Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

[Saaho]

And why are we getting in the circlejerk of American boots on Indian grounds. The whole objective of the alliance should be to take as much tech and introduce it in our economy and military. We don't need the Americans to fight our wars we only need American tech. We have 1.3 billion people to fight our wars. The whole objective of quad is the have equal partners who maintain Freedom of navigation in the high seas. And Trump is similarly less intrusive in internal matters compared to the previous regimes of bush and Clinton dynasty. You are being too pessimistic just for the sake of it.

While I agree on America boots on Indian ground part, I do agree that alliance with USA will cost us some major re-writing of our foreign policy. That said, it is a very small price to pay for ensuring that we have quality weapons and an alliance to collectively fight China. If India can hammer out a good treaty that is. I do not agree that India and US can be "Equal" partners, the relation will be unequal. But a multi-lateral alliance will ensure that such differences are amortized.
If US does not holds up to its promise of treaty during a conflict with China, it will also impact other parties (like Japan, Australia, Taiwan) of the alliance.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

While I agree on America boots on Indian ground part, I do agree that alliance with USA will cost us some major re-writing of our foreign policy. That said, it is a very small price to pay for ensuring that we have quality weapons and an alliance to collectively fight China. If India can hammer out a good treaty that is. I do not agree that India and US can be "Equal" partners, the relation will be unequal. But a multi-lateral alliance will ensure that such differences are amortized.
If US does not holds up to its promise of treaty during a conflict with China, it will also impact other parties (like Japan, Australia, Taiwan) of the alliance.

We must wait for US elections

There is no time left to enter into a treaty

This question can be addressed after their elections

 

[Saaho]

We must wait for US elections

There is no time left to enter into a treaty

This question can be addressed after their elections

These things transcends domestic politics as these questions are decided by deep-states rather than face on the throne. Having a favourable person in white house helps certainly but none of the candidates will actually oppose a military alliance with India and few more countries.

 

[ramdas]

These things transcends domestic politics as these questions are decided by deep-states rather than face on the throne. Having a favourable person in white house helps certainly but none of the candidates will actually oppose a military alliance with India and few more countries.

You seem to forget that we are also a nuclear power when you refer to our ``inablity" to counter the China Pak alliance. If indeed the balance of conventional forces that they can bring to bear on our borders shifts so adversely as allow for an attempt by them to take away territory in J&K and UT Ladakh, our first response should be to change the nuclear doctrine: any serious territorial loss is a red line that should trigger nuclear retaliation irrespective of the subsequent consequences. Such a stance would establish deterrence, given that we have (or will in the next 1-2 years) long range missiles (Agni 5) that can threaten critical PRC cities as well.

So far, most senior recently retired officers do not suggest such a shift in balance has occurred yet. Pravin Sawhney and other such paid propagandists may well be disregarded. The alliance with the US you suggest is most likely to end up putting pressure on us to go slow on nuclear deterrence, not to speak of other leverages they would have, such as forcing the govt. to give a free run to liberal NGOs etc.

 

[Saaho]

You seem to forget that we are also a nuclear power when you refer to our ``inablity" to counter the China Pak alliance.

Well, Indian military leadership and civilian leadership failed to authorize use of firearms against Chinese before our bravehearts suffered a tragic death. We forgot to modify our Rules of Engagement in 2019 skirmish even when we had an explicit warning. They were told not to fire upon the fighters in Pakistan's airspace.

When you have such kind of great folks in south block, do you expect them to use the biggest and most maligned weapon that is there?

If indeed the balance of conventional forces that they can bring to bear on our borders shifts so adversely as allow for an attempt by them to take away territory in J&K and UT Ladakh, our first response should be to change the nuclear doctrine: any serious territorial loss is a red line that should trigger nuclear retaliation irrespective of the subsequent consequences.

I certainly wish that we do anything like that. I don't see it happening anytime soon in our current south block environment.

So far, most senior recently retired officers do not suggest such a shift in balance has occurred yet. Pravin Sawhney and other such paid propagandists may well be disregarded. The alliance with the US you suggest is most likely to end up putting pressure on us to go slow on nuclear deterrence, not to speak of other leverages they would have, such as forcing the govt. to give a free run to liberal NGOs etc.

