India-China War in 2012? Analysts Predict

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hammertime
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    China India
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around predictions of a potential military conflict between India and China in 2012, prompted by an Indian defense analyst's claims. Participants explore various implications of such a conflict, including geopolitical repercussions, historical context, and the likelihood of war, while considering the broader regional dynamics involving other countries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the likelihood of a China-India war, suggesting that it is unlikely for China to act as an aggressor due to its recent historical struggles.
  • Others argue that if a conflict were to occur, it could escalate to a global scale, potentially involving multiple countries due to interdependencies and alliances.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of a regional conflict on global trade and stability, particularly regarding oil shipping routes in Southeast Asia.
  • Some participants highlight the historical context of military engagements and the evolution of warfare, suggesting that direct large-scale conflicts may be less likely in the current geopolitical climate.
  • There are discussions about China's internal stability and how social unrest might influence its foreign policy and military decisions.
  • Participants note that proxy wars and economic competition might be more likely than direct military confrontations between India and China.
  • Some contributions reference specific historical events and tensions, such as the Uighur riots, to illustrate the complexities of China's internal and external conflicts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the likelihood of a China-India war and its potential consequences, with multiple competing views presented. There is no consensus on whether such a conflict is probable or what its implications would be.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the motivations and readiness of China for military aggression, as well as the potential for global involvement in a conflict. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about geopolitical dynamics and historical precedents.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, military strategy, or the geopolitical landscape of Asia, particularly in the context of India-China relations.

Physics news on Phys.org
hammertime said:
What do guys think?

Nonsense.
 
Where would you stage it? Belgium is far too small for a fixture of that size, I suppose you could rent Siberia.
 
I doubt it. But if they did, we'd be looking at World War III.
 
Tibarn said:
I doubt it. But if they did, we'd be looking at World War III.

And why would that be? World War 3?
 
War with Pakistan is more likely.
 
This guy pulls this out of the air without any military intelligence as a basis. Ridiculous.
 
Pengwuino said:
And why would that be? World War 3?
The world is far too interdependent for a massive regional conflict not to have global repercussions. The first step would obviously be to try and broker a peace settlement, but if that fails the rest of Southeast Asia as well as Pakistan would quickly join the fray. Countries like Japan or the United States that have vested interests in the area or are intimidated by a more powerful China would naturally keep a close eye on things and be ready to intervene. Naturally, the alliance system would come into play.

If things got big enough, there's always the chance Russia might join in the hope of expanding into resource-rich central Asia. Depending on how long the conflict lasts, I can definitely see it expanding. Granted, the actual fighting would probably mostly take place in Southeast Asia and maybe spread a bit from there, but I can definitely see far-off countries getting involved.
 
Tibarn said:
The world is far too interdependent for a massive regional conflict not to have global repercussions. The first step would obviously be to try and broker a peace settlement, but if that fails the rest of Southeast Asia as well as Pakistan would quickly join the fray. Countries like Japan or the United States that have vested interests in the area or are intimidated by a more powerful China would naturally keep a close eye on things and be ready to intervene. Naturally, the alliance system would come into play.

If things got big enough, there's always the chance Russia might join in the hope of expanding into resource-rich central Asia. Depending on how long the conflict lasts, I can definitely see it expanding. Granted, the actual fighting would probably mostly take place in Southeast Asia and maybe spread a bit from there, but I can definitely see far-off countries getting involved.

I think we learned our lessons about actually fighting with our allies because they went to war back in WW1.
 
  • #10
In my opinion the prediction is absurd. I believe it to be unlikely for China to be an aggressor in any war anytime soon.

The cultural revolution was so painful for China, they lost even more of their culture than did Europe in WW2, and it happened more recently. Since that time, there has been a "vacuum of belief" as a chinese colleague of mine put it, "the only thing [chinese] people believe in now is money", he said.

How could a country that has been through so much strife so recently become an aggresor in a major war, I just don't see it happening.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino said:
I think we learned our lessons about actually fighting with our allies because they went to war back in WW1.
Perhaps. Still, many countries really don't want to see China any more powerful than it absolutely needs to be. Directly to the south, by Malaysia and Indonesia, is a major shipping route carrying oil from the Middle East to Japan and the United States. If China ends up dominating Southeast Asia, it could prove very inconvenient. And guess who's China's biggest rival in that region?
 
  • #12
Tibarn said:
Perhaps. Still, many countries really don't want to see China any more powerful than it absolutely needs to be. Directly to the south, by Malaysia and Indonesia, is a major shipping route carrying oil from the Middle East to Japan and the United States. If China ends up dominating Southeast Asia, it could prove very inconvenient. And guess who's China's biggest rival in that region?

Point is, no world war. We're all not going to go nuking and bombing our biggest trade partners. They won't either. There's way too much money involved. You don't become a superpower by alienating the world by bombing countries. They aren't that stupid.
 
  • #13
@ nervous china:

I know that China is bit unstable but I am not sure if they are nervous (they are not even ready to apologize for past mistakes as they would if they were nervous):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7932091.stm
China faces a number of highly sensitive anniversaries this year, including 20 years since the military crushed pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, and 50 years since an anti-China uprising in Lhasa that sparked the Dalai Lama's flight into exile.

The authorities in Beijing also fear that the economic downturn and job losses for millions of migrant workers could trigger outbreaks of social unrest.

And from current understanding about the past Uighur riots, I believe they handled it quite well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8140492.stm
 
  • #14
One thing we should all note is that it is no longer acceptable to launch large-scale campaigns that target civilians as in WW1 and WW2, and that we also have nukes nowadays of course. If there is any chance of a WW3 happening, it probably has happened, either in the cold war, with indirect warfare between 2 factions: commies and cappies, each headed by its own superpower. stuff like Ogden, Korea, Nam, 73, 67, Afghanistan and many others just show us how said war was conducted: relatively by proxy.
The other candidate for WW3 would be the War on Terror, but that hasn't unfolded completely for me to really say much about.

Of course, if a 3rd (or 4th?) world war between China and India does happen, expect a lot of the same. They will not launch direct attacks against each other, but will start a series of proxy wars and attempts at dominating various key markets, and resource centers. Water will not be an issue, since the two countries are so saturated, so border wars and such probably won't happen.
We have to note, of course that stuff like that happening is unlikely, as China's economy focuses on things that India's economy does not, and vice versa. If stuff like this DOES happen, I expect the Chinese to emerge victorious. they have better infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy. India is running on 1950's infra. corruption in India is more of a problem that in China. stuff like that.
 
  • #15
rootX said:
And from current understanding about the past Uighur riots, I believe they handled it quite well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8140492.stm
I heard or read (I have to find the source) that Chinese police or paramilitary stood by while Han civilians attacked Uighurs in a Uighur neighborhood.

The article talks about 'executions of' those responsible. But does that imply the Chinese government will selectively (partially) execute Uighurs and not Hans.

The Uighurs who are native to Xinjiang are under pressure from the migration of Han Chinese to Xinjiang, and that has led to tensions between the ethnic groups. Apparently one of the initiating events in the Ürümqi riots July riots was an incident involving attacks by two or more Hans and a Uighur youth (source needed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots

Commentary: China's ethnic policies root cause of Uighur riots
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/story/71613.html

China's ethnic policies root cause of Uighur riots
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Jul/10/china_s_ethnic_policies_root_cause_of_uighur_riots.html

The China-India conflict is transnational, whereas the Uighur-Han conflict is intranational or internal to China. China has interests in territory which was part of Kashmir, and China and India (and Pakistan to some extent) have conflicting economic interests in south Asia. China has supported Pakistan in recent decades, but with the Uighur problems, it might rethink that support, especially if Uighur separatists are using Pakistan territory for asylum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Astronuc said:
I heard or read (I have to find the source) that Chinese police or paramilitary stood by while Han civilians attacked Uighurs in a Uighur neighborhood.

The article talks about 'executions of' those responsible. But does that imply the Chinese government will selectively (partially) execute Uighurs and not Hans.

It wouldn't be surprising. When I said handled well I did not intend to mean that in a fair way - the point I tried to make that government is more than enough capable to tackle that scale internal disturbances so they don't need something external to handle these kind of internal crisis.There are similar ethnic tensions in Tibet also I believe.
 
  • #17
rootX said:
It wouldn't be surprising. When I said handled well I did not intend to mean that in a fair way - the point I tried to make that government is more than enough capable to tackle that scale internal disturbances so they don't need something external to handle these kind of internal crisis.
True - for both India and China, but the China-India border dispute has been stronger than any dispute between Pakistan and China. China has assisted Pakistan. Perhaps this is to keep India off-balance, the way Pakistan has used the Taliban and insurgents in Kashmir in order to keep India off-balance.

There are similar ethnic tensions in Tibet also I believe.
Yes - the ethnic tensions are much the same.
 
  • #18
The article talks about 'executions of' those responsible. But does that imply the Chinese government will selectively (partially) execute Uighurs and not Hans.

Probably because the majority of the ones killed were HAn.

The cultural revolution was so painful for China, they lost even more of their culture than did Europe in WW2, and it happened more recently. Since that time, there has been a "vacuum of belief" as a chinese colleague of mine put it, "the only thing [chinese] people believe in now is money", he said.

That same culture was directly responsible for turning China into the sick man of asia, it has been holding the country back for centuries.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K