India vs China - War Gaming Scenarios : Related News , Updates , Discussions & Analysis .

too much extra strong koolaid :ROFLMAO: ,
so you are saying if we add 300 million more cows to the already congested jungle , we can become more strong & smart? quantity has a quality of its own?

These new set of 300 million people will get Western standard education and Western standard lifestyle in a country with Western levels of HDI.

India will achieve High HDI between 2030-35, that's 0.8 compared to 0.63 today. That's pretty much developed country standards. By 2035-40, the only difference between India and peak countries like Norway and Australia will be per capita income and naturally disposable income. In fact, we will have more modern and better infrastructure than today's developed countries. And India's population will still be rising during this time. Otoh, China's failed to achieve High HDI status before depopulation begins, it's in fact a massive failure.

Another advantage is the INR could become a global reserve currency by 2030-35. So comparing India's economy in terms of dollars will become irrelevant by then. As long as our import-substitution works out, it means less imports, so more forex holdings, and a stronger currency as well. And the govt has a plan to make critical technologies in India. We will obviously achieve full self-sufficiency in defence by 2035-40 as well. And we will most definitely have as good if not better infrastructure than China, never mind the West. At the very least, the whole country will have irrigation by 2030.

So a High HDI population, along with food, energy, defence and import independence, massive single market, major energy exporter, perhaps a major defence exporter too. We can achieve all of these by 2040, never mind 2050. There's literally not a single country with all these advantages today. Our only disadvantage is we will be dependent on import of raw materials, but that's easily manageable because of Russia and Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Just number of people doesn't mean much. We were 1 billion by 2001. What was our condition then?

US has 330 million people and out of that only top 1-2 % drive the economy. Rest 98% don't matter much. Currently a big chunk of that 2% are immigrants from India, China, Iran , Korea and Europe. Though lately immigrant numbers from Korea and China is coming down. These are the best brains of the world and without them Silicon Valley could not have generated the trillions of $ it did in last 15-20 years. In spite of having 330 million people, US is not able to generate enough talented skilled human resources and that gap is filled by immigrants.

So if we loose 100k of our best brains every year, it will be disastrous for India's innovation. Do you know core team of most critical projects are 10-30 people? When it comes to innovation quality matters, not quantity.

You are talking about something very specific, like technology. That's not enough. What drives research is not just a few individuals, but money. We are reaching a stage in scientific development where the one with the most money wins.

The US has to rely on immigrants because they don't have population growth, and without population there's nobody to tax. And you can't do research without a market or tax. And you need children to pay for the lifestyle of retirees. So those remaining 330 million people are what create the conditions for the scientists to innovate.

Technology needs consumers. So that's where companies go to. And the brains follow companies, not countries. So who cares if 100k a year go to America every year when actual global research will be conducted in India.

Give it a decade, all our giant conglomerates will have massive trillion dollar revenues, and equally massive R&D budgets. Indian companies will have competitors to Western giants in pretty much every sector by the 2030s.

You can't compare the past to today, we have yet to enter the transition phase on the way to becoming rich. It will start when India becomes an offical upper middle income country when per capita income surpasses $4500. Sociologists say that when a country becomes a $4500-5000 economy, that's when a real socio-economic transition happens. That's the income level a country needs to achieve for people to have dreams and aspirations. That's when they start involving themselves in politics, that's when they start asking questions, that's whey they start getting awareness. And that's also when the govt starts getting the money necessary to spend properly on welfare thereby protect people's incomes. That's 'cause more people will enter the middle class and get taxed indirectly.

It's basically when people will start earning enough to own properties, both movable and immovable. $6500 is currently the per capita income in Bangalore Urban, whereas Bangalore Rural is $2500. So, while cities see Bharat bandhs and other such nonsense by trade unions, farmers come out to protest only when there's a caste issue or when they want loans waived off, basically waiving their victim card. Pretty much every member on the forum is blind to our privilege.

Read post 241 for India's actual advantages that will help create the foundation necessary to gain a technological lead in the future. We are simply in an extremely enviable position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
We studied in India(at tax payers expense), acquired critical skills and now burning our a$$ off to generate trillions for USA?
exactly what these ppl dont understand is that US is reaping the benefit of Indian investment. It takes 20-25 years for a individual to grow up and to become productive , nation ( or a family for that matter of fact) starts benefiting after they start earning & pay taxes ...etc. India provides indirect subsidies for education & investment through the 20-25 year period for the person but ends up getting nothing much at the end of it.

