Indeed it could align with US moves and election timing. We'll have to wait and see how the Indians play however if the PLA does retreat, that would on every level be a disappointment. The US starting kinetic war means they can eat nukes if munitions are wasted on Indians. As for Jai Hinds, waste away. Would be very nice to have fewer venomous bhakts around. If only those keyboard morons are on the frontline. Hopefully more sensible Indians can take the reign after.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
Indeed it could align with US moves and election timing. We'll have to wait and see how the Indians play however if the PLA does retreat, that would on every level be a disappointment. The US starting kinetic war means they can eat nukes if munitions are wasted on Indians. As for Jai Hinds, waste away. Would be very nice to have fewer venomous bhakts around. If only those keyboard morons are on the frontline. Hopefully more sensible Indians can take the reign after.
Best strategy for India would be to do what Indian Army special forces did to Pakistan Army in Siachen glacier on 01/08/1992 after Pakistan army launched a failed assault.
43 Pakistani soldiers (on that day alone) were killed as per Pakistans own admission below:
Among the 43 Pak soldiers Killed, was a Brigadier
43 Pakistani soldiers (on that day alone) were killed as per Pakistans own admission below:
Among the 43 Pak soldiers Killed, was a Brigadier
Best strategy for India would be to do what Indian Army special forces did to Pakistan Army in Siachen glacier on 01/08/1992 after Pakistan army launched a failed assault.
43 Pakistani soldiers (on that day alone) were killed as per Pakistans own admission below:
Among the 43 Pak soldiers Killed, was a Brigadier
You're trolling here now. Because you can't tell the difference between strategy and tactics. And just use this opportunity to post Pakistan's losses. How about posting some Indians losses due to poor conceived tactics by your superpower leaders? Tell me, where's those F16 you shot down again?
Best strategy for India would be to do what Indian Army special forces did to Pakistan Army in Siachen glacier on 01/08/1992 after Pakistan army launched a failed assault.
43 Pakistani soldiers (on that day alone) were killed as per Pakistans own admission below:
Among the 43 Pak soldiers Killed, was a Brigadier
Translation: 'Remember the time when India wasn't considered a complete joke, by literally the entire planet? Let's talk about that now. We won a minor skirmish too, 30 years ago!!'
They were quoting India Today. In fact this is the same thread where I read the post about the Russia winter gear fiasco
.
The question one should always ask before making a proposal is what do the other parties get out of it.
India Q1 (Q2 for everyone else) GDP will be out in a couple of days. The estimate is between a 33 and 40% contraction in GDP, which is why Modi might be weakened enough to attempt to wag the dog with a Ladakh conflict. And Congress has incentive to force Modi into a losing war as long as they benefit politically.
For the BJP, the calculation comes out to:
1. Can we win? India does have significantly more airbases in the vicinity of the region, and a first strike could force the Chinese to use long-ranged assets to fight in the area.
2. If we lose, can this somehow be politically advantageous? Remember, India can go nuclear (Agni can hit Chinese cities) in a worst case scenario.
===
Basically, you're assuming the PLA holds all the cards, but while the PLA can definitely wreck the InA in a first strike, the InA can do considerable amounts of damage in a first strike themselves based on having more airbases in the immediate vicinity. The idea of the PLAAF and PLARF shutting down the InA quickly depends on the PLAAF / PLARF attacking first, but that's not a guarantee. If the InAF hits first, first, there'll be an overwhelming volume of firepower concentrated on what is effectively a regional war, and Chinese passive and active air defenses will be hard pressed. Second, with the InAF in the air, as opposed to sitting at their airbases, it'll be harder for a Chinese strike to knock out the InAF at their airbases and the PLAAF has to shoot down the InAF in the air.
===
I mean, overall, the PLA has the advantage here, given its more modern aircraft (Su-30MKI vs J-11B is in the PLAAF's favor at long ranges, in short-ranges, if the PL-10 ASRs work as advertised the Su-30MKI's TVC doesn't matter), its greater concentrations of mobile artillery (mobile artillery wins artillery battles, because it can shoot and scoot, while tube artillery is generally a bunch of static sitting ducks), as well as the fact that if the war escalates, PLA reinforcements can make mince out of InA assets, but an Indian first strike is something that has to be considered as destabilizing and as a threat.
