SOURCE https://www.thequint.com/world/2017/01/16/can-china-army-reach-new-delhi-in-2-days-cold-start-doctrine-chinese-state-tv-war-with-india DELHI PAKRO : IF SHEKAR GUPTA CAN DO WHY NOT CHINKS
This is not the first time China has tried to use rhetoric as a deterrence strategy against India, but it comes as probably the first one which is as specific. (Photo: iStock)
DELHI PAKRO DO NOT LAUGH IT OFF. YES IT CAN BE DONE - VASUNDHRA [ THE ANSWER LIES IN THE CONCEPT OF CENTRE OF GRAVITY OF BATTLE FIELD.[COG] FIELD MARSHAL ROMEL HAS DISCUSSED & TOUCHED UPON IT DURING NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN & SO HAVE THE NUMEROUS MILITARY THINKERS. NOW CHINESE ARE ON IT. YES DELHI CAN BE CAPTURED IN 48 Hrs, BUT AFTER CAPTURE HOW WILL THEY WITHDRAW or WILL THEY WITHDRAW ? ] IF SHEKAR GUPTA CAN get DELHI CAPTURED WITH A COY GROUP of ARMY, WHY CHINKS CANNOT DO WITH THE THIRD LARGEST ARMY!!!!!!!!
Can China’s Army Really Reach Delhi in 2 Days? Nope, Say Experts
Sameeksha Khare
YEP, SAYS VASUNDHRA
“It would take China's motorised troops 48 hours and its paratroops 10 hours to reach India's capital if war broke out,” a Chinese State television channel boldly proclaimed.
This is not the first time China has tried to use rhetoric as a deterrence strategy but it comes as probably the first one that is so specific.
Interestingly, this also comes on the back of Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat’s pointed comment on honing India’s Cold Start strategy for Pakistan.
Does the Chinese state TV’s statement come as nothing more than a deterrence tool, or are the claims viable?
‘A Ridiculous Remark Made Without Any Practicality’
Experts and retired army officers were quick to rubbish this as illogical rhetoric, and questioned the logistics of the provocative claim. The ill-thought-out remark shows the level of understanding of the people who’ve made it, said retired colonel Rohit Agarwal. Speaking to The Quint, he broke the comment down and analysed its impracticality.
For motorised troops to infiltrate the mountainous terrain of the north-eastern border of India and advance further inside is not possible, he said.
Soldiers of Indian Army and Chinese Army undertaking endurance exercises during Indo-China Joint Military exercise in November 2016. (Photo Courtesy: Twitter/@adgpi)
If you’re talking about motorised troops, you need to first look at the terrain. Where will those troops come from? All of our north-eastern border is mountainous, so, even if they plan on using that route for their troops, how far can they advance?
Rohit Agarwal, Retired Colonel, Indian Army
As far as the paratroops are concerned, anyone can drop paratroops anywhere, said a former Indian army commander to The Quint. Putting the situation in perspective, he said:
If it takes their paratroops 10 hours to reach Delhi then theoretically it will take even our paratroops the same time to reach Beijing.
Rohit Agarwal, Retired Colonel, Indian Army
Agarwal explained that depending on the flying time and the time taken to prepare, why just 10 hours? One can drop paratroopers anywhere anytime, but what thereafter? What possibilities will they have after landing in foreign territory? Will it be a clandestine operation? If so, what will it lead to? It would then be a full-scale escalation, he added.
You can drop paratroopers in Delhi as and when you like, but what will they do once they reach the ground? So, I think it’s just rhetoric.
Rohit Agarwal, Retired Colonel, Indian Army
Agarwal says it’s difficult to discern what might have prompted the state channel to issue the remark. But China is always looking to send messages and threats to India or even United States, said Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (ret’d).
This claim is beyond ridiculous. It’s saying their motorised troops will reach Delhi in 48 hours – how will they cross the Himalayas?
Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (ret’d)
Further, a former Army commander explained that notwithstanding all the disputes India has with China and Pakistan, the chances of a war are extremely low.
This is nothing but a figment of imagination of the television channel and a matter of who they’re quoting and how. It’s just imaginations running wild and typical punchline reporting by the state channel.
Former Army Commander
The Chinese state TV’s comment was issued without context and, seeing the experts’ views, is being interpreted as mere rhetoric – thus negating any deterrence effect it may have sought to achieve.
