KeyboardWarrior Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: take off your CHina-whoring glasses for a minute and you will see how laughable this notion is. Nothing is tilted in India's favour ? really ? We have more mountain divisions than China. We don't require as much high altitude bariatric acclamatization, since our mountain brigade is already acclamatized to the himalayan altitudes. China maintains just 1 division in tibet- any escalation will see them bringing in troops from the plains, which would require acclamatization. We have close to six divisions for mountain warfare. We also have decisive edge in air-power in China sector- not only are our aircraft response time is 2x-5x superior to China's due to where our air bases are relative to the border, we are not taking off from 15,000 feet altitude, so our planes are not at half-capacity like the Chinese ones. And also LOL at SAMs. What moron deploys anti-aircraft SAMs in the high himalayas, instead of using our superior capacity planes and using A2S missiles ?! uncle, mind your language.... and maybe you need some glasses not me, the post you are qouting isnt about china-india war on himalayas .... Quote I hope Pakistan and China get sanctioned for this, since China is a signatory to non-proliferation of missiles treaty. But we all know how China doesn't play by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) @KeyboardWarrior Can you explain to me the benefits of tactical nukes considering the below: a) if a tactical nuke is fired in to Ind territory, Pak will be wiped out due to Ind response b) so tactical nukes can only be used inside Pak's territory to stop Ind forces from advancing In that sense, Pak would be using tactical nukes to nuke itself (its territory). Which is probably why sane countries don't include tactical nukes as a part of their nuclear strategy Edited July 20, 2017 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 9 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said: its has the range of 600 km, not 60 km. https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/hong-niao/ as i said in my above post that maybe we gt the help of chinese in NASR becoz of the MLRS ..... so i dont know exactly. China is land locked country. Unlike Pakistan, It doesnt need to keep a missile pointed to India from its border itself. But you still dont get the meaning oin ref term. Strategic(Read ones which achieve long term objective of national security) missiles are with China. Tactical nuke missiles are with Pakistan and North Kore which is used to bully/contain neigbhours like Japan, India, S Korea and so on. What I mean to say is China own nukes of all the three nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 7 hours ago, mishra said: China is land locked country. Unlike Pakistan, It doesnt need to keep a missile pointed to India from its border itself. But you still dont get the meaning oin ref term. Strategic(Read ones which achieve long term objective of national security) missiles are with China. Tactical nuke missiles are with Pakistan and North Kore which is used to bully/contain neigbhours like Japan, India, S Korea and so on. What I mean to say is China own nukes of all the three nations. bhai meray, thn you should say that china own the nukes of pak and N.korea for threatening thre neighbours in first place, becoz i was using technical issues and ToT for missiles tech and you are referring to the strategic and national security issues in ur post. but its fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, zen said: @KeyboardWarrior Can you explain to me the benefits of tactical nukes considering the below: a) if a tactical nuke is fired in to Ind territory, Pak will be wiped out due to Ind response b) so tactical nukes can only be used inside Pak's territory to stop Ind forces from advancing In that sense, Pak would be using tactical nukes to nuke itself (its territory). Which is probably why sane countries don't include tactical nukes as a part of their nuclear strategy IMO, we have fought 2 wars and 2 battles, so becoz of the size of the Indian army, we needed the new doctrine after 28th May 1998, to stop Indian forces advancing ( or cold start doctrine ) into pakistan territory in future conflicts. so we chose the Option ( b ) in your post. I wont go into too much tech terms, becoz i dont know the exact tech behind NASR missiles, its classified. i can only tell you whats the neutral ( non- pakistani ) defence sources/analyst said about it on different articles and reports. as far as i know in my limited knowledge, NASR warhead isnt based on pure plutonium or uranium etc, its purely based on Neutron so its contrast to strategic nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb Its a Multi-tube Ballistic Missile , one NASR missile can carry minimum 1kt of nuke and can wipeout the area about 2 to 3 km where the opponent Army is fielded, the Neutron bomb is known for the low yield destruction, with initial maximum lethal damage but without causing any long-term damage to the land or environment. In war situation the border area/villages are already evacuated anyway. meaning, after few month, the effected area will be useful and livable again. its contrast of strategic nuclear weapons, where the area and land wont be useful or livable again for long-term/years. the radiation level of Neutron bomb will start reducing faster after the first few days/weeks of explosion ( debatable / different theories , and depending on the environment of the area, air, humidity etc ) , compared to any strategic nuclear weapons. thats all i can say on this. Edited July 21, 2017 by KeyboardWarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Nice piece in Swarajya by Maj Gen Sheru Thapiyal: https://swarajyamag.com/defence/nathu-la-and-cho-la-clashes-of-1967-how-the-indian-army-dealt-with-chinese-trouble Quote Nathu La And Cho La Clashes Of 1967: How The