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

  • Double Edge
    replied
    Last read Gen Ravi Shankar when it came to Balakote because he's an arty guy. He's written lots about the standoff, including his analysis of why this standoff occurred.

    Sino Indian Logjam : Aim gone astray | Gunners Shot | Feb 28 2021

    A question was posed on Twitter . What was the aim of PLA and CPC?

    Why would China, the wannabe superpower use military force against a rising nuclear India, without a clear cut aim?

    Further, China goes back to its starting point, ostensibly, without achieving its aim. As per our understanding. Hence the issue compounds. Understanding this is very important to enable us deal with China better. This is a regressive hypothesis based on hindsight. It might not be exactly correct. So be it.


    Why did China do what it did? The reasons include
    - abrogation of Article 370 by India,
    - asserting global and regional domination,
    - teaching India a lesson,
    - India’s non-participation/rejection of BRI, CPEC and RCEP,
    - India’s decoupling drive,
    - development of border infrastructure including the DSDBO road,
    - denial of investment in India,
    - ensuring that India does not swing towards USA,
    - growing Indo- Australian ties,
    - India’s tacit support to Taiwan,
    - show up India as a weak nation,
    - hyping domestic nationalism during the pandemic,
    - grasping the opportunity of the pandemic,
    - creeping assertiveness,
    - salami slicing,
    - unilaterally altering the LAC as per its perception,
    - changing facts on ground to achieve Chou-en-lai’s claim line of 1959.

    More could be added. None of them would be wrong. The question still remains – what was their principal aim?


    Look back. China undertook premediated multiple incursions at – Naku La, Demchok, Pangong Tso, Hot Springs, Gogra and Depsang. These were in conjunction with Nepal raking up the Limpiyudhara issue and a spike in violence in the Valley.

    From the outset, PLA was indulging in ‘Belligerent War Avoidance’. PLA deployments were non tactical most of the time- in prim straight lines. Chinese non-tactical military deployment was always conveying a political message! Also, this was not a military reaction to the violent Pangong Tso faceoff on 05 May 2020. Their overall aggression, their parleys at the initial Corps commanders meets and their pre-planned ambush at Galwan had a larger objective. What was that?


    There is an almost complete media silence on the Chinese military plans and activities in the past nine months except for the Global Times which blabbers incoherently. Normally, the aggressive Chinese ‘Three War Strategy’ gives a vivid description of all events. That has been missing. On the other hand, the coverage in India was minute to minute through a macro imaginative media and micro knowledgeable China specialists. Think back. The military coverage was one sided – Indian. The political signal was one sided and subtly overt - Chinese. Decipher the political signal.

    The article ‘The Border Clashes With India: In The Shadow Of The US by Mathieu Duchâtel’ quotes a number of Chinese analysts. Some views are summarised.

    - Li Shengli ( Director, International Security Research Center of the China Foreign Affairs University) opines that
    China practises self-restraint and does not fight back despite being provoked. However the ‘determination’ to counterattack is extremely important because the issue with India is a “contest of strategic willpowers”. According to him China should let Indian decision-makers conclude that the international situation offers no window of opportunity to take advantage of its self-restraint, and the use of force is a credible option.

    - Hu Shisheng ( Director, Institute for South Asian Studies), states that
    Indian troops have crossed the LAC 1,581 times in 2019, of which 94% in the Western section.( source of that number not provided). He also argues that India has perceived the Chinese “border defense infrastructure activities” in the Galwan Valley area as a threat to DSDBO road.

    - Liu Zongyi ( secretary-general of the Center for China and South Asian Studies of the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies ) suggests
    the clashes could be due to Indian frontline commanders displaying aggression to get promoted by eroding Chinese territory. He also sees India taking advantage of strategic cooperation with the United States and aiming to revise the existing Line of Actual Control. He attributes three precise goals to India: to force China to recognize their territorial claims with regards to the Line of Actual Control, India’s regional sphere of influence, and India’s status as a global power.

    - Yang Siling ( Vice-Dean, Department of South Asian Studies at the Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences) sees
    a confrontation between two antagonistic world visions, the Chinese “community of shared future for mankind” advocated by Xi Jinping, and India’s power game in its region. He advises India to give up illusions about the USA and seek rational coexistence with China as the only way out of this crisis.

    - Su Jingxiang from CICIR interprets it as a longstanding and systematic policy of the BJP , that aims at the destruction of the foundations of India-China border management and that India is becoming – of its own free will – a “frontline country” in the emerging “anti-China alliance”.

    The common thread in China - blame for the clashes rests on India and China has counterattacked.

    The theme seems to - India’s ambitions to recover Aksai Chin and Indian behaviour has forced China to abandon its longstanding practice of self-restraint in managing the disputed border.

    The Chinese world view is that India’s strategic options are poor.

    In a nutshell, China is reacting to Indian aggression! However. Indian Army is not the aggressor in any wildest dream. We are wracked internally by Chinese salami slicing our territory.

    Hence it is not military aggression that they are talking of but political aggression!

    As per Dr Yugen Ko,( a Taiwanese analysist) China’s ‘Salami Slicing’ has three stages.
    1) Create a dispute on an agreement/ status or stake claim.
    2) Violate the status. Either physically or legally or by disagreement.
    3) Physically alter or create a law to alter the status legally in favour of the Chinese.

    That is deemed as the permanent or desired end state. This pattern is evident in the way the Chinese have asserted sovereignty in the South China Sea - disputed South China Sea - staked claim through the nine dash line - built artificial islands – disregarded international law- enacted and proclaimed own laws (ADIZs) which convey sovereignty to China - claimed an EEZ around the Islands. It has permanently altered the status of the Sea as being Sovereign to China. A similar play book was adopted in usurping Hong Kong prematurely. It is now being adopted to wrest the Senkakus from Japan through their Coastal Defence Laws. ADIZs are established to salami slice Taiwan’s sovereignty.

    Abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of the erstwhile state of J&K could have meant many things for many people. For China it was the cat in its pigeon coop. India doing the ‘Salami Slicing’ trick on them out of their play book! Intentional or otherwise! The Sino Indian territorial dispute existed. In one stroke, abrogation of Article 370, renewed India’s claim on Aksai Chin and violated the status-quo through an act of the Parliament! All previous Sino Indian agreements fell under a political cloud. India reiterated, that China was in illegal occupation of the area just as the nine dash line did to the South China Sea. To this, add the fact that the DSDBO road had been recently completed and India is raising a Mountain Strike Corps!

    From a Chinese (long term) viewpoint it directly threatens the CPEC, the sensitive area of Xinjiang surrounded by the CARS, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and of course Tibet. We are discussing very remote but strategically sensitive and restive areas of China. Hence the hue and cry of Aggression. They mean the political part of it though it is couched as aggressive territorial nibbling by India. This double tone is articulated by Ms Yun Sun in War On The Rocks Chinese analysts believe that India is taking advantage of Beijing by trying to make tactical gains along the border, and… If a strategic friendship with India is untenable, it frees up room for tactical gains… In the near term, China’s tactical objective seems clear —to advance its position roughly to the occupation line by the end of the 1962 war, according to pro-Beijing media outlets. This will push the Chinese presence to the intersection of the Galwan river and the Shyok river, making the Galwan Valley off limits to India. The whole issue is obtusively direct.


    The Chinese overall aim was to wrest the political initiative from India and bottle it at the LAC. If that is done all other issues fall under its ambit. How do you do it militarily?

    As you recover from the pandemic
    - you see the adversary stricken.
    - You get reports of his Army being affected by your virus.
    - You assess his Army to be poorly equipped and hamstrung by shortages.
    - You conclude incapability.
    - You plan to achieve the political aim by forcing a military reversal of the effect of abrogation of Article 370.
    - You execute a calibrated plan in that area which you want to wrest forever, where the reaction will be the weakest and can deploy mechanised forces- North of Pangong Tso.
    - You avoid the mountainous area South of Pangong Tso, where you are relatively weak.
    - You prod on a broad front, carry out a quick mobilisation, threaten/lean on Depsang with armour, incurse upto Galwan and advance upto Finger 4 and change the status quo there.
    - All the while do not overextend lest you get into the cross hairs of a professional Indian Army.
    - Do not get trapped beyond a bottleneck. Noticed that? They never overextended beyond a bottle neck to get cut off. They held all choke points to deny own access beyond them. It was kabaddi!

