Bharat Rakshak

A war involving India, Pakistan and China will benefit only "the West" (more precisely the plutocrats controlling the West). Unfortunately there are too many useful idiots and shills in China, Pakistan (and also to some extent in India) who are only too happy to play along.

As far as the Pakis are concerned, it is their rabid anti-Kufr Islamism that enhances their usefulness as idiots. As regards the Chicoms, their idiocy manisfests in their willingness to supply nukes to the Pakis. Even India is not blameless - Nehru had no business to be collaborating with the Americans to needle the Chinese in Tibet in the 1950's, at a time when the Indian army was seriously under-equipped and under-prepared, and millions were going hungry in India.

This picture shows elevations within Arunachal Pradesh and across the border from Aru. P

I conclude that GOI is in possession of intelligence that something is going down. Either Tibetans have decided upon a course of action (perhaps post Dalai Lama) or India is more active in Tibet than generally believed.

I too don't discount that possibility. There is a reason why China is ramping up the AP bit. After the Dalai Lama the chances his successor will be from AP, India are very high. Chinese aim is to make AP disputed much before that eventuality. Even a limited skirmish will do towards that end.

Imagine the dent of legitimacy if Dalai Lamas successor is indeed an Indian passport holder from Arunachal Pradesh! I mean the CCP will go ballistic! But this has been the nature of dealings between India and Tibet for millenia. Masters from here were acknowldeged there, without land grab claims made by India on Tibet. China probably thinks in that scenario there will be a significant school of opinion developed in India that may make Tibet a big issue. I think that is already overdue. And it's growing due to the Chinese aggression in AP.

The Dalai Lama is the legitimate Tibetan leader, however China bullies other nations against it.

Well... if you think calm and honest assessment of the Chinese threat constitutes Chicken-Little Syndrome, that is all the more reason why the truth needs to be laid out.

China is not Pakistan. There are two crucial differences:

1. Chinese forces are far more massive, and they have the proven record of not disengaging just because they are taking losses, or that more than 2 weeks have elapsed.

2. In any confrontation with Pakistan we have a very very important and crucial ally - Pakistan. They can be depended on, 600%, to screw themselves very early on, and keep screwing themselves. It does not matter if they have nukes or F-22s or F-35s or hypersonic missiles - they will find a way to screw themselves. Looking at each war with Pakistan, you see very easily that they did as much to defeat themselves, often more, than India was willing to do to them.

No such luck with China.


In response to viv:

N^3, Was the war in Korea not with Soviet help including people and weaponry? Or, was it all China plus North-Korea?

Here is the point I was trying to make there. The Cold War was between US and SU. Both assumed that no one else in the Duniya mattered at all. So the Korean War, and then the Vietnam War, were viewed as manifestations of the Domino Theory, or the COMINTERN plan for global domination, or the Capitalist-Imperialist Plot to continue colonizing the Proletariat, depending on one's pov.

In Korea, the SU provided fighter planes and Soviet pilots, early on. The Chinese had these inferior planes, true, but the Soviets matched US planes quite a bit.

But that was not where the real war occurred. The US assumed that WW-2 tactics of aerial bombing followed by mechanized divisions and Marines sweeping in, would finish the job. The "UN" actually did sweep across North Korea (and if you want to know the record of treatment of civilians etc., check GOOGLE, you can find pictures and all). The US forces went right up to the Chinese border, and they thought that would be the end of the war. So the Soviet intervention was completely ineffective there.

Then the Chinese came across their border. Most of the 55,000+ US deaths occurred somewhere around the Chosin Reservoir and the withdrawal/rout from there. US history claims that 900,000 Chinese died, and the snow around the reservoir was so covered with Chinese corpses that the Americans had to walk on a carpet of Chinese dead to get out of there. The Chinese history of the Korean war laughs:

How could they have counted? They were running as hard as they could...

Point is that the Chinese won that war despite whatever air and ground technological superiority the US/UN had, and the best the UN could do was the standoff at the DMZ. So, yes, it is fair to say that it was the Chinese intervention that made all the difference in the Korean War. In Vietnam, the Chinese avoided directly pouring in massive forces, but they did pour in weapons and teams and logistics. And my point is that I don't see the will or the thinking among any of the desi strategic analysts or military "Befitting Reply" types that conveys any reason for optimism.

