Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Oracle]

That's the military solution. But Kargil was no military win, it was a diplomatic win. We tend to understate this because we do not want to diminish the sacrifices of our braves who fought.

Paks occupied 160 posts on the Kargil ridge, the IA was at best able to dislodge them from 35 - 40, after 3 months and 500 casualties. We lost some helis & jets too.

Now, how did we get them to vacate the remaining 120 ? By painting the Paks as the aggressor and getting Clinton to agree.

By not crossing the LoC we made the case to Clinton who then withdrew support to Nawaz.

Paks had no choice but to walk back because we made it clear if they didn't we would do just as you said.

Another factor that played into this is only a year before we had tested so things were super sensitive at that point.

We didn't let the Generals run the show, we kept options in abeyance.

This marked the warming up of relations between India and the US.

Clinton visited a mere two years after he imposed sanctions. Redeemed himself in his second term after screwing with us in his first with Kashmir.

Yep, and that too.

[Officer of Engineers]

OMG!

Even if I'm nationalistic, what am I going to do about it? Whine here, and? You, Sir, for all your military acumen, don't seem to understand that we got a pathetic political structure.

Calm down. Wasn't talking about you.

[Officer of Engineers]

That's the military solution. But Kargil was no military win, it was a diplomatic win. We tend to understate this because we do not want to diminish the sacrifices of our braves who fought.

Paks occupied 160 posts on the Kargil ridge, the IA was at best able to dislodge them from 35 - 40, after 3 months and 500 casualties. We lost some helis & jets too.

Wasn't worth it. Even the Chinese abandoned Pakistan. India had a free hand. And Pakistan was desperate.

[Double Edge]

Wasn't worth it. Even the Chinese abandoned Pakistan. India had a free hand. And Pakistan was desperate.

I don't expect the military brass to agree with the plan. They see the loss of 500 men for not much gain but think again.

Did they expect to get away with fewer casualties if they had their way. I don't know the answer to that.

Imagine they think so. The late Brig. Ray certainly did.

Less than a year after we tested i don't know how much of a free hand we had. We didn't know the Chinese would abandon the Paks, China refused to talk to us for months after Clinton allowed Vajpayee's letter to be printed in the NYT. Letter stated the test was directed at China. We've discussed this but in these matters words count.

The China factor always has to be considered. What if.

This is the reason the Bangladesh campaign was held in Dec '71 as we knew the mountain passes would be blocked.

You said China did not know if it would see '72. We did not let this affect planning. Ensure China is out of play no matter what.

[tbm3fan]

I am curious about something that maybe off the mark or not. Doesn't the Indus River, after starting in Tibet, then run through Ladakh. Isn't there already some water shortages in India's Punjab region? I have read that if things don't change climate wise then China, India, and Pakistan could all be facing severe water shortages in the entire region around 2050. Water, being a critical resource China needs much like other resources would China be looking ahead into the future? Just musing here...

[Double Edge]

Let's look at this from a MILITARY and NOT a political perspective. So they command the heights. What does that gain them? A bunch of rocks that is hard to defend, impossible to advance, easily choked at the lower points, men and material sitting them doing nothing but freezing and thawing throughout the year, things that are hard on men and machine alike.

2ndly, in that terrain, reverse slope is perfect protection against enemy artillery ... for both sides. But the men manning those FOPs? They are going to be damned miserable. Their only solace is that the Indians would happily obliged to bury them with blast up rubble, sparing their families of funeral expenses.

Seriously, if this was my command, I'd be thinking how do I get more of them into the area. How do I cut them off so that they can freeze and starve. It's a frigging natural death trap.

This is our lot on the Siachen glacier. So should we vacate those positions and let the Paks or Chinese occupy them ?

I would but then, that is a military decision. I want the Pakistanis and the Chinese to waste men and material in a place of not strategic importance, that can be easily cut off and destroyed. In fact, I would want them to build up those places as much as they can. The more they have up there, the more I can destroy ... much more easily than they can build.

That being said, I also realize that this is a political matter and that it matters more to a capital to hold the a line no matter how many men and machines are at risk.

