Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe said:

A "limited scale military operation" inherently carries the risk of escalating to a broader conflict. Both parties get a vote on such matters. And if there is undoubtedly "huge pressure" on the Chinese government to act, why would one expect the pressure on the Indian government to be any less, such that they would accept a limited defeat without further escalation?

Essentially, the gamble in such a situation is that India's institutions, and the decision-makers involved, are far-sighted enough to accept a limited defeat (or find a way to de-escalate before that point), acting in the national interest rather than out of concern for one's career, the image of one's party, etc. Who here has that much confidence in the Indian government?

Click to expand...

Because the stretch of boarder in question is pretty much the only part of the boarder where India enjoys terrain advantage, which is why India chose it to start this stand-off.

China enjoys absolute escalation advantage in every conceivable escalation scenario. The more the Indians escalate, the greater China's military advantage becomes, and the bigger the loss for India.

China will try to eject the Indian troops in such a way as to not spill blood, and to allow the Indian government some maneuvering room to climb down without loosing too much face.

However, if the Indian government is too stupid and/or stubborn to accept the favour, China will make a point of teaching India's leaders the error of their ways in no uncertain terms, least they forget themselves and make a similar mistake in the future.

If India pushes China that far, do not think Sikkim and Bhutan liberation and independence would be off the table. After all, the treaty India trampled and effectively ripped up by crossing that stretch of settled boarder is also the foundation for Chinese acceptance of Indian annexation of Sikkim.

It is either through great good fortune or judgement that India's timing was very good since China is mainly concerned with Korea and internal politics and do not want a war. Because the scale of the loss China could easily inflict on India is truly eye watering if China wanted to pick a fight with India.

Lethe said:

A "limited scale military operation" inherently carries the risk of escalating to a broader conflict. Both parties get a vote on such matters. And if there is undoubtedly "huge pressure" on the Chinese government to act, why would one expect the pressure on the Indian government to be any less, such that they would accept a limited defeat without further escalation?

Essentially, the gamble in such a situation is that India's institutions, and the decision-makers involved, are far-sighted enough to accept a limited defeat (or find a way to de-escalate before that point), acting in the national interest rather than out of concern for one's career, the image of one's party, etc. Who here has that much confidence in the Indian government?

Click to expand...

Confidence in Indian government? Now who start all this fracas. You might not like what your neighbor did to his house like painting the house pink. But but you don't have the right to go to your neighbor property and demand a halt to painting .
It is called trespassing. And as other people has commented The trespasser after being confronted demand negotiation. Now what kind of logic is this ?

As I said before if you stick your hand in hornet nest you better know what you are doing .They are betting Xi is not going to do anything I think they make mistake .Doing so would destroy the credibility of China and CCP

This is not your regular border incident due to imprecise border delineation like so many incident before
Here you got wiggle room and compromise is possible
I will quote what she said

“So, we are talking about very specific military operational issues. What I want to say is that for this Doklam (Donglang) event, Indians have intruded, invaded Chinese territory. That is something that has to be corrected. That is what I have been stressing,” she said, adding that to the military, the “trespass” is “intolerable”.

Talking about a "limited military operation" without acknowledging the risk of such precipitating a wider conflict fails the reality test, just as any US figure talking of a "limited military operation" to displace Chinese forces from SCS islands without acknowledging the risk of precipitating a wider conflict would fail the reality test.

Talking about the political pressures faced by the PLA and CCP and how those constrain their range of options and influence their likely responses, without talking about the political pressures faced by the Indian (BJP) government, and how those constrain their range of options and likely responses, is another clear failure to engage with reality.

Laying out China's perspective in the manner of a lawyer representing his client is all well and good, but one should not mistake such for an insightful analysis of the overall situation, which involves two dynamic poles, each subject to a variety of influences.

