India's Uncompromising Stand Against China in the Himalayas Is Backed Up With Hard Power

[ashok321]

US also has conscription aka draft.
Does it mean its army is useless?

What kind of reasoning is being pushed by right wingers here to look good somehow?

 

[StraightShooter]

US also has conscription aka draft.
Does it mean its army is useless?

What kind of reasoning is being pushed by right wingers here to look good somehow?

Green-Card Soldiers: Should the U.S. military be reserved for Americans?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailPrint
By Mark Krikorian on April 22, 2003

National Review Online, April 22, 2003

"Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventyfive;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year."

Massachusetts residents observed Patriot's Day on Monday, celebrating the start of the Revolution. This holiday marking the heroism of our citizen soldiers at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge might be a good time to assess the role of citizenship in our military.

Over the past month, the journalistic hive has cranked out a tidal wave of stories on immigrants in the military, orchestrated in part by the high-immigration advocacy groups. The objective was clear from a Wall Street Journal story earlier this month: "the prominence of immigrants such as Sgt. Gomez among the armed forces is helping to temper the emotional debate over immigration to the U.S. in the wake of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center." In other words, the media is lecturing America's ignorant masses that not all immigrants want to kill us.

Americans need no lectures on this - military service has long been a way for new immigrant groups to prove their worthiness - Irish Americans in the Civil War, southern and eastern Europeans in World War I, Japanese Americans in World War II. We are right to be proud of the recent performance of our immigrant soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the Iraq war.

And, of course, service by naturalized Americans is not at issue, either. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt: "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin."

But TR didn't stop there, and his next sentence is relevant to the matter before us: "But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American."

An immigrant becomes "in very fact an American" by taking the oath of citizenship, in which he declares "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...."

As most people didn't know until a month ago, the military welcomes enlistment of non-citizens; more than 37,000 lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) serve in the military, where they account for about three percent of active-duty personnel.

There are certain restrictions. You have to be a citizen to become an officer or join certain units, like the Navy SEALs. And, depending on the branch of the service, non-citizens may only be able to serve for one term (Air Force) or for a maximum of eight years (Army).

Such limitations implicitly acknowledge the fact that a member of a republic's armed forces ought to be a citizen of that republic. The naturalization law reinforces this notion by abbreviating the residency requirement from five years to three for non-citizens on active duty. And the president last year exercised his statutory authority by issuing an executive order waiving the residency requirement altogether for people on active duty in time of war.

These efforts to accelerate the citizenship process for "green-card soldiers" are commendable. Having delivered the keynote address at several swearing-in ceremonies for new citizens, I salute these servicemen and women who are joining the American people.

But the necessity of such measures comes from the fact that we allow non-citizens to enlist in the first place. No one appears to have asked whether this is a good idea. Shouldn't we require naturalization before enlistment? Don't we want an army of citizens rather than aliens?

This issue is often expressed as, "If they're willing to risk their lives for America, they should get citizenship." But, in fact, this seems backwards to me - newcomers should earn the right to serve in the armed forces by first formalizing their relationship with the United States. The oath taken by new recruits would seem to presuppose that one is already an American: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Why would we expect a foreigner to "bear true faith and allegiance" to our Constitution, rather than his own?

Now, one might object that the numbers just aren't that big, so as a practical matter, it's not very important. It's true that non-citizens currently account for only about three percent of the armed forces, but their numbers have grown by about one-third just since 2000, much faster than the growth in the overall immigrant population. And in recent years immigrants have made up four to five percent of total new enlistees. Barring changes in immigration policy, this trend will only continue, as immigrants make up an ever-growing part of the youth population; in March 2002, children of immigrant mothers accounted for 18.3 percent of the school-age population, and 19.2 percent of those younger than school-age.

And with a little mischief from Congress or the White House, things could get really out of hand; The Los Angeles Times reports that illegal aliens are flocking to recruiting offices, figuring the president's waiver-of-residency requirements for non-citizens on active duty was just another element in the administration's campaign for an illegal-alien amnesty (the illegals have been disappointed - so far).

The U.S. embassy and its consulates in Mexico have also been besieged by young men wanting to join our armed forces as a way of immigrating. There have been so many inquiries that the embassy posted a notice at its website denying that illegal aliens or residents of Mexico can join the U.S. armed forces.

So what? you might ask. If foreigners want to prove themselves worthy of American citizenship by volunteering to risk their lives for America's defense, more power to them.

