrice) were attacked by home grown terrorists...we could have used such incidents to remove this NFU self obligation..Indian media could have been used to flash news that paki's nuclear weapons falling in the hands terrorists inimical to India is highly possible..anyways past is past..no point digging into it...now we cannot change this stance all of a sudden as "south asia" is under spotlight...only thing we can do now is wait and pray to Allah and his messenger for another major attack on Paki's nuclear facility and use that as a reason to change our stance..bigger the attack, stronger the reason of ours will be...and that is what Indian media should do the propaganda...but our main intention should be to signal Chinese to back off and re think their plans of "recovering their lost lands" as the Chinese put it...even on the negotiations table our position might be strong in the event of outbreak...

frankly speaking, I am not for nuclear war....but living with 2 hostile nuclear powers on either side...one has to be aggressive

Why do you believe that India will stand by its NFU

Here is what Adm Raja Menon says
Weapons of Mass Destruction - Options for India

India's and China's "No First Use" doctrines do not seem to provide
any further reassurance or confidence building than the paper on
which they are written. This is due to historical factors and the
proven record of both countries of acting in their national interest
when confronted with international obligations or even self pronounced
unilateral measures. Thus, our "no first use" fails to
reassure Pakistan as does China's failure to make any allowance for
India's calculations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jul 2010 18:46

The Chinese aim is to defeat India without going to war,by building up Pak as a proxy,which keeps India permanently battling cross-border terror and whose nuclear capabilities are being built up surreptitiously at China's expense to match if not better India's.Faced with staselmate with Pak,China can then swoop across the Asian map and move ots pieces on the chessboard at will.With India on the defensive even in economic terms when compared with China's African "takeaway" of its mineral and energy wealth,we will be hopelessly surrounded by nations who have closer ties with China and unable to counter Chinese influence.In such a scenario China does not need to go to war,but for any reason if it does and Pak simultaneously joins the fight,we could be in real trouble on the ground.Imagine a scenario where both Pak and China attack us in the high Himalayas-two "Kargils",one on each front.It will be v.difficult for us to counter a joint attack,for which we need extra mountain divisions and unless we deny China total access to the IOR and Gulf waters and transhipment of China's oil from the Gulf. Even here China's naval ambitions keep on growing and in a decade's time,it will be impossible to prevent the PLAN from permanently stationing its warships and subs at Gwadar and elsewhere ,as it is doing combating Smali pirates right now.Therefore an accelerated sub bulding/acquisition programme for the IN is paramount so that the key choke points are ready to be sanitised by the IN in advance of any PLA military action.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Jul 2010 18:49

I still wonder like others in the forum if any India PM (baring some one like Indira Gandhi purhaps) take the political decision to Nuke China or Pak. The main weakness appears to be political leadership with almost no militory background and even have a reasonable interest even to study war and related matters. Further our leadership still has a weakness to become international statesman/women like Nehru. One who enjoys such dreams can not take a decision to lanch nukes.

Another probelm is the peace lobby. It is still powerful and like A ROY and her gang supported with internation NGO gangs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2010 20:31

...here we go again. Recycle the same stuff every 4 pages

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:07

DavidD wrote:The U.S. constitution does not protect Taiwan, it's not under U.S. jurisdiction either. The whole Taiwan thing is ridiculous, they're not gonna play a part in a sino-Indian conflict. If they are involved, they'll more likely be on the Chinese side. You know what happened during the Sino-Vietnam conflict over the Paracel Islands? The Taiwanese navy allowed PRC ships to pass through the strait to defeat the Vietnamese. Why? Because Taiwan claims those islands for China too, they also claim AP, Sikkim, AC, and whole swaths of Indian, Russian, Mongolian, etc. land.

What do you support. Are you a Taiwanese. Do the Taiwanese also support the persecution of Tibetan Monks in China by PRC.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:12

DavidD wrote:
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.

It is the job of the Indians to change the mind of the people of China so that Tibet will be considered as owned by people of Tibet.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:21

DavidD wrote:

What would the world do when a terrorist group or homicidal general manages to get hold of some of these weapons? See Israel. I can see how you're worried about Pakistani leadership is crazy and start using these nukes, the Chinese feared similarly regarding the U.S. and the Soviets. However, you cannot let your actions be dictated by your fears, you need to realize that despite all the idealogical, cultural, and geopolitical differences between nations which hold nuclear weapons, they are still fundamentally human, and the fundamental driving force for humans is a sense of self-preservation. Nobody will start a nuclear war if it means that they will themselves be annihilated.

So what you are saying is that it is OK for China PRC to proliferate nuclear weapons to Pakistan even after it has accepted the international agreement on non proliferation.
So is it OK if China faces the consequence of that action and be target of India in case of nuclear war.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:24

DavidD wrote:

1) I'll tell you what'll happens if India declares it would nuke Pakistan if it sponsors terrorism over India. Nobody would believe it. If such a thing worked America could've won the Vietnam War by declaring it would nuke the Soviet Union and China for supporting it, the Soviets would've won in Afghanistan by declaring it would nuke the U.S. and China for supporting the Afghans. I won't believe it, and I'm willing to bet that even the majority of this particularly nationalistic board wouldn't believe it.

Dont be childish. In another post you are saying that leaders of all countries are human beings with rational thought.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:31

DavidD wrote:
Now, with that said, I agree that India shouldn't just do nothing if it believes that Pakistan was behind it. However, I do not believe that destroying Pakistan is the right course of action. No, Indian lives are not cheap, but 300 lives is cheaper than 1 billion, and that's how many India will lose if it engages in a nuclear war against Pakistan and China. To me, India does not have a choice but to pursue alternative means to solve the problem. By alternative, I mean economic and political means. Either India has to become more powerful than China and dictate the terms, or India will become a lower-tier power than China and be small enough of a threat for China to guarantee its security in exchange for Indian cooperation.

