Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

[Rudradev]

Therefore we don't have protection against cruise missiles

To me this is the most worrying thing.

See, if PLA attacks in force at the Tawang defile or in Aksai Chin... geography will make it necessary for them to concentrate all their forces in a small area that gives onto Indian territory. We will see it coming. If we are watching at all, we cannot miss the preparations.

Now once the attack begins, there are (very broadly speaking) two ways to respond to it.

The first is to meet them head on at the point of the breach, with land forces backed by CAS patrols, while using longer-range IAF assets and perhaps some missile assets to interdict their supply lines in the rear. If the assault can be quickly made expensive for the Chinese in this way, it is a good idea. However, it also means that the initiative will be with the Chinese. If they are expecting to be met head-on as soon as they cross into Indian territory, and we oblige them, then they are effectively choosing the time and more importantly the location of the action.

The second way to respond to it is to extend the Chinese. Let them advance into Indian territory; use flanking manoeuvres and harrassment, as well as the terrain, to corral the advancing Chinese into a location of our choosing. Then surround, isolate them and finish them off. Meanwhile, of course, interdicting the supply lines with IAF and missile assets to whatever extent possible.

In this case we have the advantage of initiative, and of fighting on ground of our choice. Another advantage is that their supply lines become longer, as do the distances their aircraft will have to fly to provide CAS or recon (a very critical thing given the altitude of Tibetan airbases, as Shiv has pointed out many times.) Each mile further into India that the action takes place, is an extra cost to the PLAAF in fuel or payload.

On the face of it the second option seems marginally more attractive (unless we are sure of bringing overwhelming force to meet the Chinese as soon as they breach Indian territory.) I am no military strategist, but given that India has so far been extending its border infrastructure at a leisurely pace, it is possible that our military strategists may also have something like this in mind... let the PLA have a long rope, advancing into India with no roads to help supply them or beat a quick retreat, and then slaughter them like the Russians slaughtered Napoleon.

The problem, of course, is the cruise missiles.

To exercise the second option, we will need to do a lot of complicated manoeuvres in the PLA's rear and around their flanks before surrounding them. If the PLA were only relying on the PLAAF, these manoeuvres would have been relatively low-risk for India; but if the Chinese have the capacity to send barrages of cruise missiles against Indian forces cutting off the PLA's advance, something against which we have no protection, we will lose a lot of lives and materiel, as well as speed and initiative, while trying to maneouvre around the PLA. This could put severe pressure on IA if it is also fighting a war against TSP at the same time.

The Chinese know this and, since Sumdorong Chu, they have rightly decided that only missiles can give them an overwhelming advantage over India in the event of a border war. That's why they have been deploying thousands of LACMs all along the Indo-China border for years. The Chinese also know that they cannot win a long or protracted land war on the Indo-China border... ultimately, no matter how many supplies they stockpile, repeated IAF and missile raids will sever their supply arteries and then they will be stuck. Thus, they are likely planning a "shock and awe" move with their cruise missiles, and will deploy them against us in large numbers at the very early stages of a war... hoping to demoralize us with mass military casualties and possibly even by destroying large numbers of civil, commercial and industrial targets.

Countering the cruise missile threat is an urgent need... because right now, escalation to a nuclear war seems our only option when confronted with such an assault.

[Thomas Kolarek]

It is amazing that Indians believe that US, Israel, Russia, etc will help us in case on a conflict with Pakistan or China. They will not. Ditto for Iran. Even before India voted in IAEA against Iran, Iran was helping Pakistan. It paid Pakistan millions of dollars, to buy nuclear know-how. Dollars which went directly to enhance Pakistan nuclear arsenal. In 1971, Pakistan sent some of its fighters for safe keeping, not to saudi arabia but to Iran.
Israel has a long history of cooperating with China in weapon systems. Ditto for Russia. Russia sold China Su-30 MK fighters. It also sold china SU-33 naval fighters for the future Aircraft Carrier of China.

.
Why not ? Didn't Israel prove that during Kargil that a friend in need is a friend in deed. Didn't Russia proved countless times including last major war in 1971 ? If Indian strategists are clever enough, they can help US-Iran agree on supply route through chabahar port(which India built for Iran) and this will pave for new US-Iran cooperation ignoring Pakistan and will allow US to win the war on terror in Afghanistan.

[ManuT]

It is amazing that Indians believe that US, Israel, Russia, etc will help us in case on a conflict with Pakistan or China.

This is correct. If India is to fight, it is to fight on its own strengths. Do not expect US, Israel or Russia to do the actual fighting for India.

At the same time, one does not want Pakistan and China not to hold the narrative. India definitely WOULD NOT want, USA to give India's troop positions as it did during Op Parakaram. Also, Israel can defy world opinion and keep on supplying shells if needed be. India needs all the friends it can gather, to be on its side rather than push them away.

See, if PLA attacks in force at the Tawang defile or in Aksai Chin... geography will make it necessary for them to concentrate all their forces in a

small area that gives onto Indian territory. We will see it coming. If we are watching at all, we cannot miss the preparations.

Minor point, IMO, AKC and AP are not the only 2 places, anymore, where China can interject, it is really in a lot more places in between.

---
India should PREPARE for a 2 front war, and there will be no need to pick a fight. The day it is READY, China will see ancient wisdom in defining the border. IMO, With Pakistan the need to clearly define the border. To talk of making it irrelevant is nonsense.

Only once there is absolute clarity of the borders with China can there be some trust of its intention vis-a-vis India. And only when there is clear definition of border in Kashmir (and not these criss crossing lines, which make it a moving target) can the interference from Pakistan be truncated.

[arnabh]

Only once there is absolute clarity of the borders with China can there be some trust of its intention vis-a-vis India. And only when there is clear definition of border in Kashmir (and not these criss crossing lines, which make it a moving target) can the interference from Pakistan be truncated.

The China part may be true. However, Pak so long as it exists as a viable entity will never truncate interference in India...pak cannot exist without its life giving conflict with india......it's ultimate objective is the islamic republic of india

[Rudradev]

See, if PLA attacks in force at the Tawang defile or in Aksai Chin... geography will make it necessary for them to concentrate all their forces in a

small area that gives onto Indian territory. We will see it coming. If we are watching at all, we cannot miss the preparations.

Minor point, IMO, AKC and AP are not the only 2 places, anymore, where China can interject, it is really in a lot more places in between.

I did not imply that they were. Even as early as 1967, Chinese made a grab for Nathu La (which is in Sikkim... neither AKC nor AP.) That does not change the fact that if we are observant, we cannot miss the preparations, the stockpiling of supplies and the force concentrations being built up at the PLA's chosen site of attack.

