Military Mediocrity - Who Will Bell the Cat?
- Thread starter Saaho
- Start date
I don't things which are meaning less. If you want to show your point, do the hardwork yourself.
It's actually the very point of the entire discussion. I can do it in a second, but you won't trust the figures at all, like you did with the Chinese budget and the Indian budget, you used wrong figures for both even though both are available. Which is why I said you should do it.
Which wrong figure? I gave you the source where the figure came from. IDSA. Actually I didn't even do calculation there. It was all in IDSA article.
The graph is wrong.
That's why you bring in all the figures. If you do the research needed, then it won't be a problem.
You are just wasting time now. Here, I've started with China for you.
Unraveling the Mysteries of China’s Multiple Budgets
According to the main one, China’s government spent about 23.5 trillion yuan ($3.4 trillion) in 2019.
And you already pointed out that China's defence budget for 2019 is $178B. So now all you need is the figures for the other 3 countries, which shouldn't be hard.
Just use articles, you will get them all easy peasy.
Even in case of India , there are off budget expenditures
When we can spend on infrastructure through off budget means , why not on defence
I think economy is a good general indicator, but as @randomradio has been alluding to, there is more to consider than just that. IMO China's biggest advantage over its rivals is its industrial might and bureaucratic efficiency. In the event of full scale war, those thousands of factories will be quickly retooled and plugged into their wartime supply chain, creating the largest war effort our species will have ever seen.
wrt an India-China standoff, China holds an advantage in the strategic depth from the frontlines to its critical infrastructure. Indian cities and strategic corridors (i.e Siliguri Corridor) will be right on the frontlines. India will have to work with other powers to disrupt Chinese supply chains through IOR, gas pipelines from Sibera, rail corridors through Central Asia, etc. Cutting off the tentacles before pushing into the body.
wrt an India-China standoff, China holds an advantage in the strategic depth from the frontlines to its critical infrastructure. Indian cities and strategic corridors (i.e Siliguri Corridor) will be right on the frontlines. India will have to work with other powers to disrupt Chinese supply chains through IOR, gas pipelines from Sibera, rail corridors through Central Asia, etc. Cutting off the tentacles before pushing into the body.
You're referring to a situation akin to total war . In all likelihood, this is going to be confined to the border. It could possibly spill over to the SLOC, in case India decides to escalate. The Siliguri corridor doesn't come into play at this point as the Chinese are more likely to use access to the corridor ( as witnessed in the Doklam standoff) as a bargaining chip / a point of threat as compared to actually cutting off access of India to the NE which would be a major escalation.
As of now the known knowns are China's claim to the Tawang area of AP which may also include the whole state if they are in a position to undertake such a venture.
It's their claim on the Western part of the LAC which is turning out to be nebulous. By all recent accounts they've already occupied those regions they've claimed in 1959-60 in this recent standoff, some of which they withdrew from in the 1962 war. In fact, as per some accounts they've occupied territory beyond their initial claims plus they've given no indication that this is a settled matter which could be interpreted to be the case were they to invite India to sit down & resolve the border issue. Having said that, these are early days for one can't occupy disputed territory & immediately call for a negotiated settlements based on revised ground realities soon after the incident.
Most experienced commentators see this move ( the incidents of April - June 2020) as some sort of a trial before they actually move in to prosecute their real agenda in a few years from now. As of now the worst case scenario as per us would be to see the Chinese occupy all of Ladakh thus extending their border with Pakistan right upto Gilgit Baltistan via Ladakh. There are ample indications given their interests in the CPEC, the revocation of Article 370 & subsequent pronouncements by the GoI about reclamation of occupied territories, etc to assume this to be the case..
Even if its not total war, I think China's industrial and logistical advantages will shine in anything beyond a limited border skrimish.
If conflict escalates to the point where India is actively diminishing China's SLOC then I expect that Siliguri would be a valid target for the Chinese. Limited engagements with China over the next few years will be chess board maneuvering to secure positions for the event of larger scale war between the two. I don't think India and China will be fighting mano-A-mano anyways. India will fight China as part of a larger coalition with broader aims of checking Chinese expansion.
Regardless, this thread was about the ability (or lack thereof) of Indian bureaucrats and high ranking officers in conducting war, inducting new platforms, modernization, etc.
You're right about this. However...
