Interesting Article!!!!! I disagree
Dear Members,
It is an interesting article to read. The article is very well written and covers most aspects of strategy. I however disagree with the author on some issues, including the capabilities he gives to China vs. India.
In my earlier post, I have already discussed the tactical advantage that we have over China on the battlefield Tibet. Coupled with that we need to assess certain other issues. But before I even start, remember, I am not a full time journalist while the author is.
The first point I disagree with the author is describing India as a soft target. While India may have its own internal problems, it is definitely not a soft target, and if that be true, all other calculations that the author has made deserve a strict scanner. While, India may have Pakistani infiltrators/supporters/ anti Indian elements as you may call them, within India, in Tibet China faces the similar problem in Tibet. So while fighting with India, China also has to keep a sizable force committed to maintain her lines of communication from mainland to the battle zone.
The second point I want to bring out is the population issue. China is now suffering from her policy of one child. The Indian population is much younger than aging Chinese population and hence the replacement in the fighting ranks in a prolonged war. With India holding second strike capabilities, I don’t visualize a nuclear war between two thickly populated countries, for it will also destroy the most lucrative market for world economies. Hence the diplomatic pressures on both countries to prevent an all out war. In such a scenario, the only war that I perceive is the proxy war which in any case China is supporting for ages in our NE region.
The third point I want to raise is the possibility of a third front. Mr. Obama is President till 2012. With his Pakistan policy, it is unlikely that China can think of creating two front war with India. While nothing can be said for sure in case of unstable country like Pakistan, but chances of they joining the war are remote in current situation. The situation is less likely to be more conducive for China by 2012.
There can be more issues those can be discussed at micro level, but as I said that I am not a full time journalist, hence the time constraint. Any article on the issue of Indian Defense makes a good selling commodity because of the subject itself.
Indian military is not all clean though. I was reading an article about the dissent between the army commanders and the chief on the promotion policy changes that the chief has made. That is not a good sign. Apart from that the rampant corruption in the subjects related to defense forces needs to be addressed sooner than later. All the organizations, like MES, and other services needs to be overhauled. All the established contractors needs to be shown the door. The new contracts can be given to the organizations of retired military personnel (not the retired individuals) and I am sure they will work far better than the existing contractors, who have amassed immense wealth out of defense contracts and have the capability to buy many weak senior officers. They also have the power to influence the posting of good officers to the areas where their interests could be compromised. This is a separate subject and can be tackled on a different thread if needed. But for the article, I disagree with the authors perception.
Dear Members,
It is an interesting article to read. The article is very well written and covers most aspects of strategy. I however disagree with the author on some issues, including the capabilities he gives to China vs. India.
In my earlier post, I have already discussed the tactical advantage that we have over China on the battlefield Tibet. Coupled with that we need to assess certain other issues. But before I even start, remember, I am not a full time journalist while the author is.
The first point I disagree with the author is describing India as a soft target. While India may have its own internal problems, it is definitely not a soft target, and if that be true, all other calculations that the author has made deserve a strict scanner. While, India may have Pakistani infiltrators/supporters/ anti Indian elements as you may call them, within India, in Tibet China faces the similar problem in Tibet. So while fighting with India, China also has to keep a sizable force committed to maintain her lines of communication from mainland to the battle zone.
The second point I want to bring out is the population issue. China is now suffering from her policy of one child. The Indian population is much younger than aging Chinese population and hence the replacement in the fighting ranks in a prolonged war. With India holding second strike capabilities, I don’t visualize a nuclear war between two thickly populated countries, for it will also destroy the most lucrative market for world economies. Hence the diplomatic pressures on both countries to prevent an all out war. In such a scenario, the only war that I perceive is the proxy war which in any case China is supporting for ages in our NE region.
The third point I want to raise is the possibility of a third front. Mr. Obama is President till 2012. With his Pakistan policy, it is unlikely that China can think of creating two front war with India. While nothing can be said for sure in case of unstable country like Pakistan, but chances of they joining the war are remote in current situation. The situation is less likely to be more conducive for China by 2012.
There can be more issues those can be discussed at micro level, but as I said that I am not a full time journalist, hence the time constraint. Any article on the issue of Indian Defense makes a good selling commodity because of the subject itself.
Indian military is not all clean though. I was reading an article about the dissent between the army commanders and the chief on the promotion policy changes that the chief has made. That is not a good sign. Apart from that the rampant corruption in the subjects related to defense forces needs to be addressed sooner than later. All the organizations, like MES, and other services needs to be overhauled. All the established contractors needs to be shown the door. The new contracts can be given to the organizations of retired military personnel (not the retired individuals) and I am sure they will work far better than the existing contractors, who have amassed immense wealth out of defense contracts and have the capability to buy many weak senior officers. They also have the power to influence the posting of good officers to the areas where their interests could be compromised. This is a separate subject and can be tackled on a different thread if needed. But for the article, I disagree with the authors perception.
ebke dekhange meri sasu ke iss china n :boxing