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

  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Would a Taiwan that is anti-India mean anything to Dehli?
    Loss of access to Taiwanese Semiconductor fabs would be quite worrying. The Chinese can stop exports to India, particularly the Defense sector once they take control. But New Delhi will not consider this worth fighting a war with China over.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      You sat out of Afghanistan - TWICE! When your superpower "friend" needed you - TWICE in a country that you have a lot more interest and more effect on you than Taiwan. History tells me Dehli ain't going to do squat.
      I agree that India will not intervene in case of a China-Taiwan conflict but comparing it to Afghanistan is erroneous reasoning. India has no land border with Afghanistan. Any Indian effort at a military intervention in Afghanistan is next to impossible. How is India supposed to supply and maintain a large ground force in Afghanistan even if it can get one there? During the time of the Soviets India was dealing with its own insurgencies in Punjab and Kashmir. It was in no position to send troops anywhere. The experience in Sri Lanka made things even worse. In recent times, once OBL was dead, the coalition troops had no idea what they were doing there and neither did your Generals. Sending Indian troops into that quagmire would have been utterly foolish since the source of funds and training for the insurgency was a US ally. The problem of transporting and supplying the troops remained as well.
      Last edited by Firestorm; 19 Jan 22,, 02:37.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
        How is India supposed to supply and maintain a large ground force in Afghanistan even if it can get one there?
        ??? The same way we did when Pakistan got in a temper tantrum. Via central Asia. You've also got Iran that we don't.

        Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
        During the time of the Soviets India was dealing with its own insurgencies in Punjab and Kashmir. It was in no position to send troops anywhere. The experience in Sri Lanka made things even worse. In recent times, once OBL was dead, the coalition troops had no idea what they were doing there and neither did your Generals. Sending Indian troops into that quagmire would have been utterly foolish since the source of funds and training for the insurgency was a US ally.
        At least two US Allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I agree 100% with you. It was not in India's interest to go into Afghanistan when asked by Mosow or Washington and hence Dehli didn't. This adds to the fact India will certainly not get into the fight over Taiwan because it absolutely make zero strategic sense to do so. Canada and Australia might due to Treaty Obligations (with or without public approval - note how Canada protected US carriers without public knowledge).

        That was the point I was making. DE is reaching for scenarios that is not supported by history. Participation in Afghanistan made a lot more sense than Taiwan and India didn't do so. What could possibly get India to intervene in Taiwan when there is even less of a demand for India?

        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          ??? The same way we did when Pakistan got in a temper tantrum. Via central Asia. You've also got Iran that we don't.

          At least two US Allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I agree 100% with you. It was not in India's interest to go into Afghanistan when asked by Mosow or Washington and hence Dehli didn't. This adds to the fact India will certainly not get into the fight over Taiwan because it absolutely make zero strategic sense to do so. Canada and Australia might due to Treaty Obligations (with or without public approval - note how Canada protected US carriers without public knowledge).

          That was the point I was making. DE is reaching for scenarios that is not supported by history. Participation in Afghanistan made a lot more sense than Taiwan and India didn't do so. What could possibly get India to intervene in Taiwan when there is even less of a demand for India?
          Central asia could never completely replace Pakistan as a supply route which is why you had to persuade them to reopen the route. And India's problem would be getting supplies to those central asian states in the first place. Our aircraft would have to fly circuitous routes around Pakistan to reach there and we don't have anywhere near the numbers required to mount a serious long range air supply effort. Even NATO with its huge fleet of air transporters needed land routes from a port (Karachi). Iran is not a realistic possibility either. Indian troops would be supporting coalition troops in this scenario and Iran has its own interests and calculations in Afghanistan which may not align with coalition ones. They are also quite chummy with China. The land route from Chahbahar into the heart of Afghanistan is not that well developed either. No Indian General would be comfortable with sending his men into battle with such shaky logistics.

          My point was that even if it had been in India's interest to send troops to Afghanistan (and past Indian governments may have even considered it) there were serious practical challenges which made it impossible. That is not the case in a China-Taiwan conflict scenario. If India really wants to intervene, theoretically at least there are options even if it would be extremely ill-advised to do so in my opinion.
          Last edited by Firestorm; 19 Jan 22,, 07:15.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            ??? The same way we did when Pakistan got in a temper tantrum. Via central Asia. You've also got Iran that we don't.

