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: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Galluer There will never be a war. 3/17/2010 1:38:11 PM

A simple 2x2 game theory matrix makes you see the transparent reasons why the probability of war between these two giants is less than 20%. It is true that you wont find a saddle point, but does that mean there will be conflict? Answer this question : What is China's primary objective in this world ? World domination, imperialism or sustainance ? The answer is simple: China, just like any other sensible nation in this world, wants security and prosperity for its people. And so does India. As these economies expand, there will be heavy economic competition perhaps, but thats a topic for economic game theory. As long as these nations dont get involved with third parties, WMDs dont fall in terrorist hands, and major catastrophic groundbreaking incidences dont happen in the world elsewhere, the environment wont change enough to bring in "unpredictability" into the game. Yes, majors and kernels will keep making statements, thinktanks will come out with articles, or troops will get into shows of strength at the borders, and frankly speaking, its healthy for these to happen. Divorce happens mostly between couples who have communication gaps. The same applies for nations with over billion population. Hot lines must exist between countries, meetings must be held, and none must show either weakness or offense.

Given latest developments, one has to say that China is adopting a more reasonable approach to dealing with Japan and India than ever before. China is introducing more lenient 'marxist-democracy' approaches to governance in many regions. So, its neighbours also need revisit their strategy books. Like I said, its game theory, maximizing the minimum gain allowed. From that perspective, Sinophobia will lead us to nowhere.

Quote Reply

samale2009 what ??????? 4/20/2010 1:36:04 AM

All mighty America is afraid of China ........... and they want to use Inda to Counter Balance China. So before comment do some research.

http://www.strategypage.com/Images/emsmile.gif" alt="" />

Quote Reply

Nocturne 4/20/2010 2:30:29 PM

jeez u need a lot to feed that economy. how is chinese ASW doing ?

Quote Reply

tigerscratch 5/22/2010 8:57:21 AM

Any conjecture of a war between India and China must take into account the unique interfaces between these two nations, and the manner in which these interfaces will influence the type of warfare.

A Sino Indian war can conceivably be fought in three different manners

1. Direct Border Conflict: The border between India and China comprises the extreme climate and terrain of the Himalaya mountains. Not only does this terrain preclude the use of mechanised infantry and tanks, it makes even hand to hand infantry warfare a slow and painful affair - as was evident in the Kargil war. Even heliborne infantry and air support would have ilimited effectiveness in such terrain. An invading force would have to capture peak after peak, and would have to fight high-attrition uphill advances. More over heavy snowfall makes this area inaccessible during winter. While India's heavily populated areas directly abut the Himalayas, China would have the entire Tibetan plateau as a buffer from its heartland - but this may be as much an advantage as a disadvantage.

2. Naval Warfare: India and China do not share waters. A naval conflict would be fought off the coast of one of the nations, or in neutral waters far from home. Either way, neither India nor China have very effective bluewater capabilities, as both navies are more comfortable operating close to their shores.

3. Air/long-range warfare: The obstacles in the way of fighting a ground or naval war as surmised above would probably force both nations to resort to sweeping long-range strikes involving aircrafts and missiles. India would be at a serious disadvantage as China's most important targets would be out of range for most of its aircrafts and missile systems, and such strikes would be limited to military targets within Tibet, and perhaps targets in the Yunnan province. China on the other hand would be able to strike at will at the heart of Northern India inflicting far more damage than it would concede.

***

If China were to inititate such a conflict, it would definitely opt to fight in the air and with its missiles - commencing hostilities just at the end of winter when the Himalayas would still be closed. The idea would be to preclude the possibility of a ground war untill India's armed forces had taken sufficient damage, and then to invade through the moutain passes once spring set in.

India's response would be to first strike back at Tibet and Yunnan in a similar manner - with limited results - and then brace itself through the intense bombardment, holding on to its peaks in the Himalayas untill spring - and the Chinese infantry invasion - came in. Assuming that India's military would have taken enough of a bashing during winter to be ineffective in defending the peaks, the Indians would have to fall back to the plains, conceding the mountain ranges to the Chinese. However once having occupied the mountaineous Indian states of Kashmir, Ladakh, Sikkim and Arunachal, the Chinese would probably never venture to fight the Indians in the plains - their lines of supplies would be stretched too thin, the troops would take time to get acclimatised to the arid plains and it would be very difficult to bring in the heavy equipment required for plain warfare over the mountains. More-over, the Indians, being the masters of plain warfare would massacre the Chinese if they ventured out too far.

Somewhere along the way, India could opt to attack China's naval base in Myanmar, and sail out a task force to within striking range of China's coast - but these would entail heavy risk and a high chance of failure. India could even road-roll into Pakistan, or destroy much of Myanmar, but this would not have much impact on the Chinese onslaught both during the air war phase and during the ground fight.

The states of Ladakh, Arunachal and Sikkim - having more in common with Tibet - would make ideal occupation territory for the Chinese who would apply the same formula here as in Tibet. The Indians on the other hand would have to redraw their 'line of control' and be content with having survived the war inspite of having lost the himalayas.

