India is perfectly capable of Winning a Two-Front WAR

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Care to elaborate on the Chinese occupation by: US, UK, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Russia starting 1840s?

Care to explain impact of Trans Siberian rail network and loss of Outer Mongolia ... aka present day Siberia?

Oh ... I seem to recall Siberia is still with Mother Russia.

Will be glad to know your views

Have you realize what you ask? how many civilizations and nations got their extinction from these westerner invaders: North America Aztec empire, Maya, native Indian of US... no longer existed and all their descendant speak English, Spanish and Portugese, you Indian sure know how and why you speak so well your colonial master language.

and In Africa most of this region been convert to slave...it took only one British to conquer India for over 300 years while China was facing 8 deadliest foreign powers combined and fighting only with sword and archer and our soldier fall one by one before reaching the enemy, unlike India, we Chinese never beg with non-violence movement and earn pity from the enemy.

As for Siberia and our lost land, Ching empire had gone war with Russia many time, Russia sure knew the reputation of 8 Banners army in battlefield during Kanxie emperor time but when Ching empire was weakening, Russia toke opportunity to impose the unequal treaty and force China to cede Outer Manchuria. And we Chinese has no such concern because we all know when we lost a small land we end up with get bigger one as ancient time:

When we lost land to mongol, we got Tibet, when we lost to Manchu, we got Xinjiang...and who know as with Russia, Moscow might be our future Capital city .

 

[SDS1]

Chinese government put up a fight and lost the war, so the concessions to the big powers then. That's what we called "century of humiliation" and it will not be repeated.

I do not have to go into details as how the Subcontinent looked like back then, as you surely know your history before 1947. I don't think it is a very good subject that you try to take on China.

Indian were also defeated .Some area made arrangement like you did..and some did fight ... history is mix of that

 

[Counterpunch]

No truly capable power can show that much restraint (against its constantly challenged and molested writ) it if at all had half the capability it is trumpeting

Somethings are not to be taken seriously as they are merely for public consumption

 

[Surya 1]

Against Pakistan, India could win. Against China they may be able to hold them off. But there is NO WAY that India could even think about winning against pak and china combined.

You have a point.

No doubt of that.

India has a significant advantage in a defensive war with China, unless the Chinese have 8:1 numerical superiority like in 1962(a ratio which now they won't be able to replicate) Chinese offensive will stall in few days.

PLA’s war wherewithal on the Indo-Tibet frontline must be carted over 1500 kilometers from their logistic hubs at Lhasa and Kashgarh, which in turn must be stocked from central China, a further 2000 kilometers away. The entire logistic connectivity by road, rail, pipeline and air depends upon tenuous lines of communication and static staging yards, all situated over a terrain that is completely open, devoid of local resources and subject to such extreme conditions as it must obtain at 4300 meters of average altitude and sub-zero cold almost throughout the year. Even if China has engineered her transportation capacity to 24000 tons a day and therefore stated to be able to build up 30 divisions, including formations already in place, in 30 days, and sustain this force in war indefinitely, such theoretical calculations may be valid under ‘test conditions’, in practice this will invariably not be so. No doubt, the whole system of induction and sustenance for PLA’s field forces in war would be ripe for interdiction by air power and special operations.

On the Indian side, the terrain south of the 4300 to 5400 meter high Himalayan passes, constricted and snow-bound most of the year, is characterised by razor-sharp ridgelines, steep slopes and narrow, gorge-like valleys generally running North to South. The Indian logistic installations are between 350 to 400 kilometers in depth, and therefore, in terms of turn around time, comparable to that of the PLA in Tibet. Road axes connecting Indian foothills to the Indo-Tibet Border, being aligned more or less along the narrow valley floors, are extremely difficult to interdict by air or ground fire; these are targetable only in some stretches and even then require super-skills, high-technology and load of chance to score effective hits. Notably, scope exists to make such hits even more ineffective by means of modern methods of camouflage, deception and repair.