            At least two US Allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I agree 100% with you. It was not in India's interest to go into Afghanistan when asked by Mosow or Washington and hence Dehli didn't. This adds to the fact India will certainly not get into the fight over Taiwan because it absolutely make zero strategic sense to do so. Canada and Australia might due to Treaty Obligations (with or without public approval - note how Canada protected US carriers without public knowledge).

            That was the point I was making. DE is reaching for scenarios that is not supported by history. Participation in Afghanistan made a lot more sense than Taiwan and India didn't do so. What could possibly get India to intervene in Taiwan when there is even less of a demand for India?
            I just love and look forward to this back and forth between you and DE. Almost an equal to a good Netflix series. You, Sir, deserve a royalty or at least a good bottle of Scotch.

            As for the Chinese I always thought they were like Coors Beer as in "its' the water"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
              Central asia could never completely replace Pakistan as a supply route which is why you had to persuade them to reopen the route. And India's problem would be getting supplies to those central asian states in the first place. Our aircraft would have to fly circuitous routes around Pakistan to reach there and we don't have anywhere near the numbers required to mount a serious long range air supply effort. Even NATO with its huge fleet of air transporters needed land routes from a port (Karachi). Iran is not a realistic possibility either. Indian troops would be supporting coalition troops in this scenario and Iran has its own interests and calculations in Afghanistan which may not align with coalition ones. They are also quite chummy with China. The land route from Chahbahar into the heart of Afghanistan is not that well developed either. No Indian General would be comfortable with sending his men into battle with such shaky logistics.
              I kinda find that dubious. If Canada and the UK could do it, I can't see why India cannot and this was still at a time when Canada and the UK were engaged in offensive operations in Afghanistan during Pakistani temper tantrums.

              But be that as it may, logistics was not a question with the Soviet request. You could have just piggy back off Soviet logistics. You're using the same equipment and supplies.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                I just love and look forward to this back and forth between you and DE. Almost an equal to a good Netflix series. You, Sir, deserve a royalty or at least a good bottle of Scotch.

                As for the Chinese I always thought they were like Coors Beer as in "its' the water"
                Fewer chew toys around these days to really go ballastic. So, really have to nuaince the hell out of the answers for DE.

                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Fewer chew toys around these days to really go ballastic. So, really have to nuaince the hell out of the answers for DE.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • This development came as a surprise as we'd been in talks with the Viets for longer.

                    The real deal behind selling Brahmos to the Philippines | Asia Times | Jan 18 2022

                    The landmark US$375 million defense deal, however, is likely just the opening act in India’s gradual yet steady emergence as a major defense supplier and strategic partner to Southeast Asian nations – from the Philippines to Indonesia to Vietnam – which have been at the forefront of maritime disputes with a resurgent China.

                    The true significance of the Brahmos acquisition deal, however, is its broader strategic implications.

                    Currently, Indonesia and Vietnam are also in talks with India to acquire the Brahmos missile system.

                    Down the road, India could potentially become a major provider of a full range of advanced yet affordable weaponry to China’s rivals in Southeast Asia.
                    This is a bigger version of putting stingers into the hands of the mujaheddin.

                    As more countries enhance their capabilities things get much harder for China.

                    Lilliputs holding Gulliver back
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 16:46.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      So that was why you've said no to the Soviets? We didn't asked you the first time for help in Afghanistan. Moscow did.
                      We were not going to join a coalition that treated the Paks as a major partner.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      And the source of our terror was an Al Qaeda HQ. Going after Pakistan would leave that HQ free to do another 11 Sept, on what planet does that make strategic sense?
                      Who found safe sanctuary thanks to enabling actions by the Paks and have done so yet again.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      And you're blaming us for not finishing the job that you started.
                      Because you were protecting them. Right from the start ie. 1947 they had protection, we were never allowed to finish the job.

                      We fell for the ceasefire ploys earlier but ignored them in '71.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Damned easy to explain. We had no idea what we wanted. If we don't know what we want, we most certainly get what we don't want. We most certainly are not going abandon Pakistan just to pursue a better relationship with India. That leaves a hell of a lot leadway for them to play. 19thC Afghanistan played Britain against Russia.
                      You wanted a war on terrorism. Fight it anywhere and everywhere.

                      Neocons had a very good perception about security that has yet to be matched by any US administration since.

                      They foresaw Saddam could become a threat and acted on it.

                      They were the ones who gave India a nuclear deal because they knew what could come up later.

                      But for some reason the Paks got a pass (!)

                      How could we join you ?

                      I don't think India holding out on Afghanistan correlates with India holding out in an Indo Pacific war. Where as Gen Dhruv Katoch said amounts to suicide.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Collapse of the Chinese economy.

                        Western investments disappeared overnight and contracts cancelled.

                        Bargin basement prices with slave level wages and unsafe working conditions with devastatng environmental impact.
                        Why reward them by making MFN status permanent in 2001 ?

                        The opposition Democrats wanted all manner of sanctions after TIanamen but the elder Bush would not go as far.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        The thing with your conclusions is that these events were cases when the CCP won. How about choosing a case when the CCP lost. I point to you the 1979 Sino-VN War. 30,000 casualties. Parents of dead soldiers demanding explainations why their sons were dead or capture. Those local CCP cadre who boasted about the rightousness of the war couldn't leave town fast enough. Entire HQs were purge with Generals having to immigrate to work as dishwashers in the West because they lost their pensions. An entire generation of CCP leaders were sent packing leaving DXP well in command. Military budgets were cut (and hence pensions) forcing the PLA to come up with ideas do more with less, hence the start of PLA modernization
                        Vietnam was dealing with old school PLA human wave tactics. The Viets knew it and set that up. PLA don't fight like that any more because of the changes that war with Vietnam brought about.

                        China will not go at Taiwan like they did with Vietnam.

                        What i want to convey is a mostly non-military capitulation of Taiwan. This could happen if China is able to isolate Taiwan to the point that Taiwan believes no one will come to their help.

                        I did post a discussion earlier with a Taiwanese colonel now Professor who said Taiwan was on its own in such a conflict. That was their expectation.

                        When i see Tianamen, it all ended in Beijing. There were no fires in other parts of China. Jiang handled whatever fallout there was in Shanghai.

                        You mention Chinese parents. What about Taiwanese parents ?


                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        No. The US getting ready for war against Hitler with or without Hitler declaring war. Shooting between the Kreigsmarine and the USN were already taking place before Pearl Harbour. AR provided the link above. By April at the latest, the US would be full on shooting at Hitler even if he didn't declare war. Ever noticed how the US was full on ready to take on Hitler?
                        Fine, the Americans could read the writing on the wall. And i'm arguing India should do the same.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        This would be a traditional territorial war of old where provinces trade hands between empires. This means we have no intentions of marching to Beijing on India's behalf.

                        No, we'll just make sure any force attacking Taiwan dies. And let Xi explain to dead soldiers' parents why he threw 30,000 men away and cause the economy to go bust.
                        A good plan. But Taiwan can only keep that up for so long. There will come a point after where we will have to decide what comes next.

                        There is a line of reasoning that argues the US must change its policy towards Taiwan because the present course is leading towards a conflict with no good outcomes. I will post more about this in a subsequent post.

                        And India isn't asking for anyone to march on Beijing.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Sure and can you give me next week's lotto numbers while you're at it? China, India, Arabia, Persia, all the ancient almighty billion moons old civilization are no better at doing the 100 year management than the 200 year old civilizations. Tell me, why isn't the Han Dynasty still in charge? Chinese history proves the 100 year long view is a very much a lie.
                        That is the stated intention so long as the CCP is in charge.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Yeah sure and Dehli and the Indian Army would be just too scared to stand up to the China Army by reputation alone. The recent kung fu brawls says you have nothing to worry about the InA not having balls.
                        Loss of Taiwan means harder for the US to have influence in the Far East.

                        What comes next ? do countries in the region continue to stick with the US or go with China.

                        There's two answers here and i don't know which is correct.

                        One, argues they stick with the US because there is no alternative.

                        Two, argues they bandwagon towards China because a resurgent China can't be countered. Which means the US is out in the deep blue sea and its a matter of time they quit the region.

                        So far the consensus seems to go with two which means an anti-Indian Asia is in the cards.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

                        What's in it for the Chinese? What possible advantage would they gain over a few rocks?
                        China neutral India. An India that has no say in the progress of Asia.

                        The rocks are incidental.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        So tell me what do you need to bluff 10-20 Chinese divisions.
                        The same thing they've done to us since the last few years. Mass troops along the border.

                        We continue to complete those 44 strategic roads. Now we have forces that can show up along more points of the border than is possible today.

                        India without doing anything threatens the link between Xianjiang & Tibet as well as the route to Pakistan.

                        Any infrastructure that brings forces in mass to either of those two points is going to get them jumpy.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        What I am saying is that India WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to interfere WITH OUR TRADE. If we want to stop Chinese trade, blockading their ports is a lot easier, requires fewer ships, and DOES NOT interfere with the Freedom of the Seas. Indian Naval actions in the Indian Ocean does squat all in confronting the Chinese and India will NOT be allowed to search and every ship just to determine if they have Chinese cargo.
                        Sounds good. No need for Indian ships to police cargo then. We'll keep our powder dry for other actions.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        You are reaching big time to justify the QUAD.
                        I don't have to justfy quad. That Quad exists is self evident that the US can't handle China alone.

                        Quad alone isn't enough. It can be augmented by more branches with like minded powers. This is in the works .Now you have a net criss-crossing a diamond.

                        In anticipation of your reply bear in mind military is the last option. Grey zone is everything building up to that. Hopefully preventing use of military.

                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Until India cares to sail an Indian naval task force into the Taiwan Straits or march an Indian Army north if a Chinese fleets sails east, no one cares what India thinks or does. Not the Chinese. Not the Taiwanese. Not the Americans. Not the Japanese. Not any single one of the American allies. You're reaching to be of participation significance when no one wants Indfia to be, not even Dehli.

                        Those ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS available to India to be of significance to Taiwan. Sail into the Taiwan Straits or march north. Anything else is just hot air ... AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
                        We don't go into the straits. marching north is an option if the possibility presents itself.

                        You're forgetting something else. Nobody knows what the US will do and that will condition what India and the rest does.

                        This again i wil address in a subsequent post.

                        1. How long Taiwan holds out
                        2. US Policy towards Taiwan

                        Those are the two points i see here that determine what comes after.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 16:35.

                        Comment


                        • Neocons had a very good perception about security that has yet to be matched by any US administration since.

                          They foresaw Saddam could become a threat and acted on it.


                          The only thing the Neocons did was cause the entire Mideast to explode and make life so much worse from tens of millions and more to come.

                          In the process they ended wrecking DOD and putting weapons development decades behind. All new systems for the Army got swallowed up in paying for the wars over the last 20+ years. The Navy had to buy the crappy LCS instead of buying a legit frigate replacement for the OHPs.

                          Rumsfeld and crew wrecked the careers of several really good officers and politicized are officer corps.

                          Saddam was in a box he could not get out of. He ceased to be a threat to his neighbors. Any offensive move and he got smacked.

                          The Neocons did this to us and the world on 12 September when they determined Saddam, a Baathist, had anything to do with Al Qaeda or Bin Laden.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            The Chinese aren't stupid enough to equate exercising together with joining up in defense of Taiwan. Even the US hasn't spelled out its position on Taiwan unambiguously, and you expect the QUAD to be a part of it?
                            Malabar 2007 freaked the Chinese out just enough to send demarches to participating countries. Aussies peeled away soon after and India toned down the tenor of exercises with the US.

                            This was at a time when the myth that China's rise would be peaceful still had currency. Including on this board.

                            Quad is the process of putting together the building blocks to counter the Chinese. Once that is in place what happens next is an overnight decision in the capitals concerned.

                            Chinese know that. And the idea is China knowing that tempers how far they go.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Let me put it this way, if the Chinese go toe-to-toe with the US in an attempt to take Taiwan, I don't think India will have to worry about China militarily for many years in the aftermath of that. If on the other hand the US does not intervene and/or the Chinese can force Taiwan to capitulate before it can, then Taiwan is lost and there is nothing that India can do to prevent it. In either case, India's involvement makes little difference.
                            If the US does not intervene.... is the key point and in that instance yes agreed because then there is no Indo-Pacific war.

                            China called our bluff and we were found wanting.


