Again.

This time, it was because a border dispute in the Himalayas between Chinese and Indian

forces turned deadly, killing upwards of twenty people.

This is the first time since 1975 that the two countries have had a fatal conflict, and

the most serious skirmish since 1967.

Naturally, as the two nations are populous, militarily powerful, and have nuclear capabilities,

the world is biting its nails to see what happens next.

But assuming the whole thing doesn't end in diplomacy or a world-consuming mushroom

cloud, which country has what it takes to bring home a final victory?

Using a mix of historical precedents of the prior conflicts between the two countries

and our knowledge of their current military capabilities, we intend to find out exactly

whether China or India would win if the two nations went to war today.

After all, we're not just talking about dusty hypotheticals here.

Relations between India and China have been extremely strained since the Sino-Indian War

of 1962, which occurred over the same stretch of Himalayan Border that's causing conflicts

today.

India had granted the Dalai Lama asylum within their borders after the fallout of the 1959

Tibetan Uprising, already putting them in China's bad books, and with China's military

encroaching on the Line of Actual Control – the demarcation line that separates Indian

and Chinese territory in the Himalayas – a military skirmish was practically inevitable.

The resulting conflict was short lived, lasting only one month and one day between October

and November of 1962.

The People's Liberation Army of China had a vast numerical superiority over India's

military forces, and India suffered significantly greater losses, with nearly double China's

deaths, many wounded, and over 3,000 captured.

This loss is partly chalked up to the fact that it's believed, according to some leaked

CIA documents, that India underestimated both China's military capabilities and their

willingness to escalate the conflict.

While India requested military assistance from the US in the form of 12 squadrons of

fighter jets, their pleas were rejected, and India instead turned to Moscow for assistance.

Ultimately, none of it did all that much good, as China claimed the Eastern Theatre up to

the Line of Actual Control before declaring a unilateral ceasefire.

India was left to lick its wounds, and tensions between the two counties have been high ever

since, with conflicts still breaking out well into the 1970s.

Both nations have ramped up militarisation around the Line of Actual Control as a show

of strength, and this has left both with very little room to manoeuvre.

In a sense, the Himalayan Border is a military powder keg, and lately, we've been seeing

the sparks.

While a past record of military supremacy definitely works in China's favour, the

Sino-Indian War was also 58 years ago, and failure is an excellent teacher.

India has been engaged in frequent conflicts since the Sino-Indian War, giving their combatants

invaluable battlefield experience.

India is widely believed to have won every conflict they engaged in post Sino-Indian

War, with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, which ended in a ceasefire.

China, comparatively, fought its last considerable conflict against Vietnamese forces in 1979.

Once again, experience won out here, as the Vietnamese – who'd recently honed their

skills in battle against the forces of the United States – are largely considered to

have handed China's asses to them.

This is why the value of actual experience in war can never be overstated.

But, let's take a step back and look at what these two militaries have to offer in

terms of manpower, technology, training, and resources.

First: Soldiers, the bread and butter of any military.

Much like in the Sino-Indian War, China has numerical superiority – though in India's

defence, seeing as China is ranked as having the highest number of active military personnel

in the world at 2,035,000, China's military has numerical superiority over literally everyone.

With over 500,000 reserve personnel who could be easily called into action in a wartime

scenario, China is a force to be reckoned with.

India, however, isn't all that far behind – with 1,237,117 active personnel and an

impressive 960,000 reserve personnel, putting the differences between their totals in the

mere 100,000s.

But, here's the big twist: The numbers here only pertain to the Indian Army, which is

the ground force branch of Indian Armed Forces, whose total number of active personnel are

1,444,500, second only to the PLA's total active personnel.

However, the overall numbers of reserve personnel for the Indian Armed Forces now dwarves China's

– at an astonishing 2,100,000.

The Indian Navy boasts 67,252 active personnel and 55,000 reserves.

The Indian Air Force has 139,576 active personnel and 140,000 reserves.

In contrast to India's three-pronged system, the PLA consists of five branches: The Ground

Force, Navy, Air Force, Rocket Force, and the Strategic Assault Force.

The Ground Force is the Chinese infantry and land-based operations, with 975,000 active

personnel.

The PLA Navy has 240,000 active personnel.

The Air Force has an even higher 398,000 active personnel.

The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force – also known by the pretty funny acronym

PLARF – is the branch of the military in charge of land-based ballistic and nuclear

armaments.

They have only 100,000 active personnel.

And finally, the Strategic Assault Force: This is the newest branch of the PLA, established

officially in 2015, dealing with extremely modern forms of warfare like space and cyber

operations.

This division is so new that we don't even have an exact number of active personnel,

but due to the specialisation of the job and the fact that the group is only five years

old, it's safe to assume that it's likely the smallest branch of the PLA.

However, we also have a far wider trend to consider here: The fact that China and India

are two of the most populous nations on earth, with populations of 1.393 billion and 1.353

billion, respectively, as of 2018.

In a situation of all-out war over their shared border, if both nations introduced conscription,

the numerical differences between their armies would ultimately be nebulous.

So, if neither army would have an extreme numerical edge in the case of another conflict,

let's zoom in and take a look at the average military service member in each infantry.

Specifically, their training, equipment, and weaponry.

Thankfully for India, they've grown to invest in more intensive military training over the

years, including joint-operations training with the British, US, Japanese, French, and

Australian militaries as their involvement in the UN deepened.

The Indian Military has also consistently invested in modernised primary assault rifle

systems for their troops, currently working with a mix of American SiG Sauer 716 assault

rifles and Indo-Russian AK-47 203, a modernisation of the famously reliable and hardy AK-47.

As of 2018, Indian infantry troops are fitted with SMPP ballistic armour even capable of

withstanding blasts from the steel-core rounds fired out of an AK-47.

All these factors add up to one formidable individual soldier.

China's infantry troops don't have quite the same thing going for them.

Modern Chinese military training has been criticised for years for its lack of useful

applications in real-life combat scenarios, meaning the average military skills of a Chinese

infantryman may leave something to be desired compared to their Indian counterparts.

They're formidable in the rifle department with the QBZ-95-1, a reliable Bullpup rifle

which performs best at long range.

However, despite China being one of the world's most prolific exporters of body armour, it

hasn't historically fitted its troops with that same standard of protection.

The PLA is notorious for its light loadout, often leaving soldiers ill-prepared for taking

fire, and giving the Indian infantry troops a huge comparative advantage.

However, this may change in the not-too-distant future.

According to a report from Global Times, China is investing heavily in updating and modernising

its training system, as well as planning on procuring 1.4 million units of high-quality

body armour for the PLA.

While this isn't currently a certainty, if these plans do go through, any advantages

the Indian army may have had on an individual soldier level would essentially evaporate,

leaving them dead even once again.

But these days war is far more complex than a large group of armed men running at each

other and fighting down to the last one standing.

In modern warfare, technology can give militaries the crucial edge they need to secure a victory

over the enemy.

Since 2008, China and India have ranked second and third, respectively, in global military

spending, but the gap between them is still pretty immense.

Last year, China spent an astonishing $261 billion on military development, compared

to India's far smaller $71.1 billion.

This disparity becomes a little more natural when you realise that China's economy is

five times the size of India's.

Let's take a look at how these numbers actually translate into vehicles for their armies,

navies, and air forces.

While China is generally packing more hardware than India, one exception is in the world

of tanks, where India's over 4,200 stands at over a thousand units greater than China's

3,200 plus tanks.

However, this doesn't paint the whole picture of China's ground capabilities.

If we're looking at the number of armoured ground vehicles overall, China's 33,000

dwarves India's 8,600, giving them considerable ground superiority, bolstered by the fact

that they have ten times more rocket projectors than their Indian counterparts.

China also holds dominance over the skies – with 3,210 aircraft compared to India's

2,123.