To undertake offensive operations in such terrain, PLA formations have to confine to constricted valleys that are hemmed-in by successive ridge lines, thus limiting the scope for tactical level lateral manoeuvre. At the operational level, axes of offensive have to remain isolated from each other, while envelopment and turning movement, besides inviting risks of entrapment, would entail such heavy logistic back up as to be prohibitive in terms of resources and time. Further, some distance down the Southern slopes into Indian territory, the terrain closes down to subsume the advantages that heavy weaponry and high-technology might bring to PLA’s offensive. Indeed, the ground is heavily biased in favour of defensive operations - if conducted with aggressive intent.

We have reasons to believe that mother earth has not been overly supportive of aggression from Tibetan Plateau across the Himalayan Passes into India. Indeed, any PLA offensive across the Indo-Tibet Border has to contend with an adverse terrain anomaly: its build-up and spring-board areas straddle a ground that exposes its war machine to disruption by inhospitable elements as well as air and ground attack, while its offensive across the watershed passes would be beleaguered by a ground that favours classically conducted defensive operations. Indeed, PLA’s offensive across the passes would have to fight ‘friction of terrain’ and ‘tension of logistics’ before engaging Indian forces - with “General Snow” ever ready to cut off its lifeline.

Therefore, even if the PLA commits overwhelming number of formations to its offensives, as to how many of these could actually be employable - along limited, narrow axes, and against successive lines of defences, remains a moot point to consider.

In addition an offensive by India's XVII mountain strike corps would further divert PLA forces.

Hey man who are you? Such an insight is not possible for layman like us.

 

[Hellfire]

I do not have to go into details as how the Subcontinent looked like back then, as you surely know your history before 1947. I don't think it is a very good subject that you try to take on China.

Au contraire, I think it is not a very good subject in digging up historical instances wherein one civilisation lost to another, exemplifying "Clash of Civilisations".

What is needed, indeed, is an introspection for those concerned.

I find it at odds with your position now and the quoted post of yours. The antithesis to the outlook you hold here, and the one you have exemplified earlier, is quite glaring.

I do agree, that you too surely know your history and I may also not need to get into details either.

Thanks for your effort and a very balanced answer.

Have you realize what you ask?

I assure you I know what I have typed. Indeed I understand the history, of my nation and yours, in every context. Hence my post in reply to a post at aberration to the same.

how many civilizations and nations got their extinction from these westerner invaders: North America Aztec empire, Maya, native Indian of US... no longer existed and all their descendant speak English, Spanish and Portugese, you Indian sure know how and why you speak so well your colonial master language.

Strange. The dominance of one system entails the requirement of knowing a language, especially if it eases the mode of communication.

For your enlightment (if you can come out of your smiley mode) India has 22 Official languages, 13 Official Scripts and over 2400 dialects.

I am sure, seeing the variation, you may have a question how this nation exists!!!

I know 4 official languages in addition to English.

And you also typed here in 'your colonial master's language'

Try Chinese script here (and I am a willing student) and you will, in all probability, be able to communicate with me in another couple of years after trying to teach me the language.

and In Africa most of this region been convert to slave...it took only one British to conquer India for over 300 years while China was facing 8 deadliest foreign

Read your history again. Your facts are incorrect in respect of India. Please read the role of French, Portuguese and Danes. If you are able to process the said information, you will be able to appreciate the gross inaccuracies in your statement here.

powers combined and fighting only with sword and archer and our soldier fall one by one before reaching the enemy, unlike India, we Chinese never beg with non-violence movement and earn pity from the enemy.

Again, please do elucidate on the role of foreign troops in Chinese Theatre against Japanese in World War 2. Additionally, do tell me how is dying trying more glorious than living and attaining your objective? Perhaps you may have heard of Sun Tzu? Happens to be Chinese!

As for Siberia and our lost land, Ching empire had gone war with Russia many time, Russia sure knew the reputation of 8 Banners army in battlefield during Kanxie emperor time but when Ching empire was weakening, Russia toke opportunity to impose the unequal treaty and force China to cede Outer Manchuria. And we Chinese has no such concern because we all know when we lost a small land we end up with get bigger one as ancient time:

When we lost land to mongol, we got Tibet, when we lost to Manchu, we got Xinjiang...and who know as with Russia, Moscow might be our future Capital city .

Good, I like this paragraph here.

It fits in neatly with what I told our Pakistani members a few months back, the Chinese system of treaty is a transitory phase, to meet the objectives of the time. It gets revised as the time passes, even a permanent treaty. As is the case of Tibet, a state that had entered into a treaty with China for a permanent status as an autonomous kingdom, but was repudiated by you unilaterally.

I am grateful for this input.

Let all Pakistani members understand the ramifications of this view - the Sino Pakistani treaty of 1962!!!! Tibet had a bit of sway over the Gilgit region, hence, over the next few decades, as the political situation evolves for China, the region, by extension, must come under Chinese!!!!!

 

[Surya 1]

Look at 1962.

We shall look at 1962 along with 1967.

 

[Dungeness]

Au contraire, I think it is not a very good subject in digging up historical instances wherein one civilisation lost to another, exemplifying "Clash of Civilisations".

What is needed, indeed, is an introspection for those concerned.

I find it at odds with your position now and the quoted post of yours. The antithesis to the outlook you hold here, and the one you have exemplified earlier, is quite glaring.

I do agree, that you too surely know your history and I may also not need to get into details either.

Thanks for your effort and a very balanced answer.

I think you misunderstood my last post, as I did not change my position at all. I just wanted remind you of your own history in a more subtle way, rather than digging up your painful colonial past that last hundreds of years. Post #77 did spell out for you, though I did not agree last part of it. To be honest, Indians should consider themselves lucky as you did not have to shed your own blood, as British conquered the land and handed a country to you, including the land Indians had never set foot on.

So next time when you try to bring up the invasion of China by Eight-Nation Alliance after 1840, and make fun of the concessions that Qing Dynasty gave to the world powers, please think about how Easy India Company controlled the whole subcontinent and subsequent British Raj. @Chinese-Dragon

 

[Malik Usman]

Thanks for posing the correct map..

Yes....and the source is Times of India...........I can post here map containing many states of India in Pakistan Map.......after all it takes only few graphical skills in computer......

 

[P@nThEr]

Yes....and the source is Times of India...........I can post here map containing many states of India in Pakistan Map.......after all it takes only few graphical skills in computer......

oooh you are hurt..

 

[Areesh]

Yeah,but its not as bad as surrendering 90,000 soldiers without fight.

Nice try. But hiding behind 71 won't change the massive failures that you faced in 62 and elsewhere.

 

[Hellfire]

I think you misunderstood my last post, as I did not change my position at all. I just wanted remind you of your own history in a more way, rather than digging up your painful colonial past that last hundreds of years. Post #77 did spell out for you, though I did not agree last part of it. To be honest, Indians should consider themselves lucky as you did not have to shed your own blood, as British conquered the land and handed a country to you, including the land Indians had never set foot on.

So next time when you try to bring up the invasion of China by Eight-Nation Alliance after 1840, and make fun of the concessions that Qing Dynasty gave to the world powers, please think about how Easy India Company controlled the whole subcontinent and subsequent British Raj. @Chinese-Dragon

I didn't. I did say, a balanced post.

I guess conceptual language is not exactly a forte?

Never mind. No one was making fun. Reminding you of exactly what you reminded me of ...... please think of how easily even Russians took you .. and you invited them right in courtesy Count Nikolai Ignatief and in the process handed over 350,000 square miles of territory ... without a shot (I am sure that the same has no parallel in Indian Subcontinent save for formation of two nations - there is and was no permanent loss of territories by either newly formed nations to another nation, let alone at such a magnitude). I am sure that can only be achieved by phenomenal strategists and people.

