China Army

India’s supersonic PJ-10 BrahMos developed jointly by Russia and is the fastest cruise missile with a top speed of Mach 2.8 (~ three times faster than US’ Tomahawk)

In 2006 India’s active military personell numbered over 1,325,000 while China was significantly higher at 2,255,000. In air defence, China’s PLA (People’s Liberation Army) Air Force has 9,218 aircrafts of which about 2300 are combat aircrafts, operating from its 489+ air bases. The Indian Air Force has 3382 aircrafts which includes 1335 combat aircrafts operating from 334+ bases and its sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat. The air superiority in China’s PLAAF is maintained by its fleet of Russian Su-30 MK and indigenously built J-10 fighters. Indian Air Force, on the other hand has French built Dassault Mirage 2000s and Russian Su-30 MKI as the best aircrafts in its combat fleet (no indigenous fighters or aircrafts have been deployed by India so far). Indian Navy is the world’s eighth largest navy with a with a fleet of 145 vessels consisting of missile-capable warships, advanced submarines, the latest naval aircrafts and an aircraft carrier in its inventory. It is experienced both in combat and rescue operations during wartime and peace as seen from its wars with Pakistan in 1971, the December 2004 Tsunami, etc. In comparison, China’s PLA Navy with its fleet of 284 vessels is quantitatively larger but lacking in actual war experience, which could undermine its strategic capability. As of 2007, China has no aircraft carriers in its naval fleet but is slated to build and induct an aircraft carrier by 2010.

In strategic nuclear defence and delivery systems, China’s PLA is miles ahead of India’s nuclear forces. The PLA’s stockpile is estimated to have 200-400 active nuclear warheads. In comparison, India’s strategic nuclear force is estimated to have stockpiled about 50-70 nuclear warheads. The most powerful warhead tested by India had an yield of 0.05 megatons which is quite small compared to China’s highest yield of 4 megatons. India’s nuclear delivery system consists of bombers, supersonic cruise missiles and medium range ballistic missiles. Agni 2, India’s longest range deployed ballistic missile is capable of a range of 2500 km, carrying a single nuclear warhead of ~1000 kg. In stark contrast, China’s nuclear delivery system is far more capable with multiple warhead (MIRV) ICBMs like DF-5A [12000+ km] and DF-4 [7500+ km]. It also fields submarine launched SLBMs like JL-2 [8500+ km] and strategic fighter bombers like Su-27 Flanker in its nuclear delivery arsenal.

Economic theory teaches us that incentives drive decision making by a nation or an individual. In case of India, a democracy with no serious military adversary, its militarisation drive is often overshadowed by internal militancy issues and political struggles. In case of a communist China, it has a powerful military adversary in United States; the conflicts over Taiwan give China a strong incentive to beef up its military defence to counter the US military might. The situation is much similar to that of USSR vs USA Cold War, albeit on a much smaller scale. The end result is China walking far ahead of India in military might with overpowering superiority if both conventional and nuclear forces are taken into account.

Vietnam War

Each Monday, we turn to a day in the newspaper's history for a look at what the Editorial Board found worth commenting on. We will preserve the punctuation and capitalization of the original editorial column.

Here is what we were saying in an editorial from April 30, 1975:

Vietnam and our future

We have ended our commitment to South Vietnam. We have washed our hands of the whole bloody mess.

Now, what about the future. We can be too simplistic in two directions. One is to assume that the Vietnamese fiasco will now make every ally of ours doubt whether it can believe in promises of our support. The point is that Indochina never was as important to us as some other parts of the world.

The other extreme is to assume that the Indochina shambles will have no effect on our allies around the globe. Of course there will be an effect, because American credibility has been tested and found wanting.

Make no mistake, this could be a dangerous period in international relations. Our tough post-World War II police has avoided a serious world conflict for 30 years, but we have been tortured by several disastrous brushfire wars. Our policy was simple for us to understand, and simple for our potential enemies.

But what now? Which allies will we protect? Certain no American, not even President Ford, knows the answer. With the mood that Congress is in, we have no assurance where we would draw the line against all-out, naked aggression. (...)

Maybe an indefinite foreign policy may be helpful. But we can't help wondering if it isn't an engraved invitation for the forces of tyranny to test our willpower and our commitment to the cause of free people.

"Self-determination" has been a key word of our secretaries of state for three decades. We won't be hearing it so much in the future.

But where will we draw the line? Our "South Vietnamese" problems may be just beginning.

Put editors on the ballot?

Legislatures everywhere get close to interfering with freedom of the press in almost every session these days. The Florida legislature probably wins the award for the most asinine proposal in the press freedom field for 1975.

On April 22, the Florida House killed a bill, 64-31, which would have forced managing editors of newspapers to get approval from the voters to remain on the job.

A supporter of the measure explained that newspapers often publish unfair editorials on public officials and candidates, with some candidates getting an advantage. Under the proposal, the managing editor's name would appear on every general election ballot with the sole question, "Is he doing a competent job?"

Of all the ridiculous proposals interfering with free press, this one putting editors on every ballot is probably the most ridiculous. Yet it won the support of 31 legislators in Florida!