This lower power and higher power is your imagination. World does not run that way.

The only way for India to have avoided this problem WAS to modernize its economy before China did, when China was embroiled in internal conflicts during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution years. That way, India would be ahead of China and could have dictated the terms. However, India let that window of opportunity pass, and now has to deal with the consequences and take many decades longer to achieve its objective. It's similar to how China let the window of opportunity for retaking Taiwan pass when it entered the Korean War. 60 years later, Taiwan is still essentially independent. Just like how a hasty attack on Taiwan hasn't been and won't in the near future be an option for China, a hasty attempt to eliminate the Pakistani threat is similarly foolish.

PRC is essentially dependent on these exports to these western countries and none of those trade relationship are permanent. So the western nations did a favor to China and its people. Now using that you are trying to intimidate Indians.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2010 21:37

DavidD wrote:
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.

It is in both countries interest that China does not proliferate WMD to Pakistan and other rogue countries.
It will also help avoid conflict between India and China. This will shift the global power to Asia. India and China will never need to clash for ever till eternity.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 05 Jul 2010 22:52

shiv wrote:
Why do you believe that India will stand by its NFU

Here is what Adm Raja Menon says
Weapons of Mass Destruction - Options for India

Sirji..Official stance of India is NFU which is a joke and self goal...what purpose is it serving? ..(nuclear deal???)..anyways....I do agree that any analysis in this regard should be revolving around retired defense personnels' opinions..but they are just not official...btw...its M.S.Mamik's opinion which you've quoted, not Adm Raja Menon's.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 05 Jul 2010 23:57

I don't understand why we need to change anything with the NFU policy wrt China, we have a very robust and structured armed forces system and are more than capable of defending ourselves against any Chinese misadventure. Added to that the recent developments on the military front give me confidence that we are not soft on China.

India is not comparable to TSP in the way that TSP is insecure about the ability of it's conventional forces to stop an indian Invasion hence they keep blowing up the "Nuclear armed" agenda. We OTOH don't need to be such a paranoid nation.

We are conventionally strong and tomorrow if we have to defend against a combined operation by Pak + China , I'm sure that we can hold the line with our resources, note that the emphasis is on Combined DEFENCE here. Offensive operations is another kettle of fish.

As far as deterring China goes, Navy has a critical role to play. China must be made aware that any nasty business against India will put their sea lanes for trade in serious trouble and could seriously impact their growing relations with Africa, Access to Gulf oil , access to TSP etc.

As long as we rule the IOR , China will have a very significant thing to loose in a tussle vis-a-vis India.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Jul 2010 00:24

Bhaskar wrote: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.

Very nice point even for a single morcha of kargil which was not fully declared war and their armymen were fighting under the garb of terrorists we took 11 weeks to defeat them. Even in that Mirages had to be prepared for air to ground bombing, russkies and israelis had to provide ammo for artillery from their own stock. How can we even imagine of defeating porkis in just two weeks.

The right way for this thread would be to:

1.) First discuss the conventional number of forces used by all the three parties, the weaponery quantity/quality, lasting of rasad etc.

2.) What part terrain would play, to whose advantage, what our the weak points of each. Where can we take maximum advantage?

3.) and then proceed to nuking part, how many warheads/missiles needed to obliterate porkis? How much needed for China?

4.) What should be our stock, how to secure it from pre-emptive strikes, so that in "post nuke war" scenario we should be equal if not less damaged then chinese? 'cause it has been proven in "Deterrence" thread come what may neither china, nor us can completely finish each other off.

FU or NFU is totally irrelevent in this thread, in fact it takes away the focus from real issues!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jul 2010 01:12

Manish is right. Please discuss along his suggested lines.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 06 Jul 2010 20:23

Hi Manish and ramana,

Ok, Lets face it! We spend $30 billion annually on defence but the Chinese have declared $70 billion publicly but international estimates are to the north of $100 billionn that is three times our budget and they pay soldiers almost the same as we do! So, it becomes simple.......We cannot match in numbers......

Any way let us start,here goes.................

http://indiastrategic.webs.com/mysteriousmarks.htm

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 06 Jul 2010 20:25

other than numbers speed matters a lot! Given our airlift capabilities....its tough to consider ourselves Fast Bowlers......We are more like Robin Singh when it comes to speed of mobilisation........................

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2010 20:41

Kanan wrote:other than numbers speed matters a lot! Given our airlift capabilities....its tough to consider ourselves Fast Bowlers......We are more like Robin Singh when it comes to speed of mobilisation........................

The other problem is that on this forum we have a far greater understanding of the intricacies of cricket than the details of terrain and deployments. That makes for clever analogies but complete nonsense when it comes to actually being able to write something specific about the topic of the thread.

It only adds to bullshitting, not gyan.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 06 Jul 2010 22:46

shiv wrote:
Kanan wrote:other than numbers speed matters a lot! Given our airlift capabilities....its tough to consider ourselves Fast Bowlers......We are more like Robin Singh when it comes to speed of mobilisation........................
The other problem is that on this forum we have a far greater understanding of the intricacies of cricket than the details of terrain and deployments. That makes for clever analogies but complete nonsense when it comes to actually being able to write something specific about the topic of the thread.

It only adds to bullshitting, not gyan.

If you want to hear only what u want to,then you can not be in a democracy! What I said is India's Strategic Airlift is just 15 Il-76s while U.S has around 30 C-5s and 200 C-17s for a military of almost the same size! We need to have at leat 20% of their Strategic Airlift capability and we don't have even one percent,literally!