Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • After the defense minister's visit they decided we need 50k MORE soldiers on the border. The idea here is to cut down on the ten days required to acclimate as they're already in place.

    India shifts 50,000 troops to China border in historic move | Livemint | Jun 28 2021

    India has redirected at least 50,000 additional troops to its border with China in a historic shift toward an offensive military posture against the world’s second-biggest economy.

    Over the past few months, India has moved troops and fighter jet squadrons to three distinct areas along its border with China, according to four people familiar with the matter. All in all, India now has roughly 200,000 troops focused on the border, two of them said, which is an increase of more than 40% from last year.
    Redirected, focused. It means they have been tasked to defend the border. It does not mean they are ON the border in some massive buildup as the thumbnail below suggests.



    Still, does beg the question, what's going on ? Palki says its about preparedness rather than triggering hostilities.

    Intel inputs suggesting buildups on the other side maybe. China has to do something after last year's flop show. Why now though ?

    I don't get the 200k figure. If we were at 50k on the border another 50 bring its up to 100k

    China talks about disengagement but refuses to pull back troops.

    Clearly, we're having none of it
    Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Jun 21,, 07:40.

    Comment


    • China, India Move Tens of Thousands of Troops to the Border in Largest Buildup in Decades | WSJ | Jul 02 2021

      I expected this title a year ago not now. Sounds alarmist to people who may not have been tracking this topic

      By
      Rajesh Roy
      July 2, 2021 5:30 am ET

      NEW DELHI—China and India have sent tens of thousands of soldiers and advanced military equipment to their disputed border, as troop deployments in the region reach the highest level in decades.

      China’s People’s Liberation Army has gradually increased its troop presence, mostly over the past few months, to at least 50,000, up from about 15,000 at this time last year, according to Indian intelligence and military officials. Those moves have been matched by India, which has sent tens of thousands of its own troops and advanced artillery to the region, the officials said.

      Both countries have built up infrastructure at the border in recent months, including insulated cabins and huts to keep troops stationed there through the frigid Himalayan winters.

      Much of the military buildup has occurred in eastern Ladakh, a region that overlaps with Kashmir and Tibet. The deadliest confrontation between the two countries in decades occurred there in June 2020 in the Galwan Valley, where 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers were killed.

      Chinese security forces, which usually go to the Tibet Autonomous Region for annual summer training under the PLA’s western theater command, recently participated in high-altitude drills focused on combat with sophisticated weapons. Indian officials said they fear that China is using the drills this year as cover to move more troops to the region permanently.

      China has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles to the region, the officials said, including its HQ-9 system, which is similar to Russia’s S-300 and America’s Patriot antimissile batteries.

      The country’s army has built hundreds of new structures to support troops at military encampments at the towns of Rudok, in Tibet’s Ladakh frontier, and Kangxiwar, which is north of a plateau controlled by China, known as Aksai Chin, that connects Tibet with the Xinjiang region.

      China has dug underground bunkers and tunnels and built small hydroelectric power stations and solar panels, the officials said. They have installed portable cabins and huts for troops, helipads and field hospitals.

      At the Rudok camp, about 20 permanent and temporary camps have been set up to house 15,000 to 18,000 troops, the Indian officials said. Previously, the camp’s capacity was limited to about 5,000.

      A spokesman for China’s foreign ministry said the situation on the border is stable and controllable and that the two countries were preparing for another round of military talks to help ease the tensions. “China believes that any arms race and infrastructure construction aimed at military control are not conducive to the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the border areas,” the spokesman said.

      India has been making its own push to fortify its positions, building roads, tunnels and insulated facilities to house its troops through the winter.
      The bolded bit indicates they are trying to get back their bargaining power over our infrastructure builds on our side of the border. Heh, no that boat sailed a year ago.

      Their advantage at deployment speed to the border is slowly but surely eroding.