    Here comes the political part.

    Western Theatre Command issues a statement that the entire Galwan Valley is sovereign to China. When the focus was on Galwan, they were firming in at Finger 4. China proclaimed sovereignty over Finger 4 through a map beamed by satellites. An ambush is attempted at Galwan in the garb of border talks and pull back. If the Galwan ambush had succeeded, it was game set and match to China.

    Substantial causalities. DSDBO Road under permanent observation. LAC permanently altered. Sovereignty notified over entire Aksai Chin. ‘Victory’ would have been declared. Effect of abrogation of Article 370 would have been completely reversed during negotiations. In fact, India would have looked foolish if the Chinese plan had succeeded with immediate political repercussions on the government and long term implications for Indian democracy and the choices it makes.


    Why did this plan fail ?

    - Story of men and mice and nothing in war is nice! Gross miscalculation of Indian Armed Forces. Unfortunately the PLA ambush at Galwan ran into late Col Santosh Babu, MVC and his gallant men. They gave a total shock to PLA. It forced a partial recoil on an unprepared China.

    - Then India brought in the whole of nation - whole of government approach in stages – digital strikes, economic denial, vaccine competition, political presence at the frontlines, public anti- china sentiment of 1.4 billion people, vaccine and virus situation, diplomatic swing to the QUAD et al.

    Even then the PLA was holding on for China to declare “Victory”. Till August, they were flatly refusing all Indian proposals in the border meets. The tables turned when we occupied the Kailash Range and heights above Finger 4. It exposed the military vulnerability of a political PLA in high Himalayas. This action opened the can. The political cost of this pure military action by IA would be too high. At some point China would look foolish in the stalemate. After 5-6 months of cold treatment and suffering losses they had no other choice but to retreat.


    What do we see ahead?

    China will smart under this loss. They will make all effort to get back at us. Make no mistake. We need to look at the long term political angle. Politically, China likes to declare “Victory” over everything through a “Peoples War”. The CCP backed by the PLA must show victory continuously to the people to be in power.

    They declared Victory over their Virus. Only for it to reappear.
    They have declared “Victory” over poverty. Disputable. Look further back.
    They declared “Victory” over population control by implementing the single child policy. It is turning into a disaster.

    Their media blackout was a two way switch. If Victorious, even Martians would have come to know.

    If objectives are not achieved, it could be spun as defending own territory against an aggressive India. That is what is happening through their doctored videos. The focus is now entirely on the LAC away from the rest of Aksai Chin. Either way it enables them to declare a political ‘Victory’. Till such time we remain focused on the LAC, China will be happy. We need to look beyond…at Aksai Chin…at Tibet…at building strength…at rebalancing with enhanced reach to exploit the political value of the DSDBO road…at keeping PLAN out of IOR…at forming new partnerships like the QUAD…at keeping our neighbourhood together…


    This brings me to a critical question which I raised earlier on politico-military fusion. As per Clausewitz : ‘War is Politics by other means’. Conversely Politics is War by other means.

    Mao echoed this though when he said ‘War is Politics with bloodshed and Politics is War without bloodshed’.

    Analyse it. Both these views fit the Eastern Ladakh situation. Examine India’s adversaries.

    In China, the PLA is the armed extension of the CCP. Xi Jinping Is the general secretary of the CCP and the chairman of the Central Military Commission.

    In Pakistan, the Army Chief is the single point political and military authority. There is absolute politico military fusion in our adversaries. The bureaucracy merely executes a given mandate or is executed. Period. The territorial integrity of any nation is ultimately the responsibility of the politico-military leadership.

    In India a unique troika of political, military and bureaucratic leadership manages politico-military affairs. This flawed leadership structure is costing India dearly. India must move to politico- military fusion geopolitically and politico-military diffusion domestically. There is need for a rethink.


    Jai Hind

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    This commander Zhao is literally the reason for this thread to exist (!)

    Doubt there would have been any break through if he was still in charge.

    Xi replaces PLA commander who started Ladakh standoff; fingers crossed in Delhi | HT | Dec 21 2020

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has moved out General Zhao Zongqi, the People’s Liberation Army’s powerful Western Theatre Commander, seen as the man responsible for the seven-month long military standoff with India in eastern Ladakh, and replaced him with General Zhang Xudong, who has never served along the Indian border.

