Ladakh Flash Point

Petrolicious88 said:

India missed the bus of leveraging cheap labor manufacturing to riches for two reasons:

1). Automation is coming. And this will nullify India’s large, uneducated labor pool. China or Vietnam is prob the last two countries that leveraged cheap labor to get rich.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just a low-paid workforce in China or Vietnam, but also a literate educated one.
For example, some companies have publicly stated that their Vietnamese workers test out better than their American workers doing the same manufacturing job.

Zool said:

These closest system to S-300 in range that India operates currently is a version of S-200.

India operates a mix of short to medium range Russian, Israeli and indigenous systems out to about 30 miles.

A national integrated ADS is a missing piece in Indian defense. S-400 will be a big step towards this.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a major capability gap that they should’ve sorted out before Rafale.

EtherealSmoke said:

I think there’s a bigger picture here. China’s made the strategic choice to pressure India in response to the Indian tilt towards America e.g. the Quad, US and Australian military interoperability deals, restriction on Chinese investment, Indian salami slicing along the border in Kashmir, etc.

Strategically, the Chinese are looking to force India towards neutrality re US-China, or face economic ruin.

It actually reminds me a bit of the sino Vietnamese border conflicts in the 80s. Military pressure on a weaker, growth-starved adversary, forcing the weaker side to expend money they don’t have on military operations instead of on the infrastructure and economy.

And, in my opinion, the timing seems very opportune. India currently has hundreds of thousands of troops bogged down in its Kashmir occupation, in addition to the massive resources needed to man the LOC with Pakistan. This year there’s going to be huge economic damage from India’s COVID mishandling, add the locust invasions and assorted climate change disasters, add the necessity for India to grow at double digit growth rates to feed its “population dividend,” - and on top of all that, you add border conflict with China? Remember, the Chinese Indian border is longer than the Pakistan Indian border. That’s a lot of expensive engagements for a developing economy, let alone a shrinking one. International financial institutions like the IMF are already forecasting big negative Indian growth rates this year, and they might be optimistic.

Developing countries post WW2 in Europe, countries like Japan, Korea, and China all drastically cut military spending to finance infrastructure and economic growth. Back when China was at India’s level economically, China had low military spending and double digit economic growth rates. Now, India’s looking at the opposite - shrinking GDP growth with elevated spending requirements. An economically dominant China is looking to force India to either politically concede, or face an untenable arms race.

That’s why I think the Chinese side maintains its border posture yet is so tight lipped. It serves Chinese interests to continue the current non-shooting pressurized status quo. Every day Indian forces surge to maintain these high-altitude borders is another day their economy is starved of desperately needed development funds.

Click to expand...

I've been pondering what is China's strategy in all this, so here it is.

I don't see any solution for India with regards to Kashmir.

The last time there was a survey in 2007, 87% of people in the Kashmiri capital wanted an independent Kashmir.
Reference below.


Then last year, the BJP unilaterally revoked Article 370 and stripped Kashmir of its autonomy.
That also meant India lost any willing allegiance it may have had from the local population.
Example below


Kashmir was already a police state before, and it has only gotten worse as the BJP from New Delhi imposes itself on local issues.

See Washington Post article below on 700,000 soldiers of the Indian army occupying Kashmir


And we all know how bureaucrats and politicians from New Delhi have a long tradition of incompetent governance, resulting in the Naxalites for example.


---

Continued....


So why does this matter?

Let's say India-China did somehow end up in a conflict in Kashmir.
For Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, they know that there will NEVER be a better time than to fight for Kashmiri independence.

So if the Chinese Army is fighting the Indian Army in Kashmir, China isn't stealing Indian land.
The Chinese Army is fighting to help free the Kashmiri people, who hate the occupying Indian Army.

In other words, the Chinese are the *good* guys and the Indians are the *bad* guys.

That will be clear to everyone outside of India.
And there is absolutely no way that the BJP can spin this inside India either.

So if there was a conflict, China and Pakistan would be on the right side of history and global opinion.
It would also force people inside India to realise what the BJP are.
And the rest of the world would have to support China against India.

So the Indian people would also have to come to terms that India *deserved* to lose a war with China, because India was the *bad* guy oppressing the Kashmiri people.

It's a refreshing narrative to say the least, compared to the fake *innocent India attacked by an aggressive China in 1962* narrative in the Indian media.

Like I said at the start, I see no way out for India on Kashmir, because they've completely lost the people of Kashmir.
And China could apply pressure any time it wants, knowing that Kashmir independence can always used against India.


---

At the same time, what happens in Nagaland and some of the other Northeastern states bordering China/Myanmar?

After all, they only gave up their dreams of independence after Ajit Doval (the Indian National Security Advisor) personally threatened to bring down the entire Indian military apparatus down on them. That is part of the public record.

But if the Indian military has been dealt with...?

AndrewS said:

It wasn't just a low-paid workforce in China or Vietnam, but also a literate educated one.
For example, some companies have publicly stated that their Vietnamese workers test out better than their American workers doing the same manufacturing job.

Click to expand...

