00:00In the 21st century, there was a border dispute between China and India, both of which are major
00:04military powers. These two countries are powerful nations that even possess nuclear weapons. This
00:08border dispute was quite large in scale, resulting in numerous casualties and injuries.
00:12But surprisingly, this clash was fought not with guns, but with primitive weapons like clubs.
00:16It's hard to understand. Why did India and China fight with clubs instead of guns? Today,
00:20I'll explain why that was the case. Before we begin, it really took a long time to make this
00:24video. Could you please subscribe? Making this video was really tough, so I'm asking for your
00:28support. First, we need to take a look at the border dispute between China and India that happened
00:32in 2020. In 2020, China and India clashed in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh, Kashmir. In fact, at that time,
00:38China and India had not yet reached an agreement regarding their border dispute. So, this area had
00:42continued to experience friction since the 1962 Sino-Indian War? In 1975, there was an incident
00:48where four Indian soldiers died and ten were taken prisoner. From 2013 to 2015, for three consecutive
00:53years, standoffs between the two countries took place every year in a region called Aksai Chin.
00:56In 2017, there was also an incident where India and China were on the brink of a local war for
01:00two
01:01months in Doklam, which is Bhutanese territory. The border dispute in the Galwan Valley was similar.
01:05The Galwan Valley is an area located in the Galwan River Basin, which flows through the southern part
01:09of Aksai Chin. The problem is that there is no boundary marker dividing the areas controlled by each
01:13side. So, it was unclear where the actual border was and which areas were under each side's control.
01:18Both sides were just temporarily using an imaginary line called the Patrol Boundary as a reference.
01:22On top of that, the terrain in this area is really rough, so it's a region where it's difficult for
01:25soldiers to be stationed continuously. Especially for the Indian Army, they only patrol or monitor
01:30the area using electronic equipment once every three to five days, so it wasn't a place of much
01:34interest. But this also means that if China temporarily builds a structure here, it's hard
01:37to respond immediately. The Chinese military took advantage of this weakness to provoke the Indian
01:41Army. The China-India border conflict that happened in 2020 was similar to this.
01:45China provoked India by setting up tents on Indian territory. At that time, the Indian Army sent about
01:50100 soldiers to remove the tents. Then the Chinese Army brought a similar number of troops to block
01:54them. This led to a clash. At that time, both countries had previously agreed not to carry
01:58firearms. But when the clash happened, they ended up fighting hand-to-hand using fists, stones,
02:02and clubs. It was as if nuclear-armed countries had suddenly gone back to a primitive era.
02:06As a result, the Indian Army suffered 20 soldiers were killed, 70 were injured, and 10 were taken
02:11prisoner. In the case of the Chinese Army, it is estimated that up to more than 40 soldiers died.
02:15This was the largest number of casualties since the 1962 Sino-Indian War. First of all, experts
02:20are evaluating this conflict as a victory for the Chinese Army. They are pointing out the Indian
02:24Army's tactical inexperience and complacency. First, around 4.30 PM, the Indian reinforcements
02:28arrived at the Chinese Army's tent, but because of the time, sunset was about to begin. Also,
02:32since it was a high-altitude area, the weather was very unpredictable. The assessment is that
02:35they arrived too late. And secondly, they didn't properly secure the area to prepare for a
02:39counterattack by the Chinese Army. Sunset was beginning, but they had no lighting or
02:42illumination equipment prepared. Also, they sent a commander who had just recently taken up
02:45his post. Out of the 20 people who died, 17 of them died after falling into the valley. Given
02:50that they sent someone unfamiliar with the terrain and failed to bring any lighting equipment,
02:53the outcome was almost inevitable. At the time, the Indian media highlighted the use of clubs
02:57with nails, but that's not enough to explain why an entire company was almost wiped out with so
03:00many casualties. Anyway, that's not what's important, so you might have this question.
03:05You might wonder why they fought with clubs and other melee weapons instead of using firearms.
03:09First of all, China-India had agreed not to use firearms or explosives in this area out of
03:12concern that it could escalate into a war. They simply followed that agreement.
03:16The reason for this is that, just like the border dispute between China and the Soviet Union,
03:20it started off as a scuffle, but when a pistol was fired, it almost escalated into a full-scale war.
03:24It's in the same context as the China-Soviet border dispute. If China and India were to head
03:28into a full-scale war, the conflict would escalate without any limits. First of all,
03:32you need to know that both China and India are nuclear powers. Since nuclear weapons were
03:35actually used in 1945, there has never been a case where nuclear-armed countries have fought a direct
03:39full-scale war against each other. Of course, there have been several times when tensions have
03:43risen or small-scale clashes have occurred, like between India and Pakistan, but these have never
03:47escalated into a full-scale war. The reason for this is that the power of nuclear weapons is just
03:51too overwhelming. With conventional weapons, like tanks or fighter jets, even if the enemy is much
03:54stronger, you can overcome some of the difference in capabilities through strategy and tactics.