    The change of guard in the leadership of the Western Theatre Command has sparked hope in New Delhi that General Zhao’s replacement may not be as vitriolically anti-India. Gen Zhao, who had also engineered the 2017 Doklam conflict with India, has been seen as a hardliner against India and Bhutan.

    The change of guard in the leadership of the Western Theatre Command has sparked hope in New Delhi that General Zhao’s replacement may not be as vitriolically anti-India. Gen Zhao, who had also engineered the 2017 Doklam conflict with India, has been seen as a hardliner against India and Bhutan.

    This is the first time that an officer appointed to lead the Western Theatre Command does not have experience of serving on the Indian border. General Zhang is 58, much younger to Zhao, who reached the retirement age of 65 in the summer this year

    In Indian military circles, Gen Zhao, who was a member of the communist party’s central committee, was perceived to be angling for a seat on the Central Military Commission that would have allowed him to serve till he turns 72.

    Gen Zhao, who took over the Western Theatre Command in 2016, was already on an extended term. He had reached the retirement age of 65 this summer but had been allowed to continue in the post by President Xi.

    New Delhi’s assessment is that Gen Zhao had the approval of the Xi-led Central Military Commission when PLA troops carried out the initial incursion in the Finger area near Pangong Tso in late April and early May. But there was some discomfort over the misadventure after the bloody Galwan Valley clash in June, the deadliest clash between soldiers of the two countries since 1975, in which 20 Indian troops and an unspecified number of Chinese soldiers were killed.
    Was he sacked or not ? he seems to have gone side ways instead of up. No promotion after this adventure.

    Gen Zhao was thought to join the CMC but has gone on to become Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the 13th National People's Congress

    He did the lyrics for the western theatre's war song.


    Spoiler!
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday, 01:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Good discussion with Gen Ravi Shankar.



    Ayesha Siddiqui mentioning the Paks wanting the LAC to turn into another LOC isn't feasible.

    It's tough to man such a long, mountainous stretch for both sides.

    If then there is firing the LAC will degenerate and become unstable.

    Instability for the PLA is in Tibet, for us it is in our own area.

    If Tibet becomes unstable they will have bigger problems

    Don't see the General on the usual TV shows, only knew of him through his blog, Gunners Shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Indian army's morale got a boost after this standoff. The same cannot be said of the PLA.

    That can be deduced from the speed in which they dismantled their defenses at Pangong.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	finger 4 china symbol_.jpg Views:	0 Size:	30.2 KB ID:	1572417

    They marked out finger 5 as Chinese territory for the world to see.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	finger 5_.jpg Views:	0 Size:	67.9 KB ID:	1572418

    Only to have to erase it later (!)

    Couldn't have gone down well with their troops.

    Best of luck motivating them to come again
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 21,, 17:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    CCP moving 12k troops to the Burma border can be confused for something else. They did this before the coup in Burma

    Click image for larger version

Name:	CCP moves troops to the burma border acc to Taiwanese channel.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	367.4 KB
ID:	1572403

    According to this Taiwanese news channel

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Here's one for the PLA logistics dept.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Hotan Nyngchi railway.jpg
Views:	11
Size:	721.4 KB
ID:	1572399

    https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status...37594444484608

    Thing is that railway only goes so far as Hotan. To get to Ladakh requires getting around mountains on the G219. There is just the one road.

    The Nyngchi one gets closer to Arunachal

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    DND and Foreign Affairs have been at loggerheads for decades. We have zero respect for each other and quite frankly, we ignored everything Foreign Affairs says.
    Was trying to think of an Indian equivalent and missed something obvious.

    The talks with the Chinese are succeeding precisely because they are military led. Indian military led. This is rare.

    Usually its foreign affairs that does the talking with the adversaries and the military isn't even at the table.

    This has led to mistakes earlier.

    eg. interactions between India & China in the 50s, military was no where to be seen.

    Foreign minister did everything to the point where even Nehru was a bystander.

    Had to ensure there was civvie leadership. Almost paranoia from Nehru who was nervous about a coup.