In the entire stretch of the LAC, if there's any section where the Indians are sitting pretty it's in Sikkim. This is exactly where the 1967 Cho La & Nathu La clashes took place & the IA somewhat salvaged their wounded pride for what what they underwent in 1962.
Frankly, I don't think there's any grand coalition prepared to war with the Chinese. This grand coalition will be only to deter the Chinese & the Chinese seem determined to call their bluff . Frankly , I'm also of the belief that if the Chinese were to invade Taiwan, the US isn't going to do anything to help defend it except create a loud noise.
The only sector where this grand coalition can work will be in reducing their economic dependence on China but that's easier said than done although it's much more likelier to happen than any grand coalition to militarily confront the Chinese.
Its more of a sizing up , once they see china not budging they will just make agreements , adjustments to share the power & spoils, decide on region of influence. After few years china doesnt even need to invade taiwan they will simply coerce them into surrendering sovereignty.
US post world war completely neutralized and de-fanged japan , now there are not many countries which can resist china in asia.
You would probably know better than me... but a strategic choke point is a strategic choke point. Even without occupying it, they can apply pressure to supply paths and infrastructure going through. Or they can simply force a disproportionate Indian defense there while applying pressure elsewhere, depriving other zones the manpower/equipment.
I think it depends a lot on the state of the economy in the US and the leadership we have. The US is more divided than ever, but one thing we all agree on is that the Chinese need to be taken down a peg or two. It is a waiting game for China, the more time goes on the less wherewithal and willpower will exist to take major action against China. Although, if economic & demographic skeptics are to be believed, China also has a time limit for action before it experiences major economic stress.
To be honest, that might be enough as long as the Western world commits to divesting from China and investing in India, SEA and Africa. It will be meaningless if India doesn't capitalize on its growing economy and continues stalling defense acquisitions and delaying critical projects.
It won't get to that extent in case of a war with India though. Although yes, the Chinese can do it if they want to. We may go in thinking it will be limited, but the Chinese can easily escalate it to all-out war overnight, like we did with Pakistan in 1965. I doubt we can beat them in a long war.
In the long run, they will be among the first to switch to electric vehicles, which will allow them to become oil import-free, and/or they can get the significantly low oil supplies they will need from sources they control, like Russia and Central Asia. Choking off their oil supplies is only a temporary advantage. I won't be surprised if they end production of ICE vehicles by 2030. The only realistic move is what other countries can actually control, which is moving foreign factories out of China and restrict access to their own economies to Chinese investment. But this is something they should have started in the mid/end-2000s, now it's too late. We need to create a system where only democracies can access democratic markets.
This was the reason I wanted to avoid bringing China in this discussion because it becomes that focus as the conflict is most recent and ongoing one.
Actually, the entire purpose of this thread was to look at continued failures of Indian leadership to meaningfully build a potent military force which does not require bandaid fixes each time it confronts even with likes of Pakistan. China is a major enemy and deserves its own thread -- and I guess there are ones for it but EVEN if you become a 100 trillion dollar economy, unless there is a will in India to make its military a competent war fighting force we will be back to square one.
Remember, even vis-a-vis China, in 1962 our GDPs were very similar but we lost extremely badly because we did not give priority to defence. Our equipment, training, infra and tactics were poor then. Same has been happening for past few decades after 80s. Money only amplifies what your decisions are, it does not change one's basic choices. There is a rot in our defence leadership and civil leadership (those who mostly operate out of south block) which this article alludes to. Thats the entire thesis of this thread.
Last edited:
The incompetency/cowardliness of Indian civil/military leadership is undeniable at this point.
If Pakistan was 10 times larger than us, green flag would be flying over Srinagar, Punjab and possibly Delhi.
Their military is way more efficient in utilizing the small budget they have. IAF budget alone is bigger than Pakistan's entire national budget and still they manage to field 23 squadrons of fighter jets against 31 of ours, more awacs ?
They field more than half our Tank strength even though Army budget is many time less. They field more heavy artillery, better rifles
With a defense budget 6 times large, we cant even field 1:2 superiority!!!
At the top of that, they shown more guts than entire south block put together. Eventhough we are 7 times larger, they never hesitated to seek battle with us. (Last showcase in 2019 Feb).
If that is not incompetence, I don't know what else is.
If Pakistan was 10 times larger than us, green flag would be flying over Srinagar, Punjab and possibly Delhi.