[Christopher Sidor]

It is amazing that Indians believe that US, Israel, Russia, etc will help us in case on a conflict with Pakistan or China. They will not. Ditto for Iran. Even before India voted in IAEA against Iran, Iran was helping Pakistan. It paid Pakistan millions of dollars, to buy nuclear know-how. Dollars which went directly to enhance Pakistan nuclear arsenal. In 1971, Pakistan sent some of its fighters for safe keeping, not to saudi arabia but to Iran.
Israel has a long history of cooperating with China in weapon systems. Ditto for Russia. Russia sold China Su-30 MK fighters. It also sold china SU-33 naval fighters for the future Aircraft Carrier of China.

.
Why not ? Didn't Israel prove that during Kargil that a friend in need is a friend in deed. Didn't Russia proved countless times including last major war in 1971 ? If Indian strategists are clever enough, they can help US-Iran agree on supply route through chabahar port(which India built for Iran) and this will pave for new US-Iran cooperation ignoring Pakistan and will allow US to win the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Kargil was against Pakistan. What I was alluding to was a conflict or tension between china and india. In such a case, Israel's help cannot be counted on.
Russia/Soviet Union did not help us in 1962. Just because Russia is helping us with the latest weapons, currently, does not mean that it will help us with china. Dont forget if we go to war against China our air force will face su-30mkk, supplied by russia to china. Our navy will most probably go against su-33 fighters, again supplied by Russia. Indian peninsular will most probably bombed by Chinese bombers operating out of southern and central china. These bombers are Tu-22M-3 and TU-95MS Bear. These have again been supplied by Russia. Infact if you were to take an inventory of the latest and the most potent weapon systems that china has currently, majority of them would have been supplied by russia. And it is these weapons that we will have to counter.

Please do not assume that if a country helps us against pakistan, it will automatically help us against china. Most of them will not.

[svinayak]

It is amazing that Indians believe that US, Israel, Russia, etc will help us in case on a conflict with Pakistan or China. They will not.

Indians mostly the colonized ones are the one who have put faith on western nations to help them during conflict.


Kargil was against Pakistan.
Major economies did not want a larger global conflict which will bring down the global economy.

Russia/Soviet Union did not help us in 1962.
This conflict was approved by the major powers at that time to bring down JLN.

Please do not assume that if a country helps us against pakistan, it will automatically help us against china. Most of them will not.

It will take a long time for the Indian elite to understand this.

[AdityaM]

I haven't gone through this thread, so pardon me if this was already covered somewhere.


If i was a general sitting in my armchair in rawalpindi or Beijing, I would focus on ensuring that whatever non-military factors worked well for india previously in the last war are sufficiently nullified. All efforts would be to neutralise them so that when the war comes, India cannot seek their support.

Have we on BRF done an analysis of what worked for us during the last war -Kargil.
- Media
The Media had played an important part in molding public opinion which channeled the national outrage into national desire to take on TSP.
- Govt
The Govt had ministers (like Jaswant singh etc) who laid the indian case very well. (ok this would be challenged by many like topics related to politics)
- Forces
The young army leadership (junior level) proved their mettle in the war and came across as very spirited
- Bureaucracy
They must have done something worthwhile!

Since all these are essential cogs on the wheel to victory, it is important to identify where they lie today.

Media: This is a far cry from the Kargil time. The very media people who emerged as journalistic heroes have now morphed into villain puppets who lend themselves to play at the hand of forces inimical to us
Forces: They have been much abused now. A lot has been said on their neglect
Govt & Babus: S-e-S and dossier diplomacy. need not say any further about them. The Govt & Babus have firmly fallen hook, line and sinker to the tune of 'no alternative but to talk'

The media today is incapable of rising to the occasion like it did during Kargil. As the inimical general, I would be happy at having neutralised the indian media (opinion makers) or having more favourable to non-indian interests.
Similarly, nationalistic Indian politicians are regularly disgraced in the media. Today it is difficult to visualise that they will be able to come in power.

We need to check if the enemy has readied himself by weakening our previously strong points. From what I can see, a determined effort has already been made to weaken them

[ManuT]

Pak so long as it exists as a viable entity will never truncate interference in India...pak cannot exist without its life giving conflict with india

Exactly, a clear definitive border in J&K will be devastating for Paki cause.

.it's ultimate objective is the islamic republic of india

Don't be fooled. 10% of Pakis are practically under water at this point.

[ManuT]

I did not imply that they were. Even as early as 1967, Chinese made a grab for Nathu La (which is in Sikkim... neither AKC nor AP.) That does not change the fact that if we are observant, we cannot miss the preparations, the stockpiling of supplies and the force concentrations being built up at the PLA's chosen site of attack.

China is more organised in its methods, let's hope India is more pro-active in its response rather than reactive.

Please do not assume that if a country helps us against pakistan, it will automatically help us against china. Most of them will not.

Indians mostly the colonized ones are the one who have put faith on western nations to help them during conflict.

IMO, there is some value in building alliances, but they have to be built in advance and as the hostilities are breaking out. One would hope similar systems will polarise together in the long run. India should know in which direction it wants to polarise itself. Because at least one of the directions are led by people like Karat.

Kargil was against Pakistan.
Major economies did not want a larger global conflict which will bring down the global economy.

I do not think it is any different 10 years later, only more so today. The World will want peace so that it can trade. Someone will go to war only if it has to i.e. if there is big one or a grave provocation.

slight OT ---

Russia/Soviet Union did not help us in 1962. This conflict was approved by the major powers at that time to bring down JLN.

In my verison, it was brought upon JLN by himself (a series of policy errors, since fall of Lhasa) and Krishna Menon (internal sabotage). But West did come to India's aid and India's response to them was kind of bi-polar.

[Christopher Sidor]

I did not imply that they were. Even as early as 1967, Chinese made a grab for Nathu La (which is in Sikkim... neither AKC nor AP.) That does not change the fact that if we are observant, we cannot miss the preparations, the stockpiling of supplies and the force concentrations being built up at the PLA's chosen site of attack.

China is more organised in its methods, let's hope India is more pro-active in its response rather than reactive.

Please do not assume that if a country helps us against pakistan, it will automatically help us against china. Most of them will not.

Indians mostly the colonized ones are the one who have put faith on western nations to help them during conflict.

IMO, there is some value in building alliances, but they have to be built in advance and as the hostilities are breaking out. One would hope similar systems will polarise together in the long run. India should know in which direction it wants to polarise itself. Because at least one of the directions are led by people like Karat.

