If China and India are at war for border dispute, who will be the first to cry uncle?

[gxnn]

In terms of overall strength and military forces, it seems China will be the winner, but considering the border is located in a remote area where materials and men are hard to reach and that most of Chinese troops will be moved from the area of much lower altitude,things will be different and disadvantageous to them. Perhaps they have to end the war as soon as possible if it is really started. But there are weapons put into use which can travel long distance without bothering personnel movement, it might be lasting. It is said India do not have sufficient arsenal to sustain a full war longer than a week without resorting to outside aids. The US cannot be get directly involved, neither does Russia, but they will give supports to both sides in secret as they see fit. So now the scenario is complicated.

Who will win? I think it is China due to its influence in the UN and many economic connections with the US. And Pakistan, the arch rival of India and the strategic brother of China, will not make India's time pleaseant if there is a war.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If India and China were to go to war, Tibet might become involved on the side of India, in hopes of achieving independence. Militarily, they might not be strong, but Tibet could place obstacles in the way of Chinese forces. I can't see them helping China any more than they would have to.

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's think nasty

What nations stand to gain or lose if India and China get into heavy-duty shooting? Who could manipulate the situation to provoke hostilities? Might not some sneaky player generate fake intel and commo, prompting sides to start firing and launching? Who wins? Follow the money...

Possible provocateurs: N.Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Australia, Japan, USA, UK, Israel, France, Texas, etc.

 

[sr71plt]

China and India have disputed the boundaries between them since 1914 and went to war once--in 1962, when China invaded and did pretty much what it wanted to do while it was there, but without much payoff, so they left. China has more--and more support on that border--than India does and if there was a war again, China most likely would win militarily but yet again wonder what it won for the outlay.

The most interesting story of that border dispute happened elsewhere--on the China-Vietnam border, where, in February 1979, to convince the world that it really would invade Vietnam to get Vietnam to stop invading Cambodia, even though it was ill prepared to do so and there didn't seem to be any payoff (China is not expansionist in terms of territory) China invaded Vietnam. In the weeks leading up to the incursion in Vietnam, China used the exact blueprint of its 1962 invasion of India in its propaganda--the same time relationships between incursions, the exact same wording and body counts in battle reports. It reasoned that since it really did invade India in 1962, we should believe it really would invade Vietnam if the United States or Soviet Union didn't do something to stop a Vietnamese invasion of China. But nothing was done (it was snowing in Washington the day of the invasion, and we had all seen the invasion would fizzle before we got shoveled out), China quickly learned it was going to get walloped in an incursion into Vietnam and it pulled back.

But that's the most use that's been gotten out of the 1962 China-India War.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

"If China and India are at war for border dispute, who will be the first to cry uncle?"

Donny T.

 

[Hypoxia]

I'm waiting for the Indo-Sino fighting to reach the forbidden Plateau of Leng where the High Priest Not to Be Described or the Elder Things will sort matters out. But they'd better not awaken Cthulhu. Wouldn't be prudent.

Meanwhile, other possible players provoking hostilities include Turkey, most of the -stans, Indonesia, some Gulf states, and Wyoming. Better watch out.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Meanwhile, other possible players provoking hostilities include Turkey, most of the -stans, Indonesia, some Gulf states, and Wyoming. Better watch out.

http://italiancyprus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/swissguard-large.jpg



Don't forget these guys. The Pope and the Dali Lama are buddies.

 

[gxnn]

Tibetans will not be aroused

If India and China were to go to war, Tibet might become involved on the side of India, in hopes of achieving independence. Militarily, they might not be strong, but Tibet could place obstacles in the way of Chinese forces. I can't see them helping China any more than they would have to.