There are several problems. First of all, as the proportion of non-citizens in the armed forces grows, there is the real possibility that defending America will become "work Americans won't do." After all, it wasn't that long ago that hotel and construction workers were almost all American-born. Over the long term, budget pressures and high-recruitment targets will create strong incentives for the armed services to cut back on pay and benefits and hope that the enlistment shortfalls can be made up by non-citizens seeking the prospect of accelerated citizenship. This would save the Pentagon money but would serve to make military service increasingly unappealing to Americans, i.e., people who already have citizenship.

Not to put too fine a point on it, we should go to any length to avoid developing a kind of mercenary army, made up of foreigners loyal to their units and commanders but not to the Republic. It didn't work out well for the Romans.

This points to another practical problem. By limiting military service to those who have already become citizens, we are less likely to face instances of desertion and treason, like the San Patricio Battalion, a group of Irish immigrants in our army who defected to fight for the enemy in the Mexican War. Although Sgt. Asan Akbar, the Muslim convert who killed two of his comrades in a grenade attack in Kuwait, was not an immigrant, the Washington Times reports that U.S. officials fear more attacks from the 4,000-plus Muslims, many of them immigrants, in the armed forces.

Even the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has barred non-citizens from filling "sensitive positions" - shouldn't the entire military be considered a "sensitive position"?

All young men living in the U.S. (even illegal aliens) are required to register for the draft, and if we again face a huge national emergency like WWII or the Civil War that requires the mobilization of millions of soldiers, then all will, and should, be inducted. But in the volunteer military we have now, where so many standards have been raised, there's no practical reason citizenship shouldn't be required of recruits - and every reason in principle that only those who have made a permanent commitment to America should be permitted to serve.

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and a Visiting Fellow at the Nixon Center.


https://cis.org/GreenCard-Soldiers-Should-US-military-be-reserved-Americans

 

[Sam Vaish]

to be honest, i can't wait.
india have no reason to accuse China for the attack, we have warned them 2 weeks before the attack!

So do not wait, order Bloody Chines forces to attack. We have been waiting. Trust me chines forces will learn lesson soon.

 

[SingaporeGuy]

Not possible,
India spends the same as france lol.

Its like paying $1 and thinking u will get a happy meal. No such thing.

In fact, saudi can destroy india anyday.

 

[Sam Vaish]

So do not wait, order Chines forces to attack. We have been waiting. Trust me chines forces will learn lesson soon.

 

[StraightShooter]

The outcome of this battle is irrelevant at this time. Irrespective of whether China wins or loses this battle, it has lost the war.

If China wins:

1) Make permanent enemy out of India and Push India fully into Western embrace and may lead to creation of Asian NATO

2) No more fist fights on LAC with India which means that it needs to divert resources from South/Eastern China and increase military spending

3) Lose lucrative Indian market and trade surplus forever

If China loses:

1) It loses credibility among its allies and potential allies

2) Embolden others to confront China like India did

 

[Offshore]

The outcome of this battle is irrelevant at this time. Irrespective of whether China wins or loses this battle, it has lost the war.

If China wins:

1) Make permanent enemy out of India and Push India fully into Western embrace and may lead to creation of Asian NATO

2) No more fist fights on LAC with India which means that it needs to divert resources from South/Eastern China and increase military spending

3) Lose lucrative Indian market and trade surplus forever

If China loses:

1) It loses credibility among its allies and potential allies

2) Embolden others to confront China like India did

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

China is not a conscript army. China has that law, but it has never used it in its existence, if anything China just reduced troop levels by 300 thousand.

NCO system has been around since China's formation and even before that. A formal version of it has been adopted since 78. After that it has steadily evolved, to where it is currently and it will continue to evolve as China continue to require higher education for its men and women.

All of these can be easily confirmed, why would you even make a post like this. And you got likes, if this was reddit, I wouldn't even blink, but this is a military forum. This is just. Wow...

Also by saying Chinese can't handle casualties and India can, you are essentially saying Indian lives are worthless, or at least worth less than Chinese lives. All lives are equal.

Don't lie,your own army knows the conscript system is outdated and has been trying reforms to little success.More than 60% of the army is conscripts on the 2 year service regulation.The only volunteers are those conscripts whom after 2 years of service stay on in officer or junior officer capacity .Your own generals are afraid the pampered 'little emperor' generation of one child conscript recruits are unfit for soldiering.Like i said they will go into battle knowing with their death,their whole bloodline is wiped off the face of history.They and anything related to them are ending with them.No one to survive them or carry on the family.THE END.

