China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

[Christopher Sidor]

The French considered that the main german advance would come through their plains. Hitler and his bunch of thuggish generals did what was considered unthinkable then. They violated the neutrality of the low lying countries. The result was 4 years of occupation.

In case of India it is not only Nepal. It is also Burma and especially Pakistan. If the upgradation of the so called "friendship highway" to two lanes, making it motorable throughout the year, the proposed railway line linking Pakistan with the occupied province of East Turkestan takes place then we can see greater ability of PLA and PLAAF to threaten our northern plains.

As it is our political class has no spine. Recall how we willingly restricted our hands and did not cross the IB or LoC during Kargil conflict. While PLA or PLAAF will build up their capabilities we will wait for their infrastructure to be finished and then will run around like headless chickens. Even in case of a conflict our political class has no will to intercede with PLA and PLAAF's buildup for crack pot ideas like "Not Escalating the issue."

[member_23455]

Eh... The report says that the 'cold start' doctrine is 'now discarded'. When did that happen?

Last I knew our policy towards China was called 'active deterrence'. Is that still what it is, or has it changed?

This is off-topic and there's probably a better thread to discuss it, so I'll be brief:

OT/ON

1. "Cold Start" was always army-centric and got a pretty cold reception from the IAF, and never really graduated to a full fledged doctrine.

2. Even the army, which under "Lt. Gen VKS", was engaged in parallel studies on "transformation" rapidly jettisoned the idea, as major flaws in Cold Start became apparent.

3. Interestingly, the Pakistanis went to town about it, because it helped the military's agenda vis-a-vis India. Ironically BR is the other place where it still has much credence and currency. Hmmmm.

OT/OFF

[Viv S]

The French considered that the main german advance would come through their plains. Hitler and his bunch of thuggish generals did what was considered unthinkable then. They violated the neutrality of the low lying countries. The result was 4 years of occupation.

Actually the Germans had advanced through Belgium in WW I as well. The allies expected another thrust through Belgium in 1940 and had therefore concentrated the forces in that northern pocket. As it happened, the German focus on the Low Countries was a ruse, even though the feint on that axis was remarkably effective in terms of penetration. The main thrust however was through the central front, cutting off the Allied forces from the defenceless French hinterland.

Also, while the Germans had more than their fair share of thugs (particularly in the Waffen SS), the generals who planned the attack; von Manstein and Heinz Guderian were thorough professionals.

[TSJones]

The Maginot Line was easy to crack when attacked from behind. This colored all US Cold War thinking after WWII. It still occupies our thoughts as does Pearl Harbor. The NSA was born from this thinking. If we see a trend and we like then we'll go along-get along. But absolute trust? Never.

Addendum: before WWII we studied the French not just in tactics but everything from military courtesy to diplomacy. The French military helped the US to achieve independence. The Fench insisted that the British surrender to George Washington whom the British considered to be a criminal savage. Lafayette is the father of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The French were war heroes to the US in the war for independence. When the US fought in WW1 we accepted the French generals as senior and followed their orders (we also followed the British and did what they said to do.) Before WWII Cheklosavakia had a larger army than the US did. So when the Germans attacked the Maginot line from *behind* and Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we were not just in shock and awe, we were *scandalized*. To the point of paranoid schizophrenia. The red scare of the 1950's, etc. It still reverberates.

[Singha]

true true..but by 1920 under treaty the USN was the largest navy in the world and in reality the US had completed its first industrial revolution and become the worlds largest industrial power in scale. in some high tech areas maybe lagging UK/Germany but much bigger in scalability. its was a giant, but a "sleeping giant" can wake and start moving anytime. between 1920-1940 various pogroms and wars in europe led to flight of top notch scientists to US govt and academia which helped to beef up talent. in post war 1950-1960 that flight continued and all such people were again accomodated to staff the expansion of university system.

[DavidD]

The Maginot Line was easy to crack when attacked from behind. This colored all US Cold War thinking after WWII. It still occupies our thoughts as does Pearl Harbor. The NSA was born from this thinking. If we see a trend and we like then we'll go along-get along. But absolute trust? Never.

Addendum: before WWII we studied the French not just in tactics but everything from military courtesy to diplomacy. The French military helped the US to achieve independence. The Fench insisted that the British surrender to George Washington whom the British considered to be a criminal savage. Lafayette is the father of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The French were war heroes to the US in the war for independence. When the US fought in WW1 we accepted the French generals as senior and followed their orders (we also followed the British and did what they said to do.) Before WWII Cheklosavakia had a larger army than the US did. So when the Germans attacked the Maginot line from *behind* and Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we were not just in shock and awe, we were *scandalized*. To the point of paranoid schizophrenia. The red scare of the 1950's, etc. It still reverberates.