PS CHINKS WOULD OPEN A OPERATION MAINTENANCE AXIS FROM SHILPA PASS TO SIMLA TO CHANDIGARH TO DELHI IN 48 HRS & WILL DO SO ON OTHER MAIN & SUBSIDARY AXIS AS PER THEIR OPERATION PLANS
DELHI PAKRO Do not laugh it off. Yes it can be done The answer lies in the concept of Centre Of Gravity of Battle Field (COG) Field Marshal Rommel has discussed and touched upon it during North African campaign & so have the numerous military thinkers.. Now the chinese are on it(COG). Yes Delhi can be captured in in H plus 48 Hrs but after capture how will they withdraw or will they withdraw at all ? IF SHEKAR GUPTA CAN get DELHI CAPTURED WITH A COY GROUP of ARMY, WHY CHINKS CANNOT DO WITH THE THIRD LARGEST ARMY!!!!!!!! Coming to hard facts. After Sumdrung chu incident Chinese have developed the capability to induct one air borne division in 24 hrs, one Airborne corps in 72 hours & they have practically demonstrated by launching a para division within two to four hours in the earth quake zone of 2009( ?year). With the advent of Railway line they can induct 25 to 30 divisons to Lhasa in thirty days with micro induction management. Their road communication in Tibet is almost first class. Chinese have a full fledged Airfield/port with SIX KILOMETER runway Sixty kilometers as the crow flies off CHUSUL south of NGARI in tibet, including at Shigaste & Lhasa. From Ngari flying of heavy weight crafts time to Chandigarh is one hour & to Delhi 2 minus hours (minus). Chinese do have a capability till 2009 to airlift a division & para drop. Which they must have improved probably to a Corps. It is fact that they can capture Arunachal & Aksai chin in 48 hours & Indians response time is estimated to be 7 days. In Ladhak they will link with PAKIS at Siachen for which they do have a large sand model at pass HAJI ALI What ever I say here is all available on the net and much more. Cutting it short Chinese have the capability to capture Chandigarh & Palam in H pls 8 hrs and link up with motorised divisons combo with airlift in D plus 48hrs . It is possible.& be assured Indians will not know what has hit them . THIS IS A FACT. I AM NOT JOKING - Vasundhra
The controversial nature of the new Indian army chief’s appointment and the corruption scandal involving a former air chief has brought the Indian military leadership in the media spotlight once again.
In India, traditionally, military leadership has got a short shrift. The lack of a strategic culture in India, evident from the lack of understanding of military matters by the civilian hierarchy, is a possible reason for this. The gradual “corporatisation” of the Indian armed forces is another possible contributory factor, where corporate mismanagement [ Read Babugiri] has undermined time-proven military leadership skills. India and its defence establishment need to revisit their own military leadership culture and identify weaknesses. A more copious media debate and agitation by the cognoscenti is required before policy changes could possibly be brought about in this regard.
Military leadership offers different sets of challenges than its civilian variant. Over the years, some civilian leaders have to tried to imbibe certain aspects of military leadership but with very little success.
Attempts by the military to “civilianise” or “corporatise” its leadership ethos may have more dangerous implications as it could have a direct impact on national security.
A military leader needs to lead men into battle. In the absence of war, the armed forces tend to lose their leadership perspective, and consequently, their fighting edge. This seems to be the case with the Indian armed forces, as these days, they are employed essentially only for counter-insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict Operations. The challenges are even more profound when a military establishment must keep itself battle ready even in times of comparative “peace” or “no peace, no war” situations. This is when basic tenets of military leadership cannot be allowed to be glossed over.
The biggest problem for a peace-time military is what has been described as the “ticket-punching” phenomenon. Every military service lays down norms to enable its officer cadre to have a smooth transition from its tactical to operational and strategic levels of leadership. Nevertheless, some officers choose to “ticket-punch” their way through the established hierarchical shaft, either avoiding the more challenging assignments altogether by opting for “low threat” assignments or by opting for other ornamental staff jobs. These “easier” assignments also tend to offer inflated report statuses numerically, allowing the concerned ticket-punchers to steal a march over their other colleagues who may have exposed themselves to operationally much more challenging and riskier assignments. The promotion criteria in all services, therefore, ought to be based on a military leader’s successful transition across the mandatory field and staff assignments across all levels – tactical, operational and strategic – of war, and not any other extraneous considerations.
Another factor that assists “ticket-punchers” in gaining an unfair advantage is the ill-thought out changes in personnel policies, at times provoked by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Staff/Operations criteria attempt proposed by the Army – and undone by the MoD – and the wanton reduction some years ago of “discretionary weightage” drastically from 25 per cent to 5 per cent (precluding the scope for objectively compensating a deserving candidate during promotion for higher ranks in the Air Force) are two such cases in point.