Again you are comparing apple and orange here. In SCS US is not party to dispute heck she is not even formal member of UNCLOS because she hasn't ratify the UNCLOS document

The SCS dispute is about border and not about EEZ Sofar China doesn't impede or restrict freedom of navigation.
Border in SCS has never been formalized by treaty or negotiation. Doklam area is clearly under Chinese control signed and seal between Britain and Qing government

And the arbitration judgement has no legal power since as the name suggest it arbitration with China refused to take part because it is stacked against her.. So how can it arbitration because arbitration take 2 parties to make it legal. Anyway they don''t have jurisdiction to regulate border. So its decision is null and void and can be ignored

The hypothetical example given is equivalent in all relevant aspects. Nonetheless, it is only an example that serves to illustrate the point already adequately made: that a "limited military operation", even if successful, can precipitate a wider conflict, and that this possibility must be acknowledged.

Lethe said:

The hypothetical example given is equivalent in all relevant aspects. Nonetheless, it is only an example that serves to illustrate the point already adequately made: that a "limited military operation", even if successful, can precipitate a wider conflict, and that this possibility must be acknowledged.

Click to expand...

You know whats funny, when India send its troop into Chinese border, did they think of anything that you just typed? What you are tying to say is that India has already established this new status quo, that China have lost, therefore China should think twice before trying to reclaim this land that India invaded on purpose.

But you know what? it an't over until both side says its over, the day India send troops into Chinese territory is the day India knows China wont' take this lightly, so yeah I'm sure India has taken the possibility of Chinese strike back by force into consideration. If that is the cause, India would also taken into consideration of what it is prepare to do in the event of that.

Let me just ask you the question in reverse, what would India do if China invaded Kashmir for Pakistan? What would India do if China had invaded India for Nepal? Would China establish a new reality as you suggest and India just... give up? NO, I don't expect India would give up and accept this new reality, and I think you agree with me that India would also not give up until they take the land back from the Chinese invasion.

Well... use the same mental exercise on the Chinese situation right now, what really make you think China is going to accept this status quo? The day India send its troop over to China is the day India expect this might very well end up in fighting and live lost, so yeah... both said have already prepared for this outcome mentally, and therefore both side will not overreact like you want to suggest.

Hendrik_2000 said:

As I said CCP and PLA is now under great pressure to act
CCP might make their move after the September meeting
HT Exclusive: PLA expert says China could eject Indian troops from Donglang
Maj Gen (retd) Yao Yunzhu also said China and India are “unlikely to go to war”.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Updated: Jul 30, 2017 21:24 IST

China could launch a limited scale military operation against Indian troops to ouster them from the Donglang region near the Sikkim sector, a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) military expert has said, adding that the “unprecedented nature” of the current dispute could make Beijing look for a strong resolution.

“China and India are unlikely to go to war, depending how you define war. If it is very small, if it is a limited-scale military operation against an aggression, it is possible,” she said, about ending the standoff in Donglang, now into its second month.
.

Click to expand...

the conflict is unlikely to be "a limited operation".

it's a calculated move by india, they think that they have a good chance to holdout in Donglang, and china is not going to escalate the conflict by spreading it into Kashmire and south Tibet.

the cardinal aim to start a war is to win, China will not tie her own hands.

sanblvd said:

You know whats funny, when India send its troop into Chinese border, did they think of anything that you just typed?
What you are tying to say is that India has already established this new status quo, that China have lost, therefore China should think twice before trying to reclaim this land that India invaded on purpose.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what I am saying. All parties, at all times, should act with due regard for how their actions are likely to be received by other parties, and the responses those actions are likely to precipitate. Further, given the potential consequences of miscalculation, parties should act cautiously with due regard for the influence of incomplete or potentially erroneous information. If one party fails to act in this way, this does not relieve or reduce the impetus for other parties to do so -- indeed, it increases it. Such cautious pragmatism, with due regard for the perspective of the other, is not a carrot extended upon reciprocity, but rather an essential precondition for successful policy making in the real world.

But you know what? it an't over until both side says its over

Click to expand...

That is, indeed, precisely my point. And this is why the talk above of a "limited military operation", without acknowledging or considering the possibility that such could escalate into a broader conflict, is so dangerous, because this aspect is not in China's control: it would be India's decision as to how it responds to such a "limited military operation". China can shape the geometry of India's decision-making process e.g. by clear messaging before, during and after the operation, by conducting the operation in such a manner as to minimise loss of life, and by reinforcing other disputed border areas, nonetheless they cannot control India's response: they can only anticipate and prepare for it.