Theoretically it is possible, but in reality there is no chance at all for Tibetans. With such a small population of which many have been brainwashed, the local people cannot pose any threat or even make any physical obstacle to Chinese army. If they make rebellions, it is very likely they will be annihilated completely.
And after so many years living with Chinese people, Tibetans become practical, and I don't think they will choose independence because they can get the same benefits from other countries. The US and India or other countries are now active to offer help, but after the climax, they all have their own messes to clean at home and elsewhere, and China will not stop its efforts to recover the lost territory, then whatever aids or supports Tibet gains from its sympathizers will be offset and more lives and properties will be lost (even the whole race if it is not an overstatement) for this purpose. Human beings are selfish, whoever and wherever they are.

 

[Hypoxia]

http://italiancyprus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/swissguard-large.jpg



Don't forget these guys. The Pope and the Dali Lama are buddies.

Yeah, but the Swiss have enough mountains and the Vatican would have a hard time profiting. I'm thinking more of Turkik / Uyghur interventions, or Taiwanese satellites beaming down pictures of savage Chinese troops eating sacred cows to enrage Indians, or a North Korean sub launching a nuke at Mumbai to be blamed on China, or maybe Texans cutting the Myanmar pipeline, some shit like that. Who has the most to gain?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Theoretically it is possible, but in reality there is no chance at all for Tibetans. With such a small population of which many have been brainwashed, the local people cannot pose any threat or even make any physical obstacle to Chinese army. If they make rebellions, it is very likely they will be annihilated completely.
And after so many years living with Chinese people, Tibetans become practical, and I don't think they will choose independence because they can get the same benefits from other countries. The US and India or other countries are now active to offer help, but after the climax, they all have their own messes to clean at home and elsewhere, and China will not stop its efforts to recover the lost territory, then whatever aids or supports Tibet gains from its sympathizers will be offset and more lives and properties will be lost (even the whole race if it is not an overstatement) for this purpose. Human beings are selfish, whoever and wherever they are.

I'm not referring to combat; I am thinking of things such as sabotage and espionage and providing support to Indians but not to Chinese.

 

[phrodeau]

http://italiancyprus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/swissguard-large.jpg



Don't forget these guys. The Pope and the Dali Lama are buddies.

If I had to dress like that for work, I'd never leave the house.

 

[ishtat]

(China is not expansionist in terms of territory)

Culturally, most Chinese people used to regard the Western third of their own country as a land of barbarians. However, the policy of settling Han Chinese in those areas may change perceptions over time.

China did have significant influence in NE Asia(Now Russia) prior to the advent of Communism. It might possibly be raised again but seems a long shot at the moment. Russia still occupies the islands to the north of Hokkaido which it took from Japan (without treaty) in 1945. Might be instructive to see what China's response to a more assertive Japan might be in that region.

In the long (very long?) run, conflict between Russia and China seems inevitable. It has been Russian policy since Peter the Great at least, to constantly bully its neighbours - until the neighbour stands up to them - then they back off until next time. However, it seems to be in China's interests to delay any conflict as long as possible - until China is so far ahead of Russia economically that the Russians could not compete. Mebbe the best bet for the Chinese would be to gradually replace Russian influence in the Central Asian "Stans"

All rather speculative.

 

[John Blackhawk]

Me i say india will be first to cry for customer support.

 

[dan_c00000]

If I had to dress like that for work, I'd never leave the house.

Being in the Swiss Guard is apparently pretty prestigious (and glamours).

 

[sr71plt]

Culturally, most Chinese people used to regard the Western third of their own country as a land of barbarians. However, the policy of settling Han Chinese in those areas may change perceptions over time.

China did have significant influence in NE Asia(Now Russia) prior to the advent of Communism. It might possibly be raised again but seems a long shot at the moment. Russia still occupies the islands to the north of Hokkaido which it took from Japan (without treaty) in 1945. Might be instructive to see what China's response to a more assertive Japan might be in that region.

In the long (very long?) run, conflict between Russia and China seems inevitable. It has been Russian policy since Peter the Great at least, to constantly bully its neighbours - until the neighbour stands up to them - then they back off until next time. However, it seems to be in China's interests to delay any conflict as long as possible - until China is so far ahead of Russia economically that the Russians could not compete. Mebbe the best bet for the Chinese would be to gradually replace Russian influence in the Central Asian "Stans"

All rather speculative.

All involving quite small chunks of territory--certainly nothing like biting off something the size of Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. Not particularly expansionist in terms of territory.

And on another poster's comments on Tibet and military uprising. Don't count on it by the Tibetans. Their religion itself is counter to organizing to take up arms in rebellion in any meaningful way.

 

[Boxlicker101]

All involving quite small chunks of territory--certainly nothing like biting off something the size of Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. Not particularly expansionist in terms of territory.

And on another poster's comments on Tibet and military uprising. Don't count on it by the Tibetans. Their religion itself is counter to organizing to take up arms in rebellion in any meaningful way.

Not particularly true. Tibet was taken over by China in 1950 and a rebellion was put down in 1959. https://www.thoughtco.com/tibet-geography-and-history-1435570

As I said, Tibet would not be able to do much militarily, but they could provide support to the Indians.

 

[sr71plt]

As I said, Tibet would not be able to do much militarily, but they could provide support to the Indians.

It wasn't hard to put the '59 rebellion down, just as I noted would be the likely case, from the nature of Tibetans.

Why would the Tibetans support the Indians in anything?

More important, why do I bother to respond to your nonsense?

 

[gxnn]

BRICS summit meeting will be held in Xiamen of China soon

I'm not referring to combat; I am thinking of things such as sabotage and espionage and providing support to Indians but not to Chinese.

If there is a war today, espionage or intelligence collection or meaningful information does not rely on human power. Both sides know each other well enough, so there could not be any surprise attack as in Pearl Harbor. Power and strength will decide the development of the war. So rebellious Tibetans could offer moral support only if there are really such stupid men existing. Traditionally, Tibetans are religious and seclusive but the problem now is they cannot return to this quiet and peaceful lifestyle once they are exposed to a material world. Go to Tibet you will see the monks living in the temples are more active online in the Internet than their brothers living outside. How many concubines has the Dalia Lama kept in secret can only be known to himself or his secretary.
But China now is preparing the summit meeting of BRICS heads of countries in September as scheduled, which will expect the Indian president or prime minister to attend. It will be much embarassing to both parties.

 

[ishtat]

All involving quite small chunks of territory--certainly nothing like biting off something the size of Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. Not particularly expansionist in terms of territory.

And on another poster's comments on Tibet and military uprising. Don't count on it by the Tibetans. Their religion itself is counter to organizing to take up arms in rebellion in any meaningful way.

Agree with you mostly. Any border fighting is over small and terribly difficult fighting country, perhaps the only real use of which would be to test the political mettle of ones opponents and the competence of ones armies.

Westerners tend to think of Tibetans as a nation of Dalai Lamas. The ordinary Tibetans experience in significant part was as feudal serfs to oppressive monks. A bit of Chinese economic largesse would probably amend any residual loyalties to the monks.

A recently retired Aussie diplomat suggested recently that the Chinese ambition for a silk road, rail/road/other/ trade route was at least as important for China as a rationale to be constantly talking to the the "Stans" about "economic co-operation and influence" The talks alone he suggested would bring a suspicious Russia to the table, whether they wanted to be there or not. From a Chinese point of view he opined that co-operation was good, and conflict (with Russia) might have benefits too -- not too sure about the latter, but food for thought.

 

[sr71plt]

Agree with you mostly. Any border fighting is over small and terribly difficult fighting country, perhaps the only real use of which would be to test the political mettle of ones opponents and the competence of ones armies.

I had to waste a few months early in my career writing daily assessments of the Sino-Soviet dust up at Zhenpao-Damanski Island, all the time thinking, who the hell would want Damanski Island?

 

[ishtat]

Battle of the Five Lamas

The Society of Ancients has a magazine called Slingshot. Their July edition 312 contains an obscure article on "The Battle of the five Lamas 1634"

Battles between the Feudal Tibetan monasteries were fairly frequent for control of the country and the feudal dues it could produce. This battle was more important than usual because it was material to establishing the state of Bhutan. Weapons used were limited to Bows, Arrows, Swords, Catapaults and Sorcery. I guess the last mentioned is the only one still in use.

The author suggests that it was possibly the last battle where neither side knew anything of firearms.

I wonder whether more or less folk read this article than did Pilot's essays on Damanski island.

 

[sr71plt]

I wonder whether more or less folk read this article than did Pilot's essays on Damanski island.

Well, they were for the PDB (the President's Daily Brief) at a time when the president read his daily briefs (and so did a lot of other folks).

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Society of Ancients has a magazine called Slingshot. Their July edition 312 contains an obscure article on "The Battle of the five Lamas 1634"

Battles between the Feudal Tibetan monasteries were fairly frequent for control of the country and the feudal dues it could produce. This battle was more important than usual because it was material to establishing the state of Bhutan. Weapons used were limited to Bows, Arrows, Swords, Catapaults and Sorcery. I guess the last mentioned is the only one still in use.

The author suggests that it was possibly the last battle where neither side knew anything of firearms.

I wonder whether more or less folk read this article than did Pilot's essays on Damanski island.

This was quite interesting, but I wonder if you are correct about the lack of firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Simtokha_Dzong

The Second Battle of Simtokha Dzong[4] or the Second Tibetan Invasion of Bhutan[11] was a military confrontation in 1634 between the supporters of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal and the forces of the Tibetan Tsangpa dynasty and several Bhutanese lamas allied against him. The latter initially conquered Zhabdrung’s seat, Simtokha Dzong, threatening to eliminate his young dominion. The castle’s ammunition stores were accidentally ignited during the battle, however, resulting in an explosion that destroyed Simtokha Dzong and much of the Tibetan army. Seizing this chance, Zhabdrung’s followers rallied and ousted the Tibetans from their territory, turning the battle into a decisive strategic victory of Ngawang Namgyal, paving the way for the Unification of Bhutan under his rule.

 

[ishtat]

This was quite interesting, but I wonder if you are correct about the lack of firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Simtokha_Dzong

The castle’s ammunition stores were accidentally ignited during the battle, however, resulting in an explosion that destroyed Simtokha Dzong and much of the Tibetan army. Seizing this chance, Zhabdrung’s followers rallied and ousted the Tibetans from their territory, turning the battle into a decisive strategic victory of Ngawang Namgyal, paving the way for the Unification of Bhutan under his rule.[/I]

My Bold

The Wiki article is sloppy Box. It was a gunpowder store not an ammunition store. Remember that the Chinese/Asians had 'gun' powder for hundreds of years before weaponizing it with guns and cannons.

Three Jesuit missionaries to Tibet in 1627 reported that the region had no guns or cannons and that their offer of guns as presents was rejected. More than 30 years later soldiers broke into a monastery by setting fire to the wooden front door. You would hardly do that if any kind of cannon was available. In the 1680/1690 period a Mongol force raided through Tibet to Bhutan again without using guns. The mongols lost but probably due to Malaria.

The Slingshot article covers more detail - but there is still more untranslated (from the Tibetan) original material.

Still other articles have suggested that the explosion of the gunpowder store was thought by the Tibetans to be due to sorcery and it was fear of that rather than the physical effect of the big bang which scared the Tibetans off. They ran away. An accidental political win to the Zhabdrung rather than a military victory.

In later 'treaty' discussions between the Tibetan aggressors and the Zhabdrung the Tibetan's main point was to stop their opponents using sorcery.

The Slingshot article is worth a read Box - more meticulously researched than the wiki account - though original material is admittedly sketchy from all sources.

 

[sr71plt]

Those damn Tibetans. They stubbornly refuse to see the world through Box's eyes. Screw 'em.