I don't know if it was your intention, but India can draw quite a few lessons from the events you listed. China has no intention of taking "South Tibet". It's a land of little economic value and even less strategic value. Moreover, it would be a real pain in the neck to take, and it would be an even greater pain to hold. That's not even mentioning possible (or rather, likely) nuclear retaliation from India.

The real concern for the Chinese comes from the seas. Securing the South China Sea would mean little if India chokes China's shipping routes further upstream. India has a formidable navy that is experienced, well-equipped, and well-trained. It is also well-placed strategically and should India decides to enforce an embargo over the Malacca Straits, there would be little the PLAN could do in the near to medium term future at the very least. The border disputes area really a ruse, like the German thrust into Belgium during WWII, while the real intentions of the Chinese lie in the Indian ocean. Most nations would see through this easily, but India was traumatized, or "scandalized" even, by 1962, and thus despite all the facts and logic, Indian attention is disproportionately devoted to the possibility, however remote, of a horde of Chinese coming across thousands of miles of barren, oxygen-deprived plateau and across the Himalayas.

[pralay]

I don't know if it was your intention, but India can draw quite a few lessons from the events you listed. China has no intention of taking "South Tibet". It's a land of little economic value and even less strategic value. Moreover, it would be a real pain in the neck to take, and it would be an even greater pain to hold. That's not even mentioning possible (or rather, likely) nuclear retaliation from India.

No sure if you are an Indian, but, there was one prime minister named Nehru who had same belief, it costs us Axaichin and a large part of AP.

The real concern for the Chinese comes from the seas. Securing the South China Sea would mean little if India chokes China's shipping routes further upstream. India has a formidable navy that is experienced, well-equipped, and well-trained. It is also well-placed strategically and should India decides to enforce an embargo over the Malacca Straits, there would be little the PLAN could do in the near to medium term future at the very least. The border disputes area really a ruse, like the German thrust into Belgium during WWII, while the real intentions of the Chinese lie in the Indian ocean. Most nations would see through this easily, but India was traumatized, or "scandalized" even, by 1962, and thus despite all the facts and logic, Indian attention is disproportionately devoted to the possibility, however remote, of a horde of Chinese coming across thousands of miles of barren, oxygen-deprived plateau and across the Himalayas.

The Chinese threat in IOR/Malacca straits is just because there is border dispute. If there was no border dispute in first place, Chinese would not want to come in IOR and threaten us. So its border dispute they would want to settle to their benefit.

Another main point is, even if Chinese fleets come in IOR, then can not hold the sea forever. But if they manage to push in our land/borders, rest assured that they will occupy it all cost. So protecting border and pushing out the chinese or having a border settlement to our benefit is our main objective. IOR & Malacca straits are tools for us to pressure the chinese in time of conflict. No doubt we should be prepared on all fronts.

[DavidD]

I'm not an Indian, but a Chinese rather. Nehru did made the mistake of underestimating the Chinese threat across the Himalayas, but India of today is overcompensating by overestimating the Chinese border threat. It's similar to how the French did not expect an attack across the low lands in WWI, but overcompensated by putting too much resources there. This analogy isn't perfect by any means, I'm not sure the French could've stopped the Germans either way, but I think the Indians would match up much better vs. China in the IOR than the French would against Germany along the central plains.

I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China. It's like how America controls all the world's sea lanes not because they want to threaten every country in the world, but because they want to ensure the security of its shipping lanes to every country in the world.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

[svinayak]

but India of today is overcompensating by overestimating the Chinese border threat.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay.

Good that India is reading PRC correctly.
India is not going to be like India of Nehru. India is going to take considerable measures to change the dynamics in the border and in the IOR. PRC already has missiles ready in the IOR to counter act India.

[Brando]

I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China.

Even if it were true that China wants to control IOR to protect its shipping, it does not imply that that the goal of protecting its shipping would not also involve threatening India and displacing it as the principle naval force in the IOR. Just as controlling the SCS would require a navy to threaten China and diplace its naval forces as the supreme naval force of the region.

It's like how America controls all the world's sea lanes not because they want to threaten every country in the world, but because they want to ensure the security of its shipping lanes to every country in the world.

