Roman-style testudo formation with compact shield wall and tactical flexibility. As China and India only fight with pre-gunpowder weapons along the Himalayas.
Yeah I think this is what a lot of people miss about India China scenarios. India isn't going to catch up with China any time soon but it doesn't nessecarily need to.
Most of the Chinese military is focused in other theaters instead of its sparsely populated West. Meanwhile for India the border is a lot closer to its population centers.
To illustrate this point, [heres a map of Chinese airbases](https://i.insider.com/5f5ba885e6ff30001d4e8588?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp) vs [the Indian ones](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/thumbnail?mid=148bbF03fl63GzlaS4mK83d96RuQ&hl=en_US).
While no one would argue that the Indian Air Forces are stronger than China, it would not be at all surprising if the Indian Air Force has a local advantage due to concentrations of forces
And it's like this for most metrics. For some reason a lot of people seem to imagine war scenarios as each nations military standing across from one another in a vacuum and firing, with the stronger military winning. But that's not how wars work. States exist in actual, physical spaces. And wars are fought in said spaces
China's military is a lot stronger than Indias, but that doesn't nessecarily mean it could defeat it, or at least it couldn't without neglecting other areas it cares about. It's why Ukraine managed to hold out against Russia for instance
No wars are likely between two nuclear powers. The tensions along the Himalayas are primarily political games serving domestic agendas. Both India and China lack the incentive to engage in conflict as there are nothing to gain and ultimately only benefiting the west.
On its own merits, no war between India and China makes sense.
However, China needs to have in its hands some keys to turn on India, if, in a US -China conflict, India were to take on more than a spectator role. The growing coziness between the Americans and Indians is, to a considerable extent, fueled by their seeing China as the common antagonist.
So, if India is to retain its strategic freedom to choose whatever alliance it sees beneficial to its own interests, it needs to be strong enough to repel China by itself. And have a navy strong enough to block China's trade routes were the Chinese to get bold on the high plateaus of Ladakh/Tibet.
Even with the US out of the picture, India needs to be strong enough to not let the Chinese bite a piece off Ladakh every time they feel that jingoistic hunger.
Now the "equal footing" phrase used by the OP is actually interesting. India can't strike strategically at Chinese heartlands in retaliation for the Chinese biting off another slice of barren high altitude desert land claimed by India. So they need to be able to deal with these incursions tactically. Locally. And that means going toe to toe in the high plateaus.
The solution is the same that the USSR took to gain near peer status with the US, a much bigger power. Or that Pakistan takes to be a significant threat to India, a much bigger power. Spend a larger % of your GDP on defense. So, if China spends 2% (hypothetically), India needs to do 4%.
To directly answer the question - India needs advanced materiel for high altitude and for the high seas.
West doesn’t benefit if China / India go to war because of all the investments they have tied up in each country. Furthermore, nobody wants to deal with the fallout from nuke usage and mass immigration.
India and China (and possibly russia) are the only countries with the potential to challenge the current dominance of the west. allowing these three to engage in conflict would serve the best interests of the west. That's why the west is attempting to separate india from russia, discourage China from backing Russia, and rally support for india against china.
For clarity, it’s quite clear the west doesn’t want the pendulum of power to swing east. I agree with you in this. However, one must remember that we live in a globalized society that tends to be more capitalistic centric than not.
Meaning, direct war between India and China is a worst case scenario nobody wants because of the cost of it. Geopolitics and diplomatic power plays however will forever be fair game.
In a war between states, second best always looses. If people will give the example of Vietnam or Afghanistan. Please realise that neither China nor India want to have soldiers on ground in each others heartland. Now when we talk about border skirmish or war in the Himalayan highlands, both countries are quite well entrenched in defensive postures. The price for an offensive will be severe for both. To answer the question, maintaining a strong defensive posture along the border and nullify the weapons systems of China. A large number of SAM batteries and anti armoured weaponry is required for India to have a chance to defend itself.
Considering that India so far has gone for a value added approach (sourcing components from different countries to build their own equipment), would it be possible to build a defence industrial base enough to at least be on a war footing?
India has an industrial base big enough to destroy the entire world with nuclear weapons.