US on the other hand just gets ppl and gains right of the bat they start paying taxes. Immigrants must be most profitable product with very less investment for US.


Indian govt can very well just pour that money on poor ppl and alleviate poverty level to large extent. Its a irony that some times more investment might end up leaving the cntry poor.
 
Just number of people doesn't mean much. We were 1 billion by 2001. What was our condition then?

US has 330 million people and out of that only top 1-2 % drive the economy. Rest 98% don't matter much. Currently a big chunk of that 2% are immigrants from India, China, Iran , Korea and Europe. Though lately immigrant numbers from Korea and China is coming down. These are the best brains of the world and without them Silicon Valley could not have generated the trillions of $ it did in last 15-20 years. In spite of having 330 million people, US is not able to generate enough talented skilled human resources and that gap is filled by immigrants.

So if we loose 100k of our best brains every year, it will be disastrous for India's innovation. Do you know core team of most critical projects are 10-30 people? When it comes to innovation quality matters, not quantity.

This is going the way it did 4 yrs ago where resident story teller who was resident optimist then was arguing how India'd transition to a 15-20, 000 USD per capita (?) Or was it in PPP terms in the next decade & would qualify as an advanced country to which you countered there are a dozen countries even today with the same economic indicators including Mexico, Thailand etc so by that yardstick these countries should be considered advanced countries too.

And then the famous Indian rope trick which out here is the equivalent of goal post shifting followed. You know how that one ended.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bali78
exactly what these ppl dont understand is that US is reaping the benefit of Indian investment. It takes 20-25 years for a individual to grow up and to become productive , nation ( or a family for that matter of fact) starts benefiting after they start earning & pay taxes ...etc. India provides indirect subsidies for education & investment through the 20-25 year period for the person but ends up getting nothing much at the end of it.

US on the other hand just gets ppl and gains right of the bat they start paying taxes. Immigrants must be most profitable product with very less investment for US.


Indian govt can very well just pour that money on poor ppl and alleviate poverty level to large extent. Its a irony that some times more investment might end up leaving the cntry poor.

The US can't absorb everyone. Or China wouldn't have direct competitors to US tech companies in every sector. India will go the same way, we have already begun when it comes to communications for example. Jio's entire core 5G systems are indigenous.

The govt can't do anything here, it's all up to the private sector.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Can't compare small markets like Thailand to India. India has mass.

The middle-income trap captures a situation where a middle-income country can no longer compete internationally in standardized, labor-intensive goods because wages are relatively too high, but it also cannot compete in higher value-added activities on a broad enough scale because productivity is relatively too low. The result is slow growth, stagnant or falling wages, and a growing informal economy.

India won't fall in this trap due to mass.

And mass is critical to technological development, and what's even better is unified mass, which is why the US with a smaller population is way ahead compared to the EU, even though the collective wealth of the EU govts is higher than the US. Similarly Japan has more mass than any individual EU nation, hence greater technological developments.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about technology at all, it's only a byproduct of what will actually happen. The foundation of the nation is built on people, and we currently have low quality people, but by 2050, about 80-90% of these people will be middle class or higher, up from probably 10-15% today. So, with 80-90% in the middle class, they will naturally consume like the middle class. And 80-90% of 1.7 billion is way too much for others to compete with, just like how the EU struggles to compete with the US.

Furthermore, mass provides a multiplier effect, the reason why the US is ahead of the EU. So a 4 times population advantage won't simply mean a 4 times higher GDP, the difference will be even higher.

As for HDI, income is measured in PPP. India's per capita income in PPP is $9000. With our population growth having declined to below 2%, our per capita income growth relative to GDP growth is pretty good. A 5% growth over a 30-year period gives us $38000. It basically doubles every 15 years, so in 2038 it can be $18700 and in 2053 it can be $38000. As per the UN, a developed country has a per capita PPP of $25000, and we can achieve that by 2044, ie 21 years. Of course, this doesn't take into account the multiplier effect of unified mass which results in having a greater share of billionaires and MNCs that sell to the outside world, the byproduct being higher technology, science output etc.