Manuji the problems with building alliances are
1) Alliances are built, by two or more countries. Not all of these countries have the same interest. Also they are based on quid-pro-quid. If you are attacked, we will help. If we are attacked, you will help. I do not see why India has to get involved if Taiwan or Japan get attacked by China. It is up to these countries to defend themselves. None of these countries will come to India's help in case of a conflict or will be able to come to India's help. Moreover backing on India's strength some of these countries might make an improper calculation, which leads us into a hot soup. After 2025 this will apply to US also.
2) Alliances place a restriction on what can be done and cannot be done. They are restrictive on the foreign policy front. They make us loose some of our freedom to manoeuvre. For example if China were to offer us a quid-pro-quid for pakistan and taiwan, I do not see why we should not utilize it.
3) If we form a alliance against china, then china can also form an alliance with pakistan or bangladesh or nepal or sri lanka against us. China has borders with two of these countries, pakistan and nepal. China has an indirect corridor to bangladesh and sri lanka, via Burma. And this alliance can include certain persian gulf countries or south east asian countries. We have no land borders with any of our potential alliance partners. We will have to depend on sea route (dangerous) or air route (extremely exorbitant expensive) to get help from our alliance partners or to provide help to our alliance partners.

Karat is living in a world which does not exist as far as foreign policy is concerned. It seems his ideology is clouding his vision. I am glad that UPA got rid of Prakash Karat and his ilk.

Kargil was against Pakistan.
Major economies did not want a larger global conflict which will bring down the global economy.

I do not think it is any different 10 years later, only more so today. The World will want peace so that it can trade. Someone will go to war only if it has to i.e. if there is big one or a grave provocation.

slight OT ---

Russia/Soviet Union did not help us in 1962. This conflict was approved by the major powers at that time to bring down JLN.

In my verison, it was brought upon JLN by himself (a series of policy errors, since fall of Lhasa) and Krishna Menon (internal sabotage). But West did come to India's aid and India's response to them was kind of bi-polar.

West came to india's help in 1962, because it saw chinese as a threat. It is rumoured that US even flirted with the idea of giving India nuclear weapon capability to counter the chinese nuclear capability after the lop nor test of 1964. Thankfully nothing came out of it.
But manu ji as you correctly pointed out the failings were mostly internal where we were concerned. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel had warned Nehru about Chinese way back in 1949-50. Nehru due to his rivalry with him was unable to distinguish between the messenger and the message. We paid a heavy price for it.

[ramana]

Moved posts to Strategic Leadership thread. Please continue there. Thanks, ramana

[Thomas Kolarek]

How we could make China think not twice but thrice before attacking India ? Do we just need one magic weapon like DF-21 ? Am sure Pakistan will join the march against India, once China starts its attack. The first few hours of the Chinese attack, will they fire 100's of conventional missiles to break our defenses and if they succeed they try to enter Arunachal with Air support. Am sure it will be a quick attack, else they will risk nuclear war.

[yantra]

Some more questions:
1. What is the window for China to do a swift and concerted attack, in terms of time? Probably the next 2 years when a lot of up-gradations and defence purchases are still happening? What should be India's strategy in the short-medium term?
2. What counter-attack strategy from India will hurt China most?
3. What is the possibility of China marching through (a welcoming) Nepal?

[Christopher Sidor]

Some more questions:
1. What is the window for China to do a swift and concerted attack, in terms of time? Probably the next 2 years when a lot of up-gradations and defence purchases are still happening? What should be India's strategy in the short-medium term?
2. What counter-attack strategy from India will hurt China most?
3. What is the possibility of China marching through (a welcoming) Nepal?

The third point is the most worrying of all. In fact you can add bhutan and pakistan to the list. It would not take much for china to violate the territories of Nepal and Bhutan to teach india a lesson. Further we have concentrated on those states which actually border with china, namely arunachal, sikkim, uttaranchal, himachal and J&K. Our states which border nepal and bhutan are relatively weakly defended, namely, up, bihar and assam. If china violates nepals territory to launch an attack on india then the key population centers of northern india will be threatened by PLA troops. This also will stretch our army and airforce. I do not know if SSB, the force which guards our borders with nepal, will be able to put up a fight against the initial chinese incursions.
Pakistan will willingly allow the Chinese troops access to their northern areas to attack India in kargil-leh sector. They will also provide logistics and basing support to these troops. And this should be factored into our plans.

Another disturbing way for china to attack India in the east and threaten Calcutta is via Burma-Bangladesh. With Burma literally under Chinese control, it would not take much for Chinese troops stationed in the southern and eastern china to use the Burmese territory and then Bangladesh's territory to launch an attack on India. In fact it can be assumed that the chinese bombers and PLAAF assets in southern and eastern china will be very easily put to use against peninsular india and Andaman & nicobar islands China is already planning to link Burma with rail and road to its southern and eastern province. The purpose is reported, for trade, investment and to overcome the mallaca straits dilemma. But this infrastructure can very easily be used as pressure points by PLA against India.
All of these countries, Nepal, Pakistan, Burma-Bangladesh, Bhutan will not be able to resist the Chinese violation of its territories or will do so willingly.

[yantra]

True, a multi-pronged attack through Burma-Assam, Nepal-Bihar/UP and Pak attacking north of /Punjab is a worrying scenario. The other worrying scenario is that, they may initially give the impression (through build-ups and satellite images, etc) that they may attack through Uttaranchal, Silchar, etc., but may quickly move the theatre to Nepal borders since the infrastructure on their side enables rapid movement of troops and equipment from one front to another, and India may be unable to anticipate and move as quickly?

[Christopher Sidor]

A nuclear war has not been fought till date on this planet. True there were two atomic bombs which were dropped on japan, but japan had no nukes or did not have any budding nuclear weapon capability then. And that can hardly qualify as a nuclear war. But if a nuclear war is fought in Asia, it would be between India-pakistan or India-China or China-US or China-Japan. Japan, has the technology and the capability to manufacture a nuke and deliver it also.

India did fight the kargil war with pakistan. But that was basically a war under a nuclear umbrella. It was not a nuclear war.

Now all the future scenarios, for a two front war, which have been painted, like a limited war or a skirmish or a quick war, etc are just theories. Now the funny thing about theories is that they do not survive the first contact with reality. (This is variation of the American saying "No Plan survives the first contact with the enemy.")

Humans have not invented any weapon which they have not used in a war. So we cannot assume that nuclear weapons are a special breed which will not be used. They will be used. And currently we have no means to stop their deliver. This is not going to change in the next 10-15 years at least. So our focus shifts from defending to rebuilding. We will need to rebuild our cities after nuclear strikes. We will need to have capabilities, especially our fire brigades, to deal with nuclear fire, rescue civilians, rehabilitate them and get our economy back on track once again. It does not seem like that most of our fire brigades are ready for such a scenario.
Simply concentrating on having weapon systems which can survive a nuclear or emp weapons will not do. Our civilian side will also have to be hardened against these weapon systems.