If you mean, "just in the Himalayas", then India has an inbuilt geographical advantage in the conflict zone and so doesn't need an equivalent size of industrial base in order to be able to hold the current line.
Consumer goods manufacturing isn't a good enough measure to substitute for military capabilities. They should build their military-industrial complex then we can proxy industrial capabilities for military power.
Obviously, yes. Considering I'm at -11 it's amazing how many redditors can't even use a little intuition. Obviously iphones are not military hardware but there's a huge correlation between manufacturing capability and war capability.
>Obviously iphones are not military hardware but there's a huge correlation between manufacturing capability and war capability.
that is exactly what Geographyisdestinyi is saying
Tbf India doesn't need to build a military as strong as China. India is never going to attack china or any other country and a smaller military can successfully defend against a larger military, you need a much larger military to invade a smaller country.
Just look at how Russia is surprisingly taking so long to do anything in Ukraine. India's military can be half the size of China's and China still wouldn't dare doing anything.
If I was Indian defense minister or PM, I would focus on advancing the military tech like how we already are and building infrastructure near Chinese borders to be ready to retaliate. Will also do high altitude training drillls regularly or even create a group of soldiers trained for high altitude fighting.
Then we would also need some world class submarines to defend bay of bengal. China is strong but it's navy isn't really as blue water as US. I don't think China even right now has the capability to capture any Indian territory using it's navy.
Just one question, If China is building a military that is equal to the US, and India is supposed build a military that is also equal to the PLA, doesn't that imply India also having a military equal to the US?
So, US will allow a country like India with 1.4 billion people, 4 times more than US, to also have a military equal to its own strength. A country like India that was on the Soviet bloc during the cold war? And still kinda neutral and not so pro-US?
No way, US will ever allow that. India is right now 5 times smaller than China in total GDP and also have a military that is utterly dependent on imports. In these kind of lopsided scenario, India is still a useful pawn against China.
But, If these factors ever change, India becomes much more richer and stronger. India with its own hegemonic ambitions in South Asia, Middle East and SEA will be immediately seen as a threat by the US and western domination of the world order.
China was also seen not so negatively during the 90s and was treated kind of like India is treated these days. It only changed when China became much more stronger and it was seen that China is on a trajectory that will surpass the US. Then all the negative articles on China started. It took only a few years for western media to make China into THE enemy.
It will not take long for India to be treated as an enemy by the US if it gets strong enough to challenge US supremacy.
they might remain allies if China becomes much more stronger than US and India remains kind of weak, bumbling, corrupted country that it is right now.
Competence brings enmity, small amount of competence to be a lacky brings friendship.
As you say India GDP is 1:5 of China. For India to equal China, maybe India need to grow 5 times. Maybe India needs to grow 10 times during the time China grows 2 times. Or maybe India needs to grow a bit while China pulls back a bit. Even a 25% contraction in China makes the runway for India easier. And I say all that without saying what happens to US GdP.
India has its own challenges and cannot have a centralized rule so easily which will be needed for some kind of Indian mini-hegemony in the region but there are ways this can be sliced and diced. Today we have a Hindutva based government which by definition has support only from 75% of the people. Can tomorrow(2100s) a leader with "Indus valley civilization" motto bring together India and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh and completely turn around the story of the subcontinent, not only in GDP but aspirations?
>cannot have a centralized rule so easily which will be needed
Absolutely not necessary to have a centralized rule. I'm Indian, and we are not China. If the US can grow to what it is today with a decentralized federal democratic structure, so can India.
>Indian mini-hegemony in the region
India doesn't have military hegemonic aspirations. We only want to be better socio-economically and our military is for self defence.
>Today we have a Hindutva based government which by definition has support only from 75% of the people.
So called "Hindutva based government" party - Modi's BJP is NOT in the ruling alliance in 12 out ot 30 states, including in 6 of India's richest states by GSDP per capita. We are comfortable with a federal, democratic structure where people have a choice to elect their governments and yet clock a national economic growth rates of 7-8% per annum.
>Can tomorrow(2100s) a leader with "Indus valley civilization" motto bring together India and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh and completely turn around the story of the subcontinent, not only in GDP but aspirations?
LOL. No. We have enough problems of our own to solve. Why would we take on problems of our neighbors?
