India vs. China - Opinions Please

[Jimbeaux]

The below article is about China expanding its force projection capabilities up to a 1,000 miles. India is wary because of past and recent border disputes over argued territories. Others say, with significant unrest within China, the military is simply making it easier to quickly arrive at internal trouble spots. Which of these, are both, does PH think is the case?

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/08/1...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 12th August 15:51

[AshVX220]

There's no link to the article you refer to Jim? Or am I missing a sneaky link somewhere?

[Jimbeaux]

AshVX220 said:

There's no link to the article you refer to Jim? Or am I missing a sneaky link somewhere?

Fixed; sorry!!!

[rhinochopig]

Bloody hell Jimbo, can't you do your own homework. I thought the DoD paid you to come up with that sort of stuff.

[AshVX220]

IMO Taiwan should have more reason to worry than India, that's been a thorn in China's side for a very long time. Maybe the one that's keeping Taiwan safe is the relationship between Taiwan and the US. Most of Taiwan's military kit is US.

India is possibly second on China's list of interesting area's, but again before that with international pressure maybe North Korea (and bringing it to heal) is a bigger concern to China.

[s2art]

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

[Fittster]

I think your getting a neo-con stiffy about a very unlikely event. Countries with nukes don't directly fight each other.

[Fittster]

s2art said:

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

With a vast chunk of the population living on under a dollar a day and a budget deficit I don't think that's going to be a spending priority.

[s2art]

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

With a vast chunk of the population living on under a dollar a day and a budget deficit I don't think that's going to be a spending priority.

Big place India. A bit of poverty wont stop billions being spent on the military.

[amsie]

Funny you should post this. My father in law was just saying the other day that the world is becomming over populated, and a good war was needed to have a clear out.

He then suggested India vs China

[Fittster]

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

With a vast chunk of the population living on under a dollar a day and a budget deficit I don't think that's going to be a spending priority.

Big place India. A bit of poverty wont stop billions being spent on the military.

“Whether in terms of GDP, defence spending or any other economic, social or development parameter, the gap between the two is just too wide to bridge (and getting wider by the day). In military terms, both conventional and non-conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force,” Mehta told an elite audience at the India Habitat Centre.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/40298.htm

"India’s annual defence expenditure was approximately $30 billion for 2008-09. Mehta quoted US thinktank Rand Corporation and US Defence Intelligence Agency figures for China’s defence spending for the same period, which stood between $70 billion and $200 billion."


I can't find an article stating that India intends to increase it's spending to match that of China or even wants to. This arms race doesn't exist.

[ShadownINja]

amsie said:

Funny you should post this. My father in law was just saying the other day that the world is becomming over populated, and a good war was needed to have a clear out.

He then suggested India vs China

Definitely. Too many of the slitty-eyed bds running around.

[s2art]

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

With a vast chunk of the population living on under a dollar a day and a budget deficit I don't think that's going to be a spending priority.

Big place India. A bit of poverty wont stop billions being spent on the military.

“Whether in terms of GDP, defence spending or any other economic, social or development parameter, the gap between the two is just too wide to bridge (and getting wider by the day). In military terms, both conventional and non-conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force,” Mehta told an elite audience at the India Habitat Centre.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/40298.htm

"India’s annual defence expenditure was approximately $30 billion for 2008-09. Mehta quoted US thinktank Rand Corporation and US Defence Intelligence Agency figures for China’s defence spending for the same period, which stood between $70 billion and $200 billion."


I can't find an article stating that India intends to increase it's spending to match that of China or even wants to. This arms race doesn't exist.

It doesnt follow that if you cannot match spending you dont even try to improve capability. The defenders have an approx 3-1 advantage over attackers.

[Fittster]

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Dammit, where are our arms manufacturers? It must be a sellers market in India right now. Some of those new destroyers and subs might be of interest to the Indians.

With a vast chunk of the population living on under a dollar a day and a budget deficit I don't think that's going to be a spending priority.

Big place India. A bit of poverty wont stop billions being spent on the military.

“Whether in terms of GDP, defence spending or any other economic, social or development parameter, the gap between the two is just too wide to bridge (and getting wider by the day). In military terms, both conventional and non-conventional, we neither have the capability nor the intention to match China, force for force,” Mehta told an elite audience at the India Habitat Centre.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/40298.htm

"India’s annual defence expenditure was approximately $30 billion for 2008-09. Mehta quoted US thinktank Rand Corporation and US Defence Intelligence Agency figures for China’s defence spending for the same period, which stood between $70 billion and $200 billion."


