Help support TMP

"How India stacks up against China, and why China ..." Topic

8 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

777 hits since 20 Jul 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP20 Jul 2017 9:56 p.m. PST

….can't win despite its military superiority.

"Whenever India and China face off on the border, the immediate question that arises is, who is the bigger military power?

Obviously, it's China. China dwarfs India in overall defence capabilities. Its defence budget stands at $152 USD billion against India's $51 USD billion, which is three times that of India.

But that doesn't mean China can subdue India. Governments on both sides believe that the next India-China conflict would be limited in scope and short in duration instead of a protracted, large-scale, force-on-force campaign. That's due to the threat of nuclear attack as both the countries have sufficient nuclear capability…."
Main page


Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP20 Jul 2017 11:50 p.m. PST

Does India even really have that many nukes?


Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP21 Jul 2017 2:06 a.m. PST

I believe that that articals estimate of the Indian nuclear warhead total is well conservative and thier delivery systems not really appreciated. They have a number of rockets ment for space research that are essentially ICBMs in design.


Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP21 Jul 2017 7:07 a.m. PST

When I was in the service(Naval Intelligence) it was felt that India would be able to hold it's own against China. While China had numbers, it was felt India had better quality in all arms. However, I'm not sure if that has changed over time.


Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP21 Jul 2017 7:35 a.m. PST


How long ago was that, when you heard that assessment?


Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member21 Jul 2017 9:29 p.m. PST

How can either nation inflict a conventional defeat on the other when their common border is only in isolated, short, extremely mountainous areas? There's no room to deploy or maneuver major assets, and terrible transportation bottlenecks.

bsrlee22 Jul 2017 1:52 a.m. PST

I think Piper has it. Any conflict is likely to be short and most casualties will be due to the environment. The main danger is actually likely to be for the other nations in the area if either China or India decide to try to 'absorb' the neutrals as a collateral operation – something I would see as being more likely from China's side, remembering Tibet and Vietnam.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP22 Jul 2017 5:48 a.m. PST

Based on logistics abilities, better troop equipment and just plain having had a couple of invasions under its belt already, both for conquest and punitive, my money is also on China winning that. And, after the invasion and pacification of Tibet, China has a much larger number of troops with experience fighting in that type of terrain.*

Bsrlee: "China's side, remembering Tibet and Vietnam."

Other than to control some incredibly valuable natural resource or to finally settle, once and for all, their tiny border dispute, I just don't see what China would get out of it. Saving face alone wouldn't be their motivation there.

As for India, saving face could be a factor. The satisfaction of taking something from unstoppable China anything and then keeping it, might be a motivator.

* Plus now those currently deployed and fighting on similar terrain in Afghanistan:


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.