Their military is way more efficient in utilizing the small budget they have. IAF budget alone is bigger than Pakistan's entire national budget and still they manage to field 23 squadrons of fighter jets against 31 of ours, more awacs ?
They field more than half our Tank strength even though Army budget is many time less. They field more heavy artillery, better rifles
With a defense budget 6 times large, we cant even field 1:2 superiority!!!
At the top of that, they shown more guts than entire south block put together. Eventhough we are 7 times larger, they never hesitated to seek battle with us. (Last showcase in 2019 Feb).
If that is not incompetence, I don't know what else is.
Military Mediocrity - Who Will Bell the Cat?
Lemme ask you one thing. Do you believe USA of 1938 was WAY richer than India of today? GDP PPP per Capita of USA at that point of time, when expressed in inflation adjusted dollars of 2011 was some 8500-9000 (Courtsey Maddison Project). India's current GDP PPP Per Capita of today is 6500-7000...
www.strategicfront.org
It's not from the lack of trying. It's because we have been stopped from doing it, on multiple occassions, by powers much stronger than us. We still do not have the ability to say no even today. The only answer is we need to increase our own strength in order to accomplish this, and we are getting there.
There are two rules in the world. One for great/superpowers and one for everyone else. We fall in the latter category. And those countries that fall in the latter category are not allowed to change status quo. The only way for Pakistan to cease existing is for us to either become best buddies with a superpower or become a superpower ourselves, at least to the point where neither our economy nor military are threatened by another superpower. That's the only way to break existing rules and make our own rules. The day that happens, Pakistan's going on a countdown. Until then the great powers and superpowers will not allow us to change status quo.
We had two opportunities to deal with Pakistan permanently and during both those times the US and Soviet Union stopped us. One opportunity was to take back the entirety of PoK when we had a massive military advantage during the 70s and the other was to dismember Pakistan during the 80s when Op Brasstacks happened.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, our only option left was to wait until we ourselves became a great/superpower and we are in the process of doing it. Until that happens, there's never gonna be a change in our status quo. Today, only the US, Russia and China can change status quo, all to different degrees.
Similarly, even if Pakistan had 20 times our budget, without the ability to go against a superpower, even they would be stuck in the same situation as India is today.
It's not about being 10 or 20 times stronger than your enemy, it's about being at least 1/3rd to half as capable as a superpower.
Never gone well for them. As to why they fight, that has a lot to do with their reason for existence. Every time there are internal struggles within Pak, they take the risk to create problems with India so that the internal problems can be controlled in the name of unity, while knowing that India will not create permament problems for Pakistan because they are under the protection of the US and the GCC, which India cannot challenge, which is the main reason for their continued existence as I've pointed out above.
Anyway, although their military "seems" more powerful, it's not even close to that. Look at their battle tanks, their most numerous tanks are T-55 cousins, we gave those up a decade ago. Put those in the field against our tanks, they are toast. And their air force mostly consists of junk, no match to what we have. Why is there a sudden respect for a fighter jet inventory that most of the world has already given up or in the process of giving up?
Do you know why Pakistan still exists today?Military Mediocrity - Who Will Bell the Cat?
Lemme ask you one thing. Do you believe USA of 1938 was WAY richer than India of today? GDP PPP per Capita of USA at that point of time, when expressed in inflation adjusted dollars of 2011 was some 8500-9000 (Courtsey Maddison Project). India's current GDP PPP Per Capita of today is 6500-7000...
It's not from the lack of trying. It's because we have been stopped from doing it, on multiple occassions, by powers much stronger than us. We still do not have the ability to say no even today. The only answer is we need to increase our own strength in order to accomplish this, and we are getting there.
There are two rules in the world. One for great/superpowers and one for everyone else. We fall in the latter category. And those countries that fall in the latter category are not allowed to change status quo. The only way for Pakistan to cease existing is for us to either become best buddies with a superpower or become a superpower ourselves, at least to the point where neither our economy nor military are threatened by another superpower. That's the only way to break existing rules and make our own rules. The day that happens, Pakistan's going on a countdown. Until then the great powers and superpowers will not allow us to change status quo.
We had two opportunities to deal with Pakistan permanently and during both those times the US and Soviet Union stopped us. One opportunity was to take back the entirety of PoK when we had a massive military advantage during the 70s and the other was to dismember Pakistan during the 80s when Op Brasstacks happened.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, our only option left was to wait until we ourselves became a great/superpower and we are in the process of doing it. Until that happens, there's never gonna be a change in our status quo. Today, only the US, Russia and China can change status quo, all to different degrees.