The most recent one I read declared all-knowingly that "any Chinese adventurism in Arunachal Pradesh will result in their losing Aksai Chin and Ladakh". Very brave, but I doubt very much whether that is how the Chinese will choose to operate.
**************************************************************

Simple questions:

1. Do you think the Andaman/Nicobar islands can be defended today against a Chinese sea-borne invasion? Think about it honestly. Does India have the resources to take back the islands after finding out one day that Port Blair has the Lal Nishaan on it? I have no doubt that the IAF and IN will fight bravely and mightily to take back the islands, but how much can they spare if there is pressure on other fronts? What if the lone aircraft carrier and a few frigates get knocked out by anti-ship missiles?

2. Much is made of IAF superiority and its impact on Chinese logistics preparation and infrastructure. Has anyone assessed how many sorties it takes to knock out one bridge these days, esp. if the bridge is in a deep valley? How easy was it to hit the Paki bunkers on Tiger Hill etc using air power?

3. How many LGBs / TV-guided missiles does IAF have to take out such infrastructure? This is where the mass production imperative comes in. Kargil stretched Indian resources to the limit. Are the numbers in the inventory so much better now?

4. Any modern war (and I suspect, most ancient wars) is won by logistics. Those who can keep the supply chain operating and pumping, and keep delivering weapons to their targets, win, regardless of how brave the individual soldiers and pilots and seamen are. So the reasoning I see here is that India is better placed because the infrastructure is primitive on the Indian side, and the Chinese "Achilles Heel" is the fact that they have invested massive amounts of money and hard work into building infrastructure on the other side.

5. Now please bring in the other argument cited: One Su-29 can take out 100 Sopwith Camels. (Actually it cannot, because it won't have enough weapons - the Sopwith camel can also land quickly in a football field and hide until the Su-29 runs out of gas and has to return to base). What happens when Chinese guns and missiles brought up to the border in the past ten years, rain down on the 3 bridges and 2 goat-roads that constitute India's supply lifelines to her soldiers at the border in Arunachal or at Aksai Chin or Ladakh? India will win because the Indian forces use only yaks and not jeeps? Remember what happened when a few Pakis occupied the heights above NH-1, cutting off Siachen? If India had 2 more roads there, and if the roads were fast, modern mountain roads rather than 18th century goat-tracks, the Pakis would never have even tried.

6. It may be difficult for Chinese planes to take off from bases at 10K feet and carry big weapon loads, but if I were General Hong Shin, I would have been transporting weapons to the border systematically, 3 goods trains per week, for the past few years. All the heavy weapons and vehicles I need would be taken across because I would ASSUME hat the lound-eyes would knock out the bridges. Then again, I would have a good large force of Tibetan Splittist slaves from the Lhasa Re-Education Camp to carry everything else across the hills and valleys, on a 1-way trip if needed - they are more expendable than yaks. Also, how long are the runways at 10,000 feet? I would have plenty of rocket-assistend takeoff units available on site to enable heavy takeoffs.

It's all about my preparations in bringing large numbers of weapons to the front, and I know I can out-supply the LoundEyes, 100:1 because of my superior infrastructure.

7. I see the argument that expressing fear of the Chinese on the internet, will encourage China to attack India. But this misses the point completely. The point is that Indian thinking and preparation to deter China are very very seriously hampered by the mindset of the Generals (sorry RayC, ppl hu r enlightened enough to post on BRF are automatically excluded from this category) and the Babus. The Generals still have the infamous "Go up there and bring them down by the scruff of the neck!" attitude of Surinder Singh of Kargil notoriety. The Babus have this "I can ishpeak Angreji with pucca British accent phrom Dun School onlee" attitude towards the Chinese.

These are the real hindrances to Indian preparedness. The statements that they foist on the habitually complacent public, are terrifying in their stupidity. This is whay I was truly amazed to read the blunt assessment from the Admiral, that brought such a refreshing change from the "Befitting Reply" stereotype. Put it together with the earlier Army General's plaintive cries about the delays in procuring mountain guns etc, and you can sense that panic is building in the top tiers of the Indian Armed Forces. Do you think Hong Shin cannot feel that?