Stop your daydreaming ! Chinese people are well-educated, workforce wages are much higher than before. They now produce high-end products, computers, mobile, iPhone, AI, robots, satellite technology, monster container, mineral ore, and specialised ships for itself and other countries... The days of low-end manufacturing are truly over a couple of decades ago. Factories are now set up in India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Laos ….and in some African countries for them to grow their economy, like China did many decades ago!

siegecrossbow said:

That sounds like a major capability gap that they should’ve sorted out before Rafale.

Click to expand...

I would say that a modern capable fighter like the Rafale is a more flexible platform for air defense. But ideally it isn't a one or the other argument. Both have their place. For SAM's, India focused more on mobile short-medium range systems to move with and provide cover for their ground forces. But that's changing now with S-400 and India working on ABM options.

Ultimately I think it comes down to budget and spending on the most versatile platform for the dollar (or rupee). It's all pricey CAPEX leaving the country until they develop, and then choose to invest in manufacturing, their own local solutions.

siegecrossbow said:

That sounds like a major capability gap that they should’ve sorted out before Rafale.

Click to expand...

The Indians have been busy rolling out SPYDER which I believe is operational at the borders. It has an effective coverage range of 50 to 100 kms depending on the type of missile adopted (which is a bit of an unknown).

S400 is meant to protect high value assets and IMO not suited for the borders. It should also be noted that historically IADS brings with it a high degree of fratricide and in particular likely to be the case in contested airspace at the borders with confusion arising from air space management in times of stress.

Connected with IADS is the great unknown associated with China and India in their respective investments and improvements to-date in SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Both SU30-MKI and SU-27/J-11s are high RCS profile airframes and will be difficult to hide from SAMs coverage. The mitigation will depend on their respective EW suite to protect them. The IAF to my knowledge has adopted Elta/M-8222 SPJ and an indigenous RWR known as Tarang for their SU-30 MKI. While the IAF has a variant of KNIRTI SAP-518 wingtip pod mounted system, it is not preferred because it greatly degrades the SU-30MKI flight dynamics.

Brumby said:

The Indians have been busy rolling out SPYDER which I believe is operational at the borders. It has an effective coverage range of 50 to 100 kms depending on the type of missile adopted (which is a bit of an unknown).

S400 is meant to protect high value assets and IMO not suited for the borders. It should also be noted that historically IADS brings with it a high degree of fratricide and in particular likely to be the case in contested airspace at the borders with confusion arising from air space management in times of stress.

Connected with IADS is the great unknown associated with China and India in their respective investments and improvements to-date in SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Both SU30-MKI and SU-27/J-11s are high RCS profile airframes and will be difficult to hide from SAMs coverage. The mitigation will depend on their respective EW suite to protect them. The IAF to my knowledge has adopted Elta/M-8222 SPJ and an indigenous RWR known as Tarang for their SU-30 MKI. While the IAF has a variant of KNIRTI SAP-518 wingtip pod mounted system, it is not preferred because it greatly degrades the SU-30MKI flight dynamics.

Click to expand...

Just a note, the Spyder platform, even with the Derby missile, is nowhere near a 100km range. And it was not designed to be such a wide area denial system.

@EtherealSmoke @AndrewS

Well, I don't think "The World" will stand with China on anything. Even if China literally saved the world by doing some " Armageddon " level stunt , the world will play blind because they dislike "Communists" so much.


China has to stop seeking acknowledgement from the world. Why should China appease "the World" ?
The countries of the "world" that care a lot about what China does are the countries of the "West". I genuinely don't think Argentina, Bolivia, Liberia, Tajikistan etc cares about what China does. The countries that do care ( West and Co) love to hate China.


On Kashmir

Its pretty obvious that no one will stand with China even if China does some Messianic level act for the Kashmiri people. And I don't think China can "liberate" Kashmir either. The costs associated with it are too high.

What Next ?

Many people would be confused as to why India is still hesitant to finally board the American ship. It should be obvious right ? Why does India take so much time to make up its mind? Why don't India see how Korea and Japan and Germany and England all benefit from the Alliance with USA ?

The Answer is simple : India in fact has seen how Korea,Japan and England all "benefits". India doesn't think it is beneficial for India. India is an aspiring Superpower. How can such a country seek to be in alliance with USA when it is evident that USA doesn't like anyone challenging its position ?
India does not like being the "small brother" in a relationship. It wants to be "equal".( whatever that means. I don't know what it means so spare me the follow up ).


India is therefore very unlikely to base US forces in its territory. The territory that I think would be of great significance is the Nicobar Islands that lies close to Malacca Straits.
It has something to do with "Pride" . Maybe its just a false pride? Maybe not. It is however a fact that India and Indians , secretly think that they are above the west and deserve to lead the world. Don't be mislead by their rhetoric of " World Family" , " Global Peace", etc.


To be fair , Chinese leadership also promote similar weird sounding ideals like " Shared destiny", "Win-win" , "Better future" etc . I don't believe these are genuine. But I don't care as I root for China.
Maybe USA also has such keywords and phrases they use in rhetoric to hide their true intentions ? " Democracy" ," Freedom" ,"Security" ...
There must be a term in english to describe this ...?