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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The two gentlemen who are debating who would intervene on behalf of whom, without specifying the scenario that would lead up to war, are both silly.

Now what would make you say that?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by dannubis


our non existant country was the most important trade centre in western europe even before your forefathers slaughtered the indians. your point ?

My forefathers were from France, Britain and Germany.

Your point?

[VetLegion]

Could someone place a pity vote for India?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hearsay, but the 'blokes' I spoke to claimed that both missiles and French nationals were 'neutralised'.

Christ, this isn't hard to find, GePap. Third link on google of 'exocet argentina sas raid airbase'

Read your own article...

Planned, as in, IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Thank you for proving me right with your own "proof".



[

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Could someone place a pity vote for India?

LOL well stalemate is ALMOST tied... I voted stalemate.

One important question... well several important questions is WHO is the agressor, and what is defined as "victory"?

[Dr Strangelove]

You do realise that China would be attacking from the mountains while India would be attacking towards them. This would give the Chinese a distinct advantage.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dauphin


The populations are about the same, for intents and purposes...

China = 1.3 billion
India = 1.01 billion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You do realise that China would be attacking from the mountains while India would be attacking towards them. This would give the Chinese a distinct advantage.

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

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Japan was democratic, by and large, albeit a democracy that fell under the control of an ultranationalist and imperialist military, mainly due to a lack of liberal institutions to curtail their rising influence in politics. It wasn't a liberal democracy, but it was a democracy and therefore representative, IMO.

I'm not sure what institutional arrangements Japan had before WW2, but it's not because a country happens to have a representative parliament that you can call it "democratic". Imperial Germany also had a representative parliament but it had little sway over the government. That is why, spite of all appearances, Germany was authocratic for instance..

[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".

[Colonâ„¢]

You're the one with the odd definition of "democratic".

[Drake Tungsten]

I never said yours was odd. It's a vague term and there's certainly room for disagreement on what is and what isn't "democratic" or "representative".

[GePap]

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

[Colonâ„¢]

Ok, ok, ok. So call it a democracry or whatever, but whenever people are saying that democracies do not go to war with each other, they do are thinking of liberal democracy.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Interestingly, Belgium has more than three times the exports India has. India has a long way to go until it can challenge the Belgian war machine.

Originally posted by alva
Btw, you don't know that number by heart, do you?

Did I miss something, or are we still waiting for the answer to this important question?