      India has also been boosting the ability of its air force to patrol the border. Last September, its air force created a squadron of 18 jet fighters based in Ambala, a city in the northern state of Haryana. Some of the jet fighters have been deployed for sorties in eastern Ladakh, according to current and former Indian military officials. India’s air force is planning a second squadron in the state of West Bengal at Hasimara air base, near another contested area of the border.

      A spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

      D.S. Hooda, a former lieutenant general of the Indian army, said the development of Chinese military infrastructure in Tibet was largely focused on housing additional troops and improving infrastructure at airfields to support combat air operations. “This was a known weakness of the Chinese which is now being strengthened,” he said.

      China and India have never settled on an actual border. The two countries are separated along their 2,000-mile border by a vague demarcation line, known as the Line of Actual Control.
      China and India never settled on an actual border because China keeps putting it off. There is no "and India" its just China. And their latest behaviour of throwing out of the window all agreements dating back to 1993 in effect turning the clock back to that time is proof.

      Generally, India sees its control extending to where the Chinese withdrew at the end of a 1962 war between the two countries. China sees its control extending to what Chinese troops held in 1959 before the war. In the east, China continues to claim what India considers a full-fledged state, Arunachal Pradesh, and in the west, the Aksai Chin plateau.

      The two countries have at times kept rules in place in an effort to keep border skirmishes between troops from escalating. Troops stationed at the border were prohibited from carrying guns, for example. That rule was changed last year to give commanders on the ground more flexibility to make decisions, after the brutal clash in June, when troops fought each other with batons and clubs wrapped in barbed wire. In hand-to-hand combat, some soldiers fell off cliffs into a river.

      The latest buildup risks triggering further clashes between the countries as their troops jockey for positions. India’s construction of a road to an airport was a contributing factor to last year’s deadly clash. After it was built, Chinese troops began occupying part of the Galwan Valley to gain access to peaks overlooking the new road.

      India and China have held about a dozen rounds of talks between military and diplomatic officials since the confrontation last year in an effort to de-escalate tensions. Those talks led to the pullback of troops from both sides at one friction point at Pangong Tso, a glacial lake at an altitude of about 14,000 feet. Nonetheless, troops have remained stationed at bases that can reach the front line in a matter of hours.

      The recent buildup shows that the talks have done little to ease the broader tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries or limit the risk of further clashes.
      Because China wants disengagement without de-escalation which betrays their intent of keeping the pressure on.

      The best plan is to talk them to death while we merrily complete all border infrastructure plans put in place. They can't do squat to stop us.

      “Disengagement from all friction points followed by de-escalation and a commitment to maintain peace and tranquility along the border is the way forward to resolve the standoff and improve bilateral relations,” said S.L. Narasimhan, a member of India’s national security advisory board.

      The military positioning on the ground also factors into each side’s hand in future talks. “China is reminding India that this dispute is unlikely to be settled purely through dialogue. India will need to bring bargaining chips to the dialogue like it did in 2020 by occupying strategic heights and showing China it will not shy away from combat,” said Sreeram Chaulia, dean at O.P. Jindal Global University’s School of International Affairs, in Sonipat, India.

      Mr. Chaulia said those chips could include putting more barriers in place to Chinese imports and investments or coordinating with other members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—the U.S., Japan and Australia—on more regular patrols in the South and East China seas and the Indo-Pacific.
      Exactly so things are going to get interesting in the short term.

      Interested to know more about these regular patrols.

      S. Dinny, a former Indian army colonel who commanded an infantry battalion from 2015 to 2017 near the Line of Actual Control, said the increase of Chinese infrastructure since last year was a deliberate attempt by the PLA to send a message to the world that it can’t be bogged down and continues to do whatever it intends to, despite the fact that it had to pull back forces from Pangong Tso.

      “The Chinese also need to take care of their operational needs and not be taken off guard as India has been rapidly ramping up its infrastructure and force deployment in recent months,” he said.
      Gen. Hooda, Prof. Sreeram Chaulia and Col. S Dinny as commentators

      Not bad WSJ
      Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 21,, 07:58.