Its NCO system is weak because Political commissars or party branch decide everything in final decisionmaking.Officers therefore have no initiative.

https://jamestown.org/program/refor...noncommissioned-officer-corps-and-conscripts/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-personel-enlistedforces-conscripts.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pla-training.htm
https://qz.com/174402/chinas-military-worries-that-its-one-child-recruits-are-wimps/
https://www.sott.net/article/258025...icy-creates-wimpy-military-recruits-deserters

 

[帅的一匹]

The outcome of this battle is irrelevant at this time. Irrespective of whether China wins or loses this battle, it has lost the war.

If China wins:

1) Make permanent enemy out of India and Push India fully into Western embrace and may lead to creation of Asian NATO

2) No more fist fights on LAC with India which means that it needs to divert resources from South/Eastern China and increase military spending

3) Lose lucrative Indian market and trade surplus forever

If China loses:

1) It loses credibility among its allies and potential allies

2) Embolden others to confront China like India did

Full of inferior complex.

 

[salimpheku]

Full of inferior complex.

Well, the superior comrades can start comments once they find the courage to fire one single bullet.

 

[Genesis]

Don't lie,your own army knows the conscript system is outdated and has been trying reforms to little success.More than 60% of the army is conscripts on the 2 year service regulation.The only volunteers are those conscripts whom after 2 years of service stay on in officer or junior officer capacity .Your own generals are afraid the pampered 'little emperor' generation of one child conscript recruits are unfit for soldiering.Like i said they will go into battle knowing with their death,their whole bloodline is wiped off the face of history.They and anything related to them are ending with them.No one to survive them or carry on the family.THE END.

Its NCO system is weak because Political commissars or party branch decide everything in final decisionmaking.Officers therefore have no initiative.

https://jamestown.org/program/refor...noncommissioned-officer-corps-and-conscripts/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-personel-enlistedforces-conscripts.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pla-training.htm
https://qz.com/174402/chinas-military-worries-that-its-one-child-recruits-are-wimps/
https://www.sott.net/article/258025...icy-creates-wimpy-military-recruits-deserters

How did you become think tank, you need to be removed. Something as simple as China not having conscription is not really a controversial topic. The word conscript is used loosely there. You know how difficult it is to get to the navy these days. The navy is looking for high school kids that would be willing to go into the national military academy programs, or university grads, over 60% of all new recruits are now university grads.

2 years is just the length of service. That is all.

This is not a secret, in fact it is freaking broadcasted every 6 seconds. annoying as balls.

As to political commissars. They still exist. Though they have very clearly defined roles now and are all from a military background rather than political.

One child policy...Wimpy recruits. I don't know where to begin, what do you want me to say here. Chinese are wimps? Chinese a unfit for the military? Chinese are cowards?

Is that your argument? To say Chinese are shit and thus you are superior? Reminds me of Qing dynasty before opium war. Guess what, our recruits are far better educated than yours, and in an information age that is whats important.


Do you have anything good to add? I try not to discuss Indian military matters because i don't know as much as i should on the matter to make an educated discussion. Yet you obviously feel comfortable talking about PLA, qhich is fair game, but then you come in with this.

oh and that james town article came from 2011, back when China didn't consolidate military regions into 5 zones, create joint commands, as well as establish new exercise methods where the blue team won 22-1 against visiting red teams with joint air, ground, sea tactic oh also reduced troop level by 300,000.

Even Taiwan military experts (retired general ) emphasized the change in organization in the Chinese army.

The outcome of this battle is irrelevant at this time. Irrespective of whether China wins or loses this battle, it has lost the war.

If China wins:

1) Make permanent enemy out of India and Push India fully into Western embrace and may lead to creation of Asian NATO

2) No more fist fights on LAC with India which means that it needs to divert resources from South/Eastern China and increase military spending

3) Lose lucrative Indian market and trade surplus forever

If China loses:

1) It loses credibility among its allies and potential allies

2) Embolden others to confront China like India did

1) if india is so weak that it would actually consider joining an alliance as a junior partner then what does it matter what you do (don't kid yourself, anyone is a junior cpmpared to the us.) Which is why no matter what Modi or any Indian politician won't join the Western order.

2)We both increase military spending either way. Though unlike you, with the completion of Y-20, China will have a true strategic lift capability in 5 years, mean while without a program of your own, you cannot induct a hundred heavy or even medium lifts into your army. So we can create rapid response divisions, while there is a very limited amount of what you can, no matter how many men are stationed there.

You can start a program to built a heavy or medium lift, but that is a long process, so we are safe for at least 15 years and most likely 20 before you can have enough. This is of course assuming you will start said program.

Just look at France's operation in Mali, without heavy lifts from America, they can't even conduct a minor operation in a land not too distant from theirs.

3) As to the Indian market, we do well because we are better, if we can be written off like that then we would have a long time ago, as we are no friends of America and Euro Zone. Don't belittle others, it demeans your own accomplishments as well. Keep in mind, China and Japan trade far more than China and India, and we have worse relationship. Weirder, Japan has a pretty sizable surplus in this trade with us.


1) Maybe, but our credibility doesn't come from one thing or another. It's the culmination of 40 years of policy that have resulted in a nation on the cusp of high income. It cannot be earned or lost that easily.

2) Win or lose, China's balance of power won't change. No nation other than US can challenge China on the seas, so what was now will still apply then. Only since we induct more tonnage in one year than most serious navys in a a decade, I say we are safe.



Lastly, check out China defense section. pictures. China's ground forces have access to many different type of combat vehicles, that India just doesn't have access to just yet. China has new command structure and new command vehicles as well as medical and logistic vehicles that gives China a very potent fire support.

China also has hundreds of dedicated armed helicopters WZ-10, WZ-19 that means Chinese fire support from the air is also strong.

India is getting better, I can see that, but in terms of ground forces modernization, it is not doing enough to provide it with the same type of fire support that China can bring to the battle field.

 

[21stCentury]

The outcome of this battle is irrelevant at this time. Irrespective of whether China wins or loses this battle, it has lost the war.

If China wins:

1) Make permanent enemy out of India and Push India fully into Western embrace and may lead to creation of Asian NATO

2) No more fist fights on LAC with India which means that it needs to divert resources from South/Eastern China and increase military spending

3) Lose lucrative Indian market and trade surplus forever

If China loses:

1) It loses credibility among its allies and potential allies

2) Embolden others to confront China like India did

you're not being a straight shooter.....are you?

this is what will actually happen

If China wins:
1.) India loses its credibility as the South Asian regional power
2.) India loses its influence on Bhutan
3.) India loses all their disputed territories, maybe plus more
4.) Major domestic disturbance as angry Indian mobs demands blood, but the Indian government knows its too weak. So now its Indian people vs. Indian government
5.) New Indo-China border will be drawn, by Chinese
6.) Indian superpower dream grandiose is shattered
7.) Indian military proven and shown to be a weak paper elephant
8.) and much more


If China loses:
1.) it's not going to

 

[SingaporeGuy]

you're not being a straight shooter.....are you?

this is what will actually happen

If China wins:
1.) India loses its credibility as the South Asian regional power
2.) India loses its influence on Bhutan
3.) India loses all their disputed territories, maybe plus more
4.) Major domestic disturbance as angry Indian mobs demands blood, but the Indian government knows its too weak. So now its Indian people vs. Indian government
5.) New Indo-China border will be drawn, by Chinese
6.) Indian superpower dream grandiose is shattered
7.) Indian military proven and shown to be a weak paper elephant
8.) and much more


If China loses:
1.) it's not going to

Its the nukes holding china back i guess

 

[Kinetic]

that is epic comical answer to India's Compromising Stand Against China.

Slavery is not good for health, earlier it was Pakistan and now its China. lol

Our media already openly make fun of that modi guy's IQ for not comprehend our message, what do you expect from the rest indians, in this respect, US is much smarter.

In korea war, we warned US never to cross the divided line, they ignored and took the consequences. In vietnam war, we gave the same warning and US took the cue, they never sent a single soldier to fight across that divided line, which by the way was the main reason US counldnot win the vietnam war.

Now the same story happened on those low IQ indians. In 1962, we warned them without positive response then humiliated them. This time is the same warning, but it will end up in slaughtering millions of those slum creatures and breaking it up, after all, its existence itself is against the law of human evolution.

Mao is the killed more than 50 million people, do you think Modi will surpass it?

 

[Abingdonboy]

India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is back from Beijing after attending the BRICS national security advisers’ conclave and meeting his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, but there is no sign yet of the standoff between Indian and Chinese troops at the Dolam (Doklam) plateau ending, almost two months after it began. Both sides have chosen not to comment on outcomes, if any, from the talks that Doval held in Beijing, indicating perhaps that a mutually satisfactory solution still eludes them. Or maybe, Beijing and New Delhi want to consult Bhutan, the third party in this unusual spat, before proceeding further.

Whatever the reason for the silence, the world is surprised at the turn of events since late-May when the border spat began at a point where the boundaries of India-China and Bhutan meet. For one, the vehemence displayed by Chinese commentators was out of the ordinary and so was the aggressive tone of official statements made by government spokespersons in Beijing, accusing India of trespassing into Chinese territory. More unusually however, the calm assurance and panache with which New Delhi has handled the crisis so far points to a far more confident India, a point that would be noticed and studied across important world capitals.

What then is the secret behind New Delhi’s polite yet firm stand?

Several factors ranging from India’s better military posture along the contested border to improved economic heft can be cited for the new approach. However, the biggest reason for India to stand up to China ironically is the blatant attempt by President Xi Jinping to force a China-centric order in Asia, a proposition that no government in New Delhi can agree to under any circumstances. Under Narendra Modi, politically the strongest Prime Minister in India for three decades, accepting China’s hegemony was out of the question, given his muscular national security policies. Very early in his tenure Modi had decided to depart from convention on dealing with China. He broke a long standing taboo of not inviting representatives of the Tibetan government-in-exile and that of Taiwan to official functions, lest Beijing feel offended. The Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-exile and Taiwan’s trade representative were among the select invitees to Modi’s oath taking ceremony in the summer of 2014, setting the tone for a more robust policy towards China.

A border standoff in Ladakh in September 2014—coinciding with President Xi Jinping’s maiden visit to India—witnessed a rare display of India’s new approach of not succumbing to Chinese bullying. After 1,000 Chinese troops intruded into Chumar, a remote border outpost in South-east Ladakh, New Delhi rapidly built up a 9,000-strong force in two days, forcing the PLA to back off. Another similar face-off at Yangtse in Arunachal Pradesh in 2015 with the same result further demonstrated India’s resolve.

That resolve is being backed up with an improved military posture. Building on the modest beginning made under the previous government to improve infrastructure all along the northern frontier, the current government is quietly building capabilities to counter China militarily. Consider this:

• India’s indigenously developed missiles—Agni, Akash, and Brahmos—are either ready for induction or already inducted into the armed forces, providing potent weapons for use against China.
• The development of a family of K-Series of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM)—although mostly shrouded in secrecy—is in a fairly advanced stage, keeping India on track to complete its nuclear triad.
• After initial reservation against the proposed Mountain Strike Corps (sanctioned by the previous government), the Modi government has revived its support for the project. Two Mountain Divisions meant for the Strike Corps are about to complete their raising in Northern and Eastern Commands. More air assets are planned for Strike Corps. The eventual aim is to build flexibility in its deployment and allow swift switching of forces from one theatre to another.
• The formation of a Special Forces Division and a cyber and space agency, as prelude to formation of separate tri-services Special Forces, Cyber and Space Commands, has commenced in recent months.

Moreover, Ladakh, the scene of two prominent standoffs in 2013 and 2014, now has an additional infantry brigade stationed permanently in the area while more elements of Northern Command’s reserve division—39—now exercise regularly in the high altitude desert. From the initial induction of a regiment of T-72 tanks done in 2013, India now plans to augment its armor strength to a full-fledged tank brigade in Ladakh.

In the East, the 56 and 71 Mountain Divisions, raised from 2009 onwards, are now firmly placed and deployed on the ground, making more troops available to defense planners.

The Air Force has also staged forward its assets both in the North and the East by deploying the Sukhoi-30 planes at bases close to the Chinese border. Completion of the project to revamp eight Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) in Arunachal Pradesh will mean improved connectivity and increased capacity to insert troops in the high altitude areas. The reported deployment of Brahmos Missile regiments along the northern frontiers in the past couple of years means India now has additional offensive capability.

Strategically important roads high in the Himalayas, planned almost a decade ago, are now getting a more focussed attention with more tunnels at high altitude passes being built to allow all-weather traffic.

The Indian Navy, the smallest of the three armed forces, is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion, although the strength of its conventional submarine fleet remains a matter of concern.

There are of course many weaknesses in India’s higher defense management, its procurement systems, and pace of military modernization. Military leaders have spoken about a high degree of obsolescence across the three forces as a result of years of neglect and apathy in military modernization. The Modi government will have to redouble its efforts to overcome the shortages and restructure the management system of the military expeditiously to meet mounting challenges from China and Pakistan.

Overall, however, India’s military strength is right now adequate to hold off any Chinese adventurism across the Himalayas, but not strong enough for an offensive posture. Military analysts however argue that a stronger China will think twice before initiating any conflict with India since Indian soldiers are better trained and battle hardened compared to the PLA troops. That said, neither side will gain anything substantial in a possible armed conflict. That perhaps is the only saving grace in the troubled relationship between India and China at the moment.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/indi...n-the-himalayas-is-backed-up-with-hard-power/

First time I have seen the Diplomat actually give a fair appraisal of India, interesting that once India starts asserting itself it actually begins garnering respect.