A $38000 income with 1.7 billion people will give us a PPP GDP of $64T versus $12.5T today. That would most likely be half that of the Chinese but twice that of the US by 2050, considering status quo in terms of global security. And their GDPs don't take into account stagnation due to population decline, like what happened to Japan in the 90s. If they take the Japanese route in the 2030s, then they are done. Otoh, India can sustain growth with its own sheer mass alongside the mass of the rest of the Third World that will act as a market versus the declining advanced economies.

These are all pretty much the reasons why India is being given so much importance. It's all ordinary stuff that pertty much all experts have already spoken about. In fact, everything listed above is what's expected out of India at the bare minimum. Bring energy security in, the numbers will shoot up drastically.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Lol, bookmark it and read it in 20 years, it's all stuff that's expected to happen at the bare minimum. In fact, the stuff proclaimed by experts is far more exaggerated than anything I've posted.

Bali claimed:
If we continue the pace and China continues to screw up 😜, we can catch up by 2040-45.

Whereas I'm claiming it will happen well after 2050, possibly 2060. :ROFLMAO:

China's PPP GDP is $30T today. Add a 3% growth rate on average and we get $57T in 2045. India's at $12.5T, at 5%, we will be $36.5T. It will take 30 years to catch up with China at twice the growth rate. Much more realistically China could do 4% whereas India could do 6%. So in 2045, while we are $45T, China could be $71T.

All normal numbers, I'm not the one proclaiming India will catch up with China in 2045. And the above is expert opinion from economists. In nominal terms, by 2050, even with twice the growth rate, India will only be half that of China. It's only after 2050-60 can we start catching up, twice the growth, higher base.

If we are to catch up with China by 2045, the Chinese will have to completely stagnate Japanese style pretty much this year whereas India has to continue growing at 5%. Not gonna happen. So I'm not the one being ridiculous here.

None of this naturally takes into consideration the multiplier effect of a High HDI population or achieving full energy security by 2045. But the effects will be felt well after 2045, possibly 2050, not before, with oil imports having reduced considerably or stopped entirely and the rise in true disposable income. And that's when India will start leaving the others behind, not before.

@Nilgiri
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion

@randomradio @vstol Jockey @_Anonymous_
Part of the outdated thinking that unfortunately permeates the senior echelons of the IAF & MoD. Our job is to hope for the best by preparing for the worst . By hoping for the best & preparing for it after what we experienced in 1962 & the run up to it , we'd have successfully demonstrated that we've forgotten nothing from our history & learnt nothing from it .

A 2 front war would turn nuclear. I'm surprised the good Grp Captain kept harping on it without once bringing in the N dimension.

Interesting but outdated & uninformed opinion piece.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion


Cross posting here from the Ukraine Conflict Thread on the importance of developing a cheap anti drone IADS. Preferably mounting a sniper rifle with a larger bore & calibre with a range >/= 5-6 kms which can take down a drone in a single shot is needed ASAP.

We need such an air superiority LALE drone system exclusively to target other drones. We need to develop ultra light weight short range Air to Air missiles as well as Ground to air missile version of these a2a missiles.
 
Last edited:
The NEWEST Tanker is NOT AMERICAN

As per this commentator's speculation the PLAAF intends to go in for 100 nos possibly more in it's quest for global dominance . Now imagine a third of them doing duty over the WTC deep within the Chinese air space & all the pre conceived / misconceptions of the advantage the IAF has held we enjoy over the PLAAF w.r.t operations from the Tibetan plateau go for a toss .

Pls note that these developments are in addition to the 25 NEW airfields of diverse capacities the Chinese are planning to commission for use as early as 2025.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
The Altius 600M is a 12kg tube-launch propellor-driven drone that can be launched from the ground, from vehicles, from watercraft, from aircraft, and from larger drones. It can remain airborne for around four hours and has a maximum range of 400km . they’ve been equipped with autonomy . one person can manage one or two dozen of the drones on his own .


I hope our security managers are taking due note. While we're about rationalising the size of the IA , I think the opposite is needed where you'd need a strong back end to cater to all these technologies as well as come up with prompt solutions where they run into a wall. Apparently Agniveers are emphasising recruitment of boys with a technical background namely ITI's . This ought to be balanced with recruitment of locals from border areas of the LAC as they're best suited to tackle altitudes & we need sheer numbers to cater to the heavy resultant attrition .