"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 (2006-present) Message Board
|
Tango01  | 20 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
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
 Cacique Caribe | 20 Jul 2017 11:50 p.m. PST |
Does India even really have that many nukes? Dan |
 x42brown | 21 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. x42 |
 StoneMtnMinis | 21 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. Dave |
| Cacique Caribe | 21 Jul 2017 7:35 a.m. PST |
Dave, How long ago was that, when you heard that assessment? Dan |
 piper909 | 21 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. |
| bsrlee | 22 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. |
| Cacique Caribe | 22 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. Dan
* Plus now those currently deployed and fighting on similar terrain in Afghanistan:
link
|
|
