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

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

[tbm3fan]

??? 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"

[Firestorm]

??? 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.

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

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?

[Firestorm]

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.

[Firestorm]

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.

[Firestorm]

I put this down to perception issues on our side. However the Chinese have no illusions.

They see like minded, powerful countries in the region upping defense budgets and then exercising together.

There is a common motive.

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?

You might want to reconsider.

Who do you think China will come for after ??? Does it make sense then for India to sit and watch from the sidelines.

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.

I've been looking for a counter from a credible Indian commentator on that bolded bit and found it couple months back from General Dhruv Katoch.

So here it is in a discussion from Nov.



How many PLA divisions can we tie down at the Indo-Tibet border and what can we do in the maritime space

We might not stick to the border but go into Tibet proper. From another discussion in October, General Dhruv Katoch again

He then goes on to describe what a fight would look like.

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.

[Officer of Engineers]

Had you decided to go affter the source of the terror you would not have needed to ask.

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.

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?

Man, we broke them in two against Chinese & US pressure inside of two weeks. That was fifty years ago and the Banglas recently celebrated their golden jubliee of that liberation.

And you're blaming us for not finishing the job that you started.

No one to date has been able to explain how the US was not able to bend Pakistan to their will.

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.

Tianamen ? what was the fallout from that.

Collapse of the Chinese economy.

No western arms deals with China.

Western investments disappeared overnight and contracts cancelled.

They recovered.

Bargin basement prices with slave level wages and unsafe working conditions with devastatng environmental impact.

Taking Taiwan i would imagine would be in the same vein.

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

ok but we agree on the main motivation.

When i say not their war, well its hard to ignore when Hitler declares war on the US. That was one of his blunders.

As an aside i got to watch this movie recently. It's rare you get the German side being told by the British. But the pilot escapes from POW camp in the UK, gets shipped to Canada, breaks free again and the rest of the movie is his escape to a neutral US.

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?

And ? how does that relate to a Taiwan contingency.

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.

Does the west throw up their hands and say this is China's internal affair. If ever that notion catches on in Beijing then they will get cracking.

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.

Take the long term view. The rhetoric is if China does nothing by 2030 then Taiwan is good ? China has the rest of this century to try and take Taiwan.

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.

They've stated that numerous times already.

China does not need to march to Delhi. They just need an India that is China neutral.

I don't know how they do that. What i can say is the task gets easier after Taiwan.

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.

This is assuming they don't come for India first. Because there are some commentators who make that argument as well.

We're preparing for that eventuality.

What's in it for the Chinese? What possible advantage would they gain over a few rocks?

I said threaten. They will call the bluff so it better be a good one.

So tell me what do you need to bluff 10-20 Chinese divisions.

You are saying in the event of a Taiwan contingency that China's shipping continues as is ? Interesting

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. You are reaching big time to justify the QUAD.

Way i look at it is how eager are the Taiwanese to stay independent. After that and however long China takes will determine what other countries do.

What call the US takes.

I'm putting a contrarian view out there because the mainstream Indian view is what you've said. Let this idea get an airing with more people and we will see how they calculate India's stakes after Taiwan joins China.

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.

[Double Edge]

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.

Had you decided to go affter the source of the terror you would not have needed to ask. But that was not and never was the plan.

Man, we broke them in two against Chinese & US pressure inside of two weeks. That was fifty years ago and the Banglas recently celebrated their golden jubliee of that liberation.

No one to date has been able to explain how the US was not able to bend Pakistan to their will.

You can't replace 30,000 men, an entire fleet, an airforce, 2000 SSMs that took 20 years to build within months. Never mind the social implications that parents would demand of the CCP why their sons are dead or captured. China would be wrecked just as they were right after Tianamen.

Tianamen ? what was the fallout from that.

No western arms deals with China. They recovered.

Tianamen is an interesting example. Hong Kong another. Taking Taiwan i would imagine would be in the same vein.

It made perfect sense once you understand that the US was anti-Hitler from the start. They were supplying the Brits were war supplies and nevert imagined Hitler winning the way he did. As AR said, once France fell, US entry was bound to happen.

Because anti-american europe

You're contradicting yourself. You first said it wasn't their war. It was from the beginning and I explained how it got there.

ok but we agree on the main motivation.

When i say not their war, well its hard to ignore when Hitler declares war on the US. That was one of his blunders.

As an aside i got to watch this movie recently. It's rare you get the German side being told by the British. But the pilot escapes from POW camp in the UK, gets shipped to Canada, breaks free again and the rest of the movie is his escape to a neutral US.

China has a say in that and like it or not, we also cannot allow China to fail. Too much money is tied up in their economic impact across the globe.

And ? how does that relate to a Taiwan contingency.

Does the west throw up their hands and say this is China's internal affair. If ever that notion catches on in Beijing then they will get cracking.

You're acting that China is the new USSR. It's not and nowhere close. Taiwan is NOT under threat of an invasion. The ML CANNOT WIN ONE! 38th Group Army ain't going to march down the streets of Taipei NOR Dehli.

Take the long term view. The rhetoric is if China does nothing by 2030 then Taiwan is good ? China has the rest of this century to try and take Taiwan.

They've stated that numerous times already.

China does not need to march to Delhi. They just need an India that is China neutral.

I don't know how they do that. What i can say is the task gets easier after Taiwan.

This is assuming they don't come for India first. Because there are some commentators who make that argument as well.

We're preparing for that eventuality.

Oh come on! Do the freaking math. You need 3 to 1 attacker to defender ratio, at the very least local superiority. So you want to tie up 10-20 of their divisions. That means at least 20-60 Indian divisions staring at the Tibetan Plateau. Where are the men, machine, and money coming from? And that is assuming the Chinese don't call your bluff and not increase their readiness outside of their local forces.

I said threaten. They will call the bluff so it better be a good one.

No, you can't. The US ain't going to allow you. Ships doing trade with China aren't Chinese flagged. You will not be allowed to stop IPhone shipments to Europe or North America and you will not be allowed to stop wheat shipments to China that China paid Western countries for.

You are saying in the event of a Taiwan contingency that China's shipping continues as is ? Interesting

Way i look at it is how eager are the Taiwanese to stay independent. After that and however long China takes will determine what other countries do.

What call the US takes.

I'm putting a contrarian view out there because the mainstream Indian view is what you've said. Let this idea get an airing with more people and we will see how they calculate India's stakes after Taiwan joins China.

[Officer of Engineers]

Very serious. I'm surprised how few Indian commentators even ask that question. Most i've come across say India won't do anything. So it was interesting to hear Gen. Katoch's reply in this regard.

The US - India relationship is asymmetrical in the sense they don't have to help us fight in the mountains but we can't sit out a fight with Taiwan.

The US does not need an alliance with India because India's participation is such a conflict is a given. At least that's how it appears to me.

Good luck getting anything official on this point though. We only get to find out when the balloon goes up.

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.

This kind of scenario could happen today or a decade ago. It has not because it's not the way China wants to do it.

China isn't looking for a long drawn out fight. They want a soon-ish capitulation by Taiwan.

Now Chinese economy isn't setback decades is it. They can recoup and set their sights further afield and that means an India that is China neutral.

An India that does not have a say or a veto in the affairs of the region.

You can't replace 30,000 men, an entire fleet, an airforce, 2000 SSMs that took 20 years to build within months. Never mind the social implications that parents would demand of the CCP why their sons are dead or captured. China would be wrecked just as they were right after Tianamen.

Your answer does not make complete sense. If Hitler was making America rich via Canada why does the US have to enter the war in Europe ? they don't.