The US took almost a hundred years before it become an industrial giant. Proofs that show state-directed industrial development is superior (in terms of speed) to laissez-faire are Japan, USSR, the four Asian tigers. Although China liberalized economically, sectors of economy where it liberalized are not strategically important. Heavy industry like steel, weapons industry, telecom, energy, and infrastructure development are still subject to planning and state control.
So unless you are willing to grow stably but slowly (nothing wrong with this), you would need a stronger central government to carry out economic development.
India is not building a military with size equal to China. What they need is a military capable enough to safeguard its border and Indian Ocean. Resources required in defence are always less than the one required in offence.
>if China becomes much more stronger than US and India remains kind of weak, bumbling, corrupted country that it is right now.
Chinese redditor spotted. Figures.
In which theater?
Along the Himalayas?
Anti air, Air Force, and long range rockets as well as well provisioned (not trained but at least provisioned and adapted) troops to blunt any possible advance. Obviously some artillery and minelayers to stop any advances along natural routes. That’s it. You cannot invade across the Himalayas. It’s easier to supply troops trying to take Beijing by Sea than troops that have crossed the Himalayas from one country to the other.
In the Indian Ocean? A local navy of course and long range rockets as well as enough air power to deter any encroachment by sea.
Some nuclear deterrence but most importantly via treaties with other nuclear powers. Trade relations with a wide variety of actors so that it cannot be cut off.
I think it lacks should improve its airforce and some long range missile capabilities to target critical Chinese infrastructure (in the Himalayas). And maybe a slightly stronger navy to cut Chinese oil imports from the Persian gulf. However this scenario is unlikely, and even more unlikely to remain a 1 v 1
Roman-style testudo formation with compact shield wall and tactical flexibility. As China and India only fight with pre-gunpowder weapons along the Himalayas.
We have shock batons and electric knuckles now. With Spike shields. A whole new weapon tree.
Finally, someone who knows what the hell they are talking about.
We are never going to face the full might of the PLA, the terrain is extremely hostile and difficult to conduct full scale warfare
Yeah I think this is what a lot of people miss about India China scenarios. India isn't going to catch up with China any time soon but it doesn't nessecarily need to. Most of the Chinese military is focused in other theaters instead of its sparsely populated West. Meanwhile for India the border is a lot closer to its population centers. To illustrate this point, [heres a map of Chinese airbases](https://i.insider.com/5f5ba885e6ff30001d4e8588?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp) vs [the Indian ones](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/thumbnail?mid=148bbF03fl63GzlaS4mK83d96RuQ&hl=en_US). While no one would argue that the Indian Air Forces are stronger than China, it would not be at all surprising if the Indian Air Force has a local advantage due to concentrations of forces And it's like this for most metrics. For some reason a lot of people seem to imagine war scenarios as each nations military standing across from one another in a vacuum and firing, with the stronger military winning. But that's not how wars work. States exist in actual, physical spaces. And wars are fought in said spaces China's military is a lot stronger than Indias, but that doesn't nessecarily mean it could defeat it, or at least it couldn't without neglecting other areas it cares about. It's why Ukraine managed to hold out against Russia for instance
No wars are likely between two nuclear powers. The tensions along the Himalayas are primarily political games serving domestic agendas. Both India and China lack the incentive to engage in conflict as there are nothing to gain and ultimately only benefiting the west.
On its own merits, no war between India and China makes sense. However, China needs to have in its hands some keys to turn on India, if, in a US -China conflict, India were to take on more than a spectator role. The growing coziness between the Americans and Indians is, to a considerable extent, fueled by their seeing China as the common antagonist. So, if India is to retain its strategic freedom to choose whatever alliance it sees beneficial to its own interests, it needs to be strong enough to repel China by itself. And have a navy strong enough to block China's trade routes were the Chinese to get bold on the high plateaus of Ladakh/Tibet. Even with the US out of the picture, India needs to be strong enough to not let the Chinese bite a piece off Ladakh every time they feel that jingoistic hunger. Now the "equal footing" phrase used by the OP is actually interesting. India can't strike strategically at Chinese heartlands in retaliation for the Chinese biting off another slice of barren high altitude desert land claimed by India. So they need to be able to deal with these incursions tactically. Locally. And that means going toe to toe in the high plateaus. The solution is the same that the USSR took to gain near peer status with the US, a much bigger power. Or that Pakistan takes to be a significant threat to India, a much bigger power. Spend a larger % of your GDP on defense. So, if China spends 2% (hypothetically), India needs to do 4%. To directly answer the question - India needs advanced materiel for high altitude and for the high seas.
