07-01-2010, 11:22 PM
[quote name='Pandyan' date='01 July 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1277999878' post='107251']
I was just commenting on the ability of Indian military and para-military units to be able to take on any sort of enemy force. Their antiquated methods of training, undermanned officer corps, ill-equipped soldiers who are already operating with shitty equipment, are all factors to ponder upon when considering this "two front" war. Not to mention, there is also the civilian side which has to be mobilized and ready for such an event. Note, these are the same people who got completely befuddled by 10 pakis who basically ran their entire city for 5 days. Personally, I don't think India could even handle a single front war, for example against China. It would just be a matter of time until Delhi got ran over by zipperheads.
[/quote]
The fallacy here is that terrorist attacks are a very different situation from conventional war....indeed police of any kind would only be fit for defending static targets. anti-maoist actions and actions against the types in the mumbai attacks are a different ballgame. even there, it was 2 NSG to 9 terrorists.
The pakis would not be able to match us in a conventional war that prolongs. Even in kargil, with all the advantages the had, they ended up losing once the Indian army got going. Even then, according to V P Malik, there were attempts by China to capture DBO (24 attempts repulsed). Also, ther are nukes- whatever little is there is not meant for doing pooja. unless one unnecssarily paralyses one's mind by a japa that goes along the lines of
"our forces are useless, the pakis/chinis are unbeateable"
success in an offensive, especially across mountains, requires not just sizeable advantage, but overwhelming advantage. While following twitter, I saw somebody ask Lt. Gen. H. S. Panag what would be the outcome of a two front situation. His reply was "we gain some territory against pak, hold against china". He was asked how come, when he himself says china is far ahead of us in modernization. His answer was that terrain makes it impossible for China to press these advantages. In TSP's case, they still do not have the same conventional capabilities.
Now Gen. Panag is himself somebody who is completely dissatisfied with the state of affairs re: modernization. So, it is unlikely he is indulging in bravado.
IMHO the biggest danger is strategic panic by the civilian population that goes along the lines of
"our forces are useless, the pakis/chinis are unbeateable"
This is reinforced by the media and the way they cover naxal activity/ terrorist activity. Either the civ. popln. must undergo strategic education till a basic level of strategic literacy is achieved / the press/media must be made to fall in line with the establishment. In any case, an emergency promulgated in a war situation will help bring the media/etc into line.
In short, a defensive capability in a 2-frnt situation certainly exists, unless CIVILIAN leads to avoidable bungling- like not using the air-force in fear of escalation, etc. Terrorist attacks/ naxal activities are meant to create precisely the conditions for civilian panic- in the old days, the absence of a free media prevented loss of cv. morale. How many people know mizo insurgents in 1966 overran aizawl ? That we had to bomb them with the airforce to bring things to a state where negotiations happened ? That in 1969-70-71 naxals in w. bengal were on a "China's chairman is our chairman" rampage ? In spite of state setbacks then, in spite of not being optimally equipped then (TSP was better equipped in 1965 and 1971) we still won. How would things have been then with today's media amplifying and publicizing anti-national "achievements" ?
Concluding points: Just the presence of a leader like Narendra Modi in the PM's chair will all other factors exactly as they are at present would lessen the chances of having to actually encounter a two frnt situation drastically. In fact, the image that secularists have tried to build of NaMo being a mass murderer would make TSP/China all the more wary: who can guarantee that such a man may not go for a first strike in the event of a two front situation, NFU notwithstanding ?
Unfortunately, pacifist leaders only lead to more violence, even if the scores are level in the end: think of Punjab during 1946-47.
Finally, we are very very far away from achieving offensive capability to dismantle TSP as a state once and for all.....
I was just commenting on the ability of Indian military and para-military units to be able to take on any sort of enemy force. Their antiquated methods of training, undermanned officer corps, ill-equipped soldiers who are already operating with shitty equipment, are all factors to ponder upon when considering this "two front" war. Not to mention, there is also the civilian side which has to be mobilized and ready for such an event. Note, these are the same people who got completely befuddled by 10 pakis who basically ran their entire city for 5 days. Personally, I don't think India could even handle a single front war, for example against China. It would just be a matter of time until Delhi got ran over by zipperheads.
[/quote]
The fallacy here is that terrorist attacks are a very different situation from conventional war....indeed police of any kind would only be fit for defending static targets. anti-maoist actions and actions against the types in the mumbai attacks are a different ballgame. even there, it was 2 NSG to 9 terrorists.
The pakis would not be able to match us in a conventional war that prolongs. Even in kargil, with all the advantages the had, they ended up losing once the Indian army got going. Even then, according to V P Malik, there were attempts by China to capture DBO (24 attempts repulsed). Also, ther are nukes- whatever little is there is not meant for doing pooja. unless one unnecssarily paralyses one's mind by a japa that goes along the lines of
"our forces are useless, the pakis/chinis are unbeateable"
success in an offensive, especially across mountains, requires not just sizeable advantage, but overwhelming advantage. While following twitter, I saw somebody ask Lt. Gen. H. S. Panag what would be the outcome of a two front situation. His reply was "we gain some territory against pak, hold against china". He was asked how come, when he himself says china is far ahead of us in modernization. His answer was that terrain makes it impossible for China to press these advantages. In TSP's case, they still do not have the same conventional capabilities.
Now Gen. Panag is himself somebody who is completely dissatisfied with the state of affairs re: modernization. So, it is unlikely he is indulging in bravado.
IMHO the biggest danger is strategic panic by the civilian population that goes along the lines of
"our forces are useless, the pakis/chinis are unbeateable"
This is reinforced by the media and the way they cover naxal activity/ terrorist activity. Either the civ. popln. must undergo strategic education till a basic level of strategic literacy is achieved / the press/media must be made to fall in line with the establishment. In any case, an emergency promulgated in a war situation will help bring the media/etc into line.
In short, a defensive capability in a 2-frnt situation certainly exists, unless CIVILIAN leads to avoidable bungling- like not using the air-force in fear of escalation, etc. Terrorist attacks/ naxal activities are meant to create precisely the conditions for civilian panic- in the old days, the absence of a free media prevented loss of cv. morale. How many people know mizo insurgents in 1966 overran aizawl ? That we had to bomb them with the airforce to bring things to a state where negotiations happened ? That in 1969-70-71 naxals in w. bengal were on a "China's chairman is our chairman" rampage ? In spite of state setbacks then, in spite of not being optimally equipped then (TSP was better equipped in 1965 and 1971) we still won. How would things have been then with today's media amplifying and publicizing anti-national "achievements" ?
Concluding points: Just the presence of a leader like Narendra Modi in the PM's chair will all other factors exactly as they are at present would lessen the chances of having to actually encounter a two frnt situation drastically. In fact, the image that secularists have tried to build of NaMo being a mass murderer would make TSP/China all the more wary: who can guarantee that such a man may not go for a first strike in the event of a two front situation, NFU notwithstanding ?
Unfortunately, pacifist leaders only lead to more violence, even if the scores are level in the end: think of Punjab during 1946-47.
Finally, we are very very far away from achieving offensive capability to dismantle TSP as a state once and for all.....