If the Establishment sends across the message of appointing only an “operationally sound” officer as the chief of any of the services, most travails regarding inept senior level military leadership would be overcome. Even with such merit-imbued promotional criteria in place, it is possible that a senior military functionary, including a chief, could get compromised in some scam.
Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi’s alleged involvement in the AgustaWestland chopper scam is one such example.
These types of situations need to be addressed through reforms such as Intelligence Bureau vetting, subordinate reportage in confidential reports, and increased transparency in the equipment procurement processes. What is currently playing out with Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi is a different matter altogether. He appears to be the fall guy for big political entities. With a proactive judiciary, it is only a matter of time before the truth prevails.
The requirement, therefore, is to ensure that military leadership does not get compromised in terms of dilution of mandatory qualitative criteria for any promotion, particularly the ones to starred ranks. This would remove any possible controversy if a person with better operational credentials supersedes lesser endowed peers. Military leadership has to be nurtured over time.
Performance in wars may not always be a practical criterion, given that the entire military leadership is now from a “post-war” era as they were commissioned post-1971, the system should look for other norms. It is still possible that these criteria could be ignored leading to the wrong person being elevated to the top job. India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parikkar is quite right when he says that seniority alone cannot be a criterion for promotion. This is where the Indian military needs doctrinal precepts to support its personnel policies, preventing tinkering of norms without objective analyses. India also needs to put in place institutional quadrennial defence reviews like they have in the US – to undertake reformations in the Indian military’s operational, administrative and support infrastructure and procedures.
REJOINDER If Chinks want to equatePAKISwith India it is time for India to reclaim Pakistan as an integral part of India & TIBET along with OUTER TIBET as part of autonomous region of Greater India. India should also diplomatically recognize TAIWAN & establish diplomatic relations. India should also lay claim to complete South East Asia as an extension of Indian cultural heritage.
If India Makes more Long-Range ICBMs, Beijing may help Pakistan do the same, says Chinese State Media
HIGHLIGHTS
Chinese media said Pakistan should get the same nuclear privileges as India
It also hinted it will help Pakistan build long-range nuclear missiles
It said India has 'broken limits' on how many missiles it can make
Jan 5, 2017
Beijing wants to communicate the message that if India increases the number of its long-range missiles, it will help "all-weather friend"Pakistan do the same, Chinese media said.
The context to this comment was India's final test firing of the Agni-IV+ inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Monday.
"If the UN Security Council has no objection over this (ICBMs), let it be. The range of Pakistan's nuclear missiles will also see an increase,"the state-run Global Times said in an editorial, hinting that China will help Pakistan come on par with India.
News outfits in China are often used by the government to convey its opinions or to test the waters or to deliver rebukes it can't through diplomatic channels.
Global Times's editorial further batted for Pakistan saying it should be accorded the same nuclear privileges as India.
"If the Western countries accept India as a nuclear country and are indifferent to the nuclear race between India and Pakistan, China will not stand out and stick rigidly to those nuclear rules as necessary. At this time, Pakistan should have those privileges in nuclear development that India has," the editorial said.
On the one hand, the editorial said China isn't bothered by India's testing of missiles that can carry nuclear warheads, but on the other it did sound like Beijing was perturbed by Agni-IV, especially as it came close on the heels of
thesuccessful test-firing of Agni-V+ .
"...Chinese don't feel India's development has posed any big threat to it. And India wouldn't be considered as China's main rival in the long run," the editorial first says.
"But it (China) will not sit still if India goes too far...New Delhi understands that it does little good to itself if the Sino-Indian relations are ruined by any geopolitical tricks," the editorial says later.
Aside from these issues, the editorial alleged that India "has broken the UN's limits" on how many nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles it can produce.
Whats Pak gonna do with ICBMs when its current missiles are sufficient to target cities upto Chennai They want to target Arunachal Pradesh?
OR
by proxy chinks want USA to get NUKED by PAKIs India should call out China''s bluff and supply Agni IV to Vietnam.
"The US and some Western countries have also bent the rules on its nuclear plans. New Delhi is no longer satisfied with its nuclear capability and is seeking intercontinental ballistic missiles that can target anywhere in the world and then it can land on an equal footing with the UN Security Council's five permanent members," the editorial said.
On Monday, India successfully tested - for the final time - its long-range ballistic missile, Agni-IV, which can travel 4,000 kilometres. No long before that, it successfully test-fired Agni-V that has a range of more than 5,000 kilometres and can reach Europe and the northernmost parts of China.
