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

[Officer of Engineers]

The US wants India to be able, willing, and readied to sink those Chinese man-made islands.

And India wants the US to neuter the Pakistani Navy.

[Double Edge]

The US wants India to be able, willing, and readied to sink those Chinese man-made islands.

Why does India need to do that ? PH is a US treaty ally.

The Pinoys are perfectly capable of challenging the Chinese with the right encouragement. What we did in the mountains the Pinoys can do to defend their EEZ should there be any island building.

Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano said that among the territorial issues discussed with China were construction activities at a disputed shoal and the unilateral extraction of oil and gas in the South China Sea.

“Nobody can extract natural resources there on their own,” Cayetano said. “The president has declared that. If anyone gets the natural resources in the West Philippine Sea-South China Sea, he will go to war.”

This is from 2018

We're trying to sell PH the BrahmOS but the Russians might not allow it, like happened with the Viets.

Scarborough shoal from 2012 was a fail by the Obama administration. China takes over the island and the best the US did was verbally protest.

Imagine if Russia took over a Baltic republic and all NATO did was that.

And India wants the US to neuter the Pakistani Navy.

Give me some sources for this.

Considering India has conventional superiority over the Pak navy i find it a bit hard to believe.

As for Indian carriers, the Vik's AO is the western Indian Ocean aka our kill zone.

Here it is on patrol during a China Pak exercise.

The second AC will come online some time later this year. It's AO will be the eastern Indian Ocean.

We were planning on making a third but that plan seems to have got shelved in favour of 6 nuclear powered subs instead.

We will be building more destroyers as well.

[Officer of Engineers]

Why does India need to do that ? PH is a US treaty ally.

What? The answer is so that India can foot the bill both monetarily and in blood. It's not that the Americans cannot do the job alone. It's that it's a hell of a lot cheaper if someone else does it, read India. Again, dancing around the issue and not coming straight out asking for what the US wants.

Give me some sources for this.

Considering India has conventional superiority over the Pak navy i find it a bit hard to believe.

Use that brain of yours. Remember your own quote, "UNSINKABLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER." Land based aircraft supporting Pakistani Naval squadrons can challenge any Indian Carrier Group. And as much as you want to tout Indian superiority, no military man worth his salt would not prefer if the Pakistani Navy stays in port. One less headache to worry about. No military man would risk his assets for a hard kill if a soft kill can do the job at a much lower risk and at a cheaper cost.

[Double Edge]

What? The answer is so that India can foot the bill both monetarily and in blood. It's not that the Americans cannot do the job alone. It's that it's a hell of a lot cheaper if someone else does it, read India. Again, dancing around the issue and not coming straight out asking for what the US wants.

What do we get in return ?

We're not asking the Americans to die for us.

What you're referring to is an alliance, the General made it quite clear.

We're looking for allies, not an alliance.

At this point in time. Whether that changes later i don't know.

Use that brain of yours. Remember your own quote, "UNSINKABLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER." Land based aircraft supporting Pakistani Naval squadrons can challenge any Indian Carrier Group. And as much as you want to tout Indian superiority, no military man worth his salt would not prefer if the Pakistani Navy stays in port. One less headache to worry about. No military man would risk his assets for a hard kill if a soft kill can do the job at a much lower risk and at a cheaper cost.

What do you think our AF will do in that case ? not happening man.

With three strike corps facing them I think their ships will stay in port

Ask yourself the question. What's in it for the Paks to come out. If they should dare to.

[Officer of Engineers]

What do we get in return ?

American gratitude and possibly money but they're looking to do this as cheap as possible.

It's an age old game, getting others to die for you. Note the Chinese strategy against India, they will fight India down to the last Pakistani. What makes you think they're the only ones who thinks like that? Even mideval India was playing this game, playing the Ilkhanate against the Timorites

What do you think our AF will do in that case ?

Nothing. You can't stop it. The InAF do not have the numbers to blanket Pakistani skies 24/7. You don't even have the fuel. Hell, we blanket Iraqi skies and the Iraqi AF still managed to escape to Iran. India does not have the kind of air arrogance we had and I remind you, SCUDS were still raining down.

With three strike corps facing them I think their ships will stay in port

Why? This makes no sense. The land battle has no bearing on the naval battle.

Ask yourself the question. What's in it for the Paks to come out. If they should dare to.

Sink an Indian carrier or at least force it out of the battle zone. Deny India the ability to threaten Pakistani coast and most of all, bragging rights.

You are making the mistake that your enemies are dumb ass children. ALWAYS ASSUME THAT THEY ARE AS SMART IF NOT SMARTER THAN YOU. They may be limited in their resources BUT that does not mean that they're limited in their thinking. NEVER ask what will they do. ALWAYS ask what they CAN do.

In this case, if I was in the Pakistani shoes, do I have enough airpower to spare to go against Indian carriers. Considering that the InAF has to cross my SAM screens before they can hit anything vital, you bet your ass I've got planes to spare.

[Firestorm]

Use that brain of yours. Remember your own quote, "UNSINKABLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER." Land based aircraft supporting Pakistani Naval squadrons can challenge any Indian Carrier Group. And as much as you want to tout Indian superiority, no military man worth his salt would not prefer if the Pakistani Navy stays in port. One less headache to worry about. No military man would risk his assets for a hard kill if a soft kill can do the job at a much lower risk and at a cheaper cost.

Challenge it where? The radius of action of those fighters is going to be extremely limited even with mid-air refueling (the tankers will have to stay well within pakistani airspace too). Also, those fighters won't be engaging only with IN carrier borne aircraft. Their bigger worry would be IAF aircraft based in Jamnagar, Bhuj and Mumbai, and the SAM systems onboard Indian destroyers. IN does not need anyone's help to bottle up the PN close to their shores, without needing the carrier. The only threat is PN subs, not their surface fleet or the PAF.

Now the Chinese are a different kettle of fish altogether. An Indian carrier in the IOR would be mostly beyond the reach of IAF fighters. The most the IAF can do is Flankers based at Andaman. And Indian carriers do not carry enough aircraft to project power on the open ocean. And looking at the rate at which the Chinese are building destroyers and submarines, the IOR could be awash with them very soon unless the USN objects. That's where India really needs US help. The only thing that can really dominate those waters is a USN carrier strike group, not that the US is going to be interested in actually providing any help.

As for "unsinkable aircraft carrier", I have never understood that really, because an unsinkable carrier is also an immovable carrier and thus easily located and attacked. I've seen people in Indian forums refer to the Andaman islands with that term, but in an actual conflict in the IOR, any airbase in the Andamans would be the first to be struck by PLA missile forces. It may be unsinkable, but that doesn't make it safe.

[Officer of Engineers]

Challenge it where? The radius of action of those fighters is going to be extremely limited even with mid-air refueling (the tankers will have to stay well within pakistani airspace too). Also, those fighters won't be engaging only with IN carrier borne aircraft. Their bigger worry would be IAF aircraft based in Jamnagar, Bhuj and Mumbai, and the SAM systems onboard Indian destroyers. IN does not need anyone's help to bottle up the PN close to their shores, without needing the carrier. The only threat is PN subs, not their surface fleet or the PAF.

They can sally forth the way the Soviets sally forth ... and the way the Kreigsmarine sallied forth against the RN. Through air cover that will drive Indian ships beyond the horizon and then use the open ocean to hide. Do recall that most open sea battles are because both sides found each other.

As for "unsinkable aircraft carrier", I have never understood that really, because an unsinkable carrier is also an immovable carrier and thus easily located and attacked. I've seen people in Indian forums refer to the Andaman islands with that term, but in an actual conflict in the IOR, any airbase in the Andamans would be the first to be struck by PLA missile forces. It may be unsinkable, but that doesn't make it safe.

The Chinese will run out of missiles and bombs before the Indians run out of quick drying concrete. The same can be said vis-a-vi India and Pakistan.