03:58And in fact, unless you actually fight, you can't know the outcome. But with nuclear weapons,
04:01the result is just too clear. If one goes off, a city is wiped out and tens or even hundreds
04:04of
04:04millions of people dying is just the baseline. That's why, if a nuclear war breaks out,
04:08you can't have any optimistic expectation that you might win. In that situation,
04:11the concept of mutually assured destruction emerged during the Cold War era. So what is
04:14this concept? It's based on the theory that if two nuclear-armed countries both have the capability
04:18for massive retaliation, then if a full-scale nuclear war breaks out, both sides will be
04:22destroyed. So if one country launches a nuclear attack, there will be a country that gets hit by
04:25that nuclear attack. But if the country that gets hit by the nuclear attack still has the capability
04:29to retaliate with nuclear weapons, then both sides will suffer damage to the point that their
04:32countries collapse. So this leads to the idea that neither side should engage in nuclear war.
04:36This concept has actually helped maintain peace to some extent. During the Cold War,
04:40it played an important role in maintaining nuclear balance between the United States
04:43and the Soviet Union. In fact, it also helped prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
04:46It influenced the reduction of the arms race and became an important foundation for nuclear arms
04:50reduction and disarmament negotiations. Based on this concept, the United States and Russia
04:54signed numerous agreements to limit nuclear weapons and build mutual trust. For example,
04:57the global stockpile of nuclear warheads, which reached 74,000 in 1986, has now decreased to 12,500.
05:03This was clearly demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the height of the Cuban
05:06Missile Crisis, Secretary of Defense McNamara even said that he might not live to see Saturday.
05:10This is an example that shows the extreme fear of nuclear weapons. At that time, the Soviet Union
05:14exaggerated its nuclear capabilities, but the United States was still afraid of the Soviet nuclear
05:17weapons. The Soviet Union was also afraid of America's nuclear weapons. Ironically, this mutual
05:22fear of nuclear weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union ended up working as an effective
05:26way to prevent military conflict between the two countries. The same goes for China and India. Of course,
05:30China and India don't have as many nuclear weapons as Russia and the United States. China has about
05:34200 nuclear weapons. India is also estimated to have up to about 200 nuclear weapons, since both
05:38sides know that if a war breaks out, it would be the end for both. They avoided escalating into full
05:42scale war and fought with clubs instead. Now, let's bring this back to Korea. The phenomenon where
05:46countries are too afraid of nuclear war to actually go to war is called the balance of terror. But the
05:50problem is, this only happens between countries that both have nuclear weapons. When a nuclear-armed
05:54country and a non-nuclear country are in conflict, the nuclear-armed country often uses its overwhelming
05:58nuclear power to pressure the non-nuclear country. North Korea, after acquiring nuclear weapons, has
06:02continuously used them to put pressure on South Korea. As a result, South Korea has continued to be
06:07dragged along by North Korea because nuclear weapons can only be deterred by other nuclear weapons. For
06:11example, during the Ukraine war, the reason Ukraine didn't launch a large-scale invasion of Russian
06:15territory was because Russia repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons if its homeland was invaded. Even if
06:20those threats sound far-fetched, the moment a nuclear weapon is used, it leads to an irreversible
06:24situation. So the options become extremely limited. Therefore, inevitably, there is a gap between
06:28nuclear-armed countries and those without nuclear weapons. You might ask what choices South Korea has
06:32in this situation. In 2023, through the Washington Declaration, we began to implement what's called
06:36extended deterrence. That means if our country is attacked with nuclear weapons, the United States
06:39will launch nuclear weapons at North Korea on our behalf. This is more specifically defined in
06:42military strategy as extended deterrence. Simply put, if South Korea is attacked with nuclear weapons,
06:46the concept is that the United States would launch nuclear weapons at North Korea on South Korea's
06:50behalf. But this also clearly has its limits. For the United States' extended deterrence to function
06:54properly, it needs to both deter North Korea and provide assurance to us at the same time.
06:57The reason we use this extended deterrence is ultimately to prevent North Korea from launching
07:00a nuclear attack on South Korea. But if North Korea has already used nuclear weapons on South
07:04Korea, what's the point? Everyone would already be dead and it would be over. And we can also think
07:08about whether the United States would really use nuclear weapons for South Korea. If you ask America
07:12whether they can give up New York for Seoul, they would probably say they can't. Therefore,
07:15this extended deterrence definitely has its limits. In response to North Korea's nuclear issue,
07:18there are discussions about redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea or preparing
07:21ourselves technologically so that we can become a nuclear-armed country at any time. It seems like we are
07:25making some preparations little by little. Today, we looked into the concept of mutually assured
07:29destruction based on India and China. Later, in 2024, India and China agreed to a reconciliation
07:34plan to end their border dispute. The border dispute between India and China is a clear example
07:39that shows wars do not break out between nuclear-armed countries. While we can't be complacent,
07:43the disputes are still ongoing even now. If any country fails to make a rational decision
07:47and things escalate, there is a real possibility that it could lead to nuclear war. We can't say for sure
07:52that a nuclear war will never happen. What do you think about mutually assured destruction?
07:56And in the current situation, do you think the United States would give up New York for the
07:59sake of Seoul? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. That's the end of the video. Thank you.
Comments