Similarly, even if Pakistan had 20 times our budget, without the ability to go against a superpower, even they would be stuck in the same situation as India is today.
It's not about being 10 or 20 times stronger than your enemy, it's about being at least 1/3rd to half as capable as a superpower.
Never gone well for them. As to why they fight, that has a lot to do with their reason for existence. Every time there are internal struggles within Pak, they take the risk to create problems with India so that the internal problems can be controlled in the name of unity, while knowing that India will not create permanent problems for Pakistan because they are under the protection of the US and the GCC, which India cannot challenge, which is the main reason for their continued existence as I've pointed out above.
Anyway, although their military "seems" more powerful, it's not even close to that. Look at their battle tanks, their most numerous tanks are T-55 cousins, we gave those up a decade ago. Put those in the field against our tanks, they are toast. And their air force mostly consists of junk, no match to what we have. Why is there a sudden respect for a fighter jet inventory that most of the world has already given up or in the process of giving up?
Typical Indian mentality of finding excuses for its own cowardliness and incompetence. You don't need to be a supper power to wage war to defend your interest. Turkey was not anywhere close to superpower when they invaded cypress against wishes of all of Europe, US and USSR. Or now, when they are sending military to Syria or Libya against wishes of US, Europe and Russia.
The same Pakistan is blowing up thousands of American soldiers (yeah, soldiers of superpower) through Taliban which it directly support & harbor.
And no, Pakistan waging war against India was not a waste. If you do not attempt to destroy your adversary, you will never destroy them, even if you are 7 times larger. They fought 4 wars with us and still prepared to fight 5, 6 or 50. Why is that? Because the incompetence and indecisiveness of military/ bureaucracy/politicians failed to give them a beating that will make them worry about a next war.. Through multiple wars and relentless efforts, they succeeded in changing the status quo in Kashmir in their favor. Indian position in Kashmir is way weaker in 2020 than it was in 1950 or 60.
The problem with India Pakistan scenario is Pakistan didn't have to win all the time. They just need to win once. They will change the situation is ground so fast,slaughter the non Muslims and settle the issue just like they did in POK. What happened to the Non Muslims in the district that Pakistan captured in Kashmir? Disposed off clean. There is no point in "winning" wars like India "won" (with exception of 71). The enemy is not destroyed, its fighting capability is not significantly diminished, threat never reduced. Remember what happened to Prithviraj chauhan.
And there can be no excuse for not being able to have an atleast 1:3 advantage in Armour, air and artillery when you have 6 times more budget.
Honestly, if you are stopped from doing it, it is a MASSIVE failure of your own making. Why? Because it means you massively fail at diplomacy. If you are 10 times the size of your enemy, you hold a massive market then why the hell you have not been able to negotiate a deal which is favourable to you? It is a lie that India failed "not from the lack of trying." we failed from NOT being able to capitalize on our advantages, plain and simple and NO amount of economy will fix that, not even if we are a billion times bigger than China and US put together.
As I said, money does not fixes your underlying decisions or mistakes by itself, it amplifies them.
If by having third largest economy and third largest military budget you don't fall in "great power" catagory then you are doing something wrong.
Ever heard of a certain Israel?
Or China in 50s when they annexed Tibet?
Or China 1962 when they annexed east Laddakh, the place called Askai Chin? Was china a great power back then? Hint : It was same sized economy as India EVEN by nominal count.
Ever heard what North Vietnam did? Or why is that vietnam is a unified country today? It defeated two or three major powers put together and changed every damn status quo.
Or hell, why look beyond, India herself changed the status quo in 71. We just gave away a lot of our gains.
All these rules are arbitrary and means of incompetents bookish people to cover their lower posteriors. World does not goes by ANY rules. Upstarts and upserpers always challenge rules and often bend the world to their wishes. Rule followers just keep on following rules and achieve nothing. Why? Because rules are meant to protect the rule maker not rule follower.
WRONG! We had more than such opportunities. We even failed to negotiate a treaty properly in 1971 by giving away our gains. We had great PMs like Morarji Desai who blew up a strategic mission by R&AW to get blue prints of Pakistan's nuclear program.
If India is EVEN a billion times richer than all of the rest of the world put together, even then India won't be able to do anything if its leadership (including military leadership) is as incompetent as it is.
Last edited: