Future War: China vs. India

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Future War: China vs. India
Berdan 11/27/2006 3:18:53 PM

I forsee a war between China and India in the future. A former head of the World Bank (or it might have been the IMF) recently said that China and India would, before 2050, overtake the G7 in terms of GDP. And many can see that China and India will be the next world superpowers. These countries are developing and growing at a fantastic rate. There are basic, fundamental differences between India and China, in terms of Government (Democracy vs. Socialist), Ideology, and Economy (China is gearing itself towards industry, whereas India is going more toward the service sector). Both China and India are heavily armed, and updating their militaries. Both are nucleur armed nations. Both are increasing their spending on the armed forces. China has the largest military in the world, and India has the 4th largest. These issues would cause another cold war, like what was experienced between the USA and the USSR. HOWEVER, unlike the US and USSR, there is no ocean seperating China and India. They share a border! The USA and the USSR had different spheres of influence during the Cold War. The US had South America and Western Europe, and the USSR had Asia and Eastern Europe. They STILL came very, very close to war. India and China do NOT have seperate spheres of influence. They are right next to each other. They are competing for essentially the same markets. Furthermore, they have a hisory of conflict. For these reasons, I predict a war between India and China. What does everyone else think?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Nanheyangrouchuan 11/27/2006 11:38:13 PM

China is probably more afraid of India than the US for a variety reasons.

Quote Reply

TopGun 11/28/2006 1:31:44 AM

Lol!!! utter nonsense. China is leaps and bounds ahead of India in all facets. Indian social indices still place it in league with some of the poorer nations of Africa!

If anything, maybe by 2050 India will be near what China was in the 1980's, and thats if it can maintain upward economic growth and have stability with its neighboors which judging by the way things are going, doesnt seem likely.

Also, lets not forget that the Indian army is not exactly a well oiled fighting force. It lost the border war of '62 to China and has been upstaged by a 'smaller' Pakistan in 3 wars and is in a stalemate with it even now. Its services has some of the worst service records in the world particularly its air force. If India cant even handle pakistan with its minimalist army and has border issues(instability) on all of its borders. its ridiculous to assume it can take on the might of China.

This article is utter nonsense... false into a pipedream category!

Quote Reply

Herald1234 How is East Pakistan (Bengladesh) doing these days? 11/28/2006 9:05:13 AM

Herald

Quote Reply

olive greens 11/28/2006 9:05:50 AM

1. India is growing, but is it developing? Most of its "growth" is eaten up in simple "survival", leaving comparatively little savings for today's infrastructure and future capital. True, China has been more indisciminate in letting in FDI and so had more capital to begin with. But on average Chinese still save lot more than Indians do.

2. The basic difference in governments is in the fact that India is a Federalized nation, while China is a Centralized nation. The difference is based on our different historical experiences and the lessons our ancestors picked from them. Ancient China has been subjected more to direct physical challenges, while ancient India has been more subjected to more ideological challenges. This of course triggered different survival strategies. True there was sometimes cross-over of ideas (like the highly centralized Mauryan Empire in India, and the dispersed defense adopted by many Ming loyalists long after Manchu conquest), but over all the nations' psyche is shaped by the dominant survival techniques.While the lessons of our past shouldn't always be taken without questioning, I believe in the wisdom of both ancient Indians and Chinese in arriving at the conclusions they did.

3. Its quite misleading to generalize India and China into service and manufacturing powers. The Chinese have been investing in software and engineering for some time now, and the fruits will start to appear in a few years (to the unpleasant surprise of many Indians). If the Chinese governement can hold down wages in these sectors, Chinese can rip past India. On the other hand Indian heavy industry is quietly making its mark against the best in the business - Germans and Japanese. Chinese may make low-cost products, but Indians are making machines to make those low-cost products.

4. Neither China nor India is nearly as militarized as USSR and NATO during the Cold War. The US, Russia and France still have larger nuclear arsenals than China, all four plus UK and possibly even tiny Israel have larger arsenals than India. China comes faintly close to Soviet Union's Mechanized Forces, India is nowhere there. Both their primary concerns are turned the other way: India to West (Pakistan), and China to East (Taiwan).