I can't find an article stating that India intends to increase it's spending to match that of China or even wants to. This arms race doesn't exist.

It doesnt follow that if you cannot match spending you dont even try to improve capability. The defenders have an approx 3-1 advantage over attackers.

General V.P. Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil conflict with pakistan.

“There is a sealing now on the scale of conflict between the two countries as both are nuclear armed nations. So the maximum we would see in terms would be a threshold of a full-fledged war. But there is nothing alarming,” Malik added.

There is no evidence of any serious escalating tensions between the two countries. No arms race, no hostile lanaguage, ziltch.

Just wishful thinking Jimbo.

[Halb]

China should disintegrate India: Strategist
http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/china_should_disint...

China aims to be the dominant military power in her sphere of influence. India is an up and comer on the horizon. I think I may have read that China sometimes flies over Indian/disputed airspace? It is not too difficult to see tensions between the two burgeoning superpowers solidify. If India is asked to have more of a role in the Afghanistan/pakistan issue, I can see China bristling more than she does already.
USA vs USSR II?

[amsie]

ShadownINja said:

amsie said:

Funny you should post this. My father in law was just saying the other day that the world is becomming over populated, and a good war was needed to have a clear out.

He then suggested India vs China

Definitely. Too many of the slitty-eyed bds running around.

lol, but I think he meant just in terms of population, they are the biggest countries.

[tinman0]

Jimbeaux said:

The below article is about China expanding its force projection capabilities up to a 1,000 miles. India is wary because of past and recent border disputes over argued territories. Others say, with significant unrest within China, the military is simply making it easier to quickly arrive at internal trouble spots. Which of these, are both, does PH think is the case?

I think China are just ticking boxes to be honest. They have plenty of money to spend on their military at the moment, and they are just training for different scenarios, no different to the US and UK war games played in places like Oman.

I can't see China getting into any dispute anytime soon either. Its Naval power is decades behind for instance. Naval power isn't just about building boats, its about experience, and where exactly are they going to send their troops and Navy for instance? They always vote against any sort of military action on the Security council, and the world has moved on from world wars despite what many think, as no country can afford a war. Same with the Russians for that matter.

The only thing that brought Russia into line over Georgia, wasn't all the political maneuverings, it was because investors were running for the hills. Investors didn't want their money in a country that was throwing its weight around like that - makes them uneasy - so they were pulling vast sums of cash out of the Russian economy. All of a sudden the currency is under pressure, so the Russians relent. Still acted as wkers, but relent nonetheless.

[ShadownINja]

amsie said:

ShadownINja said:

amsie said:

Funny you should post this. My father in law was just saying the other day that the world is becomming over populated, and a good war was needed to have a clear out.

He then suggested India vs China

Definitely. Too many of the slitty-eyed bds running around.

lol, but I think he meant just in terms of population, they are the biggest countries.

Oh.

[Fittster]

tinman0 said:

The only thing that brought Russia into line over Georgia, wasn't all the political maneuverings, it was because investors were running for the hills. Investors didn't want their money in a country that was throwing its weight around like that - makes them uneasy - so they were pulling vast sums of cash out of the Russian economy. All of a sudden the currency is under pressure, so the Russians relent. Still acted as wkers, but relent nonetheless.

But does that really apply to China? They only have to say 'We don't want anymore buy any more bonds' and the current military superpower is on the breadline. They are the econmic superpower.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

tinman0 said:

The only thing that brought Russia into line over Georgia, wasn't all the political maneuverings, it was because investors were running for the hills. Investors didn't want their money in a country that was throwing its weight around like that - makes them uneasy - so they were pulling vast sums of cash out of the Russian economy. All of a sudden the currency is under pressure, so the Russians relent. Still acted as wkers, but relent nonetheless.

But does that really apply to China? They only have to say 'We don't want anymore buy any more bonds' and the current military superpower is on the breadline. They are the econmic superpower.

They are only an economic superpower because of their production capability. Once the workers average pay gets to a certain point, the production will move to another country - and to be honest - there are quite a few other countries already sapping production away from China, including places like Mexico.

Remember when everything was made in Japan? Made in Hong Kong? Made in Taiwan? What makes China so special that capitalism won't move on?

Any war would simply speed that process up.