[ManuT]

All of these countries, Nepal, Pakistan, Burma-Bangladesh, Bhutan will not be able to resist the Chinese violation of its territories or will do so willingly

With Bhutan and Nepal, India (as the treaties with both have changed) should have military pacts to come to their aid if attacked by China.

This does 2 things, it states clearly for China to limit its activities to trade.

Second, it fixes any snafus in case it does play out. If India has to wait for formal request to come to their aid, it is too late and it makes their take difficult. But, if it is clear that the moment reds cross the border Nepalese and Bhutia forces come under the command of IA, the response will be better co-ordinated. The Nepal and Bhutia forces, unlike Kuwati, WILL know that they only have to hold out till the arrival of IA and there will be interjections along Indo-Chinese borders. IA will know WHERE to go rather than seeking communicating and clarifying the lines and also assess the situation at the same time.

IMO, from the POV of these 2, whether target is India or annexation by China, their existence is at stake. From India's POV, it Chinese cross the border through these 2 places, is India going to wait (as in Tibet) to find out if the Chinese are going to stop at end of their borders. Also, maoists need to be factored in a situation where IA has to operate in Nepal.

OTOH, China does not attack these two countries, they do not have to get involved.

Hence,
A. Pacts should be in place,
B. Joint exercises should be in place so we know who does what,
C. Speed up acquisitions.

See this is tough as it is, IA has to cooperate with IAF and GOI to begin with. IA itself has multiple commands along the length of the border. Then it has to work with multiple para-militaries sub-ordinated to it and figure out the overall picture.

With BD, only air fields and port facilities can be used I doubt if troops can be moved 'quickly' through BD, except by BDs. So we need to cover that. Also, strengthen relations with the current regime which is showing initiative in dealing with ULFA.

With Burma, the key point to track will be the progress of the construction of railways (and road links built, if any) by China. I am ignorant on this. Also, need to keep an eye on clearings in the jungles to look for air fields, which can be tough as there will be decoys. IMO, the military junta in Burma is just a self serving military junta and not a communist regime. That being the case, its existence relies on being the biggest bully in town and in that sense, it would be against its own interest to 'invite' Chinese. Besides their army is of half fed, half dead conscripts which can only suppress its own people. (I have no respect for them) I do not think they would want to jeoperdise their Order.

[shiv]

With Burma, the key point to track will be the progress of the construction of railways (and road links built, if any) by China. I am ignorant on this. Also, need to keep an eye on clearings in the jungles to look for air fields, which can be tough as there will be decoys.

Manu I think airfields are easy to spot and difficult to hide from satellites. Even if they are in jungles they will have to have roads leading up to them if they are active. Air activity from such airfieds can be picked up from hundreds of km away.

[Christopher Sidor]

China to deploy MBT tanks in Tibet

Maybe the illusion that large scale incursions are not possible due to Himalayas will have to be discarded sooner than later. With onward march of time and technology, we can presume that Himalayas will cease to be a barrier to those who wish to threaten India.

[Christopher Sidor]

Guys good news guys NERPA aka INS Chakra II has been handed over to India. It has left Russia for India

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67J0GL.htm

[Arya Sumantra]

Missiles, missiles and more missiles. Even if brahmos is range limited it doesn't matter because to fight the two rivals have to come close(< 300 km). Though there are some assets which will be cozying far away, the other enemy assets closer down wouldn't be trivial. Most enemy assets in action will usually be closer and well within the range.

And loads of everything that we can build in-house Arjun mk1s, Pinaka MBRLs because that is the best way to stretch the money into massive sizes. Remember how the soviets fought back germans.

[ShauryaT]

China to deploy MBT tanks in Tibet

India has had MBT's in the area also since a few years now, so no big deal here. PRC is in fact reacting to India. Also, the tanks being deployed by PRC are not exactly super blazing et al. The "Ajeya" is more than a match for the deployed tanks. The number of tanks that the Chinese have in total and in the area is not known to be superior to what the IA can field. So, do not see any case for alarm here.

On the PRC border, it is sometimes difficult to say, who is the hunter and who is the hunted. That is a good sign for India.

For every $ that India spends in infrastructure in the region, PRC would have to spend a lot more, due to the long logistics chain and 100's of miles of perma frost that they will have to deal with, resulting in higher maintenance.

All in all, the IA is defending pretty well.

[DavidD]

China to deploy MBT tanks in Tibet

India has had MBT's in the area also since a few years now, so no big deal here. PRC is in fact reacting to India. Also, the tanks being deployed by PRC are not exactly super blazing et al. The "Ajeya" is more than a match for the deployed tanks. The number of tanks that the Chinese have in total and in the area is not known to be superior to what the IA can field. So, do not see any case for alarm here.

On the PRC border, it is sometimes difficult to say, who is the hunter and who is the hunted. That is a good sign for India.

For every $ that India spends in infrastructure in the region, PRC would have to spend a lot more, due to the long logistics chain and 100's of miles of perma frost that they will have to deal with, resulting in higher maintenance.

All in all, the IA is defending pretty well.

Exactly, a tank assault across the Himalayas is a laughable thought. It just ain't gonna happen. The two countries are in their most prosperous times in over a century, you'd think that the people who can rise above 1+ billion people to lead their respective nations would be smart enough not to mess it up with war.

[Rajdeep]

When India is a nuclear capable country, why should it need to worry about a two front war?
My premise is simple: Would China be a big enough fool to instigate a war when it knows India has nuclear capabilities.

I thought that its only Pakistan that we had to worry about as its kind of a loose cannon. You really cannot predict whats going to happen there, although trying to save our self from a nuclear attack seems futile if they are determined.

In a scenario where there are no nukes involved, I think there will be huge international pressure to stay off between India and Pak. China at the most will support Pak by helping with machinery and resources and not any manpower. But that is something we already presume. There will be tremendous pressure on India by Washington to lay off their dog Pakistan. In any case, unless its a right wing govt in place in the US, chances of they being baseless threats is low. In case of the democrats, it may cost us huge economically. However any case, I don't envision a WW type scenario.

I really feel when push comes to pull, Pakistan will find itself quite alone left to fight India. I am just worried that having nothing to lose or gain, Pakistan may choose a nuclear option the next time it finds itself backed in to a corner.

[Yagnasri]

How does Type 96 compare with say Ajeya ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96#Type_96

and Ajeya

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/t-72.htm

[TonyMontana]

My premise is simple: Would China be a big enough fool to instigate a war when it knows India has nuclear capabilities.

Of cause not. Billions of dead are bad for business.

I really feel when push comes to pull, Pakistan will find itself quite alone left to fight India. I am just worried that having nothing to lose or gain, Pakistan may choose a nuclear option the next time it finds itself backed in to a corner.

I don't think they are dumb enough to initiate a nation-nation nuclear exchange. You have to worry about loose nukes that "accidently" went into the hands of terrorists. Looking at the Indian response to the mumbai seige, I don't see India responding immediately to glass Pakistan. And the longer the wait is to respond nuclearly (?) the more international pressure there is to stop India from responding in a nuclear fashion.

[Thomas Kolarek]

So what if China attacks India and near Arunachal Pradesh and threatens India with Nuclear Weapons targeted to Delhi, disallowing India to use Nuclear Weapons ?
Can we allow India to lose AP and avoid Nuclear war ? Certainly not.

My premise is simple: Would China be a big enough fool to instigate a war when it knows India has nuclear capabilities.

Of cause not. Billions of dead are bad for business.

I really feel when push comes to pull, Pakistan will find itself quite alone left to fight India. I am just worried that having nothing to lose or gain, Pakistan may choose a nuclear option the next time it finds itself backed in to a corner.

I don't think they are dumb enough to initiate a nation-nation nuclear exchange. You have to worry about loose nukes that "accidently" went into the hands of terrorists. Looking at the Indian response to the mumbai seige, I don't see India responding immediately to glass Pakistan. And the longer the wait is to respond nuclearly (?) the more international pressure there is to stop India from responding in a nuclear fashion.

[TonyMontana]

So what if China attacks India and near Arunachal Pradesh and threatens India with Nuclear Weapons targeted to Delhi, disallowing India to use Nuclear Weapons?
Can we allow India to lose AP and avoid Nuclear war ? Certainly not.

Well. That's how Nuclear deterance works. So NO ONE will use nuclear weapons. It's a big leap to link losing AP and nuclear war. Does India really need to resort to Nuclear Weapons to defend AP? I'm quitely confident that conventional Indian military will comfortablly make the Chinese invasion of AP economically unsustainable for them. Besides, you have to make the argument that starting a shooting war with India is worth it for the billions the Chinese will lose in international trade.

[ManuT]

"Live Free or die" remember that.

People who do not come from open societies are incapable of understanding these words.
If one is reading this from a society that is not open and happens to understand these words, you are on the wrong side.
If one is reading this from an open society and believe otherwise, you are the threat.


Since people are the same it does not matter, it is the systems we are talking about.

In an open system, like that of a Democracy of which India is an example of - good and bad (warts and all) are open. The discussions are open. Intentions are transparent. There is no secret police that will knock on the door. Believe it or not it is a big deal.

China's system is a black box, that is, its intentions are opaque. It is a Single Party system, with no opposition. There is no capacity for dissent. How it deals with dissent is an eye opener to its thinking. It adopted western economic reform. Big deal. Did it adopt its values too? I do not think so. It censors the internet. Imagine, the country with pretension of being the next super power is afraid of the internet.

The manner in which China treats internal dissent is indicative of two things:
1. How it will deal with entities it has disputes with.
2. Its leadership's capacity to change during times of turmoil. Don't be fooled by the Communist Party Conventions, the motions of which it goes through remember the thousands of people it executes every year for various crimes. The capacity to change, in absence of the freedom to speak freely, is really limited.

TSP: The TSPA is the system (and a willing pony for anyone if only by doing so, it gets a slight edge over India)

P.S.:fixed a typo.

[Chinmayanand]

Ajai Shukla: Does the CAG leak defence secrets?

Perhaps this question relates to how inept, corrupt and incompetent the defence establishment appeared in CAG's audit reports

Perhaps this question relates to how inept, corrupt and incompetent the defence establishment appeared in the audit reports that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) tabled in Parliament on August 3. Within days, The Times of India (ToI) carried a news report about the military’s secrecy concerns about the CAG’s public assessment of its operational readiness.

The military was particularly incensed, or so ToI suggested, by the CAG’s exposure of its poor readiness for war. The report hints darkly that the enemy would gain strength from the secrets that the CAG had unthinkingly leaked. Rather than going public about the decrepitude of our national defence, complained an anonymous military officer to ToI, sensitive CAG reports must go only to “a select few of decision-makers” (sic).
This insidious argument raises important questions. Are there tangible benefits from our openness about military readiness? Does the public need to know what the CAG unearths? And do our potential military adversaries, China and Pakistan, pore over the CAG’s reports to discover secrets they do not already know?

To put the military’s complaints in context, remember that it is highly sensitive to public criticism. With its holy-cow status under enthusiastic attack from an activist and an often-sensationalist media, the uniformed community reacts to criticism with a defensiveness that is baffling in India’s most respected government organisation. As part of a largely unaccountable government, the military’s growing siege mentality translates into a reflexive impulse to shut out public scrutiny by citing secrecy.

That notwithstanding, there is a reason why the military — comprising 1.6 million citizens drawn from an increasingly corrupt societal milieu — remains a functional and honest organisation. The credit goes to a finely structured system of checks and motivations. The motivations are mostly internal, such as the institutional process of imbuing recruits and cadets with the ideals of izzat (self-respect), imandari (honesty) and wafadari (loyalty) from the day they join. But equally important is the system of checks and balances which includes multiple layers of audit, culminating in that of the CAG. Diluting CAG oversight, especially the audit of functional performance, would disturb a balance that has evolved over time.

To examine the questions raised, let us look at two of the audits tabled by the CAG on August 3. The first case details how defence PSU, or DPSU, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) obtained an MoD order to indigenise radars in India, but then simply bought them from a foreign vendor and sold them to the MoD for a premium.

That DPSUs like BEL don the cloak of “indigenisation” to obtain preferential MoD orders is an open secret within the military, the MoD and the analyst community. Soldiers joke that the only BEL-made part of an ostensibly BEL-made radar is the '"Made by BEL” plaque that covers the original “Made in France” stamp. Proving that is difficult and the MoD and the DPSUs stonewall any questions. But this CAG audit painstakingly documents how the MoD paid BEL '870 crore for 22 radars in 2007, '41.39 crore more than the cost of buying from the original manufacturer, Italian company Selex. The rationale for this largesse: indigenous production. But then, within three months of that contract, BEL ordered 13 radars from Selex in CKD (Completely Knocked Down) kits, “in gross violation of its own commitment of manufacturing these radars indigenously”.

The MoD, unusually, has admitted that BEL has effectively fronted for a foreign vendor and handsomely profited from it. What use would have been served by placing this audit before the MoD, when the ministry itself is a part of this charade? The CAG report has provided a public tool (howsoever apathetic our jaded janta and media might be towards it) to pressure the government for a level-playing field in defence production.

A second CAG audit dissects a two-decade delay by the Indian Air Force (IAF) in building and commissioning a strategic airbase at Phalodi, near Jaisalmer. Sanctioned '29 crore in 1985, little happened until 2000, when the IAF reinvented Phalodi’s importance. This time '227 crore was sanctioned — eight times the original cost — including '25 crore for fast-tracking the project. Then apathy again replaced urgency. By September 2009, only '85 crore had been spent. The runway, a key asset, was only 71 per cent complete.

What happened next illustrates the power of such an audit. With a CAG indictment imminent, the air chief hastily flew to Phalodi in April 2010 to “inaugurate” the incomplete base. The official press release on that occasion falsely claimed that “the base is ready to undertake all types of operations of IAF”. In fact, as recently as September 2009 (the CAG report notes), essential facilities for an airbase — radio communications, bomb dumps, blast pens, etc. — had not been sanctioned, leave alone constructed. And few noticed that the IAF photos of Phalodi depicted a runway without lighting.

The sorry Phalodi tale is hardly news to Pakistan. Commercially available satellite imagery would have kept Pakistani intelligence fully informed about the IAF’s sluggishness on what it had advocated as an essential counter to Pakistan’s stepped up construction of airbases across the border. But this is news to the Indian taxpayer. And, importantly, the CAG audit has goaded the IAF into action; once populated, Phalodi will quickly be completed.

CAG performance audits are an essential step towards greater public scrutiny of India’s closeted and hidebound defence establishment. They supplement the MoD’s own annual report and the reports of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence, in throwing light on the handling of a massive chunk of taxpayer money. Whether the public and the media can use this information to pressure the MoD into positive action is another question.

[TonyMontana]

"Live Free or die" remember that.

The sad truth is, contrary to popular Hollywood movies, most people would rather just live.

People who do not come from open societies are incapable of understanding these words.

Are you sure? I would thought oppressed people would understand these words a lot more than your average western youth, whose freedom was never threatened.

If one is reading this from a society that is not open and happens to understand these words, you are on the wrong side.

Wrong side is a bad way of putting it isn't it? Wishing you were somewhere else is more reasonable.

If one is reading this from an open society and believe otherwise, you are the threat.

Really? So if I'm willing to endure oppression and live to feed my family, I'm a threat?

Things are a lot more complex and grey in the real world. Nothing is so clear cut and dry.

Since people are the same it does not matter, it is the systems we are talking about.

Agreed.

In an open system, like that of a Democracy of which India is an example of - good and bad (warts and all) are open. The discussions are open. Intentions are transparent. There is no secret police that will know on the door. Believe it or not it is a big deal.

The bolded part is wishful thinking.

China's system is a black box, that is, its intentions are opaque. It is a Single Party system, with no opposition.

You'll be suprised how complex the Chinese political scene is. People have this misconception that China is a one man dictatorship where the will of the party is singular and absolute. There are heaps of different factions and power bases within the central government that vias for power. They have to work with each other and make concessions. Believe it or not there are moderates and reformist factions in China too, these are often backed by major business interests.

There is no capacity for dissent. How it deals with dissent is an eye opener to its thinking. It adopted western economic reform. Big deal. Did it adopt its values too? I do not think so. It censors the internet. Imagine, the country with pretension of being the next super power is afraid of the internet.

What is sad is the population has given the government mandate on cracking down on dissidents. When a dissident is shown sentenced on TV, the general reaction I gather from people are not of "Oh Noes, the government just got one more of our champions. Evil B@stards!", the reaction you get normally is this: "Oh poor guy. But serves him right for rocking the boat. Hope he get out one day and get to go to America. Lucky B@stard!"

The manner in which China treats internal dissent is indicative of two things:
1. How it will deal with entities it has disputes with.

I would say this is too simplistic.

2. Its leadership's capacity to change during times of turmoil. Don't be fooled by the Communist Party Conventions, the motions of which it goes through remember the thousands of people it executes every year for various crimes. The capacity to change, in absence of the freedom to speak freely, is really limited.

I would say the Chinese themselves have low capacity to "change". They "adopt" and "modify". That is what they do, through out history. But they don't really "change". The Chinese took to the communist government like fish to water because that is the kind of government they ALWAYS had.

[ManuT]

"Live Free or die" remember that.

The sad truth is, contrary to popular Hollywood movies, most people would rather just live.

People who do not come from open societies are incapable of understanding these words.

Are you sure? I would thought oppressed people would understand these words a lot more than your average western youth, whose freedom was never threatened.

If one is reading this from a society that is not open and happens to understand these words, you are on the wrong side.

Wrong side is a bad way of putting it isn't it? Wishing you were somewhere else is more reasonable.

If one is reading this from an open society and believe otherwise, you are the threat.

Really? So if I'm willing to endure oppression and live to feed my family, I'm a threat?

It might take a lifetime to understand it, and maybe with less of hollywood movies.
For other statements I'll try to keep it simple.
1. How do the colour blind precieve or imagine the rainbow to be?
2. Regarding the second statement, first one has to have to be aware that one is in on the worng side. Wishes don't matter, actions do.
3. If you are aware of it, willing to endure oppression, with no resistence to it, in some form or shape, you are a coward. But wait, that is not I said, read above, the operative words were if "you are in an open society" but still think that the oppressive system is the way to go.

Things are a lot more complex and grey in the real world. Nothing is so clear cut and dry.

Since people are the same it does not matter, it is the systems we are talking about.

Agreed.

In an open system, like that of a Democracy of which India is an example of - good and bad (warts and all) are open. The discussions are open. Intentions are transparent. There is no secret police that will know on the door. Believe it or not it is a big deal.

The bolded part is wishful thinking.

Wishes don't matter, actions do. Once the complexities are understood, the areas do not remain grey, they become really simple.

China's system is a black box, that is, its intentions are opaque. It is a Single Party system, with no opposition.

You'll be suprised how complex the Chinese political scene is. People have this misconception that China is a one man dictatorship where the will of the party is singular and absolute. There are heaps of different factions and power bases within the central government that vias for power. They have to work with each other and make concessions. Believe it or not there are moderates and reformist factions in China too, these are often backed by major business interests.

There is no capacity for dissent. How it deals with dissent is an eye opener to its thinking. It adopted western economic reform. Big deal. Did it adopt its values too? I do not think so. It censors the internet. Imagine, the country with pretension of being the next super power is afraid of the internet.

What is sad is the population has given the government mandate on cracking down on dissidents. When a dissident is shown sentenced on TV, the general reaction I gather from people are not of "Oh Noes, the government just got one more of our champions. Evil B@stards!", the reaction you get normally is this: "Oh poor guy. But serves him right for rocking the boat. Hope he get out one day and get to go to America. Lucky B@stard!"

The manner in which China treats internal dissent is indicative of two things:
1. How it will deal with entities it has disputes with.

I have no interest in the Communuist Party's version of history of events, or its interpretation of 'mandate', but it seems to have influenced you.

Answer this, when you see Chairman Mao's portrait at Tiaenman Square, what do you see? Now imagine, what I see, maybe you'll see the rainbow.

Workings and power struggles of a party INTERNAL to it cannot be classified as politics.
I do not care to know which comrade bows to which, how and by how much. Compare with its peers, that other single party systems.
It won't be any different, and if continues on that path the same goes for the outcome.

I would say this is too simplistic.

It is called KISS.

2. Its leadership's capacity to change during times of turmoil. Don't be fooled by the Communist Party Conventions, the motions of which it goes through remember the thousands of people it executes every year for various crimes. The capacity to change, in absence of the freedom to speak freely, is really limited.

I would say the Chinese themselves have low capacity to "change". They "adopt" and "modify". That is what they do, through out history. But they don't really "change". The Chinese took to the communist government like fish to water because that is the kind of government they ALWAYS had.

This messes up your "agreed" part above.

[TonyMontana]

It might take a lifetime to understand it, and maybe with less of hollywood movies.
For other statements I'll try to keep it simple.
1. How do the colour blind precieve or imagine the rainbow to be?

Does knowing the colour of the rainbow improves the colour blind person's life? If not, does it matter? Look, I know what you're getting at. I love me freedom. The fear is not "Indian type" freedom. The fear in China is "Iraqi type" freedom.

2. Regarding the second statement, first one has to have to be aware that one is in on the worng side. Wishes don't matter, actions do.

Who's the judge of right and wrong? Is America right? Maybe the word you're looking for is "different side".

3. If you are aware of it, willing to endure oppression, with no resistence to it, in some form or shape, you are a coward. But wait, that is not I said, read above, the operative words were if "you are in an open society" but still think that the oppressive system is the way to go.

Oh snap!

I have no interest in the Communuist Party's version of history of events, or its interpretation of 'mandate', but it seems to have influenced you.

How would it affect your views if the Communist interpretation is similar to the traditional chinese interpretation of "mandate". Would you say the traditional chinese interpretation of "mandate" is wrong?

Answer this, when you see Chairman Mao's portrait at Tiaenman Square, what do you see? Now imagine, what I see, maybe you'll see the rainbow.

If I was to stand in your position, looking at the same angle towards the raindrops, I will be seeing your rainbow. And I do see the rainbow, just standing a little way away from you, looking at the clouds from a different angle. I also think those colour blind people over on the other side of the river that's happy having a picnic looking at their three coloured rainbows don't need me to drag them over the river and get them all wet so they can see my 7 coloured rainbow.

Workings and power struggles of a party INTERNAL to it cannot be classified as politics.
I do not care to know which comrade bows to which, how and by how much. Compare with its peers, that other single party systems.
It won't be any different, and if continues on that path the same goes for the outcome.

You must also believe the American politics are vibrant and diverse and fully reflects the will of the people. I recommend you to read some commentary on american politics by the late modern philosopher Bill Hicks.

[arnabh]

maybe if we have directed energy weapons - can we win a 2 front war

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR

NEW DELHI - Indian scientists are developing laser-based anti-ballistic missile systems called Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs).

Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), DEW weapons can kill incoming ballistic missiles by bombarding them with subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves. The weapons could intercept missiles soon after they were launched toward India.
Related Topics

* Asia & Pacific Rim
* Air Warfare

A DRDO scientist said laser-based weapons have been tested. One of these weapons is the air defense dazzler, which can engage enemy aircraft and helicopters at a range of 10 kilometers. This weapon will be ready for induction in two years.

India's laser weapons can be deployed in the Navy's submarines and destroyers, and Air Force fighters and transport planes.

The DEW laser weapon is capable of producing 25-kilowatt pulses that can destroy a ballistic missile within seven kilometers, the scientist said.

In addition, Indian scientists are testing the Prithvi homemade anti-ballistic missile system, which can kill ballistic missiles at a height of up to 80 kilometers. The first-phase Prithvi is likely to be inducted by 2013, said the DRDO scientist.

Scientists are working on developing second-phase Prithvis capable of killing incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.

[TonyMontana]

maybe if we have directed energy weapons - can we win a 2 front war

With these direct energy weapons, India can shoot down all Chinese nuclear tipped missiles aimed at India. And with enough offensive nuclear tipped missiles, India could exterminate the Chinese forever! So yes, it's one way of winning.

[ManuT]

It might take a lifetime to understand it, and maybe with less of hollywood movies.
For other statements I'll try to keep it simple.
1. How do the colour blind precieve or imagine the rainbow to be?

Does knowing the colour of the rainbow improves the colour blind person's life? If not, does it matter? Look, I know what you're getting at. I love me freedom. The fear is not "Indian type" freedom. The fear in China is "Iraqi type" freedom.

Point A, This is really no surprise having choked all avenues for dissent. because x-posted

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

Point B, x-posted

Like a retired ex Air chief quipped the Indian mind will always be superior to their's. Its time we harnessed it

rather than circumscribe it.

Good for morale boosting, bad to plan a stategy around.

Domestic strength and self-belief is.

And when we really do that China will also take us seriously and possibly even come round.

Asian solidarity is the key.

I totally agree with this. The Chinese are more rational than you give them credit for. If it's more profitable to engage with India, they will do it.

But at this stage it's more profitable for the Chinese to suppress India.

The above comment has finally been posted on the right thread.



Point C, Lastly, ...

Answer this, when you see Chairman Mao's portrait at Tiaenman Square, what do you see? Now imagine, what I see, maybe you'll see the rainbow.

If I was to stand in your position, looking at the same angle towards the raindrops, I will be seeing your rainbow. And I do see the rainbow, just standing a little way away from you, looking at the clouds from a different angle. I also think those colour blind people over on the other side of the river that's happy having a picnic looking at their three coloured rainbows don't need me to drag them over the river and get them all wet so they can see my 7 coloured rainbow.

Give it another try, when you see Chairman Mao's portrait at Tiaenman Square, what do you see? Even if the POV is a 'different' one.

[TonyMontana]

Point A, This is really no surprise having choked all avenues for dissent. because x-posted

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

Could you please elabrate? I'm not quite sure what point are you trying to make.

Point B, x-posted
The above comment has finally been posted on the right thread.

I'm a bit slow today. You lost me. What are you trying to say?

Point C, Lastly, ...
Give it another try, when you see Chairman Mao's portrait at Tiaenman Square, what do you see? Even if the POV is an 'different' one.

What do I see? I see the protrait of Chairman Mao. What do I feel? Indifference.

The opinions of Mao in China (this is just my point of view by the way) is that he's pretty good at fighting wars. Sure, he had good generals. But he was the head huncho of the red army and they did win in the end agains the nationalist. Right or wrong the guy had a thing going for him. That being said. He should've died after the war ended. Would've saved everyone alot of trouble.

However, the average Chinese will still see him as the "Uniter". How familar are you with the First Emperor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang That guy is a right b@stard too. But he is still venerated in China. Because he is the "uniter". Mao will be viewed in the same light.

Why do I feel indifferent? You must MUST understand. Everything that happened before Comrade Xiao Ping's reforms and before 1989 in China are viewed as a different Dynasty. Ancient history in a sense. I say it again, to see China today through the lense of Red China is counter productive.

[ManuT]

I'll try to keep it short.

Regarding A, basically what I am looking for how PRC treats a difference of opinion with entities it calls it's own flesh and blood. In abscence of other political parties one has to  look at its dealings with HK, Taiwan, Tibet. They show the contempt for peaceful methods, Taiwan shows what can hold it off and Tibet shows the consequences of inability to hold it off. Each case shows the system is Top Heavy and that is the inherent problem.

Regarding B, wishes don't matter, actions do. Actions can be forgiven, intentions can't. So actions should be in line with the intentions. If you follow PRC actions with regards to the geographic area called the Indian sub-continent either the intentions are  short sighted or the intentions are clear.

The comments that I x-posted, is to point out that at least you have some awareness of policy exists as practiced by PRC towards India. You are also aware of the instrument used for part of implementation of that policy namely TSP as posted below

wrote:
Now he does not say -
Shame on the Chinese leadership to give WMD to Pakistan and rogue states.

Why? They are just doing it for their national interests. Should India not do what's in her national interest because of the opinion of others?

But is it right policy?   

Why say here the response to it is trade? Trade is there, no one is stopping that. But to say that the response should be trade would amount to closing eyes here. 
    
Regarding C, thanks for the response. That kind of indifference can be deadly. See, Chairman Mao killed 30 million of the Chinese people, his own people. Do you feel that same indifference towards the rape of Nanking. If not, why not? If 'why not' then there is a problem with the portrait at the Square because it represents the System, the established order.
 
There is a another reason why it can be deadly, it is there so that the people do not forget that Chairman Mao can make a re-appearance, if need be. This will be especially true during times of stress or when PRC has a difference of opinion.  Who will be the judge of the timing of that - the Communist Party.

Just to spell it out, to me, there is no difference between the rape of Nanking and the Great Leap forward. From my POV, that is the right side of it, there is no grey there.         

[TonyMontana]

Regarding A, basically what I am looking for how PRC treats a difference of opinion with entities it calls it's own flesh and blood.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that the CCP is oppressing say 80% of the Chinese population and that these 80% of Chinese disagree with CCP policies. What do you say if I tell you that in my opinion, 90% of Chinese agrees with CCP policies or are at least indifferent. And that the democracy/freedom crowd are seen as city intellectual types that should get a job.

In abscence of other political parties one has to  look at its dealings with HK, Taiwan, Tibet. They show the contempt for peaceful methods, Taiwan shows what can hold it off and Tibet shows the consequences of inability to hold it off. Each case shows the system is Top Heavy and that is the inherent problem.

HK. Mostly peaceful. Some teething issues, but mostly business as usual. Taiwan, more peaceful than ever before. Heaps of economic entanglement. Too much money to be made to fight some silly war over. (see a pattern?). Tibet was invaded in the 50's. A different world back then.

Regarding B, wishes don't matter, actions do. Actions can be forgiven, intentions can't. So actions should be in line with the intentions. If you follow PRC actions with regards to the geographic area called the Indian sub-continent either the intentions are  short sighted or the intentions are clear.

Intentions change! You can't undo actions.

Why say here the response to it is trade? Trade is there, no one is stopping that. But to say that the response should be trade would amount to closing eyes here. 

And by closing your eyes to the possibilities of Trade over War is a worse response.

   
Regarding C, thanks for the response. That kind of indifference can be deadly. See, Chairman Mao killed 30 million of the Chinese people, his own people. Do you feel that same indifference towards the rape of Nanking. If not, why not? If 'why not' then there is a problem with the portrait at the Square because it represents the System, the established order.

Good attempt at ==. Bet you expected a raise out of me for mentioning Nanking (It's actually NanJing, for Southern Capital. Like BeiJing means Northern Capital.)

I'll let you in on a secret. I think you believed CCP propaganda a lot more than the average Chinese. NanJing was the capital. It was SACKED. This is what the east asians do to each other in wars since forever. Beijing was sacked by the european powers before that. It's what happenes to a fragmented China fighting itself. Looking back on history, the people that killed the most amount of Chinese has ALWAYS been Chinese. What the Japanese did was nothing compared to what the Chinese do to each other. Personally, I've always felt BAD for the Japanese. They got firebombed to defeat. The Germans had their last fight. The Red Army had to fight into the Reichstag. The Japanese. Samurai. Death before dishonor. Those guys surrandered. Can you imagine that? Over a million Japanese Soldiers surrandered in China without incident.

There is a another reason why it can be deadly, it is there so that the people do not forget that Chairman Mao can make a re-appearance, if need be. This will be especially true during times of stress or when PRC has a difference of opinion.  Who will be the judge of the timing of that - the Communist Party.

Agreed. But the the Chinese fear instability and "chaos" a lot more. Chairman Mao might come back. And that's a BIG might in today's world. The guy is bad for business. But instability guarantees suffering.

Just to spell it out, to me, there is no difference between the rape of Nanking and the Great Leap forward. From my POV, that is the right side of it, there is no grey there.

Believe it or not I agree with you. Coming from a Buddhist culture. Suffering is quantitative. Irregardless of intentions. Look at Iraq. Could you say they are better off now than under Saddam? China today is more free, and have the lowest "suffering" in a long time. Could you see now why the Chinese want this to go on a little longer?