It also has approximately double the Fighter and Interceptor jets, and 507 workable airports

compared to India's 346.

Once again, sadly for India, this trend continues into the country's navies.

In terms of total naval assets, China outnumbers India by 777 to 285.

More specifically, it has 74 submarines to India's 16, and 36 Destroyers to India's

11.

If wars were decided on equipment alone, it's unquestionable that China would take the win

here.

Of course, while nobody on earth wants the conflict to escalate to this point for the

sake of all human life, we'd be remiss not to return to the fact that China and India

are both nuclear nations.

If the war ever did become an exchange of nuclear force, who would come out on top?

Well, for a number of reasons, China has a clear edge here.

Not only did they develop their nuclear capabilities just over a decade earlier than India in 1964

– New Delhi wouldn't have its first nuke until 1975 – but their nuclear arsenal is

also over double the size of India's, with a far quicker growth rate.

China has a stockpile of 320 nuclear warheads, having grown by 40 in the past year.

Compare this to India with only 150 nuclear warheads, which grew by a mere ten in the

past year.

Both nations can deploy these warheads via the nuclear triad of missiles, submarines,

and bombers, and thankfully for the human race, both have a “no first strike” policy.

This means the warheads can only be used in retaliation to another nuclear attack, making

it less likely that either country would want to strike first.

Of course, if either did, all of us would ultimately lose from the resulting radioactive

firefight.

But, on sheer numbers, China takes the clear win with regard to nuclear capabilities.

One final factor worth considering is one that's rarely mentioned in a lot of abstract

military planning: Allies.

While it's easy to think of war purely in terms of enemies, your diplomatic and military

friends can also be a make-or-break factor in determining the outcome of a conflict.

While China would largely be working solo in a war against India with the exception

of perhaps Pakistan, a country with fraught relationships with India to say the least,

India itself has been building diplomatic relationships with a number of extremely valuable

allies.

These include the United States – a country with the highest military spending in the

world – who, under President Trump, have gone cold on relations with China, while referring

to India as a “major defence partner.”

India has also developed strong diplomatic ties to Japan, France and Australia through

performing a number of joint military drills with all of them.

Having these various world powers behind them gives India a serious combat edge over China,

providing these allies came to India's side in their time of need.

While the US could be India's greatest ally in this speculative war, foreign policy under

President Trump has been known to be capricious and unreliable to other allies such as the

Kurdish forces in Syria in 2019, so there's really no way of telling for sure.

So, back to our big question: Who would win in a modern conflict between India and China?

Turns out, it's a lot more complex than you may have thought.

While a layman might assume that China's apparent numerical and monetary advantages

hand it an easy win, these advantages can be neutralised by India's stronger troops

– who are better equipped, better trained, and more experienced – and its greater network

of powerful allies.

Then there's the strategic picture, as while the Indian Navy is smaller than the Chinese

Navy, India is itself situated on the jugular of Chinese trade- so to speak.

Chinese trade ships must pass through the Indian ocean to reach their destinations,

and while China may have a larger fleet, it is not very well equipped to conduct operations

far from its own shores.

With only two aircraft carriers with a capacity of about 24 aircraft between them- and one

not even being operational yet- any Chinese incursion into the Indian ocean to protect

its trade fleets would be disastrous, as the Chinese task force would be brutally pounded

by Indian air and naval power.

With China receiving the bulk of its oil from maritime trade routes, a protracted war between

the two nations would inevitably cripple the Chinese military and industry both.

India would simply have to fight defensively, as the terrain separating India and China

is extremely difficult and well suited to defensive warfare.

While the Chinese could crush any Indian incursion into China itself- and there'd be few strategic

targets to take close to the Indian border anyways- a war between the two nations would

inevitably see India the winner, as it slowly strangles Chinese trade to death.

Check out “American (USA) Vs Chinese Soldier – How Do They Compare | Military/Army Comparison”

and “Russia Vs United States (USA) – Who Would Win – Military Comparison 2019”

for more compelling military analysis.