      Comment


      • The troops buildup is in Ladakh



        She says China has 50k at or close to the border and India has 200k

        That 200k makes no sense at all.

        If there are 12 divisions tasked to looking after that border the number is around 120-130k

        What massive force is she talking about ? so long as China matches India's numbers they cannot take any offensive actions.

        They would need a ratio of 7 to 8 times more which they clearly lack the resources for.

        If HQ-9 is a copy of S-400 why has China asked Russia for S-400 ? that can't be right
        Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jul 21,, 22:39.

        Comment


        • China is building more than 100 new missile silos in its western desert, analysts say | WAPO | Jul 01 2020

          If these new sites are already known then how does it improve the survivability of their deterrent ?

          The acquisition of more than 100 new missile silos, if completed, would represent a historic shift for China, a country that is believed to possess a relatively modest stockpile of 250 to 350 nuclear weapons. The actual number of new missiles intended for those silos is unknown but could be much smaller. China has deployed decoy silos in the past.
          They will need many decoys then

          The construction boom suggests a major effort to bolster the credibility of China’s nuclear deterrent, said researcher Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on China’s nuclear arsenal and part of a team that analyzed the suspicious sites, first spotted by colleague Decker Eveleth as he scoured photos taken by commercial satellites over northwestern China. Lewis described the scale of the building spree as “incredible.”

          “If the silos under construction at other sites across China are added to the count, the total comes to about 145 silos under construction,” Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said in a summary of his findings provided to The Washington Post. “We believe China is expanding its nuclear forces in part to maintain a deterrent that can survive a U.S. first strike in sufficient numbers to defeat U.S. missile defenses.”

          Missile silos are easily spotted by trained imagery analysts, and they are vulnerable to destruction by precision-guided missiles in the early hours of a nuclear war. For those reasons, Lewis sees the silo construction project as part of an expanded deterrent strategy by a country whose nuclear arsenal is dwarfed by those of the United States and Russia, which collectively possess more than 11,000 nuclear warheads.

          Comment


          • Let's do the math here.

            Any single target would need 3 nukes/missiles to ensure a kill. You have a single missile with warheads (mirv or not) sitting in one silo. You need 3 nukes/missiles to kill it. Seperate the missile from silo, you need 6 nukes/missiles. Seperate further into warhead storage away from missile, you need 9 nukes/missiles. For every silo, missile, warhead that you add sepeately, you decrease the enemy's strike power by 3 nukes/missiles. And if the silo happens to be empty, the enemy just wasted 3 nukes/missiles that can't be used on anything else.

            Chimo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Let's do the math here.

              Any single target would need 3 nukes/missiles to ensure a kill. You have a single missile with warheads (mirv or not) sitting in one silo. You need 3 nukes/missiles to kill it. Seperate the missile from silo, you need 6 nukes/missiles. Seperate further into warhead storage away from missile, you need 9 nukes/missiles. For every silo, missile, warhead that you add sepeately, you decrease the enemy's strike power by 3 nukes/missiles. And if the silo happens to be empty, the enemy just wasted 3 nukes/missiles that can't be used on anything else.
              This isn't the reason they need more nukes though. They can build any number of silos to mislead.

              I'm understanding they need more nukes because of US missile defense.

              It isn't they will lose their nukes but they can't threaten delivery of a meaningful number to the US to maintain a credible deterrent.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 21,, 12:56.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                Then, it's a political statement, not a military one.
                Meaning its not credible ?

                I don't know how to interpret your comment.

                This whole stand off is a political statement isn't it. If PLA were deployed non tactically from the start. Not military either.

                Directed at the leadership, not the country or its people.

                Which means leaders of both sides play to their respective audiences. Hence buildup.

                Political theatre using the military as a prop.

                Shows of strength with no intent to actually use it.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 21,, 12:58.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  This isn't the reason they need more nukes though. They can build any number of silos to mislead.

                  I'm understanding they need more nukes because of US missile defense.

                  It isn't they will lose their nukes but they can't threaten delivery of a meaningful number to the US to maintain a credible deterrent.
                  It complicates an American 1st strike.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Meaning its not credible ?
                  It means that the Chinese don't have to change their military posture one single bit due to this dog and pony show.
                  Chimo

                  Comment




                  • Wishes Biden for the 4th of Juy
                    Ignores XJP for his centennial
                    Wishes the Dalai Lama for his birthday

                    First time since 2015, an Indian leader publicly addresses the Dalai Lama. Key word there is publicly.

                    It's a small reminder to make them uncomfortable.

                    As for Tibet card i don't think it got better than using the SFF against them last Aug.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Jul 21,, 22:06.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      It complicates an American 1st strike.
                      Right but that does not translate into they need more nukes.

                      The Americans are playing the same game with them too by dispersing their assets around the region

                      Won't be enough to take out Guam or Okinawa.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      It means that the Chinese don't have to change their military posture one single bit due to this dog and pony show.
                      Hmm, i don't know how you change their posture but we can make them more uncomfortable. They're thin skinned like that.

                      They will keep up the show to demonstrate to their domestic audience how XJP is struggling against the world.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Jul 21,, 22:13.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Right but that does not translate into they need more nukes.
                        They need all 3 silo-missile-nuke to maintain a credible deterrent. No silos- no launch. No missiles - no launch. No nukes - what's the point?

                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Hmm, i don't know how you change their posture but we can make them more uncomfortable. They're thin skinned like that.

                        They will keep up the show to demonstrate to their domestic audience how XJP is struggling against the world.
                        The same way we did during the Cold War. Hold the Exercise right on the border/areas of dispute. In this case, hold the Exercise within range of the man-made islands ... but then, India will not participate in such.

                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          They need all 3 silo-missile-nuke to maintain a credible deterrent. No silos- no launch. No missiles - no launch. No nukes - what's the point?
                          If too many decoys complicates an American first strike then they can maintain their deterrent number as is or close to ?

                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          The same way we did during the Cold War. Hold the Exercise right on the border/areas of dispute. In this case, hold the Exercise within range of the man-made islands
                          Col. Newsham concurred, three years ago

                          China's Worst Nightmare: RIMPAC 2020 in the South China Sea? | National Interest | Sept 29 2018

                          To which i would add hold Malabar in the SCS as well. We did do them off the coast of Japan in 2011.

                          (1) Blunt Beijing’s wide-ranging efforts to dominate the strategic waterway.
                          (2) Encourage freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) to challenge excessive maritime claims by other nations with shared interests in global norms.
                          (3) Set the conditions for more maritime exercises like Talisman Saber and Malabar to be conducted in the international waters of the SCS
                          (4) Provide an opening to re-invite China provided it complies with RIMPAC standing rules of engagement and code of behavior, particularly not bringing along spy ships.
                          (5) Provide an opening to invite Taiwan since it is also a SCS claimant with vested interests in the strategic waterway.
                          (6) Advance the long-sought maritime domain awareness initiative for the SCS, provide an economic boost for the local host nations, and deter the piracy that still plagues parts of the SCS.

                          In what way would this change their posture ? they will play the victim card.

                          Thus, serious American diplomacy will be needed to convince countries in and outside the region to participate. The immense logistical undertakings to execute the exercise and mitigating the real operational security concerns and potential environmental impacts are relatively minor challenges by comparison.

                          Holding RIMPAC 2020 in the SCS will only work if it is part of a much broader U.S.-led multinational effort that includes economic, diplomatic, and informational “fronts” to assert the “rule of law” and national interests. If it’s just RIMPAC 2020 and nothing else, few if any countries will join; rightfully fearing that if they do, afterwards they’ll be alone to face a really angry China.

                          It’s still unclear if America can re-learn political warfare and influence operations in order to speak up on behalf of consensual government and individual liberty while countering Chinese strategic narratives of inevitable China’s dominance over a declining America. And it remains to be seen if the United States will in fact rebuild its Navy—which would add believability to efforts to strengthen alliances against Chinese assertiveness.