An autumn war, moreover, means that PLA countermoves now threaten to veer into a winter war, which can be immensely brutal and difficult to prosecute.
===
The biggest question ultimately comes down to, how good are PLA air defenses along the border? You need air defense systems because: 1- most PLAGF systems are vulnerable to enemy aircraft; the key Chinese advantages are in light tanks, self-propelled guns, and helicopters. But all of these are vulnerable to air assault; light tanks aren't as well armored as heavy tanks, self-propelled guns are thin-skinned, and helicopters are sitting ducks to enemy fighters. 2- Air interdiction from long-range isn't as effective as surface-ground defenses; you'd need to keep aircraft constantly in the air, which is costly. Air defense radar, on the other hand, can present a constant defensive presence and allow the PLA to monitor InAF take-offs; a large InAF take-off could be treated as equivalent to an attempt at a first strike and allow the sortie of PLAAF interception.
For the BJP, the calculation comes out to:
1. Can we win? India does have significantly more airbases in the vicinity of the region, and a first strike could force the Chinese to use long-ranged assets to fight in the area.
2. If we lose, can this somehow be politically advantageous? Remember, India can go nuclear (Agni can hit Chinese cities) in a worst case scenario.
===
Basically, you're assuming the PLA holds all the cards, but while the PLA can definitely wreck the InA in a first strike, the InA can do considerable amounts of damage in a first strike themselves based on having more airbases in the immediate vicinity. The idea of the PLAAF and PLARF shutting down the InA quickly depends on the PLAAF / PLARF attacking first, but that's not a guarantee. If the InAF hits first, first, there'll be an overwhelming volume of firepower concentrated on what is effectively a regional war, and Chinese passive and active air defenses will be hard pressed. Second, with the InAF in the air, as opposed to sitting at their airbases, it'll be harder for a Chinese strike to knock out the InAF at their airbases and the PLAAF has to shoot down the InAF in the air.
===
I mean, overall, the PLA has the advantage here, given its more modern aircraft (Su-30MKI vs J-11B is in the PLAAF's favor at long ranges, in short-ranges, if the PL-10 ASRs work as advertised the Su-30MKI's TVC doesn't matter), its greater concentrations of mobile artillery (mobile artillery wins artillery battles, because it can shoot and scoot, while tube artillery is generally a bunch of static sitting ducks), as well as the fact that if the war escalates, PLA reinforcements can make mince out of InA assets, but an Indian first strike is something that has to be considered as destabilizing and as a threat.
An autumn war, moreover, means that PLA countermoves now threaten to veer into a winter war, which can be immensely brutal and difficult to prosecute.
===
The biggest question ultimately comes down to, how good are PLA air defenses along the border? You need air defense systems because: 1- most PLAGF systems are vulnerable to enemy aircraft; the key Chinese advantages are in light tanks, self-propelled guns, and helicopters. But all of these are vulnerable to air assault; light tanks aren't as well armored as heavy tanks, self-propelled guns are thin-skinned, and helicopters are sitting ducks to enemy fighters. 2- Air interdiction from long-range isn't as effective as surface-ground defenses; you'd need to keep aircraft constantly in the air, which is costly. Air defense radar, on the other hand, can present a constant defensive presence and allow the PLA to monitor InAF take-offs; a large InAF take-off could be treated as equivalent to an attempt at a first strike and allow the sortie of PLAAF interception.
Last edited:
LOL. Is India in position to direct an initiatitive that is firmly controlled by Japan and US? Either the article writer is outright dreaming or having some grandeur delusion about India's power. What can India offer Russia that will convince the latter to join an initiative that works directly against her own interest.
2 points from the article exposed it as a joke :
"India and Russia have also jointly opposed China’s so-called assertion of power through the belt and road initiative (BRI)."
WHAT
"“Russia is also aware of Beijing’s growing aggressiveness, but it needs China for economic reasons,” he said. “So by joining the Indo-Pacific it will come closer to India, because India does not see Indo-Pacific as an initiative to confront China.”"
WHATTTTTT
- Status