5. Was it a good thing that there were oceans separating USSR and USA? It rather provided a vast battle-ground to play hide-and-seek, without the benefit of recognizing eath other's humanity. It continually brought into question US's committment to Allies sharing land-borders with USSR etc. Indians and Chinese, OTOH, face each other right across the border. There is intimate, personal knowledge of what the other is doing. India, being on the defensive like US, has proven committment to its own territory. The confilct is clear and understandable.

6. India doesn't need a "Sphere of Influence": It has enough consumers in its internal markets to the tune of all of US or USSR's sovereign population and "spehere of influence" population. And its mainly a self-sufficient economy. Its growth comes from trade with nations like US, Japan, EU, Russia, and even China: Not exactly markets to be bullied around, but rather markets to be won over by quality products and service. Hopefully as China matures it will abandon its moneky-see-monkey-do attitude (picked up from the time when Europeans and Japanese held "Speheres of Influence") it adopts while dealing with its "allies" (well, they can continue ragging Paks

).

India and China might well skirmish not only over disputed territories, but also at sea. But a war? Probably not on their own. . . and seeing how neither is locked in "binding alliances" like Europeans, Japanese and Americans, it is a bit hard for them to be dragged into a conflict by third parties (See PRC refusal to intervense for Pakis during 1971, and outright condemnation in 1999; or Indian disinterest in China-Taiwan friction as opposed to its active interest in Japan-China relations {which it isnt as volatile}).

Quote Reply

olive greens 11/28/2006 9:18:43 AM

Hopefully as China matures it will abandon its moneky-see-monkey-do attitude (picked up from the time when Europeans and Japanese held "Speheres of Influence") it adopts while dealing with its "allies" (well, they can continue ragging Paks

But that is just a moralistic opinion, not a one worth much Indian money and definitely not a single drop of Indian blood spilt defending. Many of these "little allies" of PRC' SOI aren't exactly all that innocent either, and if given an opportunity (and made profitable by PRC funds) will gladly attack us.

Would actually be a good policy to keep reminding them that India may or may not always be strong enough to go toe-to-toe with PRC, but sure as hell will thrash the living daylights out of anyone who lines up with China - with particular emphasis. Remind the "Pearls" of what they are - a particle of dust coated in layers and layers of saliva.

Quote Reply

Berdan 12/1/2006 7:28:28 PM

Olive Greens, thank you for your comment. It was very well thought out, and had some very good points. It made me think. It was good as an opposing point of view. Here are my responses. any rebuttal?

1. India is growing, but is it developing...Chinese still save lot more than

Indians do. <<< Really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression that

the quality of life, the social and economic development of India was on the

rise. Also, while India might only be "surviving" now, with the amount of

foreign capital and the number of foreign companies looking to invest in India,

to move in on the Indian market, how long will that state last? Certainly

India will be "developing" within the next 50 years.

2. The basic difference in governments is in the fact that India is a

Federalized nation...conclusions they did. <<< I'll be honest, I don't know

much about Chinese history beyond about 1945. But I don't think that the

differences between a federalized state and a centralized state cause friction.

Look at the US and UK. The US is federalized and the UK is centralized, but

they seem to along ok. I was referring to the fact that India has a

capitalist, democratic system, and China has a socialist system. China is

moving more into the capitalist system, but the fact is that a socialist

government like China's cannot rule with a capitalist economy. One will have

to give, either the free market system or the government. Judging by human

nature and history, the government will hold on to its power, eventually

squashing the freedoms now enjoyed. Capitalist and Socialist systems have a

hard time doing business together and often clash. This is why I say that

these two economic systems/government systems are bound to clash. Furthermore,

China has an expansionist and aggressive foreign policy towards its neighbors,

and India is not asking for clear borders and looking to finally define its own

borders. This too looks to lead to a clash.