Wanted to reply to this earlier. There was a plan in 2012 to disengage from Siachen. The military shot the plan down

Siachen demilitarisation: Could PM gift away to Pakistan what Army has won? | IT | May 14 2012

[Double Edge]

I am curious about something that maybe off the mark or not. Doesn't the Indus River, after starting in Tibet, then run through Ladakh. Isn't there already some water shortages in India's Punjab region? I have read that if things don't change climate wise then China, India, and Pakistan could all be facing severe water shortages in the entire region around 2050. Water, being a critical resource China needs much like other resources would China be looking ahead into the future? Just musing here...

Some of the tributaries (of which there are many) that feed the Indus run through Ladakh. I'm not entirely sure but the main source for the Indus lies in PO J&K IIANM.

Years ago i remember this global warming thing coming up and the Indian geological society disagreed with them. The glaciers melting claim they found to be over stated.

There has always been the fear that rivers originating from Tibet could be diverted. The Brahamputra is fed by the Yarlung Tsangpo. Thing is the Brahmaputra is 80% rain fed on the Indian side and only gets the remainder from the Yarlung in Tibet. Now this does not mean all is ok if Yarlung were to be diverted as during the dry season that 20% ensures the Brahmaputra continues.

As for water diversion there are international rules upper riparian states have to follow. Only run of the course dams, no diversion or storing. We've discussed this earlier, the Chinese abandoned their water diversion plans as they setup desalination plants further downstream. Increasingly desalination will be the solution for water shortages. The project may have been too difficult as these rivers are fast flowing in the heights and not so easily tamed. I only recently realised the Shyok was 1 km across !!!

There is still a lot of heartburn to do with the Mekong though. This acts as another pressure point China can exert on lower riparian states.

Right now the 3 gorges dam whose main purpose is to stop the never ending flooding of the Yangtze is overflowing. Torrential rains have meant they have to open the sluices to release water which is causing the flooding in Yichang and other cities that the 3 gorges dam was supposed to prevent. Water levels are rising in Wuhan too.

We do get floods from time to time from Tibet. People in the border areas refer to them as China floods. As in the locals think China is deliberately doing this. Happened at both ends in 2001. Himachal as well as Arunachal.

But the real reason is natural dams form due to landslides in Tibet. These can give way at any time resulting in a massive release that takes its toll further downstream in India.

We have an agreement with the Chinese to share hydrological data. This agreement gets suspended when relations take a dip.

Your point is valid though as during this standoff the flow of the Galwan river was stopped only to be resumed after the Jun 15 incident. I don't know how the flow was resumed, whether they agreed to or whether we blew up whatever 'structure' they erected to stop the flow.

This was China hinting at what they could do in the future.

Paks always complain we are taking up too much Indus water but to date we've yet to construct any run of the course dams on our side. Which is entirely legal. The main problem in Pakistan is water conservation. Over 30% of the water they get is wasted. If China wants to help Pakistan they should be putting up funds to address this situation.



Geopolitical Risks: Transboundary Rivers | China Water Risk | Feb 09 2012

[Officer of Engineers]

Siachen demilitarisation: Could PM gift away to Pakistan what Army has won? | IT | May 14 2012

So, it's an invasion route into Pakistan.

[Double Edge]

So, it's an invasion route into Pakistan.

How do you figure that ?

I'm thinking control the heights and you control the valley below. Always try to control the ridges. Seems to be the operational plan in the region.

One of the things that would frustrate me with this board, before i joined is you say something, people go hmm, hmm and then a page later the topic moves on to something else.

NOBODY BOTHERED TO PUT WHAT YOU SAID THROUGH THE WRINGER

[tbm3fan]

We have an agreement with the Chinese to share hydrological data. This agreement gets suspended when relations take a dip.

Your point is valid though as during this standoff the flow of the Galwan river was stopped only to be resumed after the Jun 15 incident. I don't know how the flow was resumed, whether they agreed to or whether we blew up whatever 'structure' they erected to stop the flow.

This was China hinting at what they could do in the future.

Paks always complain we are taking up too much Indus water but to date we've yet to construct any run of the course dams on our side. Which is entirely legal. The main problem in Pakistan is water conservation. Over 30% of the water they get is wasted. If China wants to help Pakistan they should be putting up funds to address this situation.

Seems things might have changed in the last few years regarding the glaciers.

Yes, Pakistan grows a ton of cotton, their biggest export, and a huge water intensive crop.

China being China means International Laws don't necessarily mean much. Now 30 years from now, or even 10 years from now, their military should be powerful enough to impose their will if they should so please. Being that China, unlike other countries, tends to look forward many years when planning. Maybe I'll live to see that although I'll be 97. My consolation is that the Col. will be older...

[Officer of Engineers]

How do you figure that ?

Easy enough. The Pakistani positions are unattainable but yet, they cannot abandon it. The Indian side indicates that they have a superiority of force. Most telling is that the statement that India will not advance if Pakistan withdrawls. Seems the entire reasoning for the Pakistani continue presence is to prevent an Indian advance. What's so important that they could not bottle up any Indian advance? Obvious answer, they could not bottle up any Indian advance. Hence, why their desperation in still manning the glacier. Stop the Indians here or the Indians will not be stopped.

[Officer of Engineers]

My consolation is that the Col. will be older...

In all sincerity. Fuck you.

[Double Edge]

Seems things might have changed in the last few years regarding the glaciers.

Yes, Pakistan grows a ton of cotton, their biggest export, and a huge water intensive crop.

China being China means International Laws don't necessarily mean much. Now 30 years from now, or even 10 years from now, their military should be powerful enough to impose their will if they should so please. Being that China, unlike other countries, tends to look forward many years when planning. Maybe I'll live to see that although I'll be 97. My consolation is that the Col. will be older...

What climate change is doing is increasing flooding so we're not seeing the drying up bit.

Don't have to wait thirty years. Can see the problem right now with my state Karnataka and the neighbouring one Tamil Nadu.

The Cauvery river starts in my state and flows into theirs. We had an agreement that goes back to the British era on water sharing.

Now so long as the monsoons are good, they have been for the last five in a row things are cool.

It's when we have a weak monsoon that tension builds up. We take our share but they say we aren't releasing the agreed amount.

We say we don't have more they say we are withholding.

So the state would release more water, this then would get the locals up in arms who would agitate and the city would shut down for a day.

Things would get so bad that if you crossed state lines and the other side noticed the license plates they would harass you and vice versa.

So we took it to the supreme court and won.

The next time this agreement will be reviewed is in 2035.

[Firestorm]

Perfect example. The goal was to defend Pakistani territory, not shooting down MiGs. The horses have already left the barn (the InAF bombed Pakistani territory) and the Pakistanis can only claim to close the barn doors (shooting down the MiG). Would India even attempted the bombing raid if an American made AWACS was in the air?

You have your dates mixed up Colonel. The aerial engagement was on Feb 27, a day after the IAF bombed Balakot. No aerial engagement happened during the attack on Balakot. The air combat happened when the pakistanis attempted to bomb IA positions close to the LoC as a response.

Also, the Paks did have an AWACS up that day. A Swedish one instead of American but more than enough for the situation and the ranges involved. An E-3 instead of an Erieye would not have made that much of a difference in that scenario.

Regardless of whether the paks can use US weapons to their full effectiveness or not, the F-16's and AMRAAMs pose a credible enough threat. The Paks don't need to use them as effectively as the USAF does. They are not fighting the Soviet Air Force with thousands of aircraft are they?

This argument that US weapons cannot be used to their full effect because others cannot afford the entire ecosystem does not hold valid beyond a point.

[Officer of Engineers]

You have your dates mixed up Colonel. The aerial engagement was on Feb 27, a day after the IAF bombed Balakot. No aerial engagement happened during the attack on Balakot. The air combat happened when the pakistanis attempted to bomb IA positions close to the LoC as a response.

No, I've got my dates correct. The simple fact that the InAF faced no opposition meant there wasn't early warning. On day 1 of the Pakistani penetration, you're supposed to be eyeing the skies 24/7.

Also, the Paks did have an AWACS up that day. A Swedish one instead of American but more than enough for the situation and the ranges involved. An E-3 instead of an Erieye would not have made that much of a difference in that scenario.

Regardless of whether the paks can use US weapons to their full effectiveness or not, the F-16's and AMRAAMs pose a credible enough threat. The Paks don't need to use them as effectively as the USAF does. They are not fighting the Soviet Air Force with thousands of aircraft are they?

This argument that US weapons cannot be used to their full effect because others cannot afford the entire ecosystem does not hold valid beyond a point.

Still backs my point. Pakistani strike packages didn't reach their targets. There was zero battle management.