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

[Officer of Engineers]

Because Americans weapons are #1. Does Pak has the means to render American weapon systems effective? It's a machine. Our strategies, our aerial warfare tactics coupled with US jets and bombs. That's what the Pak used to shoot down our Mig-21 last year in their airspace. And the PAF have to ration jet fuel to keep their fighters flying.

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

India doesn't need to learn American ways of war to take on China or its poodle Pakistan for a decade at least. Indian way is enough for the time being.

There are 3 types of weapons procurement.

1) Design from the ground up around how you WANT to shape the battle.
2) Import weapons and learn how to shape the battle the way the designers envisioned (ie, allies)
3) Import weapons and bastardized them in ways the designers never intended.

Russia and the US are doing #1. China is doing a bastardized #1 (importing ideas but making their own, ie J10/LAVI, SU27/J11B), India is doing a #3.

[Officer of Engineers]

What I'm trying to say is I don't see the QUAD as being useful. QUAD is a bogeyman to keep the Chinese awake at night.

The point is that it ain't that much of a bogeyman. The Chinese knows no one is coming to help India and truth be told, India doesn't need the help.

[Double Edge]

The point is that it ain't that much of a bogeyman. The Chinese knows no one is coming to help India and truth be told, India doesn't need the help.

If any one is wondering how OOE concludes the bolded bit, keep in mind he's said Taiwan, S.Korea & Japan are enough to keep China in check. No need for US.

Because they are all in effect American armies each. They can interoperate as one larger entity.

[Double Edge]

5 times India's GDP but still needs help from Pakistan ?

Chinese, Pakistani foreign ministers agree to jointly defend regional stability | CGTN | Jul 03 2020

Oh! what are they so afraid of I wonder....

[Oracle]

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

Forget America made AWACS for now, IAF shot down an F-16 last year, with a vintage Mig-21B. What does it tell you? I'd be naive to say the IAF doesn't have plans to shoot down an American AWACS if Nat'Sec is compromised, Pakistani or otherwise. America is not an enemy, so USAF AWACS will get a pass in peacetime, but PAF AWACS (American or Alien made) will be shot down.

There are 3 types of weapons procurement.

1) Design from the ground up around how you WANT to shape the battle.
2) Import weapons and learn how to shape the battle the way the designers envisioned (ie, allies)
3) Import weapons and bastardized them in ways the designers never intended.

Russia and the US are doing #1. China is doing a bastardized #1 (importing ideas but making their own, ie J10/LAVI, SU27/J11B), India is doing a #3.

It's working isn't it? We can't aim for the moon, and then say we don't have funds for it. Everything takes time.

[Oracle]

India not to import power equipment from China: RK Singh

Good. Everywhere I look, I see Chinese transformers, even cables. Transformers don't last 2 years without blowing up.

[Double Edge]

How well does China take care of its vets

Retired and hurt PLA veterans could become a force against the Chinese Communist Party regime | Washinton Times | Jun 29 2020

All they seek is better health care, pensions and jobs, as a mark of due gratitude for their service to the nation. Shockingly however, the country which has the world’s largest army, does not have a central agency to administer pensions and other benefits to its veterans. Resultantly, they are forced to depend on local governments for pensions, medical care and other basic benefits.

However, due to wide disparity in the financial standings of the local governments, there is no standard or uniformity in what the veterans receive. After having given their youth and shed blood for the country, the veterans find themselves left by the CCP to the mercy of often corrupt local officials, making them feel like “donkeys slaughtered after they are too old to work a grindstone.”

The ever-increasing veterans’ protests across the country alerted the CCP’s central leadership to take note and adopt corrective measures, lest it leads to widespread organized dissent and social unrest. In April 2018, the Chinese government inaugurated the first-ever Ministry of Veteran Affairs tasked with establishing a centralized system and policies on veteran affairs, including helping former military personnel find jobs.

However, there is still no clarity on who will pay them their benefits, and reemployment woes have only increased given PRC President Xi Jinping’s 2015 decision to majorly downsize and reorganize the army by cutting 300,000 posts.

In face of the potential of organized veteran protests to mobilize the current service men and women, in April of 2017, China’s Ministry of Defense, among its larger efforts of “military reform” orchestrated by Xi Jinping, terminated the old system of China’s army unit numbers and patches and adopted a new one. This change has made it more difficult for the protesting veterans to identify their affinities in the military forces and make appeals to them.

Separately, fearful of organized mass protests, the Chinese authorities have subjected those veterans found participating in protests to suppression, surveillance, detentions and even beatings. There have been several instances of mysterious deaths of veterans who have been actively petitioning the government for their dues. Media mentions of veteran issues are also strictly censored in the country.

All this is a far cry from the reverence these PLA veterans once elicited from the CCP, leading them to now even voice regret for having served the army. If such negative sentiments of the veterans is coupled with the rhetoric that the CCP leadership of today does not even acknowledge the lives laid by its soldiers at its borders, referring to the Galwan Valley causalities, the rank-and-file support for CCP leader President Xi Jinping, who is also chairman of the Central Military Commission, would be at grave threat.

It could also adversely impact Mr. Xi’s ambitious goal of modernizing the PLA by 2035 and to become a top-tier military by 2050, by failing to attract better qualified and highly motivated soldiers.

The PLA has long been a key pillar of the CCP’s power. If the sentiments of the serving PLA cadres are hurt and they get together with the millions of disgruntled veterans (which may be facilitated by those within the PLA who are already unhappy with Mr. Xi — and there are thousands of them, such as those who were hurt by Mr. Xi’s move to separate PLA from commercial activities), they could form a formidable force capable of challenging Mr. Xi’s leadership.

Significantly, the CCP leadership cannot afford to undermine the veterans’ potential to launch a collective and “armed” anti-regime action. Hence, the continuing incidence of veterans’ protests, despite significant coercive pressure and bureaucratic measures, is a source of intense anxiety for Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership.

[Officer of Engineers]

5 times India's GDP but still needs help from Pakistan ?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, the Chinese would be stupid not to use Pakistan and the Pakistani Army. Even the US uses NATO whenever possible.

[Officer of Engineers]

Forget America made AWACS for now, IAF shot down an F-16 last year, with a vintage Mig-21B. What does it tell you? I'd be naive to say the IAF doesn't have plans to shoot down an American AWACS if Nat'Sec is compromised, Pakistani or otherwise. America is not an enemy, so USAF AWACS will get a pass in peacetime, but PAF AWACS (American or Alien made) will be shot down.

You are missing the point. Precisely because there was no AWACS, ie American doctrine, that India dared such a raid. If the Pakistanis had followed American doctrine and have eyes in the sky at all times (look at NORAD), the InAF battle picture automatically became a 100 times more complicated. Because the Pakistanis were unable to afford to follow American doctrine, India did her deed.

The point is that a single AWACS is worth more than a squadron of F-16s.

It's working isn't it? We can't aim for the moon, and then say we don't have funds for it. Everything takes time.

You noticed that you and the Chinese are using kung fu?

[Oracle]

DE, China has long utilised NE insurgency to hold India back (they do it even now). China then outsourced this task, terrorism, to Pakistan, when they saw Pak getting initial successes in the 90s. Not without a reason, Indian military planners have been wargaming a 2-front war scenario. Our leadership needs to climb down the high moral pedestal they have been sitting for decades, and shape foreign policy to reflect today's geo-strategic realities.

[Oracle]

You are missing the point. Precisely because there was no AWACS, ie American doctrine, that India dared such a raid. If the Pakistanis had followed American doctrine and have eyes in the sky at all times (look at NORAD), the InAF battle picture automatically became a 100 times more complicated. Because the Pakistanis were unable to afford to follow American doctrine, India di

To have US AWACS, Pak would have had to stop terrorism long back. Paks did have SAAB's AWACS in the sky, and Sweden is not a NATO ally. Anyway, I get your point now.

You noticed that you and the Chinese are using kung fu?

Now the insults. :D

How about we buy American jets, use our own data links etcetera. That is, a slow start, to have our own C4ISR, say a decade from now. Can we use our own data links to manage both American and Russian fleet? I think it will be costlier to manage both.

[Oracle]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, the Chinese would be stupid not to use Pakistan and the Pakistani Army. Even the US uses NATO whenever possible.

Hehehehe, DE, the creation of Pakistan was to checkmate the growing Russian influence and its need for a warm water port. Even the Americans used the PA when they wanted.

This type of talk in an Indian forum would draw all kinds of abuses. In a Pak forum, abuses + ban. Lol.

The way things are shaping up so quickly in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic, will determine if the older world order still works. Capitalism or communism. Free world or authoritarinism. Mind you, the US didn't have to do anything for us to come to our senses, to not believe China. We never did, but we thought we did.

[Officer of Engineers]

How about we buy American jets, use our own data links etcetera. That is, a slow start, to have our own C4ISR, say a decade from now. Can we use our own data links to manage both American and Russian fleet? I think it will be costlier to manage both.

The problem is what is your doctrine? What do you want to do? Fighter sweeps? SEAD? The Russians wanted to do fighter sweeps, to at least make NATO airpower too busy to bother with the ground war. You can't exactly bomb a tank column if you're evading a Russian missile. We wanted to do SEAD so that we could bomb the shit out of tank columns. Our doctrines reflect that.

We need an AWACS in the sky to give us a battle picture. The Russians know their battle picture before they leave their base - to kill that AWACS.

The Chinese? As far as I can tell, they want to use their birds as missile magnets and let the ground base AD net do the real heavy lifting.

[Double Edge]

Talks aren't getting very far

China’s untenable demand to resolve Pangong standoff | ET | Jun 30 2020

China is believed to have proposed that Indian forces move back to Finger 2 as a pre-condition to Chinese troops withdrawing to Finger 6. At present, both sides are in a standoff at Finger 4.

China, sources said, is making unacceptable demands while the Indian position has been consistent that status quo ante has to be restored as the PLA has been the aggressor by moving its troops forward and setting up infrastructure across the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

lol, that would be a negative

[Double Edge]

Can protest outside the Chinese consulate in Toronto.

Can't do it in India !!