3. Its quite misleading to generalize India and China into service and

manufacturing powers...low-cost products. <<< Now this is something that

surprises me. From what I have seen, India is taking up services, like a lot

of the outsourced jobs from America. I wasn't aware of their industrial

advances. Nor was I aware of China's service sector advancement. In fact, I

believe it was in TIME or NEWSWEEK that I read that China is developing largely

industry, which looks like it will get a quick economic boost, but will

eventually run down, while India was developing services, which will give it a

slower but more sustained rise. Also, what about IIT, which is producing a

large number of very competent service sector workers?

4. Neither China nor India is nearly as militarized as USSR and NATO during the

Cold War. The US, Russia and France still have larger nuclear arsenals than

China, all four plus UK and possibly even tiny Israel have larger arsenals than

India. China comes faintly close to Soviet Union's Mechanized Forces, India is

nowhere there. Both their primary concerns are turned the other way: India to

West (Pakistan), and China to East (Taiwan). <<< This is a good point.

Especially that China and India have different concerns right now. But what

about in 50 years? Taiwan won't survive the day the US turns its back on it,

and who knows how long until that is? I am not saying that there is a trend

towards that in the US, all I am saying is that maybe it will happen.

US-Taiwan relations are a different discussion. And, whatever "topgun" says,

India has won all its wars against Pakistan. Both nations are building up

their militaries, and modernizing/upgrading them. Who knows? Maybe in a few

years, India will have upgraded enough to not even worry too much about

Pakistan. Besides, neither nation needs to be AS militarized as NATO/USSR.

They really just need to be mi

Quote Reply

arien biased! 12/18/2009 11:31:55 AM

you need to get your facts right . in "2050 india would be near where China as in 1980" ??? what nonsense ! China is marinally ahead of india , but dont make it sound like you are comparing US to Uganada !

In growth terms china could be ahead of India , but remember that they have achieved it with the help of communist suppression of people's basic rights.where a democracy cannot buldoze people for the sake of growth and things do take concience and time.

China, with it's massive numbers still remains a local bully who lacks enough powers to see a war thru it's conclusion. In 62 boarder war it pulled back it's troops to pre -war positions unilaterly once the supply lines got stretched .It could have claimed arunachal then itself if it was possible rather than making noice about it now...

About Pakistan, it is a country that got whipped 3 (and a half: kargil war )times for it's misadventures. for you splitting of Pakistan in 1971 does not seem to be qualified enough to term India as clear winner ?

Quote Reply

johnboy 1/11/2010 12:14:17 PM

This is a notion I sometimes mull over. I was thinking of doing a series of equipment comparisons similar to the ones made in my India vs. Pakistan series for China vs. India. I haven't so far just because I think that so much of Pakistan's arsenal is Chinese-made that it would not be so different, except in the naval category.

Would there be any interest in a equipment match-up series for China vs. India?

Quote Reply

Abhi 3/9/2010 2:01:17 PM

In my humble opinion, I too think that a war is inevitable between India or China. However unlike the last Indo-Sino war, the rules and conditions have changed and the war will be on different fronts than the traditional ones.

War is undesirable by India for obvious reasons, save for defense. It stands to gain more from peace rather than war. In addition, it sees China as a bigger threat than even the devil-you-know Pakistan, since it knows little about China's actual modern military capability,

Much of India's military build up after all, has been a reactionary response to the 1962 war. The nuclear strike capability development was obviously done with China in mind, for example, with the nuclear program starting soon after its 1962 defeat, since it was obvious that it was not going to get support of any other country in case of another Chinese invasion.

But save for protecting its own present territories, India has little to gain from a war with China. Faced with China's superior military force and numbers, India can only hope for a stalemate at best and a further loss of territories at worst. And furthermore, a full-scale war will drain its precious resources and leave it open again to attack from an emboldened Pakistan, as a repeat of the 1965 war. And by committing openly to a non first-strike nuke policy, India has already made the mistake of taking the nuclear deterrent out of the equation. Without the nuclear deterrent, it cannot win against China in a traditional war. All China needs to do is ensure that it does not uses nukes either, and hence will have nothing to fear from the Indian nuclear bombs. China should still be able to win the war via traditional warfare eventually.