    And so they took the below quote a bit too far.

    'War is too important to be left to the generals’ snapped future French prime minister Georges Clemenceau on learning of yet another bloody and futile offensive on the Western Front.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Mar 21,, 14:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Sir, you're thinking in the wrong direction. Shock and awe is what I was thinking. If Galwan serves as a future template, then a shooting contest, where the IA draws first blood will lead to shock and awe in the PLA camp, not lead to war.
    Shock and awe, in military terms, means that the reserves are destroyed before the vanguard even knew that combat has been initiated. Not going to happen within the Sino-Indo context by either side.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    People say this part of the world is the most dangerous. Three nuke powers, two of which have a problem with India.

    Two are allies and also irredentist meaning they want to expand their borders and will do so if the opportunity presents itself.
    Western leftist narrative says that. No Asian country is ever going to use nukes. It's a white elephant, good for circus shows.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    But that is not the reality. This region has crisis stability.

    China cannot take Arunachal and India cannot take Aksai Chin.

    Pakistan cannot take Kashmir and India either cannot or has shown no resolve to reclaim PO J&K and this is going back decades. Sorry Oracle.
    Don't be. Though I don't completely agree with your statement.

    Don't know about others, but our stability lies in us getting freaking rich. Money buys food, fuel, medicines, bullets, bombs. Money is one of the most important aspects of power projection.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    No irredentism demonstrated at the Indian official level other than to point out illegally occupied Indian land. I am ignoring some intriguing comments made in Parliament as playing to the gallery.

    There is nothing to gain by war for either of the three. Just the bill. Running into the 10s of $billion per month.

    Limited battles maybe but not beyond.
    Some good thinking there. Now go and type that in Twitter. Right-wing will label you as leftist/communist, and the left-wing will accuse you of being a sell out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's a military axiom that either you're too desperate or too stupid to start a fight you can't win. India may be able to fight to a standstill but there is no way India is going to outbleed China and certainly, there is no way India is going to outspend China. That leaves outsmarting China. We then come back to this military axiom. It's complete desperation or complete STUPIDITY to start a fight you can't win.
    Sir, you're thinking in the wrong direction. Shock and awe is what I was thinking. If Galwan serves as a future template, then a shooting contest, where the IA draws first blood will lead to shock and awe in the PLA camp, not lead to war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    You both start out with a similar number of SSM's but Shiv's number is smaller because otherwise China would be using their entire inventory against India.

    Would China do that ?
    Count on it. Why not? We did. We emptied out our arsenals in both the Kuwait and the Iraq Wars; requiring immediate orders to industries to replenish our stocks.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    In addition their CEP is bad provided Baidu can somehow be jammed.
    What frearking drugs is this guy taking? The SSMs don't need Baidu. There's no feed from Baidu. Baidu maybe used for directing man flight packages. That's it.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    How many targets are there. How many missiles have they got.
    You're overcomplicating things. The Chinese ain't going to do SEAD. They'll use AAA and SAM for that. In fact, the Chinese don't have a clue on what exactly is SEAD. What they are, however, is an artillery army. The PLA historically has been an artillery army, albeit not as good as the Russian or Western counterparts. What that means is that they will concentrate their fire to support an attack. What's outside of that will be handled by the forces committed to battle. In other words, they will concentrate their fire to isolate the battlefield.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Too stupid fits XJP but i think cooler heads will prevail. If China cannot win they won't start a fight. Because not winning is a defacto India win.
    You forget how China won the Sino-VN Wars. They bankrupted Hanoi, not marching to Hanoi.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Here's the thing. They've got entire engr regts stationed there. It's not whether you can do damage. It's whether they can repair in time to support their goals. I keep harping this military fundamental. You always bomb a target twice. Once to kill the target. The second time to kill the engineers repairing the target. In this regard, the Chinese have 2000 SSMs that they could commit to a campaign. Do the math.
    Shiv has done the math.

    Your number of available assets to use on India is higher than Shiv's btw.

    You both start out with a similar number of SSM's but Shiv's number is smaller because otherwise China would be using their entire inventory against India.

    Would China do that ?



    He says 550 SSM's available.

    In addition their CEP is bad provided Baidu can somehow be jammed.