It made perfect sense once you understand that the US was anti-Hitler from the start. They were supplying the Brits were war supplies and nevert imagined Hitler winning the way he did. As AR said, once France fell, US entry was bound to happen.

Strategically not tolerating an anti-American Europe is what i was going for. Like it or not the Americans had to go in.

You're contradicting yourself. You first said it wasn't their war. It was from the beginning and I explained how it got there.

Just as India isn't going to like an anti-Indian Asia.

China has a say in that and like it or not, we also cannot allow China to fail. Too much money is tied up in their economic impact across the globe.

You asked some months back which was worse ? Loss of Taiwan or India. They're both bad.

The way Napapat put it is,

What does the US not want ? dominant powers on either end of the Eurasian land mass.

What does India not want ? dominant power in Asia.

You're acting that China is the new USSR. It's not and nowhere close. Taiwan is NOT under threat of an invasion. The ML CANNOT WIN ONE! 38th Group Army ain't going to march down the streets of Taipei NOR Dehli.

We can tie up 10-20 of their divisions at the border. There's all sorts of things we can threaten to do there.

Oh come on! Do the freaking math. You need 3 to 1 attacker to defender ratio, at the very least local superiority. So you want to tie up 10-20 of their divisions. That means at least 20-60 Indian divisions staring at the Tibetan Plateau. Where are the men, machine, and money coming from? And that is assuming the Chinese don't call your bluff and not increase their readiness outside of their local forces.

All changes in an Indo-Pacific conflict.

We can interdict their supplies through the Indian Ocean in such an eventuality. Blockades are a slow process.

Whatever is required.

No, you can't. The US ain't going to allow you. Ships doing trade with China aren't Chinese flagged. You will not be allowed to stop IPhone shipments to Europe or North America and you will not be allowed to stop wheat shipments to China that China paid Western countries for.

[Double Edge]

You can't be serious.

Very serious. I'm surprised how few Indian commentators even ask that question. Most i've come across say India won't do anything. So it was interesting to hear Gen. Katoch's reply in this regard.

The US - India relationship is asymmetrical in the sense they don't have to help us fight in the mountains but we can't sit out a fight with Taiwan.

The US does not need an alliance with India because India's participation is such a conflict is a given. At least that's how it appears to me.

Good luck getting anything official on this point though. We only get to find out when the balloon goes up.

Taiwan will wreck the Chinese economy for decades to come. Win or lose. They won't be coming after anyone else until they rebuild their war chest. You know, something like replacing all their spent munitions which undoubtly would include all their conventional SSMs, some 2000+ the last time I checked.

This kind of scenario could happen today or a decade ago. It has not because it's not the way China wants to do it.

China isn't looking for a long drawn out fight. They want a soon-ish capitulation by Taiwan.

Now Chinese economy isn't setback decades is it. They can recoup and set their sights further afield and that means an India that is China neutral.

An India that does not have a say or a veto in the affairs of the region.

WWII Europe was very much an American War. No matter how you view the Axis, the simple fact was the Americans could not strategically tolerate anti-American Europe and it would be anti-American simply because of Canada. Canada and the US were each other's largest trading partners and Canada was making American wartime industries rich by supplying Britain. That alone made Hitler anti-American.

Your answer does not make complete sense. If Hitler was making America rich via Canada why does the US have to enter the war in Europe ? they don't.

Strategically not tolerating an anti-American Europe is what i was going for. Like it or not the Americans had to go in.

Just as India isn't going to like an anti-Indian Asia.

Would a Taiwan that is anti-India mean anything to Dehli?

You asked some months back which was worse ? Loss of Taiwan or India. They're both bad.

The way Napapat put it is,

If (Taiwan) falls the entire security architecture of the United States (in Asia) falls to the ground and i can tell you if India is negatively affected in any future conflict as unfortunately happened in 62 but fortunately not in 2020 well then that is the end of a so-called free and open Indo-Pacific.