The people that I know and respect, the people who have served in the military were merely asking to put ITBP under IA in ladakh. Or call on reserves. Or just deploy LCH. None of that happened. Instead we have this massive quiteness. Eerily quite. ITBP has been running covid hospital (a job for local state govt and NOT a border protection force). The permission to engage enemy is very narrow. The MEA and Jai-Shankar is effectively giving Chamberlin a run for his money in appeasement. And a PM who says "Na Koi" etc etc etc.

As far as alliance with US goes, Nuclear option is something that is now taken for granted with India. Its a cat out of the bag, Ginnie out of the bottle and it cannt be put back. That part is already settled. It was settled when we were given a NSG waiver. That waiver is both our green card and our ball and chain when it comes to nuclear program. We can keep what we have but we cann't develop better weapons and test fire them. We can and we do certainly develop better delivery mechanism without betting an eye from the US. That trend will not stop. Anything better, like a real hydrogen bomb will remain out of question unless we want to lose our civilian nuclear import option.

On the similar note, @Falcon, I see you have stopped asking the government about why they don't call out certain names like Balochistan, Taiwan etc. I guess you might now know the reason why. If it can be shared do tell us all what you learnt.

 

[Lolwa]

Lets face it. Russia is firmly in bed with China. And yet it is supposed to be our ally. By the same token, India can be allied with USA and manage Russia.

These alignments are more based on "Who opposes who" rather than "Who will support me". It is in our interest to keep China at bay and it is in US interest to push Chinese influence away from Indian ocean region. We both are opposing China so we can by allies.

I initially thought that was the case but the Russians are in no one's bed. Natasha is in the bed until it gets the money but she doesn't stay if she is abused. The Russians will stay in the Chinese orbit but will always stay open to share us technology so there is no need to close our doors for them if we get closer to the Americans. The Russians have virtually sold us two nuclear subs America won't do that ever. The Russians purely care for the money. You give them money and they will sell us. They don't interfere plus for all our crying Russia has sold us superior tech compared to the Chinese. Our mki's are superior to their mkk's and the rest of the flankers are outdated that has only turned in the last 5 years with the j16 and j11bs. Even the aesa capable j10 are recent. It was the Americans who gave the Chinese engine tech (reverse engineered) not the Russians. Most of the Ashm's are inferior to our brahmos. Though they have done an impressive job on their own and are on par with the Russians in terms of cruise missiles. Even in case of S400 we are getting the 400 km capable interceptor missile not with the Chinese. Russians have tried to give us an advantage it's fault of our establishment that Russians could exploit us which was reverse in the case of the Chinese.

 

[Saaho]

initially thought that was the case but the Russians are in no one's bed. Natasha is in the bed until it gets the money but she doesn't stay if she is abused.

Thats the right thing to do.

The Russians will stay in the Chinese orbit but will always stay open to share us technology so there is no need to close our doors for them if we get closer to the Americans.

If they had to make a choice (and they had that choice at times) they lean more towards Chinese. They share their tech and products even with NATO members like Turkey too.
We won't close any doors on them. For one simple reason, the door was not simply there. It was just a window to buy things. Russia is not USSR.

The Russians have virtually sold us two nuclear subs America won't do that ever.

They sold that sub tech to China too. Will sell to even Pakistan too if they are able to give a big enough order.

The Russians purely care for the money. You give them money and they will sell us

True absolutely true.
For us that is the case because we do not have any conflicts with Russia in terms of territory or access.

They don't interfere plus for all our crying Russia has sold us superior tech compared to the Chinese.

If you mean Su30 MKI, then its a bit more than that. They JV'ed the plane because we paid for the JV. They integrated stuff we wanted .. for a price. Chinese didn't order so they didn't deliver. If Chinese would have bought a JV, a JV they would have got.

Most of the Ashm's are inferior to our brahmos.

Lemme put it in this way. China has a much bigger array of missiles than us. A lot of them are essentailly imports from russia.
See this : YJ-91 - Wikipedia

This is what China got in 1990. Its a China specific variant of Kh-30P.

We JV'ed in 2000s so we got a variant of P-800, a more advanced missile.

 

[Lolwa]

Thats the right thing to do.


If they had to make a choice (and they had that choice at times) they lean more towards Chinese. They share their tech and products even with NATO members like Turkey too.
We won't close any doors on them. For one simple reason, the door was not simply there. It was just a window to buy things. Russia is not USSR.


They sold that sub tech to China too. Will sell to even Pakistan too if they are able to give a big enough order.


True absolutely true.
For us that is the case because we do not have any conflicts with Russia in terms of territory or access.


If you mean Su30 MKI, then its a bit more than that. They JV'ed the plane because we paid for the JV. They integrated stuff we wanted .. for a price. Chinese didn't order so they didn't deliver. If Chinese would have bought a JV, a JV they would have got.




Lemme put it in this way. China has a much bigger array of missiles than us. A lot of them are essentailly imports from russia.
See this : YJ-91 - Wikipedia

This is what China got in 1990. Its a China specific variant of Kh-30P.

We JV'ed in 2000s so we got a variant of P-800, a more advanced missile.

I know but we are the ones with the INS chakra not the Chinese. No other country would sell
us a SSN like the Russians.

The Chinese missile arsenal is ginormous they have a lot of different missiles with gigantic warheads( because of the Russi heritage) but most of those missiles can be easily intercepted. Our Ashm inventory is not huge but it is technically superior. Even the best Chinese Ashm yj-12 I somehow doubt they can match the brahmos. The Chinese has got a serious inferiority complex from the brahmos. We really made an amazing missile. They continuously want to prove that there Ashm's are superior to brahmos. They have faster Ashm's but I doubt the quality of their missiles in terms of precision...

 

[ramdas]

It is not clear that a US alliance will allow unrestricted development of delivery options (such as MIRVs etc). Those are needed down the line, when PRC will acquire missile defences. As far as deterrence goes, the idea of revoking NFU has already been floated (by Manohar Parrikar, among others, in the past). So it is likely being weighed by the powers that be. Whatever the current PM said, he is better than all other alternatives: Balakot and other actions did demonstrate his willingness to do the unanticipated. Such a leader would give the deterrent stance I outlined credibility if he so chooses to take up such a stance.

As for the civilian nuclear import option, losing it does not seem to be a steep price to pay by itself: imported civilian reactors hardly amount to an important component of our power generation capabilities, and this state is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. As fir uranium supplies, what is already supplied to us will stay with us (albeit in the civilian sector). It is about time we overcame NGOs and other such entities and got our own supplies up and running.

My other concern with a US alliance is the political baggage: free hand for liberal NGOs to destabilize society, lack of freedom to undertake strong actions to put separatism down in J&K (for e.g., there would be pressure to let the Hurriyat and other such elements freely conduct their malicious propaganda). Even South Korea has very limited room to respond to actual provocations from the north as seen in the 2010 Cheonan incident. Given this, I do not see how a US alliance that ties our hands would help. The US as such would only step in if territory it views as undisputed parts of India are threatened: all alliances are like this (see what Russia is saying about Armenia these days). The US will certainly not step in to protect our interests in J&K or Ladakh for the same reason.

A transactional relation with the US where we acquire certain high end conventional capabilities through purchase is however, welcome. As is the ongoing cooperation in tracking PLA subs in the Indian ocean, etc.....

 

[randomradio]

Lol Iran literally takes us for granted. I would be happy if we ditch the Iranians if it helps in getting a closer relationship with the Americans. And we profit more by allying with the Arabs than the Iranians who are as snake-like as the Chinese. Those jokers are too cocky for their own good. Myanmar is itself balancing us with the Chinese. Myanmar needs us more than we need Myanmar and the dharmic angle is slowly being played by Modi. The Congress regime never gave the Burmese the respect they deserved which ended up resulting in the Chinese getting closer than us even though they are in our backyard.
Also no we can still be close with the Russians that's what a good alliance management would be that's where I hope the bjp knows how to balance the relationship with the Americans and keep it exclusively anti-Chinese.

Iran and Myanmar are poor today, but they won't be poor for too long. As for Iran, they are always like that, not just to India, but to even China and Russia. Which is why China is simply buying off Iran with their $400B 5-year deal. If you recall, Russia is working against Iran in Syria, but protect them from the US when needed.

Myanmar needs China more than India because they are in the P5. And they use India to balance out China. But in case of an alliance, the Americans will expect us to brand both Iran and Myanmar as enemies. The worst case for us is to choose sides in our neighbourhood at this time. Israel has been pressuring India for many years to brand Iran an enemy state. That's completely against our interests.

And why are we getting in the circlejerk of American boots on Indian grounds. The whole objective of the alliance should be to take as much tech and introduce it in our economy and military. We don't need the Americans to fight our wars we only need American tech. We have 1.3 billion people to fight our wars. The whole objective of quad is the have equal partners who maintain Freedom of navigation in the high seas. And Trump is similarly less intrusive in internal matters compared to the previous regimes of bush and Clinton dynasty. You are being too pessimistic just for the sake of it.

What tech? We are not getting any tech from the US. And we do not need an alliance to get American tech. With the STA-1 status, we can get any tech we want that they allow for exports. STA-1 status puts us on par with UK and Japan. We don't need an alliance for that.

The whole objective of quad is the have equal partners who maintain Freedom of navigation in the high seas.

Not at all. FoN has no need for QUAD, it's already being done. The whole point of QUAD is to create a military alliance against China.

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio @Saaho

The Simple Answer to whether we Need an Alliance with USA or NOT lies in the Following Question , which is

" HOW MUCH money we need in the Coming Ten years to create an Effective Two Front Security Architecture "

[/QUOTE]

In the next 10 years, we won't have enough. Post 10 years, we will have enough.

The immediate army modernisation alone requires over $50B, both infantry, artillery, tanks and FICV, not counting FRCV, which will require a lot of money on its own. The comm systems alone will go into the billions. Otoh, the army currently gets $2-3B a year for modernisation. The IAF's first batch of MRFA contracts alone will cost us up to $25B, not counting all the ancilliary costs. Then add LCA Mk2, AMCA, force multipliers, transports, helicopters etc. The IAF is going to need hundreds of billions to replace their current fleet, which will take decades at merely $6B a year. The IN's going to need much more than the IAF. The expectation is the IN alone will eat up half the modernisation budget as the fleet doubles. Impossible at $6B a year or even $12B (even if the defence budget doubles right now). None of these can be funded within the next 10 years of course, only in the next decade.

Otoh, the Chinese will get all of that and much more. Their army modernisation will finish by 2022. And their air force and navy will start matching America's local theatre forces within just a few more years.

We will be lucky if the Chinese don't suddenly start dropping a few billions towards Pakistan every year.

And even if we have lost some Territory in Pangong Tso , that territory is not Going Anywhere


We can retake it in future

Based on what @Falcon said, if the Chinese push us out of our territory, we will need foreign assistance to take them all back immediately. But yeah, we can always take our time to take them all back eventually.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The new red army: Xi Jinping's vision for People's Liberation Army

President-for-life Xi Jinping plans to turn the People's Liberation Army into a modernised force by 2035 and a world-class army by 2050.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[_Anonymous_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1314221246196969474

 

[Chain Smoker]

We need to cash in this situation properly otherwise this NAM-ARD will again haunt us forever.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1314400183099314176

 

[Gautam]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1314273532147191808

 

[Saaho]

It is not clear that a US alliance will allow unrestricted development of delivery options (such as MIRVs etc). Those are needed down the line, when PRC will acquire missile defences. As far as deterrence goes, the idea of revoking NFU has already been floated (by Manohar Parrikar, among others, in the past). So it is likely being weighed by the powers that be. Whatever the current PM said, he is better than all other alternatives: Balakot and other actions did demonstrate his willingness to do the unanticipated. Such a leader would give the deterrent stance I outlined credibility if he so chooses to take up such a stance.

To be honest, one can test advanced delivery option even before joining the alliance. Actually its funny. When China was about to ratify NPT, it tested a number of nuclear weapons back to back in succession. If GoI has been serious about it, it would have pushed for massive testing of such mechanisms.

Remember, you cann't undo a development of tech. India most likely has capability for MIRV BUT it has not been tested. The fabled Agni-6 should have been tested by now. Its not happening. The reason seems to be rooted in politics and not technology.

As I said before, India suffers from pains of living under hegemony of USA but wastes the opportunity of leveraging an alliance against its foes. As a contrast Pakistan always does it.

 

[Saaho]

As for the civilian nuclear import option, losing it does not seem to be a steep price to pay by itself: imported civilian reactors hardly amount to an important component of our power generation capabilities, and this state is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. As fir uranium supplies, what is already supplied to us will stay with us (albeit in the civilian sector). It is about time we overcame NGOs and other such entities and got our own supplies up and running.

If you read the NSG wavier that we got, we cann't keep any material and equipment if we do a nuke test.

My other concern with a US alliance is the political baggage: free hand for liberal NGOs to destabilize society, lack of freedom to undertake strong actions to put separatism down in J&K (for e.g., there would be pressure to let the Hurriyat and other such elements freely conduct their malicious propaganda). Even South Korea has very limited room to respond to actual provocations from the north as seen in the 2010 Cheonan incident. Given this, I do not see how a US alliance that ties our hands would help. The US as such would only step in if territory it views as undisputed parts of India are threatened: all alliances are like this (see what Russia is saying about Armenia these days). The US will certainly not step in to protect our interests in J&K or Ladakh for the same reason.

The US has a tradition of supporting even the worst forms of dictatorships. A military alliance does not have much bearing on domestic non-military policies. Take the example of Israel. Or Saudi Arabia. They don't allow any US based NGOs and they roll with USA pretty well.

We have historically been very tolerant to NGOs. Thats our choice. We were aligned with Russia back in 70s but yet a number of NGOs were always active in India. Besides, from what I have seen, NGOs are more a tool of UK. All NGOs somehow have an Oxford connection.

Interestingly, we have been a lot tolerant to new groups like Al-Zazeera for some weird reason. Imagine a Qatar based Jihadi media group having a big presence in India.

The upshot is this -- domestic policy and military policy might not have as much bearing on each other as people think they are. The pests of NGOs is more due to our tolerance and acceptance to that.

 

[Saaho]

A transactional relation with the US where we acquire certain high end conventional capabilities through purchase is however, welcome. As is the ongoing cooperation in tracking PLA subs in the Indian ocean, etc.....

Remember, you cann't outspend China to victory. You have to a. be smart about your spending b. develop a levrage of that spending via alliances.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1314398949353037824

 

[Lolwa]

Myanmar needs China more than India because they are in the P5. And they use India to balance out China. But in case of an alliance, the Americans will expect us to brand both Iran and Myanmar as enemies.

No that won't be the case. Modi has shown that he can hold his ground when it comes to India's interest. The S400 and even when we bought Iranian oil we negotiated with the Americans and bought a large amount of oil before closing down on it something that the Chinese had to do also. The Americans pressure is meaningless, a lot of close American allies straight up ignore the Americans we are the only idiots who have listened to American diktats even when were not in an alliance or a close partner. We are the only ones who give western media any reactions and treat them like gods. With modi that won't happen and the western media hasn't been given much importance unlike the Congress era

The worst case for us is to choose sides in our neighbourhood at this time. Israel has been pressuring India for many years to brand Iran an enemy state

And we never gave heed to Israel. Similarly we can ignore the Americans. India will be forced to choose sides in the end. Chinese geopolitical maneuvering has been way more dynamic and Iran will use the Shia militia card in kargil and Gilgit Baltistan. So we will see what happens. A closer relationship with the Americans doesn't mean we ditch our neighbours just for the heck of it. But the future isn't far when we will have an anti-Indian Iran. Chabahar port was DOA. The whole thing is used by the Iranians as a carrot to keep our stupid diplomats on our toes. The 400 billion $ investment by the Chinese is just the beginning. We can't outspend the Chinese so it's better to use our resources with better gains. And Iran still doesn't have the strategic depth against India. Let's not forget the Iran has been a historically antagonistic against us since before the advent of Islam. That won't change once the embargo is lifted. We are surrounded by enemies we just choose to call them neighbours...

What tech? We are not getting any tech from the US. And we do not need an alliance to get American tech.

Lol the P8I's, jet engines and so on. Tejas is completed because of American tech otherwise that was DOA. The Japanese have got more tech being an American vassal and modernised themselves. An alliance will only keep the gravy train secured.

Not at all. FoN has no need for QUAD, it's already being done. The whole point of QUAD is to create a military alliance against China.

FoN is the meme to delude the media. Quad is an anti-chinese alliance but the contribution of all partners seems much more equal than the case of nato where it's basically America protecting all of Europe. I don't think America will lead the quad the way it dictates in Nato. The american security architecture is too good to not get into it. The training equipment levels are something our military needs