I was not afraid of the Soviets bombing the runways. I was afraid of them coming back to kill my engineers repairing the runways. That was why we bombed Iraqi airfields every day for 3 weeks straight.

[Double Edge]

And India wants the US to neuter the Pakistani Navy.

Let's try this again.

What scenario are you thinking of. Who is fighting who. What are the groupings.

Things have to be pretty damn bad for India to need to ask the US to do what you said.

[Double Edge]

After a little digging and i managed to unearth his writeup from back then.

It gives a perspective and we can see how far along we have got since.

The China-India Border Brawl | WSJ (op-ed) | Jun 24 2009

The China-India Border Brawl

By
JEFF M. SMITH From today's Wall Street Journal Asia
Updated June 24, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

The peaceful, side-by-side rise of China and India has been taken for granted in many quarters. But tensions between the two giants are mounting, and Washington would do well to take note. On June 8, New Delhi announced it would deploy two additional army divisions and two air force squadrons near its border with China. Beijing responded furiously to the Indian announcement, hardening its claim to some 90,000 square kilometers of Indian territory that China disputes.

To understand what the tussle is about, consider recent history: The defining moment in the Sino-Indian relationship is a short but traumatic war fought over the Sino-Indian border in 1962. The details of that conflict are in dispute, but the outcome is not: After a sweeping advance into Indian territory, China gained control over a chunk of contested Tibetan plateau in India's northwest but recalled its advancing army in India's northeast, leaving to New Delhi what is now the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Relations have been characterized by mistrust ever since, but neither nation has shown any inclination to return to armed conflict.

In recent years however China has been raising the temperature at the border. Chinese claims to Arunachal Pradesh and frequent Chinese "incursions" into the nearby Indian state of Sikkim have begun to multiply in line with Beijing's rising economic and political influence. Moreover, unlike India, China has methodically developed its infrastructure along the disputed border, littering the barren terrain with highways and railways capable of moving large numbers of goods and troops.

For its part, New Delhi has become both increasingly aware of its disadvantage and exceedingly suspicious of China's intentions. India's June 8 announcement that it will deploy two additional army mountain divisions to the northeastern state of Assam will bring India's troop levels in the region to more than 100,000. The Indian Air Force, meanwhile, announced it will station two squadrons of advanced Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft in Tezpur, also in Assam. They will be complemented by three Airborne Warning and Control Systems and the addition or upgrade of airstrips and advanced landing stations. This is part of a broader effort to bolster India's military and transportation infrastructure in its neglected northeast.

Upon hearing India's plans, Beijing became irate. The People's Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece that serves as a window into the thinking of Beijing's insular leadership, published an exceptional broadside against New Delhi on June 11. It described India's "tough posture" as "dangerous," and asked India to "consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China." China is not afraid of India, the editorial taunted, while mocking India for failing to keep pace with China's economic growth. The editorial reminded New Delhi that Beijing had friends in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal but most importantly, it left no doubt about Beijing's future position on Arunachal Pradesh: "China won't make any compromises in its border disputes with India."

This is not the first time China has lost its cool over the border issue. Back in 2006, China's Ambassador to India ignited a political firestorm when he declared the "whole state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory... we are claiming all of that. That is our position." Later, on two separate occasions, China denied visas to Indian officials from Arunachal Pradesh, explaining Chinese citizens didn't require visas to travel to their own country.

Generally coy about its suspicions, India has been turning up the diplomatic heat. Indian officials have been speaking more openly about their concerns with China of late. A growing chorus in New Delhi is arguing that India's uniform focus on Pakistan may be exposing it to a threat from the East. Indian officials have also accused China of supporting the Naxalites, a tenacious and growing band of Maoist insurgents Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has described as the "greatest threat to [India's] internal security."

China has been applying pressures as well. This March, China broke with Asian tradition and tried to block a $2.9 billion loan to India at the Asian Development Bank, furious that the loan would fund a $60 million flood-management program in Arunachal Pradesh. (Last week China was overruled with help from the U.S., and the loan went through.) Before that, Beijing clumsily attempted to torpedo the U.S.-India nuclear deal from its seat at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. And of course, China remains an opponent of India's bid to join the United Nations Security Council and a staunch ally of India's nemesis, Pakistan.

But what riles India most is China's incursion into its backyard and the belief China is surrounding the subcontinent with its "string of pearls" -- Chinese "investments" in naval bases, commercial ports and listening posts along the southern coast of Asia. There are port facilities in Bangladesh and radar and refueling stations in Burma. Thailand, Cambodia and Pakistan now all host Chinese "projects;" China's crown jewel is the Pakistani deepwater port of Gwadar.

Then there are Sri Lanka and Nepal, India's immediate neighbors, where civil wars have opened space for Beijing to peddle influence. A bloody insurgency by Maoist rebels in Nepal gave way in 2006 to power-sharing agreement now on the brink of collapse. China has openly supported the Maoists against the royalist establishment backed by India. In Sri Lanka, meanwhile, the decades-long civil war between the Hindu Tamil minority and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority was decisively ended by the latter May, but not before Beijing could gain a foothold in the island-nation. Appalled by the brutality of the fighting, India had scaled back its arms sales to Colombo in recent years. China happily filled the vacuum, in return gaining access to the port at Hambontota on the island's southern coast.

What is Washington's role in this Asian rivalry? In the short term, a priority must be to tamp down friction over the border. In the longer term, Washington should leverage its friendly relations with both capitals to promote bilateral dialogue and act as an honest broker where invited. But it should also continue to build upon the strategic partnership with India initiated by former president George W. Bush, and support its ally, as it did at the Nuclear Suppliers group and the ADB, where necessary. Washington must also make clear that it considers the established, decades-old border between the two to be permanent.

Most importantly, though, the Sino-Indian border dispute should be viewed as a test for proponents of China's "peaceful rise" theory. If China becomes adventurous enough to challenge India's sovereignty or cross well-defined red lines, Washington must be willing to recognize the signal and respond appropriately.

Mr. Smith is the Kraemer Strategy Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.

Prescient

[Officer of Engineers]

Things have to be pretty damn bad for India to need to ask the US to do what you said.

You're missing the point. China could not have survived a Soviet nuke strike supported thrust towards Lop Nor. It would have split China in half and at least 50 Chinese cities would have been growing mushroom clouds. What stopped it? Nixon saying no to Brezhnev. Did China and the US have an alliance? No. Were they allies? Also no (they were opposing sides in the Vietnam War). Did China asked for this? No. What made the Americans do what they did? They could screw up Moscow and they did. Circumstances saved China.

Get it?

[Double Edge]

The US wants India to be able, willing, and readied to sink those Chinese man-made islands.

American gratitude and possibly money but they're looking to do this as cheap as possible.

It's an age old game, getting others to die for you. Note the Chinese strategy against India, they will fight India down to the last Pakistani. What makes you think they're the only ones who thinks like that? Even mideval India was playing this game, playing the Ilkhanate against the Timorites

Capabilities. Are we ready ?

The west Indian Ocean is our kill zone as we're configured to handle threats coming from that direction.

What about the east Indian Ocean ? when will that become our kill zone.

We have to beef up our presence in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. That process is ongoing but should PLAN breach the first island chain then these islands will be a target for them.

To become master of the Indian Ocean should be our goal. All of it.

No civilian airliner will just vanish in this region ever again.


To get into the SCS and do what you want requires more.

Canadian, French, Australian destroyers can sail through with the confidence they are a part of a large collective.

External SLOCs are no match for internal ones.

So an Indian ship will be made an example of. It would require balls or a death wish.

More importantly it needs a reason. A compelling one. Why do it. China would have to do something to provoke us more than they have to date.

Also depends on Russia. Throughout the border crisis, Americans were with us. Pompeo was laying on the charm really thick.

Can't say the same about the Russian foreign minister. All he said is we need to talk to China implying they would set it up.

You said Russia will not do anything against China's interests. Things change if Russia acts against Indian interests.