Only a massive rise of public demands for better defense preparedness can save India from Chinese aggression, and prevent war. In terms of geopolitics, it must occur to China that an investment in a swift and massive defeat of India in, say, 2010, will leave them unchallenged masters of the the whole world from Japan to Turkey. It can be done as easily as taking over the Andamans, blasting the East coast cities, and simultaneously coming into Arunachal and cutting off Assam, while knocking out enough infrastructure in J&K to allow the Pakis to do what they failed to do in 1999.

I think there is a direct relationship between the "panic" statements of the armed forces chiefs and possible Indian public panic.

However - with the little experience I have in meeting retired chiefs of staff (a couple) it seems clear to me that a chief of staff in the armed forces cannot remain only a professional soldier - but imbibes the language/attitude of the politician because he is always in Delhi dealing with politicians.

No service chief makes a public statement without vetting at very high level and the statements are most likely to have been made with a particular end goal in mind.

I have no idea what that end goal might be though.

But I would like to point out that there is a very different sort of panic statement that comes from BRF and from a forces chief. For example the Air Force chief will never ever say in public, "Heck - all our planes are grounded - all the seat covers got burned off in the sun when the monsoon failed" even if that was true. He will say "We are prepared"

Not BRF. BRF will say "Yikes, all our planes are grounded - all the seat covers got burned off in the sun when the monsoon failed"

1. Do you think the Andaman/Nicobar islands can be defended today against a Chinese sea-borne invasion? Think about it honestly. Does India have the resources to take back the islands after finding out one day that Port Blair has the Lal Nishaan on it? I have no doubt that the IAF and IN will fight bravely and mightily to take back the islands, but how much can they spare if there is pressure on other fronts? What if the lone aircraft carrier and a few frigates get knocked out by anti-ship missiles?

yes, yes and yes. I think in this case you are overestimating PLAN and underestimating IN, china CANNOT launch a seaborne invasion of the A&N islands, not for the next 10-15 years at least, probably much more (or never).

at MOST they can carry out some pinprick airstrikes whose effect will be just that.

the potential threat to chinese SLOC from India (with current capabilities) is VERY REAL and it is this that might prove to be the ultimate deterrent against a chinese invasion.
the only way to get over this deterrent, for china, IMHO is the nuclear option. I can expound if you want.
which is why the arihant is so important and the sudden plethora of shrill articles is testament to that IMO. the military option window for china is closing, it will finally close when India has a robust 2nd strike capability, bharat verma's article has to be seen in that regard.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 11#p690111

but in all this, there's an unspoken angle. the string of pearls moves by PRC is an outcome to their nervousness that in case of a hostility, India can blockade a large part of china's maritime trade especially its oil supply.
India can cut-off (or make economically unviable) virtually all of china's maritime links with europe africa and west asia if it wants to, with IN's current force level and with the current force level PLAN can't break through the blockade.

Think why, only a small part of PLAN fleet is battle-worthy(merely sea-worthy won't do) on the high seas. and given the naval prowess of china's neighbours (JMSDF, ROKN, ROCN not to mention the USN) PLAN has no other option but to retain a considerable part of its capital assets in the home fleet.
The balance, which PLAN can commit in an expeditionary role would be too little to force IN to lift a blockade.
This status-quo would continue for another 10-15 years at least given the current rate of expansion of PLAN, IN and PRC's adversarial navies.

At most PLAN would be able to use its subs, both conventional and nuclear to harass Indian Naval assets in a sea-denial role but that is unlikely to be succedsful in terms of objectives, namely lifting a blockade.

To put it simply, by virtue of her geographical location, India has a considerable strategic leverage over the PRC and the PRC has no alternative but to pro-actively attempt to negate India's advantage.

Hence all this hoopla with the string of pearls !

the rest of the original discussion has been unfortunately deleted.

5. Now please bring in the other argument cited: One Su-29 can take out 100 Sopwith Camels. (Actually it cannot, because it won't have enough weapons - the Sopwith camel can also land quickly in a football field and hide until the Su-29 runs out of gas and has to return to base).

heh, heh the su-29 looks like this :


I think it can land in that football field and play hide and seek with the camels too !!