The fundamental problem with this analogy is China is not America either politically, diplomatically or economically.
The US Navy was able to provide security over vital sea lanes for a number of reasons - the first being, they were "allowed" to do so by most of the nations through their diplomacy and good will. Second, none of these nations could afford to do it themselves and thirdly, the US didn't have much competition or resistance from the other powers in Europe or even the Soviets.
These criteria however do not match up with China. The Chinese have already "threatened" numerous smaller nations quite brazenly while on the other hand India hosts annual regional naval exercises with dozens of nations. China has to contend against not only the USA but also against regional balancing and regional groupings forming against it like what the Japanese are doing and what the ASEAN are doing. And this is in China's "backyard" in the SCS - the IOR is a whole different ball game with the unpredictable Middle East on one side, the law-less African states on another, nuclear South Asia on another and the US & its allies like Australia, the UK, the French, Singapore, Japan etc on the other. None of these "hosts" in the IOR are especially keen or even amicable to China "securing" the sea lanes in the IOR. In such a scenario, ANY Chinese presence would merely be a "token" presence on the peripheries incapable of any sustained presence, let alone military operations without the acceptance/tolerance of other powers like India, the US or the others.

[member_23455]

I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China. It's like how America controls all the world's sea lanes not because they want to threaten every country in the world, but because they want to ensure the security of its shipping lanes to every country in the world.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

Great to have an opinion from the other side!

However:

1. A lack of trust trumps rationality, else most wars would not be fought...right? When China has a tradition of being tetchy about its land borders - all leading to some kind of a conflagration with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and India, we'd like to keep our gunpowder dry.

2. Your IOR plans and intent are very clear to Indian planners. What is not clear,frankly at least to me is why you seem to be trying your very best to get pinned in your own backyard, antagonizing everyone from Japan to Vietnam, possibly allowing even the Indians in. Seems very contrary to frankly the very admirable "the long game" that China plays.

3. It's interesting you bring up the parallel with America. Three quick points:
a) When it comes to the IOR, even during our current buddy-buddy with the Americans, we keep a very close eye on them (and we make sure they know it).
b) We've never fought a war with the Americans and don't see them as natural rivals.
c) The Americans, when building-up a fleet of carriers, didn't acquire them to use as floating casinos and then have a change of heart because someone in Las Vegas objected

That said, as the Indian Navy likes to say "Welcome to Our Ocean!"

[pralay]

I'm not an Indian, but a Chinese rather. Nehru did made the mistake of underestimating the Chinese threat across the Himalayas, but India of today is overcompensating by overestimating the Chinese border threat. It's similar to how the French did not expect an attack across the low lands in WWI, but overcompensated by putting too much resources there. This analogy isn't perfect by any means, I'm not sure the French could've stopped the Germans either way, but I think the Indians would match up much better vs. China in the IOR than the French would against Germany along the central plains.

I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China. It's like how America controls all the world's sea lanes not because they want to threaten every country in the world, but because they want to ensure the security of its shipping lanes to every country in the world.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

I understand your perspective,
But from Indian POV, if there is no border dispute, there is nothing wrong if china wants to ensure the security of shipping lanes in IOR just like US.
If US does not need to challenge India to ensure the security of its shipping lanes, why would China(if there are no border disputes) will need to challenge India to do the same? Rather it will co-operate with India as US does. Also in peacetime, there is nothing we can do about chinese petrols/escorts entering IOR except lighting/pinging them up regularly while in IOR or breaking radio silence with thee message "Welcome to Our Ocean!" as rajit said

in reality it is US who feels threatened by the idea of chinese in IOR, so it badly wants India and China up in arms against each other and will not like India/China border dispute be solved. And to help achieve that this idea of "Border dispute because of IOR" is being peddeled by western media and think tanks.

[raj.devan]

David, you stated that Chinese Navy wants to get into the IOR to protect its shipping lanes. Its one thing to protect your shipping lanes from the threat of piracy, which can be done within a multi national framework in tandem with other navies in the area.

However if you're talking about China securing its Indian Ocean shipping from being shut down by foreign military intervention, then that is something that India has to be concerned about.

As Brando pointed out, China lacks the capability to actually secure any portion of the IOR, and can only think of this after it has enough CBGs to spare one for the IOR (assuming the IN permits such a presence). Short of a sizable naval presence, the other option available is to have enough capabilities to launch punitive long range strikes on IN vessels in the IO, Arabian Sea, BoB or the Andaman Sea. The hypersonic DF21 launched from a sub, with a range of 1200km that it can cover in 6 minutes fits the requirement very well. (I don't know, have they successfully fitted it to one of their subs?). It would be an excellent tool (from the Chinese pov) to deter the Indians from trying to mess with Chinese shipping routes in the IOR.

In other words, while the US secures its sea lanes in friendly alliance and consultation with other nations, you intend to do it by having a gun aimed at us.

The problem with this approach is that it takes an active deterrence stand that is completely at odds with the advice the Politburo Standing Committee has been giving India. This not only triggers an arms and strategic race, it also forces us to divert scarce resources into developing defences against your ambitions.

As an alternative, consider all the money China has fed nations like Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, all the ports you have built and upgraded for them. If that same cooperation, (assuming it has no military expansionism agendas to it) were instead extended to India, you may be able to build an alliance and gain a formidable partner, instead of another enemy. I mean, would you really choose Pakistan and Myanmar over India if you were really serious about economic cooperation?

[NRao]

BTW, ............... India has offered to secure the IOR on behalf of China. The unwritten expectation is that China does not enter the IOR, which seems to be a sticking point.

[member_23455]

BTW, ............... India has offered to secure the IOR on behalf of China. The unwritten expectation is that China does not enter the IOR, which seems to be a sticking point.

Really, how does this work?

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

[raj.devan]

BTW, ............... India has offered to secure the IOR on behalf of China. The unwritten expectation is that China does not enter the IOR, which seems to be a sticking point.

Really, how does this work?

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

+1
If the Chinese intended to have purely civilian harbours for purely economic purposes, I wonder why they would not have thought of investing in India instead. India has better skilled labour, an advanced marine industry, a far larger market, and a far more matured business environment compared to Pakistan and Myanmar. I'm very sure our economy would benefit immensely from Chinese investment in our harbours.

On the other hand, if these are primarily designed with military intentions in mind, then countries like Pakistan and Myanmar make perfect sense.

[NRao]

BTW, ............... India has offered to secure the IOR on behalf of China. The unwritten expectation is that China does not enter the IOR, which seems to be a sticking point.

Really, how does this work?

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

First it was offered in a different era - one in which (actually?) China wanted to rule the seas along with the US (whatever)

The dynamics, clearly, have changed since then. However, I have not heard if the offer has been rescinded (yet?). I expect it to be in some cold storage, some place.

But, yes, the original idea was that India was willing to provide "secure passage". On all those ports that China is building, I am sure you are aware that they have dual purpose, both civil and unwritten military. So, I for one, do not see them stopping work on such ports. Furthermore, even is the event China does accept the offer, I fully expect China to build with a purpose to reactivate these assets IF need be. And, worst of all, she will more than certainly use them as a pawn to get other things (territories) without a fight - they are there and can be activated any time, so the threat is dormant.

(along the same line of thought (and not to muddy the waters) India does have a treaty with Iran, in the event of a war with Pakistan, that allows India to start a second front from that side!!!! It is there - do not know when, if it does, expire.)

_________________

On another note, I just do not see "China will come to stay". Perhaps will have a presence. But not one where she will be able to impose her will. May be in conjunction with a land op, but not solely with a sea op. Outside of Pakistan India - if push comes to shove - will impose certain limits on the likes of BD and SL.

[Shrinivasan]

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

A minor nit-pick... Chabahar in Iran is being built by India and not China, this was to lay a route to CAR and Afghanistan bypassing Shitistan. India expanded the port facilities, laid out roads due north and linked it up with a now -defunct rail road system laid out ages ago by India in Iran. I thinks it links us with another highway going into Afghanistan.

[Austin]

US concerned by China's new hypersonic missile

[TSJones]

Interestingly enough, the US has decided to cut back on its A/C carrier deployments. From now on only two carrier groups will be deployed at any one time. One group will be stationed in the Arabian Sea until further notice. The other group wil be deployed out of Japan. That's it. The other 8 carriers will stay in US ports and rotate out periodically to relieve the Arabian and Japanese groups. So it looks like the Air Force will have the Indian Ocean to itself out of Diego Garcia. Probably the Navy will be flying the P-8s out of there too. So India is going to have a lot area to look after other than an occasional US Navy RnR at Singapore.

The Mediterrean Sea will be montored by four US destroyers/missile cruisers. That's it.

[svinayak]

China has no intention of taking "South Tibet". It's a land of little economic value and even less strategic value. Moreover, it would be a real pain in the neck to take, and it would be an even greater pain to hold. That's not even mentioning possible (or rather, likely) nuclear retaliation from India.

The real concern for the Chinese comes from the seas. Securing the South China Sea would mean little if India chokes China's shipping routes further upstream. India has a formidable navy that is experienced, well-equipped, and well-trained. It is also well-placed strategically and should India decides to enforce an embargo over the Malacca Straits, there would be little the PLAN could do in the near to medium term future at the very least. The border disputes area really a ruse, like the German thrust into Belgium during WWII, while the real intentions of the Chinese lie in the Indian ocean. Most nations would see through this easily, but India was traumatized, or "scandalized" even, by 1962, and thus despite all the facts and logic, Indian attention is disproportionately devoted to the possibility, however remote, of a horde of Chinese coming across thousands of miles of barren, oxygen-deprived plateau and across the Himalayas.