And then there is the Indian public to deal with. The Indian opposition's view of quad is India will be used as cannon fodder or we will sell ourselves cheap. They would say that.

Problem is the ruling half has reservations too about getting into other people's wars.

Want help with China we're in but we're not if you want to go tip over some other country.


To be an ally in the true sense India has to need the US more than the other way around.

Which is the case with every US ally to date, unless you want to correct me.

I'd like to think Canada is the exception. I mean what are your threats these days.

Cold weather, wild bears ? US ?

The US you have shown capable of handling in the past and these days neither has plans to invade the other

in 1859, an argument about the value of a Canadian pig shot while rooting for potatoes in an American’s garden in the San Juan Islands off the coast of Washington quickly escalated into a full-on naval showdown, known as the Pig War.

With 500 American troops and a single ship, the USS Massachusetts, facing off against 2,000 British troops and five warships, the governor of Vancouver ordered the British to attack the weaker Americans. Thankfully, the conflict was resolved with a bit of humor, when Royal Navy Rear Admiral Robert Baynes refused his orders, defusing the tensions by pointing out that “to engage two great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig would be foolish.”

Both sides agreed to retreat, keeping just 100 men each on either end of San Juan before the borders were made official in 1870.

There you go, humour. Can't qualify to be Canadian without it

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...canada-218881/

Why do they call it a war OOE ? nobody died.

The Galwan 20 were awarded war time medals for gallantry. So the Indian state considers Galwan a battle.

[Officer of Engineers]

What has any of this got to do with the age old strategy of getting others to die for you? Fighting India down to the last Pakistani or fighting the Sino-Pakistani Alliance down to the last American?

[Double Edge]

What has any of this got to do with the age old strategy of getting others to die for you? Fighting India down to the last Pakistani or fighting the Sino-Pakistani Alliance down to the last American?

Making the case to the Indian public and capabilities.

Politically a hard sell. Unless facts on the ground change.

It's not like there isn't commentary advocating for it, problem is it does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. eg.

- we will get F35's
- we can get back PO J&K if the Americans look the other way
- we can become a P5 member by booting out China from the UNSC

The point is worth serious study nevertheless should it become necessary one day

Can't rule it out.

[Double Edge]

You're missing the point. China could not have survived a Soviet nuke strike supported thrust towards Lop Nor. It would have split China in half and at least 50 Chinese cities would have been growing mushroom clouds. What stopped it? Nixon saying no to Brezhnev. Did China and the US have an alliance? No. Were they allies? Also no (they were opposing sides in the Vietnam War). Did China asked for this? No. What made the Americans do what they did? They could screw up Moscow and they did. Circumstances saved China.

Get it?

As it happened back then yes but not seeing how it applies to India.

What groupings are we talking about here ?

Is Russia and China together in an alliance or not.

China isn't into warfighting, they do deterrence. The risk of a nuke exchange between India & China is low. We have the same doctrine as they do.

If AIM's scenario of Russia, China, Pakistan & Iran come together then yeah we have to get into an alliance.

In this instance we are no longer a NFU country.

[Officer of Engineers]

Making the case to the Indian public and capabilities.

Public input is not the point. The point is that India wants the US to do India's bidding. That's always the case since the days of Alexander the Great - that Great Powers want smaller powers to bleed for them and smaller powers want the Big Powers to commit to do their bidding.

It's not like there isn't commentary advocating for it, problem is it does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. eg.

- we will get F35's
- we can get back PO J&K if the Americans look the other way
- we can become a P5 member by booting out China from the UNSC

The point is worth serious study nevertheless should it become necessary one day

Can't rule it out.

You're not getting it. I used the Chinese example as AN EXAMPLE of a smaller power (China) getting a bigger power (US) to do her (Chinese) bidding.

Did China get F-15s? No. Did China get Taiwan back? No.

Did China GET the US to STOP a Soviet Invasion?

Now, tell me WHY Indian diplomats DON'T WANT THIS? I'm not talking about CAN they get this? I'm talking about DO THEY WANT THIS? Get it now?