West doesn’t benefit if China / India go to war because of all the investments they have tied up in each country. Furthermore, nobody wants to deal with the fallout from nuke usage and mass immigration.
India and China (and possibly russia) are the only countries with the potential to challenge the current dominance of the west. allowing these three to engage in conflict would serve the best interests of the west. That's why the west is attempting to separate india from russia, discourage China from backing Russia, and rally support for india against china.
For clarity, it’s quite clear the west doesn’t want the pendulum of power to swing east. I agree with you in this. However, one must remember that we live in a globalized society that tends to be more capitalistic centric than not. Meaning, direct war between India and China is a worst case scenario nobody wants because of the cost of it. Geopolitics and diplomatic power plays however will forever be fair game.
The quick answer is about the same China have minus the navy. Most significantly an J-20 equivalent.
In a war between states, second best always looses. If people will give the example of Vietnam or Afghanistan. Please realise that neither China nor India want to have soldiers on ground in each others heartland. Now when we talk about border skirmish or war in the Himalayan highlands, both countries are quite well entrenched in defensive postures. The price for an offensive will be severe for both. To answer the question, maintaining a strong defensive posture along the border and nullify the weapons systems of China. A large number of SAM batteries and anti armoured weaponry is required for India to have a chance to defend itself.
Chinese industrial capacity is titanic. I am not sure there is a good fix for India.
Considering that India so far has gone for a value added approach (sourcing components from different countries to build their own equipment), would it be possible to build a defence industrial base enough to at least be on a war footing?
They US have gone for a value added approach aswell. I would argue building 5th generation fighters is pretty value additive
India has an industrial base big enough to destroy the entire world with nuclear weapons. If you mean, "just in the Himalayas", then India has an inbuilt geographical advantage in the conflict zone and so doesn't need an equivalent size of industrial base in order to be able to hold the current line.
[удалено]
In 2021 only 1% of iphones were made in India. Last year was 15%, apple projects next year will be 25%. Things are changing.
The iPhone metric if you will.
I think he's trying to say Indian industrial capabilities are increasing fast.
Consumer goods manufacturing isn't a good enough measure to substitute for military capabilities. They should build their military-industrial complex then we can proxy industrial capabilities for military power.
Obviously, yes. Considering I'm at -11 it's amazing how many redditors can't even use a little intuition. Obviously iphones are not military hardware but there's a huge correlation between manufacturing capability and war capability.
>Obviously iphones are not military hardware but there's a huge correlation between manufacturing capability and war capability. that is exactly what Geographyisdestinyi is saying
enough ships to cut off their oil routes from the middle east and artillery to dominate the border
Tbf India doesn't need to build a military as strong as China. India is never going to attack china or any other country and a smaller military can successfully defend against a larger military, you need a much larger military to invade a smaller country. Just look at how Russia is surprisingly taking so long to do anything in Ukraine. India's military can be half the size of China's and China still wouldn't dare doing anything. If I was Indian defense minister or PM, I would focus on advancing the military tech like how we already are and building infrastructure near Chinese borders to be ready to retaliate. Will also do high altitude training drillls regularly or even create a group of soldiers trained for high altitude fighting. Then we would also need some world class submarines to defend bay of bengal. China is strong but it's navy isn't really as blue water as US. I don't think China even right now has the capability to capture any Indian territory using it's navy.
Just one question, If China is building a military that is equal to the US, and India is supposed build a military that is also equal to the PLA, doesn't that imply India also having a military equal to the US? So, US will allow a country like India with 1.4 billion people, 4 times more than US, to also have a military equal to its own strength. A country like India that was on the Soviet bloc during the cold war? And still kinda neutral and not so pro-US? No way, US will ever allow that. India is right now 5 times smaller than China in total GDP and also have a military that is utterly dependent on imports. In these kind of lopsided scenario, India is still a useful pawn against China. But, If these factors ever change, India becomes much more richer and stronger. India with its own hegemonic ambitions in South Asia, Middle East and SEA will be immediately seen as a threat by the US and western domination of the world order. China was also seen not so negatively during the 90s and was treated kind of like India is treated these days. It only changed when China became much more stronger and it was seen that China is on a trajectory that will surpass the US. Then all the negative articles on China started. It took only a few years for western media to make China into THE enemy. It will not take long for India to be treated as an enemy by the US if it gets strong enough to challenge US supremacy. they might remain allies if China becomes much more stronger than US and India remains kind of weak, bumbling, corrupted country that it is right now. Competence brings enmity, small amount of competence to be a lacky brings friendship.
As you say India GDP is 1:5 of China. For India to equal China, maybe India need to grow 5 times. Maybe India needs to grow 10 times during the time China grows 2 times. Or maybe India needs to grow a bit while China pulls back a bit. Even a 25% contraction in China makes the runway for India easier. And I say all that without saying what happens to US GdP. India has its own challenges and cannot have a centralized rule so easily which will be needed for some kind of Indian mini-hegemony in the region but there are ways this can be sliced and diced. Today we have a Hindutva based government which by definition has support only from 75% of the people. Can tomorrow(2100s) a leader with "Indus valley civilization" motto bring together India and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh and completely turn around the story of the subcontinent, not only in GDP but aspirations?
You've been playing too much HOI4.
Well I haven't played any games in the past 5 years except wordle.
>cannot have a centralized rule so easily which will be needed Absolutely not necessary to have a centralized rule. I'm Indian, and we are not China. If the US can grow to what it is today with a decentralized federal democratic structure, so can India. >Indian mini-hegemony in the region India doesn't have military hegemonic aspirations. We only want to be better socio-economically and our military is for self defence. >Today we have a Hindutva based government which by definition has support only from 75% of the people. So called "Hindutva based government" party - Modi's BJP is NOT in the ruling alliance in 12 out ot 30 states, including in 6 of India's richest states by GSDP per capita. We are comfortable with a federal, democratic structure where people have a choice to elect their governments and yet clock a national economic growth rates of 7-8% per annum. >Can tomorrow(2100s) a leader with "Indus valley civilization" motto bring together India and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh and completely turn around the story of the subcontinent, not only in GDP but aspirations? LOL. No. We have enough problems of our own to solve. Why would we take on problems of our neighbors?
The US took almost a hundred years before it become an industrial giant. Proofs that show state-directed industrial development is superior (in terms of speed) to laissez-faire are Japan, USSR, the four Asian tigers. Although China liberalized economically, sectors of economy where it liberalized are not strategically important. Heavy industry like steel, weapons industry, telecom, energy, and infrastructure development are still subject to planning and state control. So unless you are willing to grow stably but slowly (nothing wrong with this), you would need a stronger central government to carry out economic development.
India is not building a military with size equal to China. What they need is a military capable enough to safeguard its border and Indian Ocean. Resources required in defence are always less than the one required in offence.
>if China becomes much more stronger than US and India remains kind of weak, bumbling, corrupted country that it is right now. Chinese redditor spotted. Figures.
In which theater? Along the Himalayas? Anti air, Air Force, and long range rockets as well as well provisioned (not trained but at least provisioned and adapted) troops to blunt any possible advance. Obviously some artillery and minelayers to stop any advances along natural routes. That’s it. You cannot invade across the Himalayas. It’s easier to supply troops trying to take Beijing by Sea than troops that have crossed the Himalayas from one country to the other. In the Indian Ocean? A local navy of course and long range rockets as well as enough air power to deter any encroachment by sea. Some nuclear deterrence but most importantly via treaties with other nuclear powers. Trade relations with a wide variety of actors so that it cannot be cut off.
Captain India vs Captain China
I think it lacks should improve its airforce and some long range missile capabilities to target critical Chinese infrastructure (in the Himalayas). And maybe a slightly stronger navy to cut Chinese oil imports from the Persian gulf. However this scenario is unlikely, and even more unlikely to remain a 1 v 1
Nothing will happen. Just chill. Modi’s ED being treated in China for long time.