China vs India War: Who Wins? (No Nukes)

[Colon™]

$270 billion.

BTW, it wasn't all that long ago when Belgium's exports were bigger than China's (excluding Hong Kong IIRC).

[Dis]

didn't read the whole thread, but China has kicked India's ass before. No reason to think they can't do it again. Hell, China has kicked the americans ass, and they could do it again as well.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Colon™
$270 billion.

BTW, it wasn't all that long ago when Belgium's exports were bigger than China's (excluding Hong Kong IIRC).

Sadly, we've also been overtaken by South Korea lately.

I also noticed that Singapore has exports of $200 billion. Now, THAT is impressive.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Your free to post anything you want about the OP.
No one stoping you.

I wish this thread wasn't so polluted with spam so that we could discuss the OP without having to scroll through pages of silly argumentation which drifts further and further from the purpose of the OP.

[Sikander]

I don't see much hope of either side clambering over the Himalayas and into the other side's homeland, so we have a ground war stalemate most likely. That leaves strategic warfare, ie airpower, missles and naval interdiction. The Chinese have a lot of planes, but iirc they aren't very good. IIRC India has a more modern airforce and should be able to at least hold its own. IIRC China has a distinct advantage in missles, which means that they can perhaps match or exceed India in terms of long range strikes without having to establish any sort of air presence over India.

Both countries are most vulnerable to one another at sea (if we take nukes off the table). Neither really has the capability at present to project enough naval power to blockade the other, though how this develops would be the most interesting part of the war and the most telling if one side were able to challenge the other in their home waters.

I vote stalemate, but in a long enough war it is possible that one side would be able to take the upper hand.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Not in supply. It actually goes with my position, the defender would win (so if both sides were persuring it, bloody stalemate would occur).

Jon Miller

QFT

Good to have a wargamer chime in.

In any operation across the Himalyas, that goes farther then a small brawl along the border (like 1962) whoever attacks loses. Its too hard to maintain a supply chain for a large force across the Himalyan ridge. so whoever attacks does so with a small ground force, against the others sides large force, operating on far superior lines of supply.

A naval war would work almost the same. Despite the possible use of bases at Gwaidar, Pakistan, and in Burma, its unline the PLA-N could operate successfully for long in the Indian Ocean, and its equally unlikely, that, without support from say, the US, Austr, Taiwan,Japan, the Indian Navy could operate for long in the Pacific.

Only real prospect for a meaningful war would involve client states in SE Asia, lets say. Or Central Asia. But India hasnt been that active in CA beyond Afghanistan, China seems ok with Indias position in Afghan (if Paki is not). I dont see any flashpoints in SE Asia either, other than MAYBE Burma. Youd need a far less cautious regime in either Beijing, or Delhi, or both, AND a crisis in Burma, and even then its possible a confrontation might be avoided.


Alternatively you could have a war between India and Pakistan that escalates and draws China in, but thats a whole different ball of wax.

[Vince278]

The real winner in a China vs India conflict would be Russia, followed by Islamic nations, and to a lesser extent the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Apartheid South Africa was a democracy. Athens was a democracy even when slaves vastly outnumbered citizens. Democracy can exist without liberal values.

Thats the Aristotelian definition of democracy, in which it means rule by the many, and IIUC, "many" is any body thats too big for all the members to know each other.

Thats NOT how democracy has been used in modern discource, generally speaking. During the 19th century, when most western states had electoral systems with limited suffrage (but far too large for all the voters to know each other) "democrats" generally pushed for manhood suffrage (or, in pre-1869 US, white manhood suffrage). Jacksonian democrats opposed limited suffrage in pre-1830 US, democrats in Austria opposed suffrage limitations, Chartists opposed the limited suffrage in England. Those who opposed the Chartists generally did NOT consider themselves or call themselves "democrats" AFAIK.

Of course the racial exception in pre-1869 (other than New England which already had a color blind suffrage) US sticks out like a sore thumb. But I think those who advocated for negro suffrage after the war definitely considered that they were fullfilling democracy in the US. And those opposed either engaged in contortions to justify why WHITE manhood suffrage was necessary, but non-whites were different, or, in a few cases, explicitly opposed democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America to warn France of what might be in store for them if and when France became a democracy. Yet he published in 1835, when France, under Louis Phillipe, had a parliamentary govt, and an electorate that was too large for everyone to know everyone else. Yet AdT did not consider France a democracy.


Those limited suffrage states were often liberal - in that they had defined freedoms and legal rights, and legal limits on the authority of the state. Its also quite possible to have an illiberal democracy - India in the 1950s is often given as an example - where there are universal suffrage elections, but where rule of law is not established, and legal rights are not secure. Fareed Zakaria wrote a book about the phenomenon.

Apartheid South Africa was limited in its liberalism (due to its record on rights, freedom to associate, etc) It was ALSO not a democracy in the modern sense, since only a minority of the adult population could vote, and no one any longer took seriously the distinction accepted in 1840 about race. Even if one did - retrospectively, most US states in 1840, had white majorities. It may be no coincidence that South Carolina, one of two states that
did not have a white majority, was also a state that retained property qualifications for voting until the civil war, and where there was a strong aristocratic ethos.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Japan's system was similar to the Prussian system in many ways (although it was also influenced by the British), so it may not fall under your definition of "democratic".

Prussian system, PLUS alot of assasinations of civilian politicians who opposed the radical militarists.

Japan in the late '30s was even less meaningfully democratic than Germany circa 1900.

[SpencerH]

China is stronger (by far). That doesnt mean that they could walk through the Indians though since the invasion routes are extremely tough terrain. IIRC the last shooting match was nominally a chinese victory since the captured a few miles of territory but for the most part it was a stalemate arty duel.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Colon™


Sadly, we've also been overtaken by South Korea lately.

I also noticed that Singapore has exports of $200 billion. Now, THAT is impressive.

By world exports you are including exports to other EU countries correct?

In that case, EU countries, especially small EU countries have their exports somewhat "artifically" inflated as a result of being economically integrated into a single economic superstate that gets broken into little pieces to allow export figures to be determined for thos smaller pieces.

I wonder how many US states would be world export leaders if each state had all goods and services that went to other states counted as "exports".

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thats the Aristotelian definition of democracy, in which it means rule by the many, and IIUC, "many" is any body thats too big for all the members to know each other.

Thats NOT how democracy has been used in modern discource, generally speaking. During the 19th century, when most western states had electoral systems with limited suffrage (but far too large for all the voters to know each other) "democrats" generally pushed for manhood suffrage (or, in pre-1869 US, white manhood suffrage). Jacksonian democrats opposed limited suffrage in pre-1830 US, democrats in Austria opposed suffrage limitations, Chartists opposed the limited suffrage in England. Those who opposed the Chartists generally did NOT consider themselves or call themselves "democrats" AFAIK.

Of course the racial exception in pre-1869 (other than New England which already had a color blind suffrage) US sticks out like a sore thumb. But I think those who advocated for negro suffrage after the war definitely considered that they were fullfilling democracy in the US. And those opposed either engaged in contortions to justify why WHITE manhood suffrage was necessary, but non-whites were different, or, in a few cases, explicitly opposed democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America to warn France of what might be in store for them if and when France became a democracy. Yet he published in 1835, when France, under Louis Phillipe, had a parliamentary govt, and an electorate that was too large for everyone to know everyone else. Yet AdT did not consider France a democracy.


Those limited suffrage states were often liberal - in that they had defined freedoms and legal rights, and legal limits on the authority of the state. Its also quite possible to have an illiberal democracy - India in the 1950s is often given as an example - where there are universal suffrage elections, but where rule of law is not established, and legal rights are not secure. Fareed Zakaria wrote a book about the phenomenon.

Apartheid South Africa was limited in its liberalism (due to its record on rights, freedom to associate, etc) It was ALSO not a democracy in the modern sense, since only a minority of the adult population could vote, and no one any longer took seriously the distinction accepted in 1840 about race. Even if one did - retrospectively, most US states in 1840, had white majorities. It may be no coincidence that South Carolina, one of two states that
did not have a white majority, was also a state that retained property qualifications for voting until the civil war, and where there was a strong aristocratic ethos.

Democracy has been around for 2500 years. I would not make the mistake of thinking we have come to a final definition of the term. More importantly, I think it a mistake to mix the notion of liberal values and democracy, just as the mistake has been made of mixing state and nation. Both are terrible mistakes, and we see that mistake in aciton in Iraq- because people forgot what democracy IS, and thought that invariably elections lead to liberal values.

I like sticking to the original meaning of terms. I think if makes for clarity, dropping aside the layers of mea ing added to something by partisans of one side or another.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't see much hope of either side clambering over the Himalayas and into the other side's homeland, so we have a ground war stalemate most likely. That leaves strategic warfare, ie airpower, missles and naval interdiction. The Chinese have a lot of planes, but iirc they aren't very good. IIRC India has a more modern airforce and should be able to at least hold its own. IIRC China has a distinct advantage in missles, which means that they can perhaps match or exceed India in terms of long range strikes without having to establish any sort of air presence over India.

I have not seen anything that would point to India haviong a better airforce. China not only has many more planes, but the money to buy better planes. The SU-27's that China has bought are a much better plane than anything the Indian's have.

Both countries are most vulnerable to one another at sea (if we take nukes off the table). Neither really has the capability at present to project enough naval power to blockade the other, though how this develops would be the most interesting part of the war and the most telling if one side were able to challenge the other in their home waters.

I vote stalemate, but in a long enough war it is possible that one side would be able to take the upper hand.

I doubt sea power would be an issue, India can;t constest the South China Sea, China has no real way of getting into the INdian Ocean.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have not seen anything that would point to India haviong a better airforce. China not only has many more planes, but the money to buy better planes. The SU-27's that China has bought are a much better plane than anything the Indian's have.

There have been several joint training exercises held recently between the U.S. Air Force and the Indian Air Force. The Indians have used their new, Russian designed, Su-30s (an improved model of the Su-27, which is the Russian answer to the U.S. F-15). The Indians have gone up against American F-15s and F-16s. The Indian pilots have been quite successful in these mock dogfights, and very eager to let everyone know about it.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20051231235130.asp

[Serb]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I have not seen anything that would point to India haviong a better airforce. China not only has many more planes, but the money to buy better planes. The SU-27's that China has bought are a much better plane than anything the Indian's have.

There have been several joint training exercises held recently between the U.S. Air Force and the Indian Air Force. The Indians have used their new, Russian designed, Su-30s (an improved model of the Su-27, which is the Russian answer to the U.S. F-15). The Indians have gone up against American F-15s and F-16s. The Indian pilots have been quite successful in these mock dogfights, and very eager to let everyone know about it.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...1231235130.asp