Also, typical delusive historical narration is evident here too. For example your fellow countryman at #77 has been kind enough to make 8 foreign powers fight China in one go whereas the history is proof (and here I rely on the written War Diary records of one of the Infantry Units originally involved in Capture of Shanghai as available in it's excellently preserved archives) that it was the British who forced concessions with a war out of Qing Dynasty. It was only after such concessions were extracted that the next to come roaming along were the Americans followed by Germans, Danes, Japanese etc.

Strange, glorification from falsification of history while the policy of Wei Yuan in dealing with the foreign powers, at the time, was the only strategy that paid any dividends for the Chinese? Unlike what the post you have mentioned at #77 claims, it was rather a similar case to what happened in India.

So, as you said, next time when you try to bring up the issue of being 'owned', please look at your own self. It was a tad funny - HK was leased .... while ignoring the presence of foreign troops in China till 1948 (Except Soviets who withdrew in 1946 abruptly).

Need I remind you that Bahadur Shah Zafar II, the last Mughal Emperor, was exactly in the same position as the Qing Dynasty in 1857? A lame duck Emperor with other centres of powers to the south. At roughly the same time, China was also being carved at various fronts, with the nominal lame duck Qing Dynasty in power. It is a striking resemblance, the fate of the two nations, which made me quote you in the first instance.

Anyways, enough said. It was rather rich coming from you, your post as initially quoted. Maybe you can recall role of Elgin in your history too.

Please look at your own humiliations too. What matters is both the nations survive and now thrive. Maybe you should concentrate on that.

The original piece of this thread? Peace of crap meant for feel good domestic consumption. There is no winning.

But yes, there is a detente on our northern borders - and it shall remain.

@Nilgiri

You want to add something to it?

@Joe Shearer If you care to add on?

 

[Blue Marlin]

can india win a two front war?.... no

also can some one define war to me?

if its the traditional boots on the ground approach with china then yes to a point.why?

theres only three places (all in tibet) where china meets india with the rest buffered by nepal and bhutan. china has not yet built a huge infrastructure to invade india. why? wheres no need to invade india.
as for the navy, neither side has a large enough navy to have a sustained presence in the indian ocean or the sea's that china has.
china's airforce is better equipped than india and would be the the first line of defense/attack

and now for the second approach
which does not involve a huge army but proxies, blackmail, corruption,no thought for the care of india.

india is so big they have several counter-insurgencies in different parts of the country are killing the police and people of the army and yet nothing is heard of it in the news.
this means most of the population is oblivious to such things happening.

pakistan

traditional approach
as for pakistan same thing, but pakistan has a higher concentration of army personnel throughout large parts of the border, due to punjab (it largest province)neighboring india and kashmir. both india and pakistan have a large armed presence in both of their sides of Kashmir. india's equipment is not as advanced as pakistan yet they have a huge amount of them where this may be able to over whelm them.
there navy is tiny and near enough useless except for 3 a90bs the f22p frigates have limited capabilities.
their airforce is potent but mainly has short range fighters with little conventional surface strike capability.

in the end india will know what will happen if they go to war with both countries,
and it wont be pleasent.
thankfully the country is not run by narrow minded keyboard warriors

 

[ravi gupta]

Nice try. But hiding behind 71 won't change the massive failures that you faced in 62 and elsewhere.

Hi Areesh,i agree and we give some back in 1967 chola incident also but still our soldier fights and resist.Considering that surrender is very bad a huge moral let down to fighting spirit.

 

[Areesh]

Hi Areesh,i agree and we give some back in 1967 chola incident also but still our soldier fights and resist.Considering that surrender is very bad a huge moral let down to fighting spirit.

Surrendering is bad. But running to another country of Bhutan leaving behind your whole state of Arunachal Pardesh at the mercy of Chinese troops is a great act of bravery. That's why you guys did it.

Anyways as I said before. Bringing in 1971 won't change anything.

 

[Hindustani78]

India can never win a two front war against Pakistan and China.

Military planners of Republic of India are well aware who are our friends and who are our enemies .

Chinese policy is clearly visible . Missile and nuclear proliferation in the region. Indian and US Intelligence agencies are aware how to count on each other.