"India will take decades to catch up with China's military capabilities." Prof. Harsh V. Pant

[SIPRA]

So supaa pawaaa india still needs decades to catch up chines junk failed weapons?? shameful , shameless Endia

India's "Khoti Rairhi" will ultimately overtake Chinese "bullet train".

 

[Wood]

India does not need to catch up with China militarily. India only needs to make border skirmishes a costly exercise for China. Similar to how Pakistan has made it for India.

 

[beijingwalker]

India does not need to catch up with China militarily. India only needs to make border skirmishes a costly exercise for China.

Costly for China or India? China is holding all the cards, it's up to China to choose when and where to play them.

 

[Wood]

Costly for China or India? China is holding all the cards, it's up to China to choose when and where to play them.

India should aim and build its forces to make it expensive for China.

 

[SIPRA]

India should aim and build its forces to make it expensive for China.

Your proposition is very vague. How can India act in a way, that any skirmish becomes costly for China, and not for India? In ultimate analysis, the weaker side will have more losses than the stronger one.

 

[Wood]

Your proposition is very vague. How can India act in a way, that any skirmish becomes costly for China, and not for India? In ultimate analysis, the weaker side will have more losses than the stronger one.

Indian soldiers do not have adequate infrastructure in the border areas. They are not equipped with standard PPEs. In future, India needs to employ fully autonomous small weapons system to match what China already has in the border. I consider these type of incremental and achievable changes to be more important for India than trying to catch up with China on more high tech weaponry.

Today India does not inflict enough casualties on the Chinese side in skirmishes because of these more pressing problems. India should focus on that over big ticket items.

 

[SIPRA]

Indian soldiers do not have adequate infrastructure in the border areas. They are not equipped with standard PPEs. In future, India needs to employ fully autonomous small weapons system to match what China already has in the border. I consider these type of incremental and achievable changes to be more important for India than trying to catch up with China on more high tech weaponry.

Today India does not inflict enough casualties on the Chinese side in skirmishes because of these more pressing problems. India should focus on that over big ticket items.

My question is still there. How will India ensure, that in, at least, most, if not all, of such small skirmishes, China have more losses than India? Since, they are stronger; they will always have an upper hand.

 

[Wood]

My question is still there. How will India ensure, that in, at least, most, if not all, of such small skirmishes, China have more losses than India? Since, they are stronger; they will always have an upper hand.

India at the least needs to inflict equal number of casualties for China. If Indian policy makers prioritize this, then tactical plans for achieving this can be made. Pakistan is able to do the same to India in the Indo Pak border.

 

[SIPRA]

India at the least needs to inflict equal number of casualties for China. If Indian policy makers prioritize this, then tactical plans for achieving this can be made. Pakistan is able to do the same to India in the Indo Pak border.

OK. But, I don't think that your proposal is practicable. In Galwan Clash, no firearms were used. It was all a hand-to-hand fight. India was in a position to avenge it, at some other locatìon; but it didn't. Why??? Because, I think that real issue, at hand, is of escalation. This is what precisely stops India to go beyond a certain limit, in such conflicts.

 

[Wood]

OK. But, I don't think that your proposal is practicable. In Galwan Clash, no firearms were used. It was all a hand-to-hand fight. India was in a position to avenge it, at some other locatìon; but it didn't. Why??? Because, I think that real issue, at hand, is of escalation. This is what precisely stops India to go beyond a certain limit, in such conflicts.

We can only make suppositions about Galwan. Based on pictures, it seems like Indian troops there were not equipped with proper non lethal and protective gear. Even the numbers seemed to be lesser. I do not know for sure, but better intelligence and equipment in the area could have produced a different outcome.

 

[SIPRA]

We can only make suppositions about Galwan. Based on pictures, it seems like Indian troops there were not equipped with proper non lethal and protective gear. Even the numbers seemed to be lesser. I do not know for sure, but better intelligence and equipment in the area could have produced a different outcome.

I am not talking about the outcome of the Galwan Clash. It, of course, could have been inverse. My question is then what??? Would China had remain silent, being far more powerful than India. No. It would had gone for a bigger clash. So, in final analysis, it is the clear possibility of escalation, which limits India's choices, both, of retaliation as well as severe action.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

India at the least needs to inflict equal number of casualties for China. If Indian policy makers prioritize this, then tactical plans for achieving this can be made. Pakistan is able to do the same to India in the Indo Pak border.

Chinese method of War is very different from Russian way... the expansive war(as in expanse).
Chinese sit on top of Himalayas and have a natural barrier in the form of Tibet, excellent for their A2/AD doctrine.
They will not fight the expansive war unless it is inflicted upon them, such as India for example capturing Tibet. They'll and they are set up for a no losses war with India... it will eventually dawn on Indians the perilous situation they have dug themselves into vis a China.
The infrastructure China is building ensures a swift and effective solution.
Himalaya is no longer a barrier protecting India!

 

[Wood]

I am not talking about the outcome of the Galwan Clash. It, of course, could have been inverse. My question is then what??? Would China had remain silent, being far more powerful than India. No. It would had gone for a bigger clash. So, in final analysis, it is the clear possibility of escalation, which limits India's choices, both, of retaliation as well as severe action.

China can choose to escalate or not. India can always make it expensive for China even if India should go down in defeat. Luckily for India, the border conflict with India is not the capital military problem that China has set up for itself. So, there will be a limit to how much China wants to escalate it's conflict with India.

Chinese method of War is very different from Russian way... the expansive war(as in expanse).
Chinese sit on top of Himalayas and have a natural barrier in the form of Tibet, excellent for their A2/AD doctrine.
They will not fight the expansive war unless it is inflicted upon them, such as India for example capturing Tibet. They'll and they are set up for a no losses war with India... it will eventually dawn on Indians the perilous situation they have dug themselves into vis a China.
The infrastructure China is building ensures a swift and effective solution.
Himalaya is no longer a barrier protecting India!

No one in India is looking forward to a full scale conflict with China. Honestly, I do not understand the point in this post

 

[SIPRA]

China can choose to escalate or not. India can always make it expensive for China even if India should go down in defeat. Luckily for India, the border conflict with India is not the capital military problem that China has set up for itself. So, there will be a limit to how much China wants to escalate it's conflict with India.

Of course, I don't agree with your contention that a full-scale war with India would be very expensive for China.

In any case, your own political and military establishment, it seems, don't agree with the course, you are proposing. They are clearly trying to avoid an extensive conflict with China. That is why, 14 military commanders meeting have been held, and 15th one is being planned, apparently.

India has the capability to avenge the Galwan Clash, but it is not doing it. Obvious reason is fear of escalation.

Your political and military leadership doesn't seems to be as optimistic, as you appear to be.

 

[Wood]

Of course, I don't agree with your contention that a full-scale war with India would be very expensive for China.

In any case, your own political and military establishment, it seems, don't agree with the course, you are proposing. They are clearly trying to avoid an extensive conflict with China. That is why, 14 military commanders meeting have been held, and 15th one is being planned, apparently.

India has the capability to avenge the Galwan Clash, but it is not doing it. Obvious reason is fear of escalation.

Your political and military leadership doesn't seems to be as optimistic, as you appear to be.

When did I say that a full blown conflict with China is desirable? You have started to make things up.

All I say is that India should focus on improving its border infrastructure and personal equipment to inflict equal damage to Chinese in border skirmishes. Most (if not all) such skirmishes happen because of Chinese taking offensive action. I don't think India should avenge the losses or anything.

Border troops will always hold such talks and that is welcome. Please do not read what Iv write to fit the narrative that you would like to see between India and China