The Indo-Pacific becomes a Chinese sea and the Eurasian continent becomes a Sino-Russian land mass.

What does the US not want ? dominant powers on either end of the Eurasian land mass.

What does India not want ? dominant power in Asia.

Not enough. In 1979, China committed 200,000 men to the invasion of Vietnam while keeping a million men to watch the Soviets. The best the Chinese can do is 30,000 men against Taiwan and India ain't the USSR.

We can tie up 10-20 of their divisions at the border. There's all sorts of things we can threaten to do there.

Unless you're sending the InN into the Taiwan Straits, didly squat. The USN guarrantees the trade routes, not the China Navy. China can afford not to go into the Indian Ocean and the USN ain't about to allow India to stop all trade going into the Pacific Ocean.

All changes in an Indo-Pacific conflict.

We can interdict their supplies through the Indian Ocean in such an eventuality. Blockades are a slow process.

Whatever is required.

[Albany Rifles]

WWII Europe was very much an American War. No matter how you view the Axis, the simple fact was the Americans could not strategically tolerate anti-American Europe and it would be anti-American simply because of Canada. Canada and the US were each other's largest trading partners and Canada was making American wartime industries rich by supplying Britain. That alone made Hitler anti-American.

Sir, you nailed it. I have said repeatedly that when France fell in 1940 the US was going to be in that war. Congress passed a defense supplemental appropriations bill in late July that year giving the Army more money in one shot than it had received in every budget from 1920 to 1940 combined. US industry, which had been mostly dormant because of the Depression, started to roar to life producing wargoods for the Allies and itself. The US produced over 6,000 military aircraft in 1940...and 28,000 in 1941. Peacetime subscription occurred. The National Guard and all reserves were mobilized. The Navy was sharing escort duties with the RN & RCN in 1941.

The first shots of the war by the US at Pearl Harbor were fired by the USS Ward when it sank a midget Japanese sub off the entrance of Pearl Harbor. The entire crew was made up of Naval Reservists.

If you want to see more about the subject I'd suggest checking out this thread.

https://www.worldaffairsboard.com/fo...es#post1579774

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm pretty sure the Aussies would stay away as well.

Worst case scenario is that Australia would backfill USN patrols to free up American warships for the conflict. Same thing with the NATO countries. Most likely scenario is an Allied task force sitting in between Taiwan and an American carrier group. Any hostile action against the American carrier group would be considered a hostile act against the Allied task force who will then act in self defence. That's how a Canadian Naval Task Group protected American carriers during the Iraq War.

[Officer of Engineers]

You might want to reconsider.

Who do you think China will come for after ??? Does it make sense then for India to sit and watch from the sidelines.

You can't be serious. Taiwan will wreck the Chinese economy for decades to come. Win or lose. They won't be coming after anyone else until they rebuild their war chest. You know, something like replacing all their spent munitions which undoubtly would include all their conventional SSMs, some 2000+ the last time I checked.

This is similar to US deciding to join the war in Europe in WW2. Not their war but in they went and so will we should such a contingency arise.

WWII Europe was very much an American War. No matter how you view the Axis, the simple fact was the Americans could not strategically tolerate anti-American Europe and it would be anti-American simply because of Canada. Canada and the US were each other's largest trading partners and Canada was making American wartime industries rich by supplying Britain. That alone made Hitler anti-American.

Would a Taiwan that is anti-India mean anything to Dehli?

How many PLA divisions can we tie down at the Indo-Tibet border

Not enough. In 1979, China committed 200,000 men to the invasion of Vietnam while keeping a million men to watch the Soviets. The best the Chinese can do is 30,000 men against Taiwan and India ain't the USSR.

and what can we do in the maritime space

Unless you're sending the InN into the Taiwan Straits, didly squat. The USN guarrantees the trade routes, not the China Navy. China can afford not to go into the Indian Ocean and the USN ain't about to allow India to stop all trade going into the Pacific Ocean.