Have you ever considered that India has used 1962 to change its policy to arm itself formidably and have a security policy based on n power.

I'm not an Indian, but a Chinese rather. Nehru did made the mistake of underestimating the Chinese threat across the Himalayas, but India of today is overcompensating by overestimating the Chinese border threat.
I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

In 1962 PRC Mao ensured that USA will not intervene in the war. PRC leadership even asked US leadeship if they will intervene. Also PRC made sure that Soviet Union was not in a position to intervene before, during and after the war.

Now in 21st century with a different India will PRC dare to threaten and attack India alone without seeking direct or indirect support of Russia and USA. Will PRC stop Japan from supporting India

[TSJones]

In 1962 PRC Mao ensured that USA will not intervene in the war. PRC leadership even asked US leadeship if they will intervene. Also PRC made sure that Soviet Union was not in a position to intervene before, during and after the war.

We sent India emergency supplies including machine guns, ammo, and semi automatic rifles. You guys had next to nothing. I remember reading about this when I was a kid.

Just googled this:

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/the- ... 121204.htm

[saip]

They came by ship and you know how long a ship takes to reach India? By that time the war was over and China is still in illegal occupation of Indian territory. BTW in case you did not read we (americans) actually told China to attack India in '71 so that we could save our SOB's (in Kissinger's words) arse.

[TSJones]

They came by ship and you know how long a ship takes to reach India? By that time the war was over and China is still in illegal occupation of Indian territory. BTW in case you did not read we (americans) actually told China to attack India in '71 so that we could save our SOB's (in Kissinger's words) arse.

No, we flew supplies in also. We had the capability to dp this in 1962. Prolly kc-130s.

[Shrinivasan]

India wanted a whole laundry list of things from the US, President Kennedy who had just come out of the Cuban Missile Crisis did not want another mis-adventure on his hands and outsourced the request to UK (which was then our supplier big time). But then the conflict started and ended pretty fast hence not much supplies trickled in. what the heck, Supplies from withing the country did not reach the frontlines!!! why blame the Yanks for that... Desh was caught napping by the Dragon.

[member_23455]

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

A minor nit-pick... Chabahar in Iran is being built by India and not China, this was to lay a route to CAR and Afghanistan bypassing Shitistan. India expanded the port facilities, laid out roads due north and linked it up with a now -defunct rail road system laid out ages ago by India in Iran. I thinks it links us with another highway going into Afghanistan.

My bad...I should have used the phrase "back away" from Chabahar to more accurately capture the tug of war currently in play between India and China over Chabahar.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/china-ma ... ahar-port/

Despite a headstart we have been mucking about as usual.

[svinayak]

if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

This goal of PRC China is beyond their means, They are not upto this and are not extra regional power. PRC military does not have capacity and the broad leadership to achieve such goal.
Just to maintain naval presence outside the region is enormously costly and logistically complex. Only US navy has achieved it for an extended length of time. Now with US role is in decline in global oceans and that is the first item which is being withdrawn.

[svinayak]

China will pull out of Chabahar in Iran, Gwadar in Pakistan, Coco Islands in Myanmar, and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, plus back away from Maldives...in return for some unwritten bilateral treaty?

China will have many incentives to pull out of all the regions where it does not belong including Tibet!

[kit]

The chinese will come to IOR as soon as they feel confident.. understanding that they will keep out of IOR ? ..really that is one really naive statement !...

isnt the axiom.. prepare for the worst ..hope for the best

the situation with a chinese fleet in the indian ocean and arabian sea is best dealt with by a potent indian submarine fleet

[raj.devan]

The way in which China plans for the future can be seen in the way it has built a disproportionately intense relationship with Iceland. Chinese planners have taken into account that in the near future, the melting ice cap in the artic circle will allow a very short shipping route from Shanghai to Europe. And with that in mind, China has built the biggest embassy building of all nations in Reyjavik, while constructing a very huge trade connection with that country.

Its a 'prepare for the far future' mindset that is probably more difficult to replicate in a country like India where the government's future planning extends mostly to the next election and no farther.

But you can look at China's ports in Pakistan and Myanmar with its penchant for the future in mind. These are built as civilian facilities, operated by Chinese companies, and are expected to pay for themselves through normal commercial operations. But they have been designed to also double up as military bases, and probably offers the Chinese Navy the option of one day basing an entire fleet in the Andaman Sea, or the Arabian Sea.

I'm not sure what the planned timeline for such a fleet is, and it probably won't happen untill all of China's coastal combat zones get their own carrier battle groups. But then again, in a country where you never have to fight an election, and where your own kids are likely to succeed you, you have nothing but time.