    Would NATO be interested in that ? maybe

    Could China count on NATO not helping India here by jamming Baidu ? maybe

    Let's assume NATO does not do it. India has done an anti-satellite missile test already.

    How many targets are there. How many missiles have they got.

    Not enough. Forget trying to get the engineers.

    He does not even mention bridges, he's talking about airbases as that's what will be coming their way with much more precision than their SSM's.

    There is something else he has mentioned in talks.

    PLA from what we've seen like to ride in their cloned Humvee's.

    The Indian side treks about on foot. How safe will Chinese ingress routes be from such men with MANPADS & IEDs ?


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's a military axiom that either you're too desperate or too stupid to start a fight you can't win. India may be able to fight to a standstill but there is no way India is going to outbleed China and certainly, there is no way India is going to outspend China. That leaves outsmarting China. We then come back to this military axiom. It's complete desperation or complete STUPIDITY to start a fight you can't win.
    Too stupid fits XJP but i think cooler heads will prevail. If China cannot win they won't start a fight. Because not winning is a defacto India win.

    A marginal win is also an Indian win.

    In a short fight India will thrash them black & blue. Its only in longer drawn out fight does their CNP come into play.

    China isn't interested in a long fight.

    People say this part of the world is the most dangerous. Three nuke powers, two of which have a problem with India.

    Two are allies and also irredentist meaning they want to expand their borders and will do so if the opportunity presents itself.

    But that is not the reality. This region has crisis stability.

    China cannot take Arunachal and India cannot take Aksai Chin.

    Pakistan cannot take Kashmir and India either cannot or has shown no resolve to reclaim PO J&K and this is going back decades. Sorry Oracle.

    No irredentism demonstrated at the Indian official level other than to point out illegally occupied Indian land. I am ignoring some intriguing comments made in Parliament as playing to the gallery.

    There is nothing to gain by war for either of the three. Just the bill. Running into the 10s of $billion per month.

    Limited battles maybe but not beyond.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Mar 21,, 21:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Everything you said applies to the Chinese side too isn't it. For so long i've heard we can blow up this and that on their side. But they still continue to build infrastructure.
    Here's the thing. They've got entire engr regts stationed there. It's not whether you can do damage. It's whether they can repair in time to support their goals. I keep harping this military fundamental. You always bomb a target twice. Once to kill the target. The second time to kill the engineers repairing the target. In this regard, the Chinese have 2000 SSMs that they could commit to a campaign. Do the math.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Oracle wants so many things no government can fulfill. Joke apart, if IA confiscates PLA equipment or demolishes PLA made structures, they would be back again. Would have accomplished nothing. Shooting dead some 50-100 PLA soldiers and they wouldn't dare those cheap tricks again. Atleast they'd give it another thought, if they think they want to try again. I am all for peace, but peace can only be obtained from a position of strength.
    It's a military axiom that either you're too desperate or too stupid to start a fight you can't win. India may be able to fight to a standstill but there is no way India is going to outbleed China and certainly, there is no way India is going to outspend China. That leaves outsmarting China. We then come back to this military axiom. It's complete desperation or complete STUPIDITY to start a fight you can't win.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post

    Oracle wants so many things no government can fulfill. Joke apart, if IA confiscates PLA equipment or demolishes PLA made structures, they would be back again. Would have accomplished nothing. Shooting dead some 50-100 PLA soldiers and they wouldn't dare those cheap tricks again. Atleast they'd give it another thought, if they think they want to try again. I am all for peace, but peace can only be obtained from a position of strength.
    The problem isn't their guys coming in, we do that as well if one goes with that CICR document which lists incursions from our side.

    1,581 times in 2019 alone.

    We can't prevent incursions since they won't clarify where the LAC lies.

    The problem is permanent structures. They build stuff, wait and watch then when no resistance comes fortify it, claim the land.

    Stop those constructions and do it all along the border and we have accomplished something

    It's a bit late in the day now if you consider what happened in Depsang but we have to start some where.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Mar 21,, 18:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    China appears to warn India: Push too hard and the lights could go out

    Chinese hackers target Indian vaccine makers Serum Institute, Bharat Biotech: Security firm

    India needs to step up, hire cybersecurity professionals in the 1000s.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X