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

[aneeshm]

In a conventional war , I say China , even though I hate to say it . But as Winston said , the commies always lose in the long run , so we just have to wait it out , and the destruction and disintegration of China is assured .

[Jon Miller]

The Agressor loses.

JM

[Terra Nullius]

India for teh win.

IHF World Rankings:
India: 6
China: 21

(Heck, even Canada plays better hockey than China, and we all know how bad they suck!)

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Not since 1991 . Having to surrender our gold reserves to pay our debts taught us the lesson that socialism and communism do not work . We then liberalised economically , and are now mostly capitalist , and becoming even more as every day passes .

While Coca Cola sucks the groundwater from Kerala and Tamil-Nadu, leaving peasants on dry soil.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In a conventional war , I say China , even though I hate to say it . But as Winston said , the commies always lose in the long run , so we just have to wait it out , and the destruction and disintegration of China is assured .

Once again we're reminded that you're either cruel or bonkers. And calling China 'communist' is just precious.

[Colonâ„¢]

China wins. I like India and I think it has great potential, but they're a disjointed bunch. They'd probably assassinate several prime ministers well before China even gets the chance to cross the Himalayas.

[Pekka]

The defendor wins because of the defendors advantage. Umm.. if it's just all-out war, tough to say, really tough. Coin flip for me.

[GePap]

I say China if in the Himalayas. Chyina has more money to spend on its military and has greater internal arms production of heavy weapons, plus no other fronts they need to concentrate on (Unlike India with Pakistan). I also think the Chinese command and control is probably more efficient. And if there is one thing China is good at, it mobilizings its entire population for one thing. India is not as efficient in that regard.

[C0ckney]

china won the last one with ease, because it was essentially a border skirmish, characterised by a complete lack of political will, or military competence, on the indian side.

an all-out war is unthinkable today, but if it happened then china would win. although in that case, i'd hope that we (britain and the west in general), would do everything within our power to prevent that from happening.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The US.

Isn't that the costly stalemate option?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by C0ckney
china won the last one with ease, because it was essentially a border skirmish, characterised by a complete lack of political will, or military competence, on the indian side.

an all-out war is unthinkable today, but if it happened then china would win. although in that case, i'd hope that we (britain and the west in general), would do everything within our power to prevent that from happening.

It is highly unlikely that the Commonwealth would stand aside and let the world's largest democracy go down, if ever backed to the wall.

And that drags the Yanks in.

China can't win be attacking anyone, except maybe ex Soviet client states and places nobody really much cares about.

[GePap]

Any war between China and India would be limited in scope. Neither state would ever attempt to "conquer" the other. And no other major states would get involved in a limited war between significant powers unless their direct interests were harmed.

[notyoueither]

Most likely true. Just pointing out that India has some markers that could be called in.

[GePap]

The bigger issue is whether China would call in its makers with Pakistan.

[notyoueither]

In an all-out war? Maybe.

That's the sort of thing the Empire of English would get really pissed off about.