Indian Army Dealt With Chinese Trouble Quote After the debacle of 1962, nothing could have enhanced the self-esteem of the Indian Army than the mauling that was given to the Chinese at Nathu La in Sikkim on 11 September 1967 and at Cho La on 1 October 1967. It must have come as a rude shock to the Chinese Army and also its political leadership. And by a happy coincidence, the Army leadership, which got the better of this eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, was the same that went on to create Bangladesh in 1971. Major General Sagat Singh was General Officer Commanding (GOC) 17 Mountain Division in Sikkim, Lieutenant General Jagjit Aurora was GOC 33 Corps and Sam Manekshaw was the Eastern Army Commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/21/2017 at 0:06 PM, mishra said: China is land locked country Nope it is surrounded by ocean in the east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/7/2017 at 9:18 PM, Haarkarjeetgaye said: China has nothing to lose. This shows your intelligence level. On 7/7/2017 at 9:18 PM, Haarkarjeetgaye said: lose the chicken piece, which is important for our North east region. Stop dreaming maulana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) On 7/7/2017 at 11:38 PM, bleaf27 said: Thing is lets face it China has the upper hand , they will win so hence their confidence. China needs 1:7 parity in order to capture our land though this can be higher in some mountainious regions.There is a reason in 1962 war China dispatched 80,000 plus soldiers to combat our 10,000-15,000. Edited July 22, 2017 by HemuChandra zen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 11:19 PM, dial_100 said: I thought with current stock of S-300 we are covered to a good extend. So it is not exactly MAD at par. Right now it is quite tilted in India's favor but India is not fully secured for sure. With S-400, there will be larger coverage and the dynamics will change substantially. And Dont Forget Bharat's Prithvi and (In some years)an BMD version of Durga Laser and BMD Sattelite that ISRO would launch if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 11:54 PM, KeyboardWarrior said: India will go for the SAMs/BMDs in future Bharat already has a Working BMD it is called Prithvi.It can cover several pakistan sized countries with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 61 of 62 mountain passes in Himalayas is controlled by India. India has almost 10 times more troops in the border..lol..napakis know nothing dont take them seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 On 20/07/2017 at 9:28 AM, KeyboardWarrior said: Pakistan only have ONE option. MAD.... India has enough fissile material for 2000 war heads so it can actually destroy pak and china. China can too. But not Pakistan you dont have sufficient nuclear material. Puny state. HemuChandra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleaf27 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 1 hour ago, HemuChandra said: China needs 1:7 parity in order to capture our land though this can be higher in some mountainious regions.There is a reason in 1962 war China dispatched 80,000 plus soldiers to combat our 10,000-15,000. Really? Why 1:7? Did you recently read the report on the inadequate and insufficient ammunition in the Indian army? What about the attack helicopters, that is of prime use in that sort of sub terrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Indian Army ammunition stock in critical level, will exhaust after 10 days of war: CAG report http://zeenews.india.com/india/indian-army-ammunition-stock-in-critical-level-will-exhaust-after-10-days-of-war-cag-report-2025858.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 32 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: Indian Army ammunition stock in critical level, will exhaust after 10 days of war: CAG report http://zeenews.india.com/india/indian-army-ammunition-stock-in-critical-level-will-exhaust-after-10-days-of-war-cag-report-2025858.html I guess that would be assuming that every weapon would be used in a war. And probably ignoring: Capability to build stock up in emergency situation Ability to divert stock from other areas to where the action is In general, the defense requirements have been ignored relatively speaking by the previous govt(s). Ind is in the process of changing this. Recommended stock level is 40 days, iirc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemuChandra Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 On 7/22/2017 at 11:59 PM, bleaf27 said: Really? Why 1:7? Did you recently read the report on the inadequate and insufficient ammunition in the Indian army? What about the attack helicopters, that is of prime use in that sort of sub terrain Logistics would Far faaar more easier on the Indian side. With No passes on the other side getting heavy weapons(Heavy artillery,Tanks, SPGs) would much more difficult(practically impossible to get Heavy artillery and Tanks for the Chinese) .Thus an artillery attack would be deadly for the Chinese as mountains can really hamper maneuverability add no transportation infrastructure to that and it can prove fatal . And as for the attacker supplies are also very important part. Plus there are added benefits such as add service ceiling of AA Systems Of the Defender. Plus Transportation becomes hell for the attacker plus Mountains are a dangerous terrain itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 (edited) People will probably think that I am not serious but if in future, a war does break out, direct or indirect (unknowingly) reason for it could be the gender imbalance in china. Boys outnumber girls by a ratio 1.2:1 in younger generation ( <25yo ). This is a very strong reason for discontent in future (plus war would get rid of some of the extra boy-population) ... @sandeep Edited December 18, 2017 by randomGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts