CHINESE VIEWS OF INDIAN SEA POWER
- Thread starter Kyusuibu Honbu
- Start date
Splurgenxs
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
be realistic buddy. THey have 8-12 aircraft carriers with a somewhat 100++ years of experience on it.
Not to mention the rest.
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
The Mahan Doctrine may soon become irrelevant for the US. The focus now is on US-based missiles with the capability to pinpoint and obliterate an individual cave on the planet in less than an hour.
Prompt Global Strike, Missile Reaches Anywhere In Under An Hour
As usual, the US is 50 years ahead of everybody else in military capability.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Yes, and no.
The Mahan school of thought never stipulated the ability to deliver killing power with precision and accuracy, it had to do with the domination of the sea, and all that such domination implied in geo-political terms. If the pinpoint accuracy you are referring to has an impact on the domination of the sea, it only furthers the US domination of the sea; perhaps coupling the guidance system of an accurate missile with global GPS and designation of a target with a global GPS address would button up the matter. Without that, this new capability is of academic interest. With it, Mahan continues to rule.
Capt.Popeye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 11,937
- Reaction score
- 12
SOME VIEWS ON THE CHINESE VIEWS ON INDIAN SEA-POWER.
Firstly the famous Mahan quote was postulated wrt American control on the Pacific Ocean Region. But Mahan being the "Mahan Vicharak" (great thinker) that he was; seems to be getting conveniently misattributed here!
Anyway, Indias geographic position being what it is: gives India the ability to dominate the IOR. Which has even given rise to over-dramatic statements like India is like a dagger pointing into the IOR or the less dramatic: India is just like a giant and never-sinking aircraft carrier and the most important strategic point guarding the Indian Ocean.
Setting the drama aside, there can be no dispute about the geo-political advantages of Indias location. However the Indian leadership post-independence; while being aware of this fact, did not seek to translate that into reality-in terms of capabilities.
First of all; Indias maritime vision since millenia (approx. 2300BC or thereabouts) has been more trade-based rather than on force projection. Coincidentally, when Indian maritime abilities withered away in the early 16th century, India also lost her full independence. Even this fact was overlooked by the early post-independence Indian leadership, because they retained only a continental (land-based) vision.
This has largely remained so until the beginning of the 1970s. That is the time that India had to wake up to the fact that its own SLOCs were crucial to its own existence. That is the time that the IN was expanded and even more importantly the Indian Merchant Shipping fleet was grown exponentially. So India built up an appreciable ability to carry her own trade in Indian bottoms and protected by Indian fire-power . Most importantly India became able to ship most of its POL trade (the life-blood) in Indian tankers.
But any visible efforts by India to reassert itself in the IOR began only in the late 1990s. Therefore some of the Chinese views expressed are simply alarmist. But all Chinese views do not seem to be so. As the OP mentions:
The former Chinese ambassador to India, Cheng Ruisheng, argues that policy makers in Beijing and New Delhi have increasingly abandoned their antiquated, zero-sum security outlooks. Indeed, Cheng exudes confidence that improving U.S.-Indian ties and Sino-Indian relations are not mutually exclusive, and thus he holds out hope for a balanced and stable strategic triangle in the region. Some Chinese speculate that Indias burgeoning friendships with a variety of extraregional powers, including the United States and Japan, are designed to widen Indias room for maneuver in an increasingly multipolar world without forcing it to choose sides. As Yang Hui asserts, Indias actions smack of fence-sitting. This is a new version of non-alignment.
This interpretation may well be the case.
But the alarmists have some reasons for their hawkish views. Growth of the IN capability in IOR means primarily two things for China:
1.The ability of India to have a more secured second-strike capability in the case of nuclear conflicts.
2.Indian ability to effectively choke off Chinese SLOCs passing through the area in case of Sino-Indian war.
Both of them are serious causes of concern to PLAAN planners.
Firstly the famous Mahan quote was postulated wrt American control on the Pacific Ocean Region. But Mahan being the "Mahan Vicharak" (great thinker) that he was; seems to be getting conveniently misattributed here!
Anyway, Indias geographic position being what it is: gives India the ability to dominate the IOR. Which has even given rise to over-dramatic statements like India is like a dagger pointing into the IOR or the less dramatic: India is just like a giant and never-sinking aircraft carrier and the most important strategic point guarding the Indian Ocean.
Setting the drama aside, there can be no dispute about the geo-political advantages of Indias location. However the Indian leadership post-independence; while being aware of this fact, did not seek to translate that into reality-in terms of capabilities.
First of all; Indias maritime vision since millenia (approx. 2300BC or thereabouts) has been more trade-based rather than on force projection. Coincidentally, when Indian maritime abilities withered away in the early 16th century, India also lost her full independence. Even this fact was overlooked by the early post-independence Indian leadership, because they retained only a continental (land-based) vision.
This has largely remained so until the beginning of the 1970s. That is the time that India had to wake up to the fact that its own SLOCs were crucial to its own existence. That is the time that the IN was expanded and even more importantly the Indian Merchant Shipping fleet was grown exponentially. So India built up an appreciable ability to carry her own trade in Indian bottoms and protected by Indian fire-power . Most importantly India became able to ship most of its POL trade (the life-blood) in Indian tankers.
But any visible efforts by India to reassert itself in the IOR began only in the late 1990s. Therefore some of the Chinese views expressed are simply alarmist. But all Chinese views do not seem to be so. As the OP mentions:
The former Chinese ambassador to India, Cheng Ruisheng, argues that policy makers in Beijing and New Delhi have increasingly abandoned their antiquated, zero-sum security outlooks. Indeed, Cheng exudes confidence that improving U.S.-Indian ties and Sino-Indian relations are not mutually exclusive, and thus he holds out hope for a balanced and stable strategic triangle in the region. Some Chinese speculate that Indias burgeoning friendships with a variety of extraregional powers, including the United States and Japan, are designed to widen Indias room for maneuver in an increasingly multipolar world without forcing it to choose sides. As Yang Hui asserts, Indias actions smack of fence-sitting. This is a new version of non-alignment.
This interpretation may well be the case.
But the alarmists have some reasons for their hawkish views. Growth of the IN capability in IOR means primarily two things for China:
1.The ability of India to have a more secured second-strike capability in the case of nuclear conflicts.
2.Indian ability to effectively choke off Chinese SLOCs passing through the area in case of Sino-Indian war.
Both of them are serious causes of concern to PLAAN planners.
Srinivas
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,455
- Reaction score
- -26
- Country
- Location
We are talking about US 7th fleet in IOR against IN mate.
PlanetWarrior
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
All this discussion reminds me of a line I read in my 4 year old son's nursery school book ..... "I wish I could soar high in the sky like you says the elephant to the eagle" 
Splurgenxs
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
ah ok, i might have not take thing in context, but war is never fought in the constraints of a sentence or a peace time doctrine., It all depends on how the situation escalates.
Nevertheless my point being that India has a lot of advantages and given India's position and population and diplomatic standing there will multiple aspects of our strength
nevertheless from a purly rational militaristic standpoint the US has much higher quality armaments at its disposal and much greater numbers... it can unload a plethora of devastation in a much shorter time period and then return home where as we don't even have the capability to push into there domain.. we can mange to retain our territory no doubt, but the cost will be much more for us than for them.
.
Srinivas
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,455
- Reaction score
- -26
- Country
- Location
Exactly, in IOR we have advantage.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