Worse, when people go about it with "don't worry, we can take on the chinese" I get more nervous than someone saying, "not sure how." Even if we don't have an immediate solution, a successful strategy must be visible and evident as one we possess, and that is the best deterrent of war, of all. One thing's for sure: if we don't take the Chinese seriously and fight them with extreme diligence, we will get it handed on a platter and then it won't matter who didn't build the damn road when needed. I will urge members and postors here to ask people they know, their MPs and MLAs and whoever else in the halls of power they have access to, what is the strategy, do you have it?

S

^^ Actually we could have 600 of those planes for the price of an LCA...thousands could land behind enemy lines in surges. The cost of a missile to take it out would be more than the A/C...

Rahul:

Argentina liberated the Malvinas using forces much weaker than what China can bring to the Andamans, say through Myanmar. Can India respond as effectively as UQ did then? If Pakistan ups the tensions on the west coast, can India spare enough air power to take care of this situation, I wonder. But anyway, this is just an example of the kinds of mischief the PRC can pull far away from AP or Ladakh, and hence the bravado about countering AP incursions with Aksai Chin liberation, should be viewed as planning to fight last century's war.

What is the experience with the Chinese adventured in the Spratly Islands?

Harbans, you hit the point precisely:

^^ Actually we could have 600 of those planes for the price of an LCA...thousands could land behind enemy lines in surges.

The point is that Indian weapon PRODUCTION capability is so backward that it would take 60 years to produce 600 of even those airplanes. Last I checked, India was importing things like those from Poland or Czech Republic or one of those other advanced air power nations. Along with parkas, boots, ammunition, Bofors shells, etc. etc. etc. So there may be enough aluminum or wood to build the structure, but then we will find that there is a shortage of canvas, and there is no factory in India that can make the exotic fabric for the cover of the fuselage.

It is the backwardness of Indian manufacturing that is the fatal flaw in Indian defense preparedness. Comlade Riu on the other thread makes this point very well.

Sumeet wrote:But will China attack India till it is assured that its puppy on our western border can contribute substantially ?

Currently, Pakistan is in no position to open up a front against us. So I think it is also important to answer will China be willing to go to war with India w/o pukes.

One will have to answer the question, why will china do so. 1962, they had a road to protect in Aksai Chin. 1967, they backed off at Nathu La. 1971, they declined to intervene, even at invitation. In the 80's some tensions but not much. 1999, they again, were not really interested to intervene, however some reports that they had upped their preparedness.

There needs to be clear geo-political goal for war. India being a status quo power will not start one. China being the occupier of Tibet seems content with what they have, rumblings of Arunachal notwithstanding.

One has to answer the question, why will china wage war. Reasons such as to help TSP, "teach a lesson" either do not seem real or are really covers to hide real reasons.

just for the record, I think a land war with PLA in the north will be very very difficult to win outright if not impossible. IMHO, at most we can hope to hold them to a bitterly fought draw if we correctly use all the advantages we have.

(*) All this assuming we restrict the war to the himalayas and don't escalate and block the SLOCs through the IOR.

================
n^3 ji, could you spell out in a little detail what you mean by an invasion on A&N through myanmar ? I'll need the details to answer.

invasion on A&N through myanmar ? I'll need the details to answer.

Shh!!! My panwala source did not have those yet.

But consider that a North Korean ship came and dropped anchor and sat off the shore for quite some time recently, b4 ppl came around to find out what was going on. How tough would it be to get, say, 1000 armed men ashore to take over an airfield, set up air defenses and bring in a stream of transports / airborne troops?

In 1988, China and Vietnam clashed at sea over possession of Johnson Reef in the Spratlys. Chinese gunboats sank Vietnamese armed transport ships supporting a landing party of Vietnamese soldiers.

The Vietnamese did not have air cover, which was a bad mistake. The PLA won't make that mistake.

coming to the falklands, this was the brit force on the island (according to wiki)

57 marines
11 RN sailors
25–40 FIDF and some volunteer civilians

that's about a company !

ANC has at least one brigade (around 3000 soldiers) if not more, other than significant green water assets of the navy, including amphibs. there's also a helo and a MPA sqdn.
some AShMs too ?

But consider that a North Korean ship came and dropped anchor and sat off the shore for quite some time recently, b4 ppl came around to find out what was going on. How tough would it be to get, say, 1000 armed men ashore to take over an airfield, set up air defenses and bring in a stream of transports / airborne troops?

the first option itself is well nigh impossible. they would have to come through the navy net.

of course it is not advertised as much but the surveillance around ANC is pretty tight.