                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Like the Colonel mentioned, the total manpower requirement for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be around 30000 men. Even accounting for reserves that hardly looks like a number which would prompt them to denude Tibet of manpower. They're not going to move their AD assets either since they do not face an aerial threat to the mainland from Taiwan. As for "tying down" their divisions we are already doing that as much as possible. Since 2020 the PLA has heavily deployed to forward areas near the LAC, something they never did previously. Short of going to war there is little we can do to force them to deploy more troops. Bear in mind that this round the year deployment costs the IA a lot of money and eats into our operational budget.
                            If you are saying we can't do more at the border than at present and OOE is saying we have to sail ships to the straits which we won't do.

                            Then we need other ideas here. Ones that India can do that will affect their calculations on Taiwan.

                            Failing that we prepare for a new reality in this region.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 17:37.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                              I just love and look forward to this back and forth between you and DE. Almost an equal to a good Netflix series. You, Sir, deserve a royalty or at least a good bottle of Scotch.

                              As for the Chinese I always thought they were like Coors Beer as in "its' the water"
                              This is the reason that compelled me to join the board. It was getting frustrating reading discussions getting interesting and then suddenly people would just give up.

                              Why ??!!!

                              People either agreed with OOE or hijacked what he was saying with something else.

                              This is not a guy to run away from. You ENGAGE. Only way to give the current narratives a good work over.

                              I'd be screaming at the screen to say this and that to whatever he said and then finally decided i'd sign up and do it myself.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 17:53.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                We were not going to join a coalition that treated the Paks as a major partner.
                                1) Since when were the Pakistanis a major partner with the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan?

                                2) Explain how Pakistani battlion groups answered to an Indian General and vice versa during the various UN Peacekeeping operations.

                                3) Did you not even imagine the Pakistani headaches and heartaches of having an Indian brigade or two on the Afghan-Pakistani border? I know I would be giddy at the thought.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Who found safe sanctuary thanks to enabling actions by the Paks and have done so yet again.
                                OBL was neutered once his HQ was destroyed, never managing another operation. Hell, he couldn't even move his money around. And again, Pakistani support was neutralized. The Taliban didn't strike from the Afghan-Pakistani border, they struck from Central Asia.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Because you were protecting them. Right from the start ie. 1947 they had protection, we were never allowed to finish the job.

                                We fell for the ceasefire ploys earlier but ignored them in '71.
                                Can't have it both ways. Either you were too lazy to finish the job or you were too chickenshit to finish the job. Either way, it was your job to finish Pakistan, not ours.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                You wanted a war on terrorism.
                                What the hell does that even mean? I mean seriously, what does it mean? Is there a military objective? No. Is there a political objective? Tell me who we can confront globally? Is there a social objective? Well, how do you social engineer away the bad guys?

                                It's a nice sound bite and all but all that it really says is that we don't know what we want.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Fight it anywhere and everywhere.
                                One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's the whole crust of this.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                But for some reason the Paks got a pass (!)

                                How could we join you ?
                                Two brigades.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                I don't think India holding out on Afghanistan correlates with India holding out in an Indo Pacific war. Where as Gen Dhruv Katoch said amounts to suicide.
                                Hardly. India is not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into Afghaniustan nor Taiwan. In fact, she's throwing nothing.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Why reward them by making MFN status permanent in 2001 ?
                                What didn't you understand about bargin basement prices?

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                The opposition Democrats wanted all manner of sanctions after TIanamen but the elder Bush would not go as far.
                                No bearing on individual companies and investors who suddenly lost confidence in China.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Vietnam was dealing with old school PLA human wave tactics. The Viets knew it and set that up. PLA don't fight like that any more because of the changes that war with Vietnam brought about.
                                We're not dealing with the military operations but the results of the war. The result of the 1979 Sino-VN War was the CCP got hurt and got hurt bad. Entire cadres lost their positions and pensions.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                China will not go at Taiwan like they did with Vietnam.
                                No shit, Sherlock.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                What i want to convey is a mostly non-military capitulation of Taiwan. This could happen if China is able to isolate Taiwan to the point that Taiwan believes no one will come to their help.
                                How? The one scenario that you came up with, a blockade, is militarily undoable with or without the USN.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                I did post a discussion earlier with a Taiwanese colonel now Professor who said Taiwan was on its own in such a conflict. That was their expectation.
                                That's because they don't need any help. AGAIN! A 30,000 man landing force with a 100 mile exposed LOC vs 400,000 entrenched troops with interior communications.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                When i see Tianamen, it all ended in Beijing. There were no fires in other parts of China. Jiang handled whatever fallout there was in Shanghai.
                                Not Jiang, DXP.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                You mention Chinese parents. What about Taiwanese parents ?
                                Fathers manning the Wall with their sons. Mothers cooking meals for both. Grandparents in the bunkers with the grandkids.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Fine, the Americans could read the writing on the wall. And i'm arguing India should do the same.
                                The US and Great Britain shared strategic objectives. What strategic objectives do India and Taiwan share?