[NRao]

Its a 'prepare for the far future' mindset that is probably more difficult to replicate in a country like India where the government's future planning extends mostly to the next election and no farther.

Pre-independence India borrowed the idea of "planning" from the Soviets (which is why India has "planning depts" all over the place - or they used to at least). So, the tools are there, they "plan" for all eventualities too, but never act on them - a political weakness that India has grown used to.

[DavidD]

I think you got the IOR vs. border disputes thing completely backwards. I'm arguing that there are border disputes because China wants to control the IOR. China does not want to control the IOR to threaten India, China wants to control the IOR to ensure the security of shipping lanes for China. It's like how America controls all the world's sea lanes not because they want to threaten every country in the world, but because they want to ensure the security of its shipping lanes to every country in the world.

Occupying land south of the Himalayas is both costly and fruitless, but if China were to assert itself in the IOR, as it inevitably will attempt one day, you can bet that they'll be there with the intention to stay. The goal is to have regular patrols and permanent presence in the future ala the Americans of today to ensure that no one will attempt to interrupt the supply lines.

Great to have an opinion from the other side!

However:

1. A lack of trust trumps rationality, else most wars would not be fought...right? When China has a tradition of being tetchy about its land borders - all leading to some kind of a conflagration with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and India, we'd like to keep our gunpowder dry.

2. Your IOR plans and intent are very clear to Indian planners. What is not clear,frankly at least to me is why you seem to be trying your very best to get pinned in your own backyard, antagonizing everyone from Japan to Vietnam, possibly allowing even the Indians in. Seems very contrary to frankly the very admirable "the long game" that China plays.

3. It's interesting you bring up the parallel with America. Three quick points:
a) When it comes to the IOR, even during our current buddy-buddy with the Americans, we keep a very close eye on them (and we make sure they know it).
b) We've never fought a war with the Americans and don't see them as natural rivals.
c) The Americans, when building-up a fleet of carriers, didn't acquire them to use as floating casinos and then have a change of heart because someone in Las Vegas objected

That said, as the Indian Navy likes to say "Welcome to Our Ocean!"

Response to 1: It's always good to prepare for the worst, but you CAN be over-prepared if it means draining resources from other areas and making those areas under-prepared.

Response to 2: Can you think of a way for China to establish absolute control over its near seas without antagonizing everyone there? Power is a zero-sum game, the very act of expanding its power will inevitably increase tensions as status-quo powers resist the Chinese expansion. The antagonism can stop only when China and its neighbors settle on a new status-quo. For example, American westward expansions ruffled quited a few feathers in Mexico, a war even resulted from it. The antagonism between the U.S. and Mexico ended only when the Mexicans stopped all types of resistance.

Reponse to 3: The situations are different in many, many ways, but the end result China wishes to obtain is the same. Every problem has a solution, and China will be looking for many solutions in the coming decades. They're far from guaranteed to succeed, of course, but the goal is clear.

[Viv S]

Can you think of a way for China to establish absolute control over its near seas without antagonizing everyone there? Power is a zero-sum game, the very act of expanding its power will inevitably increase tensions as status-quo powers resist the Chinese expansion. The antagonism can stop only when China and its neighbors settle on a new status-quo. For example, American westward expansions ruffled quited a few feathers in Mexico, a war even resulted from it. The antagonism between the U.S. and Mexico ended only when the Mexicans stopped all types of resistance.

A certain degree of hostility is inevitable. China is no doubt Asia's dominant power. However, the worst possible outcome for the Chinese would be an alliance of Asian states forged with the aim of containing China. Collectively they dwarf China in economic as well as military terms. Rather than US and Mexico, a more fitting analogy might be Napoleon and the Seventh Coalition.

But what is surprising is that China let it come to this stage. Some degree of muscle flexing is expected, but to let it get to a stage where your adversaries consider banding together, implies a significant error of judgement. One has come to expect greater finesse and a more nuanced approach from the Chinese leadership, but the crude bullheadedness of their approach in the South China Sea has come as surprise to many. That's why you have theories circulating such as that of the Politburo/Secretariat knuckling under pressure from a nationalistic military.

[member_23455]

Response to 1: It's always good to prepare for the worst, but you CAN be over-prepared if it means draining resources from other areas and making those areas under-prepared.

Response to 2: Can you think of a way for China to establish absolute control over its near seas without antagonizing everyone there? Power is a zero-sum game, the very act of expanding its power will inevitably increase tensions as status-quo powers resist the Chinese expansion. The antagonism can stop only when China and its neighbors settle on a new status-quo. For example, American westward expansions ruffled quited a few feathers in Mexico, a war even resulted from it. The antagonism between the U.S. and Mexico ended only when the Mexicans stopped all types of resistance.

Reponse to 3: The situations are different in many, many ways, but the end result China wishes to obtain is the same. Every problem has a solution, and China will be looking for many solutions in the coming decades. They're far from guaranteed to succeed, of course, but the goal is clear.

1. Not even the most rose-tinted spectacle wearer in India will agree that India is over prepared on the land borders. Just compare the relative infrastructures. Our Mountain Strike Corps is 7-8 years away as well, and the jury is out on what impact it will have. What resources has that taken away from the IAF and the Indian Navy? If anything, we have choke points in our weapons acquisitions.

2. It's interesting you keep bringing up American parallels...just curious are you Chinese-American? One would go along with your Mexico parallel say for a Philippines, even a Vietnam, but is Japan a Mexico? And how many Mexicos are you going to invade, which is what the Americans had to do?

3. Your goals are clear no doubt, but one wonders if you are putting yourself in a position to score some own goals. Ironically, that will allow the Americans far greater leverage that they would normally have obtained. But I guess you already know that!

[DavidD]

Can you think of a way for China to establish absolute control over its near seas without antagonizing everyone there? Power is a zero-sum game, the very act of expanding its power will inevitably increase tensions as status-quo powers resist the Chinese expansion. The antagonism can stop only when China and its neighbors settle on a new status-quo. For example, American westward expansions ruffled quited a few feathers in Mexico, a war even resulted from it. The antagonism between the U.S. and Mexico ended only when the Mexicans stopped all types of resistance.

A certain degree of hostility is inevitable. China is no doubt Asia's dominant power. However, the worst possible outcome for the Chinese would be an alliance of Asian states forged with the aim of containing China. Collectively they dwarf China in economic as well as military terms. Rather than US and Mexico, a more fitting analogy might be Napoleon and the Seventh Coalition.

But what is surprising is that China let it come to this stage. Some degree of muscle flexing is expected, but to let it get to a stage where your adversaries consider banding together, implies a significant error of judgement. One has come to expect greater finesse and a more nuanced approach from the Chinese leadership, but the crude bullheadedness of their approach in the South China Sea has come as surprise to many. That's why you have theories circulating such as that of the Politburo/Secretariat knuckling under pressure from a nationalistic military.

I suppose it's just a difference in opinion then. I don't see an alliance of Asian states forging in the future. I don't think you understand how much Asians distrust each other. South Korea hates Japan far more than they do China, and it's well known that the ASEAN nations have trouble building any sort of consensus in any arena. Short of a wanton series of invasions by China, there won't be any alliance between Asian states. Again, just my opinion.

[member_23455]

I suppose it's just a difference in opinion then. I don't see an alliance of Asian states forging in the future. I don't think you understand how much Asians distrust each other. South Korea hates Japan far more than they do China, and it's well known that the ASEAN nations have trouble building any sort of consensus in any arena. Short of a wanton series of invasions by China, there won't be any alliance between Asian states. Again, just my opinion.

True, but on the subject of own goals:

Things went from this,

South Korea-Japan Postpone Pact

to this,

South Korea-Japan Joint Drills

...and "all China did" was declare a new ADIZ.

[DavidD]

Response to 1: It's always good to prepare for the worst, but you CAN be over-prepared if it means draining resources from other areas and making those areas under-prepared.

Response to 2: Can you think of a way for China to establish absolute control over its near seas without antagonizing everyone there? Power is a zero-sum game, the very act of expanding its power will inevitably increase tensions as status-quo powers resist the Chinese expansion. The antagonism can stop only when China and its neighbors settle on a new status-quo. For example, American westward expansions ruffled quited a few feathers in Mexico, a war even resulted from it. The antagonism between the U.S. and Mexico ended only when the Mexicans stopped all types of resistance.

Reponse to 3: The situations are different in many, many ways, but the end result China wishes to obtain is the same. Every problem has a solution, and China will be looking for many solutions in the coming decades. They're far from guaranteed to succeed, of course, but the goal is clear.

1. Not even the most rose-tinted spectacle wearer in India will agree that India is over prepared on the land borders. Just compare the relative infrastructures. Our Mountain Strike Corps is 7-8 years away as well, and the jury is out on what impact it will have. What resources has that taken away from the IAF and the Indian Navy? If anything, we have choke points in our weapons acquisitions.

2. It's interesting you keep bringing up American parallels...just curious are you Chinese-American? One would go along with your Mexico parallel say for a Philippines, even a Vietnam, but is Japan a Mexico? And how many Mexicos are you going to invade, which is what the Americans had to do?