And of course all of this applies to India's incursion that set up this crisis in the first place. What is consistent throughout, for all parties, is the need to empathise with the other party: to understand his objectives and the priorities amongst them e.g. "red lines" vs. "nice to haves", to understand his decision-making process, the personalities of the relevant individuals, the political environment in which they are operating, and the intelligence that they are receiving. All of this is required to anticipate how the other party will respond to your actions, and therefore help to determine how you should act in order to best achieve your objectives or preserve your interests. And all of it, inevitably, is subject to a great deal of uncertainty: information is incomplete or erroneous. Hence the presumption of caution that I urged earlier. Most wars are not planned, but arise from the kinds of miscalculation that I have described here (and miscalculations of others kinds too, such as assessments of one's own capabilities).

The day India send its troop over to China is the day India expect this might very well end up in fighting and live lost, so yeah... both said have already prepared for this outcome mentally, and therefore both side will not overreact like you want to suggest.

Click to expand...

To reiterate a point I made in another thread, this is almost certainly not the case. It is unlikely that China initiated its construction activities anticipating that India would react as it did, for if Beijing had anticipated such a forceful response PLA forces would surely have been reinforced and positioned in advance to deter or respond to India's actions immediately. What is far more likely is that China miscalculated and did not anticipate India's reponse. This is a failure of intelligence and analysis, a failure to understand the other that implicitly suggests the possibility of further miscalculations.

And of course the irony of this latest discussion, which I referenced earlier, is that this idea (that China will conduct a limited military operation to eject India's forces from its territory and that will be the end of it) in fact expresses a high level of confidence in the Indian government: confidence that Delhi will assess the balance of forces as Beijing does and therefore understand the undesirability of further escalation, confidence that Indian decision-makers will act to protect the interests of their country and not be swayed by their wounded pride, the prospect of damage to the own political image, or by unhinged nationalist sentiment and rhetoric. Certainly this is a more flattering image of India than I have ever offered.

@Lethe With all due respect, I read and re-read what you just typed and I still have no idea what are you trying to say. That seems to be pretty common with a lot of Indian people, a lot fancy argument that sounds really sophisticated but in the end, no one really understands it or the purpose of it, I'm not sure even you do.

But here is my respond to you, it still seems your argument is that you think the situations is "stabilized" after India invaded China, that China is the one that must trend carefully since a new status quo as been establish, that China don't known India's intention or action, therefore China need to taken India's interest into consideration and if China tries a "limited attack" it might not be China's best interest because China won't know India's response to this, if that is what you are tying to say, then its cop out

You don't just commit a crime, and expect the victim to negotiate with you since you got what you wanted, its like this, I am the thief and I just took your wallet in front of you, you then told me to give it back, I then said ... "well, I already have your wallet with all the money in it... so lets talk about this shall we? I see you have 200 dollars in it, how about I give you back 100?" You then start to call 911, I say "I see you are calling the cops on me, hold on there buddy.... think twice before you call the cops, because if you call the cops, I can also call my hombre who can get here sooner before the cops to beat you up, do you think its worth it? Why don't we take both of our interest into considerations, I have your wallet, I want money, you want your wallet back, lets negotiate to a mutually agreeable solution do all of this, after all its in my best interest to not get the cop involved, and you might not know what I will do next, so its in your best interest to compromise with me" .... If that sound absurd to you, then you know how hollow it sounds when you give advice for "caution" from the China. To me the moment you stole my wallet, invaded my country is the moment you are in the complete wrong, and I have all the right to take my wallet back, take my land back. You started this escalation and I decide what to do next, you don't get a say on what I should or should not do, I have the full right to respond to your escalation that you started in the first place, you don't threaten me or "fake concern" for my interest of what your might to do me next. I say bring it on, you started when you took my wallet in the first place.

To reiterate a point I made in another thread, this is almost certainly not the case. It is unlikely that China initiated its construction activities anticipating that India would react as it did, for if Beijing had anticipated such a forceful response PLA forces would surely have been reinforced and positioned in advance to deter or respond to India's actions immediately. What is far more likely is that China miscalculated and did not anticipate India's reponse. This is a failure of intelligence and analysis, a failure to understand the other that implicitly suggests the possibility of further miscalculations.

