Indian & Chinese troops clash in Tawang

Ankit Kumar said:
That's why we need 10 years of 6% annual growth and ensure Pak is stuck below 3% over that period. We will have options then.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it still will not be worth the risk. POJ&K is gone case, way too much religious indoctrination and not much of economic value, except GB region. I would prefer our focus to be more on GB than Mirpur Muzaffarabaad side. We should not get into a quagmire without an exit strategy. GB is sparsely populated relatively speaking, hence better chance. It will add front towards Afghanistan, Central Asia majorly. We already have borders with Pakistan and China, so overpopulation and religious indoctrination will drain our resources and responses. Hope those in top power corridors are paying attention to these facts on the ground.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
All we require is a casus belli . I'm sure the new CoAS will provide us with just that. Bajwa le Bund learnt his lesson post Pulwama & didn't attempt anything silly for the remainder of his tenure in office . The new general would want us to impart such learnings to him too. It's inevitable & has been among the rites of passage for every CoAS in Paxtan.
Click to expand...
Having a casual belli and initiating the contact is the easy part. Continuing the initial momentum in the midst of international pressure is another thing. Suppose we get those regions, do we have sufficient resources to deal with hostile people, religious indoctrination, hostile & rough terrain and weather to say the few. What would be our end goals and how much are we prepared for what awaits us there to achieve those goals?
 
Ankit Kumar said:
We would need 40+ Apaches , 60+ Chinooks in Army Aviation along with Mounted Gun Systems, a minimum of 4-5 regiments to be used in those areas, 1000+ low cost cruise missiles, etc


PoK is not an easy endeavour.
Click to expand...
That would be insufficient in my opinion. First we need many squadron of single engine fighters to hunt & destroy SAM sites, backing by heavier jets & long range cheap missiles preferably cruise. We need quick reaction insertion team to degrade enemy critical infrastructure and means of communication. We compromise their means of communication and we win the battle, it's that simple. We don't need to send piecemeal units there. If we are going to commit, commit like there is no tomorrow, else we will get caught up in a never ending war, impacting our economic growth.
 
Jaymax said:
Brutality in limited situations has a value towards deterrence. During WW2, German units avoided contact with Siberian troops, to the point that they started keeping their last bullet to commit suicide rather than get caught by the Siberians.

When your adversary fears you to that extent, its the biggest advantage in the battlefield more than any tech/weapon
Click to expand...

It's not a good thing for soldiers to have that level of fear, or they will do their best in a win or die scenario, and that's not a very good place to be in for the other side.
 
RISING SUN said:
Having a casual belli and initiating the contact is the easy part. Continuing the initial momentum in the midst of international pressure is another thing. Suppose we get those regions, do we have sufficient resources to deal with hostile people, religious indoctrination, hostile & rough terrain and weather to say the few. What would be our end goals and how much are we prepared for what awaits us there to achieve those goals?
Click to expand...
It's not those regions , it's a specific objective - namely Baltistan or Skardu to be more specific not the so called AJK or Gilgit which lies beyond for the time being . The moment you get it , empty it of it's residents & re settle Kashmiris there .

That way you've killled 2 birds in 1 stone . You've pitched two erstwhile somewhat friendly ethnicities against each other. To add to it there's the Shia Sunni divide . Let Kashmiris be the settler colonists here & experience what it means.

Our end goal remains retaking of the entire PoJ&K including Aksai Chin with Kailash Mansarovar & the Shaksgham valley .

How we achieve it time will tell .
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Innominate
_Anonymous_ said:
It's not those regions , it's a specific objective - namely Baltistan or Skardu to be more specific not the so called AJK or Gilgit which lies beyond for the time being . The moment you get it , empty it of it's residents & re settle Kashmiris there .

That way you've killled 2 birds in 1 stone . You've pitched two erstwhile somewhat friendly ethnicities against each other. To add to it there's the Shia Sunni divide . Let Kashmiris be the settler colonists here & experience what it means.

Our end goal remains retaking of the entire PoJ&K including Aksai Chin with Kailash Mansarovar & the Shaksgham valley .

How we achieve it time will tell .
Click to expand...
Aksai Chin was never part of India proper, when except an English person Macmohan drew the region inside British Indian Empire, who did make many mistakes as his successors made the mistakes during Indo-Pak boundary and Pak-Afghan border. I would prefer to include only till hilly part of Laddakh, rest must get devided between Tibbet and East Turkic region. We need to have realistic goals to have an lasting peace and connectivity which should be our end goal towards northern side of our International borders.
 
RISING SUN said:
Aksai Chin was never part of India proper, when except an English person Macmohan drew the region inside British Indian Empire, who did make many mistakes as his successors made the mistakes during Indo-Pak boundary and Pak-Afghan border. I would prefer to include only till hilly part of Laddakh, rest must get devided between Tibbet and East Turkic region. We need to have realistic goals to have an lasting peace and connectivity which should be our end goal towards northern side of our International borders.
Click to expand...
If it was not part of India proper it certainly wasn't part of Tibet either. The era of gifting away land whether strategic or otherwise has got to end . There is no Eastern Turkestan or Tibet as of now . The day they come into being we'd see what we'd see. Right now it's the PRC vs RoI.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran, screambowl and Innominate
_Anonymous_ said:
If it was not part of India proper it certainly wasn't part of Tibet either. The era of gifting away land whether strategic or otherwise has got to end . There is no Eastern Turkestan or Tibet as of now . The day they come into being we'd see what we'd see. Right now it's the PRC vs RoI.
Click to expand...
It wasn't completely. Portion of Aksai Chin region belonged to British India, portion with Tibet state and rest with Turkic state north of us.

Even if we conclude that Turkic state and Tibet state will not form forever, we don't have the political and military capital (I don't mean just money here) and necessary internal stability to mount such an offensive. Power is everything, US didn't win world war as it was a democratic country. It won because of hard power, plain & simple. We don't have the full intent backing except kadi ninda type statements coming from here & there, that's real world truth, no matter whatever our wishes might be.
To gift something, first we have to own that thing. Have we owned anything there ever? I have gone through our historical claims I don't find anything worthwhile there. Chinese captured those lands, not because they were communist, rather they won those lands by throwing brute hard power.
 
The discussion is stupid, whether a territory was part of India or not. If Chandragupta on advice of Chanakya had not conquered vast lands, today even Uttar Pradesh would have been some different country.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: _Anonymous_
Another question that arises from the face-off in Yangtse is about the Agniveer policy.

I would be interested in knowing how many of the jawans who took part in this operation had less than four years of service.

What will happen tomorrow when the number of Agniveers on such pickets goes up?

Will Agniveers with four years of training be able to deliver the results which our jawans have delivered in Yangtse?

We should ask the company commanders and battalion commanders on the spot if they would have been comfortable with Agniveers under their command in that face-off.

There are reports coming from China and in the international media about the poor morale and inexperience of the PLA troops.

In fact, there was an article in the New Yorker and in the South China Morning Post about the prevalence of mental illness amongst PLA troops.

Ultimately, at those heights, it is the troops that matter the most.

Today, we have this great advantage of an experienced Indian Army vis a vis an inexperienced or under confident PLA.

In time to come, what will be the results when we deploy Agniveers in these areas? In that light, is there a need to modify the Agniveer programme? These are some of the lessons that we must bear in mind.
Click to expand...

m.rediff.com

'India is China's prime military target'

'On the LAC, China can undertake military action at any place with much fewer resources. It can do 'salami slicing'.'
m.rediff.com
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Innominate
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back