                          One of course already hears the harrumphing from certain quarters about a South China Sea RIMPAC 2020. “Unrealistic,” “unthinkable,” “can’t be done,” and so forth. Fair enough. But the purpose of essays such as this is to expand thought—sort of like an opening offer in a negotiation.

                          So if not the entire exercise in 2020, why not hold parts of it in the South China Sea region—just as portions of RIMPAC are already conducted in Southern California? Perhaps an HA/DR exercise in Vietnam or anti-piracy training near Indonesia is feasible, or even a portion in Guam and the Northern Marianas.

                          Take a step-by-step approach and don’t back down, and by 2022 or 2024 RIMPAC (or large parts of it) in the South China Sea just might fall into place.
                          It's 2021 already, we need to get going on this.

                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          ... but then, India will not participate in such.
                          Well, if you pull off a RIMPAC in the SCS then it sets the stage for Malabar in the SCS as well ?
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Jul 21,, 14:58.

                          Comment


                          • To understand how and why the Indian army can successfully counter China in the mountains it helps to understand the experiences the Indian army has been through to become that good.

                            All starts with Siachen and then the capture of Quaid post.

                            Almost forty years back, they learn the basics of surviving, then enduring, fighting and winning in the mountains.

                            Then came Kargil.

                            This obsession with taking heights because 5 men can hold back a company from advancing unless they are neutralised.

                            Musharaf also learnt a lot of lessons as he was involved with operations on Siachen and it burned him so much he just had to get even with Kargil and ended up losing that one as well.

                            OOE, you've always said it would be easier to win Kargil by blockading people on the heights than to take them.

                            But that requires your army to be able to surround them.

                            The Paks held 160 posts at the start of Kargil.

                            To be able to surround them you'd have to go around, there would be passes to get through. They'd be blocking them

                            What do you do ? you have to fight them to achieve the objective of surrounding.

                            The difficulty with taking Quaid, we tried 4 times until we succeeded. That the Paks tried multiple times after and never succeeded in recapturing Quaid tells you how damn difficult it is to pull off. To take a post you need a battalion supporting behind. Acclimated and fighting fit.

                            How many battalions are you going to throw at unblocking all the passes on your way to surrounding them.

                            You can't airdrop people here, they'd be sitting ducks. Not to mention the difficulty of landing on a mountain.

                            So I contend that blockading people on the heights to win Kargil isn't as feasible as you make it sound. Musharaf would have planned for it.

                            Still, there is a wrinkle in the story. Why does Musharaf back off because Clinton withdrew support ? if his position was unassailable he'd have held his ground regardless of what the Americans said.

                            Clinton must have gone beyond withdrawing support. Clinton made the Paks an offer they could not abuse

                            PS. Ten years ago to get a take from an Indian officer, you'd have to read something they wrote in newspapers & journals. Maybe a talk at a think tank would be hosted somewhere or there would be a documentary. Today, officers like Colonel Ajay Singh have their own youtube channel . hehe.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Jul 21,, 15:42.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              If too many decoys complicates an American first strike then they can maintain their deterrent number as is or close to ?
                              They still need enough suriving numbers to punch through the American defensive screens.

                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              In what way would this change their posture ?
                              They need to beef up the SCS and that means money. In your case, defund the army. In our case, defund the nukes. Sucks to be SCS countries though.

                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              they will play the victim card.
                              This is the Big Boys Game. You don't get to play by Little Boys Rules.

                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Well, if you pull off a RIMPAC in the SCS then it sets the stage for Malabar in the SCS as well ?
                              Don't see it. India, like China, wants to play the Big Boys Game with Little Boys Rules.

                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Video about Chinese observation post 5592. It's at 5,592m altitude on the Dolam plateau



                                PLA ‘has built frontline observation post’ | SCMP | Jan 06 2021

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X