If you do have a military deficiency it usually isn’t a good idea to tell the rest of the world if you want deterrence.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
If you do have a military deficiency it usually isn’t a good idea to tell the rest of the world if you want deterrence.
I kind of wonder what will happen on the 16th day? Defense salesmen from Europe, US and Russia flew in with catalogues, memorandum of understanding, then contract for another 15 days supply of ammo?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You are an optimistic soul to think they will last anything close to 15 days in an actual fight, the original 10 days was already wildly optimistic, and is probably more down to operational reality that they expect a significant proportion of their munitions to be blown up in warehouses, with only a fraction likely to actually be fired in anger (or rather issued to frontline units in the hope of being fired, but mostly will just be blown up with the weapons themselves before they got a chance to shoot).
The whole military campaign will likely take more than 15 days, but the outcome will be decided within the first few days if not hours, with the rest being mop up and punishment.
It is to my humble opinion that on ONE front, the war might take more than 15 days. They are in a better shape compared to Iraq in 1991. If the war broke on TWO fronts, they might just crumble like a house of cards.
Barriers to good relations can be crossed if/when there is no threat and/or good faith on both sides. China has tried to make concessions to India before, which India rejected while also showing bad faith in the negotiation. This was detailed in the declassified CIA report that was posted on this thread. India is the one which has continually rejected China's overtures, and has only ramped it up under Modi. You should go to India with these questions and ask them why they have steadfastly refused to play nice with China, and is actively positioning itself as a partner to the US plan to blockade China's sea lanes.
Circular reasoning. Your premise is that China's motivations are based in territorial 'ambition,' which is also your conclusion.
Last edited:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
China haters believe in too much propaganda and revisionist history that they judge China based on their false assumptions.
The fact of the matter is China does not have a history of aggression. Most of its violent history was handling internal struggles. My guess is this will continue to be the theme until at least most of us are dead.
Hongkong, Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang are all part of that history of internal struggles. But China has come a long way compared to India.
Really Taiwan’s leadership is just another rebellious warlord. And history has shown that China will consolidate and have another golden age.
I mean if people believe in this crap of course they’re going to have a negative opinion about China:
Last edited:
Look, Uighur/Xinjiang issues are all over MSM, even the ones in my country reported on Uighur being forced to work in cotton plantation today. It's high time CCP get this sorted out. With all these babushka yapping about babayaga stories, even lies will become the truth.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
India has more advanced weapons than 1991 Iraq, sure. Then again, the PLA of today has far more advanced weapons the the coalition of 1991. But it looks like the Indian will to fight is about the same if not worse than those of the Iraqis judging from the level of ‘enthusiasm’ needed to flee so hard you literally die because of it.
Not even the butt of countless jokes Iraqi military lost men from fleeing with zero hostile action as far as I am aware.
Also, say what you will about 1991 Iraq, at least they didn’t have the ridiculous logistics and munitions issues the Indians seemed to. When coalition forces came, the Iraqis were never short on munitions to shoot at least.
The only way the Indian military can retain viable fighting capabilities in the immediate combat region is China somehow allowed them the luxury of time with gradual escalation rather than an upfront knock out blow.
But gradual escalation has never been the PLA way. China generally endured as much as it can to try to find a peaceful solution, but if you do push China far enough that it authorises the use of military force, it tends to strike with overwhelming force. That was the case in Korea, Vietnam and India. And I cannot see why the PLA would change it’s tried and proven strategy now.
Obviously China cannot take all of India in 15 days, but that was never going to be the military objective.
If the PLA does strike, it will aim to totally destroy Indian military forces and bases capable to engaging in the targeted area. In that respect, it will do what it did in 62 again, which is to totally destroy India frontline forces, and then unilaterally stop hostilities and dare the Indians to come and start the shooting again. The main difference will be that China is unlikely to initiate an unilateral pull back to pre-hostilities positions. Instead they will advance to their claim line and consider the boarder dispute settled.
Combat will only drag on beyond 15 days if Indian keeps trickle feeding fresh forces into the combat zone.
Objective might be blowing up their ammo storage, allow it to slowly reach back to the 15 days limit, and rinse and repeat.
- Status