The Vietnamese did not have air cover, which was a bad mistake. The PLA won't make that mistake.

what air cover can the PLAAF sustain over the A&N ? based from myanmar ?
that would spread them out too thin.

narayanan wrote:

But consider that a North Korean ship came and dropped anchor and sat off the shore for quite some time recently, b4 ppl came around to find out what was going on. How tough would it be to get, say, 1000 armed men ashore to take over an airfield, set up air defenses and bring in a stream of transports / airborne troops?

For an isolated ship to sneak into one of the 500+ islands is possible. But, who will save them, from the standing division of 8000 army men on the islands, once there? A&N is the only joint services command, with all three forces with enough assets to defend that place. The Chinese will be crazy to do anything of the sort, without first occupying Burma. PRC is unlikely to do any such thing as the blatant occupation of another nation and then on top of it Invade their biggest neighbor. The stakes would have to be real high to do anything of the sort.

For an isolated ship to sneak into one of the 500+ islands is possible.

No it's not possible if there is adequate coverage that area. And from what i know if ships veer away from the ocean routes to South of SL, Vizag, Chennai, Paradip, Haldia they'll be in the scanner. These loopholes would be well covered since the IN has been long in Andamans. And if someone does occupy an Island, the important question is how long can they hold them. Indeed during the Tsunami effort the IAF flew to some islands from Myanmar. Seems they barged past the opinions of some reluctant Generals..The IAF operated through Manmar quite brazenly on many missions.

through myanmar

The Burmese will want to remain neutral (or appear to be so) in any conflict. They may allow listening posts to be set up on their territory but the Burmese Generals are sufficiently paranoid that foreign troops or aircraft will not be allowed entry.

PLA will need to occupy the myanmar, indonesia and malaysia before they can hope to invade A&N.

The Burmese will want to remain neutral (or appear to be so) in any conflict. They may allow listening posts to be set up on their territory but the Burmese Generals are sufficiently paranoid that foreign troops or aircraft will not be allowed entry.

that is correct too and would feature in any wargaming scenario of that region.

but it's good to do a worst case scenario too.

If Myanmar does allow PRC to occupy and come through - I would say it will be a great opportunity for India. Any country that allows the PLA to use its territory against India is fair game to be invaded and taken over. Every aggressive military step PRC takes through proxy is a golden opportunity for India. Just because current GOI has been selected to be non-ruthless it is not guaranteed that future LOI would be the same.

brihaspati wrote:If Myanmar does allow PRC to occupy and come through - I would say it will be a great opportunity for India. Any country that allows the PLA to use its territory against India is fair game to be invaded and taken over. Every aggressive military step PRC takes through proxy is a golden opportunity for India. Just because current GOI has been selected to be non-ruthless it is not guaranteed that future LOI would be the same.

In a straight out conventional war over Myanmar between India and PRC, you may well have the jingoest of jingos in power, but PRC has an edge. It will be St*pid of PRC to do so and expensive for India to defend.

I am more worried about a Nepal, becoming another Myanmar, increasingly dependent on PRC.

Indeed PRC's superiority in numbers, some equipment and more importantly weapons production in a sustained land war appears crystal clear only. Should the war exceed 15 days, we are toast. Our equipment either fails or gets shot down. And production will take yrs which the PLA likely won't wait. And one can bet his butt every serious wargamer in the G8 and PRC (and maybe, even Dilli) knows that.

Which has me wondering why they haven't attacked yet. Or maybe I speak too soon, they could attack tomorrow.

Which has me wondering why they haven't attacked yet.

the answer is in posts above yours.

they want to take IN out of the blockade equation first, which is why the string of pearls strategy.

How many large scale conflicts have been fought across the three ranges of the Himalayas? It will not be an easy and predictable conflict. Mere superiority of quantity of men and material is not guarantor of winning in such a war. In the international scenario, China could stabilize the Korean front with a huge degree of human loss (yes and the Americans lost too). China did not win the Vietnam war (against Vietnam and not the US). The invasion and retreat of 62, may sound very strange. But it was due to a complex set of interactions between the west in general, Krushchov, anti-Kruschov faction within the CPSU Politbureau and central committee, Mao, the growing anti-Mao opposition within the CCP CC, factions within the PLA, and US, and of course immense international game to pressurize India to come solidly to one of the sides.

Gaming will not be enough to determine winning.

Mere superiority of quantity of men and material is not guarantor of winning in such a war.

True, true, OTOH, inferiority in numbers of men and material is even less of a winning strategy. Which is why one should not be complacent at hearing the Befitting Reply - V Will Give Them Bloddy Nose sorts of assurances from the Jarnails and Babus. They don't make sense.

My observation applies to both sides. Including Babus and jarnails.

The more I read here, the more Adm. Mehta makes sense. Thank you for laying it out like it is. the response to how we come out on top is
1 it is not going to happen, don't be that stupid, we know they aren't (after 300 gone 400 left)

2 we are gonna totally encircle china (how about nepal for starters, hey?)


3 we know truth, satyameva jayathe (what about getting real?)

Jmt

S

The best attack on PRC is not through military means. First, It is through competing and winning in the fight to have a bigger economy, and compete for resources the world over. India is already doing that, but not winning as much. Second, it is to attack the one place they are decisively weaker, it is the ideological space, and the democracy, freedom, law and order and market economics deficit that China suffers with. A combination of the two can be used to build enough geo-political space for India, in areas that matter and build strength in the medium to long term. We are pregnant with that possibility but need to see it through.

If we are so sure of the incapability of the forces to hold for more than 15 days of war in the event of an attack, why not just disband the whole army and go for completely asymmetric option. Invest all the resources for just mega city destroyer options and delivery systems, and declare any incursion will lead to WWIII onlee with complete destruction of PRC and TSP, and the rest of the world can come take the scraps of whatever is left. Yes, we can be insane also in addition to murmuring satyameva.... can be the best option we have.

All other gaming and endless posts on cold and hot starts, recessed deterrence ityadi are just mental masturbation and pointless exercises. Wars are won by brute force and extraordinary costs. No economics in war, it is all about losses and destruction for a future recreation. All this idea of a limited war option, is screwing up people's mind and making them wet their pants, when they see that it won't work when dealing with rogue nations or even nations acting like rogues momentarily to gain an advantage.

To be fair to the jernails, they have never used the 'give them a befitting reply' even after Nathu La and Samudrong Chu.


Given the gross asymmetry between accessability of population centres (and failing the deployment of 5000 3k km cruise missiles), GOI intentions can be gauged very simply by looking at the air defence for the north Indian plains. Is it as dense as West Germany in 1985? if not forget the whole thing and learn Mandarin.

A moth-eaten pakisatan was still a pest to us. A dismembered pakisatan bereft of its most populous part is still a pest. The point being, doom and gloom should be reserved for other whinefest threads. At the end of the day, it is a battle of ideas... between a centralized architecture that allows the possibility for a few to be the big ones making the big decisions vs a decentralized architecture that allows leeway for small-bit players to make small changes, in effect constituting a big change.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both ideas... In the first, if the few select individuals have goodness of the collective in mind first and foremost, then that country marches ahead.. but given the nature of humans, that is hoping for a bit too much. In the second, it is like an error correction code that can withstand massive errors in design due to the diversity of the scheme... the whole shit can crumble and the system wont collapse... precisely because no single person controls the destiny of the country... In short, china is a system based on an optimistic reading of the nature of human mind... India on the pessimistic nature of the human mind. I believe you know where the balance point lies.. you have seen enough people in life to know what humans are like.. and which system is more capable of withstanding damages to its fundamentals.....

A few days ago in the Indian Express there was an article about some Chinese "strategic analyst"'s recommendation that China should break up India into 20 pieces. Stolen, of course, like everything the chinese commies do, from our plans for the salvation of the Indus Valley.

But I would suggest that this is Chinese strategy. There is no need to invade and occupy all of India. Their strategy is to deliver a humiliating blow that causes deep fissues in the Indian central authority. Few ppl here (incl me) are old enough to remember the sheer national depression that followed the war in 1962. That was in a nation that was at famine level, and had few illusions of its military power. Imagine what would happen today in a nation that fancies itself as the world's Next SuperPower.

For instance, if Assam/ NE were cut off, the govt. would probably fall, and there would be a loss of authority and breakdown of law and order, if the Chinese 5th Columnists started massive civil unrest at the same time. Standard escalation pattern, anti-govt. demonstrations where someone fires a few shots, triggering police reaction, escalated immediately, etc. etc. leading to hundreds or thousands of deaths, and paralysis of several cities, with trains and buses stopped. Look at all the various tamashas underway today from Mizoram to Kerala, and imagine what would happen if all went "critical" at the same time.

This can swiftly lead to disintegration, with the vast majority too stupid or too powerless to stop the descent into inter-state conflict.

This unfortunately is the plan behind the Chinese "analyst"'s recommendation (easy for someone like moi to recognize it, because this is what I hope will happen to TSP ). I would say that the very publication of such an article in censored media like Chinese media, is an act of war and declaration of enmity.

Enough provocation to support any movement inside China seeking freedom, and certainly enough warning to embark on mass production of missiles, warships, nuclear subs and ammunition.

************

For the question of why would China want to start a war with India, the answer is simple. I think the Chinese commie house of cards is collapsing. The Party's princely lifestyle is in serious danger as people who have seen the good life in the cities, watch their dreams evaporate in economic disaster. They need an external bogeyman to clamp down on internal protests. If they can knock India out as a strategic competitor and reduce it to just a motley group of consumer economies, tourist traps, then China will have established dominance over the eastern hemisphere.

True but then I would be worried in Burma or Vietnam. The Chinese would be crazy to vent on India because their stock market is in a bubble.

The Poliburo is in grave danger, with the growing internal dissent. That beats any considerations of what is good for the Nation.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04e.html

A serious shortage of women is looming in China, threatening family and social stability in the world's most populous country. Official statistics show that in 2002, for every 100 newborn girls, there were 117 boys born. If this trend continues, China will have up to 40 million more men than women by 2020.

There are lot of excessive testosterone driven men (20 - 30 million men) who will never have a chance to have female partner in life. These excessive men will need to be culled in short order to restore stability, and hence war is an attractive option for the Command central. Hence outlet for these men will be in war; war is going to be eagerly seen as an avenue.

JwalaMukhi wrote:
There are lot of excessive testosterone driven men (20 - 30 million men) who will never have a chance to have female partner in life. These excessive men will need to be culled in short order to restore stability, and hence war is an attractive option for the Command central. Hence outlet for these men will be in war; war is going to be eagerly seen as an avenue.

Cannon fodder for war with neighbours

Acharya wrote:Cannon fodder for war with neighbours

Almost all BRites are building a face saving scenario in which they expect India to use IAF, my case is that Yellow politicians will pee in their pants but will again NOT use IAF and in fact will try to pretend it to be a local affair. It will be Siachin in reverse.

Raj Malhotra wrote:Almost all BRites are building a face saving scenario in which they expect India to use IAF, my case is that Yellow politicians will pee in their pants but will again NOT use IAF and in fact will try to pretend it to be a local affair. It will be Siachin in reverse.

Actually a real potential, especially through its proxy TSP - an attempt regain Siachen by TSP with help from PRC, the strategic goal being the taking of the Karakoram to link up with Aksai Chin and then a grand ceding of territory to PRC by TSP. By wild imaginations only, but something that can stay local, has some strategic relevance and in the realm of possibilities.

JwalaMukhi wrote:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04e.html

A serious shortage of women is looming in China, threatening family and social stability in the world's most populous country. Official statistics show that in 2002, for every 100 newborn girls, there were 117 boys born. If this trend continues, China will have up to 40 million more men than women by 2020.

There are lot of excessive testosterone driven men (20 - 30 million men) who will never have a chance to have female partner in life. These excessive men will need to be culled in short order to restore stability, and hence war is an attractive option for the Command central. Hence outlet for these men will be in war; war is going to be eagerly seen as an avenue.

There is another "humane" solution that a wiser PRC can do instead of directing them for war with India, simple castrate them like they used to do to personal guards in the middle kingdom. They have the technology and a precedence, and unlike elsewhere they can execute it too in the interests of the nation. I would strongly advice Xiu and others to think along these lines rather than wage war and cause disharmony in peaceful dragon country.