Click to expand...

"China miscalculated and did not anticipate India's response"

That is freaking rich and another twist of logic, I guess it was suppose to be China's fault for expecting a major regional power to uphold the very basic concept between modern Nation State, that you respect the concept National Sovereignty? That you don't invade another nation just because they are doing on their own territory upset you?

Was China expecting too much for India to understand the very basics concept of sovereignty? Well if that was your argument, then I guess the answer is yes, China had way too much respect for India, the nation calls it self a the Largest Democracy in the world, a Respectable Stakeholder, the Follower of International Law etc... Instead China should have treated India like a childish rouge states that does what it wants, when it wants, where it wants wants to whoever it wants for its own interest? Are you saying it was China's fault for not see India in that ways? Are you saying it was China's fault to expect India to act like a normal country? If so you are 100% correct, because from now on, i suspect this is how China is going to see India.

Good luck

Lethe said:

No, that is not what I am saying. All parties, at all times, should act with due regard for how their actions are likely to be received by other parties, and the responses those actions are likely to precipitate. Further, given the potential consequences of miscalculation, parties should act cautiously with due regard for the influence of incomplete or potentially erroneous information. If one party fails to act in this way, this does not relieve or reduce the impetus for other parties to do so -- indeed, it increases it. Such cautious pragmatism, with due regard for the perspective of the other, is not a carrot extended upon reciprocity, but rather an essential precondition for successful policy making in the real world.

That is, indeed, precisely my point. And this is why the talk above of a "limited military operation", without acknowledging or considering the possibility that such could escalate into a broader conflict, is so dangerous, because this aspect is not in China's control: it would be India's decision as to how it responds to such a "limited military operation". China can shape the geometry of India's decision-making process e.g. by clear messaging before, during and after the operation, by conducting the operation in such a manner as to minimise loss of life, and by reinforcing other disputed border areas, nonetheless they cannot control India's response: they can only anticipate and prepare for it.

And of course all of this applies to India's incursion that set up this crisis in the first place. What is consistent throughout, for all parties, is the need to empathise with the other party: to understand his objectives and the priorities amongst them e.g. "red lines" vs. "nice to haves", to understand his decision-making process, the personalities of the relevant individuals, the political environment in which they are operating, and the intelligence that they are receiving. All of this is required to anticipate how the other party will respond to your actions, and therefore help to determine how you should act in order to best achieve your objectives or preserve your interests. And all of it, inevitably, is subject to a great deal of uncertainty: information is incomplete or erroneous. Hence the presumption of caution that I urged earlier. Most wars are not planned, but arise from the kinds of miscalculation that I have described here (and miscalculations of others kinds too, such as assessments of one's own capabilities).

To reiterate a point I made in another thread, this is almost certainly not the case. It is unlikely that China initiated its construction activities anticipating that India would react as it did, for if Beijing had anticipated such a forceful response PLA forces would surely have been reinforced and positioned in advance to deter or respond to India's actions immediately. What is far more likely is that China miscalculated and did not anticipate India's reponse. This is a failure of intelligence and analysis, a failure to understand the other that implicitly suggests the possibility of further miscalculations.

And of course the irony of this latest discussion, which I referenced earlier, is that this idea (that China will conduct a limited military operation to eject India's forces from its territory and that will be the end of it) in fact expresses a high level of confidence in the Indian government: confidence that Delhi will assess the balance of forces as Beijing does and therefore understand the undesirability of further escalation, confidence that Indian decision-makers will act to protect the interests of their country and not be swayed by their wounded pride, the prospect of damage to the own political image, or by unhinged nationalist sentiment and rhetoric. Certainly this is a more flattering image of India than I have ever offered.

Click to expand...

The entire incident has been so opaque and surrounded by so much conflicting information especially from the Indian side that it is a leap to make the accusatory claim that China miscalculated with its roadbuilding since it is indeterminate whether India actually gave negative, positive, neutral, or no response to China's advance notification. I do agree that any Chinese operation now is unlikely to be the end of the story.