War is desirable for China for various reason. It needs to get further resources for its incredibly large populace. It would like access to those resources, ideally without acquiring India's large population. So in case it wins the war, it will either choose to leave a part of India unoccupied and force and evacuation of entire Indian population to it, or it will choose to use the defeated Indians as a labor/slave class, as second class citizens with strict population control. Second option is less appealing since actual management of Indian populace may prove difficult, especially with rebels fighting a proxy war. A carefully sustained war however may leave India's economy drained and unable to compete with China's own economy in any meaningful manner. India is a major rival for China's own economy in the International market and as such it is desirable to shunt its growth. And that is another reason why war is absolutely beneficial for China.

In addition, India as an example of a completely working democracy right next door, is an undesirable presence. While Chinese ruling party is willing to compromise regards capitalism via experiments such as shehnzhen, a functional democracy with its freedoms right next door is unacceptable, if it is to maintain its iron-control of the Chinese people.

In addition, China as a Buddhist state, will find it desirable to annex not just the territories disputed by it, but eventually also the clearly Indian territories such as Varanasi/Sarnath and perhaps even Bodh gaya upto the state of bihar, that is even remotely connected to Budhhism. It will be the equivalent of Christan Crusade wars and make it easy to sell the occupation of North-Eastern India to the Chinese populace. For one thing, it will allow China to easily rewrite history and deny the Indian origins of its biggest religion, putting an end to much of awkwardness involved for it. With state controlled media, it would be easy to tell its people about Budhha being born to Chinese parents instead of his being a Hindu prince. This is a smaller benefit, but will count as a big morale victory.

So now that we have demonstrated that an aggressive invasion of India by China, is not only inevitable by also desirable by the latter, here is my expectation of how it may go.

China has already been preparing for the foreseen war by strengthening its road and rail network in Tibbet, while objecting to and preventing all and any such constructions on the Indian side of the border. The decisive factor preventing an actual war right now is the USA stance. An invasion of India will immediately remove any obstacles to complete Chinese dominion in asia. Japan, a weakened Russia and Pakistan etc. will prove to be inconsequential. In fact, for Pakistan, if China actually annexes all of India, it will be the death knell. It and Bangladesh will be next in line for losing further territories, since China would want to immediately cement its strategic advantag

Quote Reply

Spiky India does it right. 3/10/2010 12:01:59 PM

I called this one right when I basically said this same thing a little over a month ago:
"The Indian military needs to augment its capacity for quickly airlifting troops to strengthen its force on the Pakistani border, to fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, and to face the perception of a growing threat at the Sino-Indian border, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said."

Minister Confirms India's Request To Buy U.S. C-17s

By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 10 Mar 2010 11:32

NEW DELHI - It is official now that India will buy American-made C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft on a government-to-government basis. The Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Indian parliament on March 10 that a letter of request has been issued to Washington.

"The proposal to procure C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from the U.S. government to meet the strategic airlift requirement of the Indian Air Force was approved by the Defence Acquisition Council on Oct. 19, 2009," he said. "The letter of request was issued to the United States government on Jan. 1."

The $1.7 billion C-17 deal, likely to be finalized this year, would be the second largest deal for Boeing in India. Early last year, New Delhi signed a $2.1 billion agreement to buy eight P-8 maritime patrol aircraft from Boeing.

Boeing said in a statement Jan. 8 that the U.S. government had received from India a letter of request about a potential purchase of 10 C-17 military transport aircraft, Defense News reported.

Currently, the Indian military has to rely mainly on Russian-made An-32s, which form the bulk of its transport fleet, for lifting of troops and other logistic assignments. The Indian Air Force also has Russian-made Il-76 transport aircraft. The service has ordered six U.S. C-130J Hercules aircraft, and more acquisitions are planned in the near future.

In mid-2009, India signed a $400 million contract with Ukrainian military export agency Ukrspetsexport to upgrade 100 Soviet-built cargo An-32 cargo aircraft.

Of 118 An-32 transport aircraft acquired in the early 1980s, only 100 remain. The others were lost in accidents.

The Indian military needs to augment its capacity for quickly airlifting troops to strengthen its force on the Pakistani border, to fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, and to face the perception of a growing threat at the Sino-Indian border, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 NEXT