3. Your goals are clear no doubt, but one wonders if you are putting yourself in a position to score some own goals. Ironically, that will allow the Americans far greater leverage that they would normally have obtained. But I guess you already know that!

1) What's the spending breakdown of the Indian military? I seem to recall it being very heavily skewed toward the land forces, which was surprising to me given the abundance of Indian shores vs. land borders, especially when considering that most of the land borders are protected by the best natural barrier possible in the Himalayas.

2) I'm not a Chinese-American per se, but close enough. Japan is not a pushover like Mexico, Japan would be more similar to Spain, a 2nd tier power that China may have to contest a few islands with. The invasions era is largely over, as it was fairly early on in American history. The conflicts from now on will be more strategic with little if any territory exchanging hands.

3) The current geopolitical jockeying are mere positionings for the future. By far the most important thing China needs to do right now is to secure its economic progress. China will be putting itslef in a position to score these goals as long as it continues to develop economically and militarily at a rapid pace. It's much easier to play international politics when you've got sweet carrots and a very big stick.

[DavidD]

I suppose it's just a difference in opinion then. I don't see an alliance of Asian states forging in the future. I don't think you understand how much Asians distrust each other. South Korea hates Japan far more than they do China, and it's well known that the ASEAN nations have trouble building any sort of consensus in any arena. Short of a wanton series of invasions by China, there won't be any alliance between Asian states. Again, just my opinion.

True, but on the subject of own goals:

Things went from this,

South Korea-Japan Postpone Pact

to this,

South Korea-Japan Joint Drills

...and "all China did" was declare a new ADIZ.

And then Abe visited Yasukuni. There's no need to pay attention to these little ups and downs. The deepest feelings between Korea, Japan, and China have been the same for centuries, and it'll remain the same in the foreseeable future.

[member_23455]

1) What's the spending breakdown of the Indian military? I seem to recall it being very heavily skewed toward the land forces, which was surprising to me given the abundance of Indian shores vs. land borders, especially when considering that most of the land borders are protected by the best natural barrier possible in the Himalayas.

2) I'm not a Chinese-American per se, but close enough. Japan is not a pushover like Mexico, Japan would be more similar to Spain, a 2nd tier power that China may have to contest a few islands with. The invasions era is largely over, as it was fairly early on in American history. The conflicts from now on will be more strategic with little if any territory exchanging hands.

3) The current geopolitical jockeying are mere positionings for the future. By far the most important thing China needs to do right now is to secure its economic progress. China will be putting itslef in a position to score these goals as long as it continues to develop economically and militarily at a rapid pace. It's much easier to play international politics when you've got sweet carrots and a very big stick.

1. It's also roughly 50% of China's budget. Yes, not only is there a land forces skew, the opex - salaries and maintenance of a large standing army, leaves very little for capex - new equipment and formations. So paradoxically, any capital investment in the army, is viewed as correcting an imbalance not deepening it.

The Himalayas are precisely where we had to fight our last little war with our "common friend." Our western borders have no such barriers - and mountains from the times of Hannibal (not the cannibal) have offered very little defence against a determined and canny adversary.

2 and 3 . Do keep in mind that when you are "contesting" those few islands with "Spain-like 2nd tier power" Japan that the US has a military treaty with them and troops on their soil. On the issue of big sticks, Theodore Roosevelt is supposed to have said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick, and you will go far."

Most powers tend to forget the speak softly part...no?

[Viv S]

I suppose it's just a difference in opinion then. I don't see an alliance of Asian states forging in the future. I don't think you understand how much Asians distrust each other. South Korea hates Japan far more than they do China, and it's well known that the ASEAN nations have trouble building any sort of consensus in any arena. Short of a wanton series of invasions by China, there won't be any alliance between Asian states. Again, just my opinion.

Not an overt alliance. At least not until military standoff ratchets up. A NATO-like organisation is not the only approach for the East/SE Asian states. Nor is the ASEAN a basis for a military alliance, with the majority of its members not party to any dispute with China. But a basic framework for cooperation is already being provided by the US, which has military bases in Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia.

They wouldn't sign a mutual defence pact yet, but military cooperation is certainly being ramped-up. India and Japan had their first ever bilateral naval exercise in 2012 and have already decided to make it a regular affair. Its also started participating in the Indo-US Malabar exercises. Plus you have Vietnam scaling up military relations with the US, with still greater involvement still with India. All in space of about five years. Its doubtful if affairs would have proceeded so rapidly without China's new assertiveness in Asia. And its unlikely to be a temporary thing, unless regional disputes get resolved in surprisingly quick time.