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                A good plan. But Taiwan can only keep that up for so long. There will come a point after where we will have to decide what comes next.
                                That's the plan since 1949.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                There is a line of reasoning that argues the US must change its policy towards Taiwan because the present course is leading towards a conflict with no good outcomes. I will post more about this in a subsequent post.
                                The status quo is the outcome.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                And India isn't asking for anyone to march on Beijing.
                                No, you just want to be at the victor's table with a MAYBE you'll wave the flag.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                That is the stated intention so long as the CCP is in charge.
                                And it's been 71 years and counting. You know the one thing wrong about doing things tomorrow? Tomorrow never comes.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Loss of Taiwan means harder for the US to have influence in the Far East.

                                What comes next ? do countries in the region continue to stick with the US or go with China.
                                That's your problem. You think Taiwan is already lost wheras no military man can even envision it. Once you come back down to the details, it's still 400,000 men vs 30,000. 40 to 3 odds. An invasion of Taiwan would make D-Day a cake walk. The only thing remotely coming close is Operation OLYMPIC - 15 Allied Divisions, 42 Carriers, and 24 battleships and that is with total air and naval superiority.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                There's two answers here and i don't know which is correct.

                                One, argues they stick with the US because there is no alternative.

                                Two, argues they bandwagon towards China because a resurgent China can't be countered. Which means the US is out in the deep blue sea and its a matter of time they quit the region.

                                So far the consensus seems to go with two which means an anti-Indian Asia is in the cards.
                                Follow the money. There's your answer.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                China neutral India. An India that has no say in the progress of Asia.

                                The rocks are incidental.
                                What the hell does that even mean? Chinese say in Asia is economic, not military. If India got money, she got a say. If not, can't blame the Chinese for outbidding you.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                The same thing they've done to us since the last few years. Mass troops along the border.

                                We continue to complete those 44 strategic roads. Now we have forces that can show up along more points of the border than is possible today.

                                India without doing anything threatens the link between Xianjiang & Tibet as well as the route to Pakistan.
                                Do you see another 10-20 Chinese divisions moving up?

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Any infrastructure that brings forces in mass to either of those two points is going to get them jumpy.
                                Let's not overstate the threat. A brigade or regiment at either point is sufficent defence.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Sounds good. No need for Indian ships to police cargo then. We'll keep our powder dry for other actions.
                                Precisely the point, you have zero impact on the Taiwan issue.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                I don't have to justfy quad. That Quad exists is self evident that the US can't handle China alone.

                                Quad alone isn't enough. It can be augmented by more branches with like minded powers. This is in the works .Now you have a net criss-crossing a diamond.

                                In anticipation of your reply bear in mind military is the last option. Grey zone is everything building up to that. Hopefully preventing use of military.
                                Or for fuck sakes, the Americans want your flag, not your guns. It is without the a doubt that the Americans can do the job without NATO but it is also without a doubt that the Americans can do the job faster and better with NATO. QUAD would just get into the Americans' way. It's a freaking dog and pony show with zero military applications.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                We don't go into the straits. marching north is an option if the possibility presents itself.
                                Present to me a scenario that China cannot hold you at bay while duking it out with Taiwan.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                You're forgetting something else. Nobody knows what the US will do and that will condition what India and the rest does.
                                But we know what Taiwan will do. 40 to 3 odds the PRC will fail and fail big.

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                This again i wil address in a subsequent post.

                                1. How long Taiwan holds out
                                71 years and counting

                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                2. US Policy towards Taiwan
                                Arms sales.
                                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 22 Jan 22,, 21:00.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X