China's Offensive 'Quick Gain' Strategy in Border Areas May Lead to Decade-Long War with India, US Think Tank Predicts

A recent war simulation conducted by a prominent US think tank paints a concerning picture of a potential long-term conflict between India and China, focused on their disputed border in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.

The simulation suggests that if China initiates hostilities with the goal of swift territorial gains, the conflict could escalate into a decade-long struggle unless China withdraws from captured Indian territory.

According to the simulation, China, leveraging its military might, is likely to launch a rapid offensive to alter the border in its favour, echoing the 1962 Sino-Indian War. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) would aim for a short, decisive conflict to assert dominance in the region.

In the initial 2-3 months, Indian forces might be pushed back from currently held areas due to the PLA's initial strategic advantage. However, China's likely proposal for a ceasefire while retaining captured land would probably be rejected by India, which would be unwilling to accept territorial losses or the associated humiliation.

This rejection, the simulation predicts, could lead to a protracted low-intensity conflict lasting for years.The hostility of local populations in captured territories would make it difficult for China to maintain control in the long term, leading to a gradual erosion of the PLA's territorial gains.

Over the next 1-2 years, India's defence sector is expected to become more robust and battle-tested. The urgency of the situation would lead to prioritized weapon production, increased resource allocation, and strategic planning, bolstering India's military capabilities.

A significant concern for China would be the demographic toll of sustained warfare. With projections suggesting China's population could fall below 800 million by 2100, casualties in a prolonged conflict would exacerbate demographic challenges, potentially impacting the PLA's manpower.

The simulation indicates that a brief conflict with a rapid resolution is only feasible if China agrees to return all captured land to India. However, if China retains even a small portion of the seized territory, the war could drag on, as India would be unlikely to accept such terms.

A protracted conflict would have far-reaching consequences, reshaping the geopolitical landscape in Asia and affecting international trade, regional stability, and the strategic calculations of other nations, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

The simulation highlights several key takeaways:

• The PLA's strategy of a short, sharp war could backfire, leading to a drawn-out conflict with no clear winner, especially if China cannot sustain a prolonged military engagement.
• India's growing stature as a power capable of enduring and countering aggression is evident, underscoring the importance of national resolve and military modernisation.
• The conflict would strain both nations' economies, potentially leading to international intervention or mediation efforts to broker peace.

 

Russia Keen to Showcase Su-57 Stealth Fighter at Aero India 2025, May Face Off with US F-35A in Bid for India's Next-Gen Fighter 4 JeM Associates, Who Offered Logistics Support To Terrorists, Arrested In J&K’s Pulwama

[saffronsword]

Quick decisive conflicts occur against underdeveloped nations with limited military machines and no military-industrial complex....... India had crossed that "Rubicon"...no quick victory possible for the chinese against India...... even if it does come out victorious, it will be with heavy and tremendous losses, unable to retain captured indian territory in the long run.....

 

[Fresh Water]

Provocative. The US think tank is provoking the sentiments of Indians. The US is more likely to be at war with the PLA than India. But then, the US wants India to be its proxy against the PLA. Beware of the US using unethical means to provoke conflict.

 

[Fresh Water]

Note:
1. The PLA is a corrupt organization.
This means: Anybody can bribe the PLA officials to start a conflict.

2. The communist philosophy, at its roots, is people-centric.
This means: China will always be more focused on mass-production, mass-agriculture, or something else at a massive scale.

3. The U.S. is desperate.
This means: Every country in the world needs to be cautious.

 

[Kira]

Sure, but at the current juncture, a conflict is highly undesirable for the PRC, given its focus on Taiwan and increasing competition with the US in Asia and elsewhere. Of course, a return of Trump will lead to increased tariffs on Chinese goods and thus increased Chinese dependency on Indian markets.

Second, the IA, even though lacking in outright infrastructure, is actually better experienced than PLA forces in high-altitude warfare.

The IAF still maintains an edge (although it will erode in the future due to better Chinese aircraft and supporting infrastructure in Tibet) due to its extensive experience in training and tactics with foreign air forces and has a larger and greater number of airbases near the LAC, and their aircraft don't suffer from the high-altitude/low-payload issues that PLAAF birds do in the high-altitude Tibetan plateau.

The IN enjoys an extensive home advantage in the IOR and will complicate any PLAN moves and interfere with Chinese trade, and of course, India enjoys a robust set of partnerships with the US and other allied navies.

Also, don't discount the presence of nukes on both sides, which will limit any large-scale/long-duration conflict.

Besides, an India that has gone through a redux of 1962 (however unlikely) will only focus more on reforming its economy, industry, and military, besides completely aligning itself with the US and the West, which the PRC won't want.

 

[vinod nair]

Wrong, not only land but sea will be involved. Yes, there will be a huge disadvantage initially because of the present government's policy of indecisiveness in acquiring critical hardware such as engines for the development of AMCA, aircraft carriers, and submarines, further compounded by self-proclaimed nationalists who want to dig a well in the middle of a fire for firefighting. Guidelines should be clear: Rome was not built in a day, so develop equipment around the stuff we have rather than importing things without ToT and be innovative like the Chinese. Go for Russian equipment with ToT as far as possible, stop blind trust in Western allies, and remember nothing is free. Forget American inferences; we can't have two lions in the same Asia at the same time, especially with China. The solution is acquiring 3 squadrons of each with the integration of Indian weapons and radars, or if the F-35 is not available, then go for 7 squadrons of Su-35 with "Make in India" with ToT in engines and, of course, Indian radar.

 

[vinod nair]

Well, the heart of the Chinese war strategy is deception, and we must appreciate their leadership. Instead of losing territory, they expanded it continuously, unlike our political leadership. 15 people reside on a meager 7 percent of the land, continuously increasing by the inflow of Bangladeshis.

 

[SR]

India is the proxy for the USA against China. It's not a surprise when the USA bribes a few PLA officers to conduct a devastating first strike, resulting in a wider conflict leading to war.The US just wants India to fight the US war against China.

 

[shivkumar sinha]

The US think tank is totally delusional and spreading fake narratives that the PLA is capable of decisively defeating the IA. On the contrary, the IA can swiftly occupy territories across the LAC in a swift engagement. The PLA cannot surprise the IA.

 

[मित्र]

IA have significant advantage in mountain warfare. Mountain region have 12x defence advantage (may be more in high altitude). And we already proved it in sikkim conflict.
So this is all BS by some falana xyz farzi tank.

 

[Ayo Gorkhali]

I believe fostering a stronger partnership with China could be advantageous. This might be seen as a way to address shared security concerns in the region. Increased cooperation could potentially deter certain actions by other nations like USA. However, it's important for all countries to maintain their own strategic autonomy. Building relationships based on mutual respect and shared interests is always crucial.

 

[Amit Ray]

Why are people reacting adversely to simulation, it's happening everywhere..

 

[aryavarta🇮🇳]

Warmonger doing warmongering typical Yankees 🇺🇸

 

[M.R. Sampath]

American think tanks are only speculating on the pros and cons of the situation and status on our border with China. Both the US and China, in their own ways, are focused on promoting their influence over territories that are strategic to their own dominance in the global scenario. China, having disputes with far too many countries with which it shares borders, including India, is not likely to engage in a full-fledged war with India, as its focus is on Taiwan and the disputes with neighbors in the South China Sea. Whereas the US is likely to whip up some kind of provocation in the South and Southeast Asia region to engage China in a debilitating conflict to weaken its economic and military power, which presently poses a threat to US dominance. India needs to be guarded against such deep-state machinations.