Quote Reply

Neo Never count Indians out! 5/25/2010 11:55:24 PM

Quote Reply

Neo Never count Indians out! 5/25/2010 11:56:43 PM

Very thought provoking and intelligent opinions. Strategy is an interesting beast though, any strategy that does not account for human grit and EQ is a mere statistic that ends up as a blip on a radar in terms of its everlasting impact on the region. All military strategy can tank pretty fast when a human population (socially, politically and culturally bound) digs in and counter attacks. There are very compelling examples littered all across history:

1. United States turning the tide of World War after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Sometimes when we look at United States today, we forget the United States before World War 2. Had United States not been attacked, the Chinese would have been bowing to the Japanese Emperor and most of the world to Third Reich. It took more than strategy to outwit the German defenses (of course some military might was involved as well, but mind you, this might was built tirelessly by men and women toiling in factories from New York to Oregon and California).

2. City of Leningrad pitted against a hugely superior German Army and not only holding the defense lines but turning the tide back on Germans and the Red Army (comprised of peasants and farmers primarily fighting to save their villages and homeland).

3. Third is a very Indian example and in fact is a folklore in India now. In 1971, during the battle of Longewal 126 Indian Soldiers from Sikh regiment dug in and not only repelled but massacred a 3000 strong Pakistani infantry and destroyed a complete tank regiment.

There are many more examples, I am sure the intelligent audience in this thread can add a few more.

There is something very organic and new about India that did not exist before Indian independence in 1947 (In reality before that India existed as a loose mesh of culture). Its only after the Gandhian era that the real identity of India and the "Free Indian" took hold and now after more than 60 years it is maturing and thriving (despite of all strategists predicting balkanization of India).

Lets dive a bit deeper:

1. For the most part, unlike Pakistanis (Balochs and frontier provinces) and Chinese (Tibet and Xinjiang and even mainland China), Indians are not a suppressed population. In fact, an interesting study showed 72% of Indians more happy (content) than their western counterparts (give or take Statistical nuances). These soft statistics point toward a very free, proud and competent new age Indian who will not surrender its freedom to any force, forget the plastic manufacturers (Chinese).

2. There is a huge difference between the demographics of Indian and Chinese population. In a long drawn war these statistics will start to show up. 56% percent of Indian Population is below 26 years of age. US (the superpower) and its allies are finding it hard to reign in a few million people (in Afganistan and Iraq), can you realistically imagine Chinese holding off Indians in a long drawn battle? Na! aint happening. and I am sure all of you understand as much as anyone else that Indians can definitely bank on western world to keep their supply lines open. Believe you me, it does not suit US or Europe that China flexes its muscle on a billion strong population.

3. India's foreign policy is far more effective than in 1962. In fact, it is a well known fact on how Indira Gandhi outsmarted the US govt. in 1971 (when US fully backed Pakistan) and bifurcated Pakistan in two countries. It is also known that in 1971, India had left Pakistan with no choice but to attack India on western front, till today history documents Pakistan as the aggressor. Pretty neat. During Kargil war, once again India successfully marginalized Pakistan in diplomatic circles. The same will be true for Chinese, they will be under immense diplomatic pressure as an aggressor to resolve the conflict fast and all India needs to do is brace for a long drawn battle.

4. It is not true that India cannot attack deep within Chinese territory. It very well can. In fact, one of many Indian counter strategies would be to open multiple fronts and counter attack in Tibet while Chinese are pushing in Indian states. Thats all that is required to unsettle Chinese and make them move their forces back to safeguard their interests in Tibet. Don't forget they are holding Tibtean population hostage. A very big anomaly that can turn into an interesting weapon for Indians, exactly

Quote Reply

royinroy 7/20/2010 1:38:26 PM

Off course it means something solid, India being the 4^th largest military in the world. After ruled by British India has nothing and from there today India is a hub for everything. However I do not see an upcoming war in any direction so far. Other way, yes there is a possibility of a war which might happen if China attacks India.

I do not see a purpose or any profit where India has to engage in a war. However it is very much clear that china looking for more resources. Hence there will be a time when china sure would like to expand its territory. Thus in the process there is a chance for a war. China could go for a war politically which means not allowing India to expand and grow but which is once again not possible, rather not an easy task.

No, I am not in the side of a war neither giving away the chances.. Whatever happens..let?s not forget that both got the Nuclear weapon and no one will die alone..in the worst case a who knows who will use the nuclear even after signing a deal coz I don?t think any free county and free people would like loss freedom. Let?s not repeat the British age once again. It?s good that freedom fighters didn?t have nuclear that time?else we might not be here in this world today. So the final settlement could also become ?Do or Die? And I don?t believe that anyone likes to be dead so even India will not be. So China should be aware of it. We have nothing to lose. This time if there is a war then not only India or china will suffer?Whole world will suffer. So, rather than a war if people can put their brain resolving all issues then I see a chance of living in this world happily for everyone. Don?t try repeating another Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Last time two city..This time who knows?

Quote Reply

johnboy 8/23/2010 5:26:32 AM

I recognize this as a possibility, although it isn't likely in the next 25 years. Southeast Asia in particular will prove a source of friction. As for Chinese boasts that India doesn't approach them, 25 years ago the Chinese didn't approach THAILAND in terms of effective power. Time changes a lot of things, but one thing is for certain: India is certainly the more politically stable country at the present time, and for China to reach the same level of solidity, it must first undergo a revolution and consequent upheaval...

Quote Reply

Othon 8/23/2010 7:42:54 AM

Most likely now both countries belong to special league of "Third World Superpowers" while US is called "hyperpower". So in my opinion in short term US will use India as a proxy against China exactly as forty years ago US used PRC as a proxy against the USSR.

This may change in a longer perspective (circa 2040-2050) because it is possible India and China will grow (not only economically but what is much more important technologically) to a such an extend they will reach US level. However in broad strategic perspective US have and will always have many advantages: US possess strategic monopoly on Western Hemisphere without any rivals. All other future superpowers reside on Euro-Asian landmass and have many natural enemies close to their borders. So US can easily play ones against others mounting many alliances and military bases there.

In fact US do exactly something like that since the end of World War Two: CENTO, SEATO, ANZUS created by Washington against Soviet come to mind...we well see another such pacts in the future, I am sure.

Quote Reply

kiwibird 9/3/2010 7:40:42 AM

With the current progress that both India and China are making economically, it's highly unlikely that either would want to risk war, at least any time in the recent future. Of course, with the premise being war post-2050, it's an altogether different proposal; however, even given this timescale, it's more likely that conflict shall arise between China and the USA, instead of India. There are multiple reasons for this, which I shall give.

In forty years' time, the biggest threat and competitor to both India and China would still be the USA, so neither would engage in warfare to the detriment of each other and benefit of the USA. Both nations are merely potential superpowers, and both face difficult internal challenges: China faces an ageing population, an increasing rich-poor divide, inter-ethnical tensions, etc. Meanwhile, India faces an inflation rate nearly twice that of GDP growth, risk of severe overpopulation if current growth rates continue, a massive rich-poor divide of its own, and inter-ethnical tensions as well. These factors mean that they would be too busy dealing with their own problems and ensuring development to engage in war with each other, which would hardly provide a good solution to any of these problems.

In response to the OP, India and China are not competing for the same markets; India is going for the services sector, while China for the manufacturing sector. However, the situation may in fact be reversed in the future with China aiming for the services sector, and India increasing its industrial output. They are indeed 'right next to each other', albeit separated by the Himalayas, and in the long histories of both nations, there have been very few conflicts - hence putting to rest your 'his[t]ory of conflict'.

Let me now address some of the comments I have read here:

@ Neo:

First of all, your examples are somewhat misleading:

1. Japan was blinded by tactical genius and subsequently fell into the trap of strategical idiocy during WWII. Strategy is indeed 'an interesting beast', and one the Japanese High Commmand clearly did not master - Japanese stood no chance against the USA. After enraging the otherwise politically isolated USA by the attack on Pearl Harbour, it wasn't so much a counterattack as a simple crushing of the Japanese wartime empire. 'Had United States not been attacked, the Chinese would have been bowing to the Japanese Emperor and most of the world to Third Reich. It took more than strategy to outwit the German defenses' is a very questionable statement. Simply put, the United States, while its contribution to the war was significant, by the time it had already gotten involved, the tide of war had already turned in the Western theatre thanks to the efforts of the USSR, while you yourself have noted that 'alll military strategy can tank pretty fast when a population (socially, politically and culturally bound)', such as China, 'digs in and counter attacks', which is exactly what the Chinese population was doing.

2. The City of Leningrad pitting itself against a 'superior' German force. Well, in fact, although the German forces in the vicinity were superior technologically and numerically initially, the muster of Soviet reinforcements actually soon gave the Red Army superiority. Again, the East Front altogether is an example of Germany, or, rather, Hitler, being blinded by tactical genius and falling foul of strategy. Realistically speaking, Germany could never defeat the Soviets and hold on to the vast territories, especially not with the Western Allies behind its back.

3.Individual or group acts of courage in a war occurs on both sides. Rarely are they able to rise up above the tactical level and influence the overall strategical level, aside from perhaps increasing the morale of the population in general.

'There is something very organic and new about India that did not exist before Indian independence in 1947 (In reality before that India existed as a loose mesh of culture). Its only after the Gandhian era that the real identity of India and the "Free Indian" took hold and now after more than 60 years it is maturing and thriving (despite of all strategists predicting balkanization of India)'. The 'loose mesh of culture' is still a problem for India today; the partition of individual states may well yet herald more challenges for India. The fact that many Indians do not even share a mother tongue means that the stability may be little more than superficial, and India may yet prove to be an 'artificial' rather than 'organic' creation.

1.Indians are not a 'suppressed population' - I entirely agree with this, but then, neither are the Chinese. I would like to see the sources for your stati

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT