NationStates Jolt Archive

O.K. Let's say that India (hypothetically, I don't know the diplomatic relations or policies of the two. So please don't lecture me if I'm wrong)....
Let's say that India decides to invade Nepal. China has important trade and economic issues with the same country and doesn't want to lose them. China then strikes against Indian forces in Nepal, Upchucking all out war. If no nuclear weopons are used and the International Community doesn't interfere--- Who would win? 8)

huh? this is silly, it should be india vs. pakistan

huh? this is silly, it should be india vs. pakistan

I know it should, but everyone has heard about their disputes...
China vs. India - Now that's Unique!

Eh? Well, interesting scenario.

I think in that case, China would probably deploy its mountain troops, based in Tibet, and probably its new fighters (su-30s and Su-27s) against the Indians, and India would have their troops and Su-30s against China's.

Interesting to note that both sides fought border wars against each other, and either side began to lose when they penetrated too far into the other sides territory.

Billions vs. billions. You could top WWII's casualties (57 million) in a few weeks and it would still continue.
I suppose it would be a stalemate, considering that China's technology is marginally better, but both nations are so massive (territory and population wise).

India has a bigger army, I think, but the Chinese are way better equipped.

Im thinking that you've read a certain Orson Scott Card book, havent you?

Anyway, China would have to go through some countries (IE: Thailand) that, while they dont have Bean, are still pretty good at fending off China, considering that they havent been absorbed by China.

It would be quite possible that China and India could fight each other
in a war.China and India fought each other in a very brief war in 1962.
Fortunately,neither side had nuclear weapons.China did not produce
its first nuclear weapon until 1964.It did not have its first hydrogen bomb
until 1966,and did not have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon
on a missile until 1967.India did not have its own nuclear capability
until the mid to late 1970's.China produced its nuclear weapon as
a result of the increased tensions with the former Soviet Union.
India produced its nuclear weapon as a result of suspicion of Pakistan's
nuclear technology.A war between China and the United States is much
more likley,because of Taiwan and the Spratly Islands with their
oil wealth being in the equation.China has a policy of no first use
of its nuclear capability unless attacked by nuclear weapons.China
posseses Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles capable of hitting all the
continental United States.
Courtesy of the Federation of Dresdenitania,
President,Alexander Nemerov

China would win because it has the technological and the numerical upper hand (Compare 375 Million Chinese Soldiers > 288 Million Indian Soldiers)

*figures taken from CIA World Factbook site

I assure you, India and China will never go to war over Nepal. :roll:

I assure you, India and China will never go to war over Nepal. :roll:

Perhaps, but I'm sure other countries will.

I assure you, India and China will never go to war over Nepal. :roll:

Perhaps, but I'm sure other countries will.

No idea why. Nepal is a mountainous country with minimal industry except tourism.

I assure you, India and China will never go to war over Nepal. :roll:

Perhaps, but I'm sure other countries will.

No idea why. Nepal is a mountainous country with minimal industry except tourism.
But they've got Maoist rebels. Everybody wants to get their hands on those puppies (I bet Letila will bay at least 10). :lol:

Probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard this week, but it will result in a stalemate and tens of millions of casualties after a year. Neither country has a decisive numerical, technological or psychological advantage.

The winner? Equipment suppliers in Russia.

The winner? Equipment suppliers in Russia.
Those crafty Russians. Cold War was a waste of time and resources, now they're concentrating on what's important . . . :lol:

-double post-

China would win because it has the technological and the numerical upper hand (Compare 375 Million Chinese Soldiers > 288 Million Indian Soldiers)

*figures taken from CIA World Factbook site

I don't think I would be offending anyone if I was to point out that both the Vietnam war and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan showed that questions of technological and numerical superiority are not always decisive.

I assure you, India and China will never go to war over Nepal. :roll:

Perhaps, but I'm sure other countries will.

No idea why. Nepal is a mountainous country with minimal industry except tourism.

I'm pretty sure any country that is invaded will capture the world's attention.

I'm pretty sure any country that is invaded will capture the world's attention.

Nobody seems to mind that Morocco still occupies Western Sahara

If there was a war between India and China, the UK economy would suffer tremedously, no-one would be able to talk to there banks!!!

Probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard this week, but it will result in a stalemate and tens of millions of casualties after a year. Neither country has a decisive numerical, technological or psychological advantage.

Not absurd at all. As pointed out above, they were at war quite recently (1962).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-prc_1962.htm

There are still border disputes between the two.
However, the areas in dispute are high altitude and not conducive to protracted large scale warfare - the most likely scenario would be something like what we have seen in Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

If a large scale war did break out, I'd put my money on a bloody stalemate, mostly due to international political and economic pressures. Absent those, the PRC could win. It would be nasty and dirty and would almost certainly escalate to a nuclear exchange, meaning a phyrric victory, but the PRC could do it.
With roughly 1/3 of the worlds population between them, it would be BAD.

China. For sheer numbers. India wouldn't stand a chance. There's enough Chinese for every squart foot of India.

1. This idea [i]is[i] absurd - India has no reason to get involved in a war or invade Nepal

2. It would likely be a stalemate - China doesn't have nearly enough troops in the region to win the war, and by the time they moved enough forces, the Indians would likely be fairly well entrenched.

India could easily force a stalemate. The Chinese conscript units aren't any better-equipped, trained or motivated than the Indian ones, its air force relies heavily on aircraft of the same vintage, and tanks are not going to be any use in the terrain on which most of the fighting would take place. Neither has a spectacular remote imaging capability, neither could effect anything approximating an efficient naval blockade . . . and the list goes on. It would be an old-fashioned rifle, grenade and bayonet war fought by millions of mediocre infantrymen on both sides. Just a pointless slaughter that would make WW1 seem leisurely.

China would win because it has the technological and the numerical upper hand (Compare 375 Million Chinese Soldiers > 288 Million Indian Soldiers)

*figures taken from CIA World Factbook site

No, those are the figures of military capable men. They both have standing armies of less than 5 Million