Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 357
Like Tree50Likes

Thread: Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

  1. #256
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Aug 10
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    The world decided they did not want to conduct nuclear trade with us and now they are having second thoughts.
    Yes but the crux of my point was that the US and its deciples will mold the international security apparatus according to their preferences. Words like "weakening", "declining", "reducing", "diminishing" or any other interesting adjectives are pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    Still, lot more work has to be done before that conclusion is actually realised.
    What "work" do you mean? Does it involve any other role aside from a subordinate? That too, to a league of colonies? Given all the recorded history, what is the rationale behind ignoring tangible guidance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    I think the US has much deeper & longer term plans than just selling reactors to us. They want a relationship and to position us into the planned architecture they have for the region.
    Why are you confusing US interests with indian interests? Why are you so eager to take a plunge? You are too dazzled by short-term prospects. It is counter-productive in the long-run.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    Right, but there is a very large capability gap between deterrence & warfighting stances. If the Chinese have not gone down that path its very unlikely we will either.
    Minimum credible deterrence changes from nation to nation. Indias MCD is questionable. It needs an arsenal and it needs a demonstrated validation. Signing preventive agreements at this point is beyond stupidity.
    Power Respects Power
    --- Dr. APJ Kalam

  2. #257
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    And what will China do about the refugees then?
    *See post 225.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  3. #258
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Do you see any similarities to the decades building up to WW1 ?

    The two might not be looking at alliances today, but twenty years from now will be different. Can the US go it alone without alliances. Its awkward to do so.


    India isn't going to challenge Russia so does that mean we can count on them liking us more.


    They will find a creative way to make themselves useful if the last three decades are any indication.
    The US has no reason to go anything alone. They have not since.

    Russia will always be suspect of anyone growing larger and more capable then themselves in their sphere paricularly from a Naval standpoint where as they have substantial land forces. Not as much as a few smaller nations but no doubt they make up for it via tech.

    Pakistan making itself useful and Pakistan growing into the world power they have the potential to become are two sides of the coin. India however has the very same potential and a leg up on building that potential. India also does not have the problem Pakistan does. And India has already begun moving forward on their plans.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  4. #259
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    China already cast her bets with the Koreas uniting under Seoul's directions in the 90s ... which is one of the reasons why Beijing have so little say with the Kims.
    Right, that is something I did not know. Thanks for commenting sir.
    Ego Numquam

  5. #260
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,104
    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    We're playing with unnecessary words. Nations are semantics and not to be confused. The opponent is one.
    You are deliberately ignoring facts when it does not suit your view. You are confuse terminologies and intent with a deliberate attempt at confusing the situation beyound what it really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    I have no doubt that if country X and Y are co-coordinating wrt nuclear weapons, country Z has to anticipate a two-front war if it ever finds itself in an all-out-war with one of those two.
    And here is the example. There has been no evidence of collusion in joint nuclear doctrine between China and Pakistan. It's militarily irresponsible to see something that is not there. What is there are headaches enough.

    Contrast this to the NATO/Warsaw Pact. There is absolutely no evidence that the Chinese gave real warheads to Pakistan with a precise set of battleplans detailing how, when, and where to destroy India. We were given those.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    I did but I wanted to show you who plays alongside who. China and US might have uneasy relations but they do get along well. In fact, wrt international politics, china and US are more likely to share a common view than india and the US.
    And they also diverge at points. It's not a zero sum game.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    Minimum credible deterrence changes from nation to nation. Indias MCD is questionable. It needs an arsenal and it needs a demonstrated validation. Signing preventive agreements at this point is beyond stupidity.
    There are preventive measures already in place whether you like it or not, primarily money. To achieve what you want, you need 10,000 nukes and that is not going to happen no matter how well you like it.

    I will repeat this. And I understand it is a very hard concept to understand for anyone outside the military. Deterrence is not warfighting. Once you understand that concept, and you currently don't, then the Indian arsenal is more than adequate.
    Chimo

  6. #261
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    *See post 225.
    You mean post #255, right?

  7. #262
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    You mean post #255, right?
    Yes Skywatcher, sorry my bad.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  8. #263
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks. Interesting.

  9. #264
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    What "work" do you mean? Does it involve any other role aside from a subordinate? That too, to a league of colonies? Given all the recorded history, what is the rationale behind ignoring tangible guidance?
    Negotiating the terms of bilateral treaties between NSG countries and India for civilian nuclear trade. Our understanding at the outset after signing the indo-us nuke deal was it would include the full fuel cycle. It turns out there are some outstanding wrinkles to this understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    Why are you confusing US interests with indian interests? Why are you so eager to take a plunge? You are too dazzled by short-term prospects. It is counter-productive in the long-run.
    We are talking about the fastest growing region on the planet ie the region with the most potential for future instability. The period is the so called Asian century. Its natural that world powers will be manouvering to be best placed going forward and at some point those plans will involve us.

    Am not foreclosing on anything just saying we have to keep an open mind evaluating pros & cons for various scenarios as they crop up.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    Minimum credible deterrence changes from nation to nation. Indias MCD is questionable. It needs an arsenal and it needs a demonstrated validation. Signing preventive agreements at this point is beyond stupidity.
    We don't need ten thousand nukes. All we need is to complete the triad our deterrence posture dictates.

  10. #265
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,526
    India is well placed in terms of processed stockpile to complete its nuclear triad. The future requirements are also in sync. Till times there is not a tangible shift in our strategic nuclear posturing, we won't need anythong more than that.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  11. #266
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    MMMM and who is supplying China and India with it's CV's?
    For each of the two they are nearly identical Russian CV's aka (Aircraft carrying missle cruisers) of the Cold War era thats how Russia got around a certain Treaty that gives them access to the Black Sea and the Med.

    The next two (One each China and India) in building are indigious to their own countries shipyards and designs. Very little if any Russian involvement outside of perhaps supplying the aircraft.

    A reference from the Montreux Treaty that Russia "skirted" by their design process:


    The Convention consists of 29 Articles, four annexes and one protocol. Articles 2-7 consider the passage of merchant ships. Articles 8-22 consider the passage of war vessels. The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is stated in articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides that "The High Contracting Parties recognise and affirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in the Straits". Article 2 states that "In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag with any kind of cargo."

    The International Straits Commission was abolished, authorising the full resumption of Turkish military control over the Straits and the refortification of the Dardanelles. Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorised to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey. A number of highly specific restrictions were imposed on what type of warships are allowed passage. Non-Turkish warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Turkish warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than three weeks. Warships are to pass through the straits singly.

    Although the treaty is often cited as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits[9], there is no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers in the treaty. However, the tonnage limits in Article 14, which apply to all non-Turkish powers, would preclude the transit of modern aircraft carrying ships. In the case of non-Black Sea powers, these terms make it impossible for transit any modern ships carrying aircraft through the straits without violating the terms of the convention.

    By contrast, Black Sea powers such as Russia are able to transit aircraft carrying ships through the straits under other terms of the convention. As with non-Black Seas powers, the Montreux convention does not explicitly forbid a Black Sea power from transiting aircraft carriers through the straits, and the tonnage limits in Article 14 also apply to Black Sea powers as well as non-Black Sea powers. However, under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits. Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft. [10]

    The result of this is that by designing its aircraft carrying ships such as the Kiev and the Admiral Kuznetsov to have roles other than aircraft operation and by designating those ships as "aircraft carrying missile cruisers" rather than "aircraft carriers" the Soviet Union and its successor state Russia has been able to transit its aircraft carrying ships through the straits in compliance with the convention, while at the same time denying access to NATO-powers, which are not covered by the exemption in Article 11.[11][12][13]

    Under Article 12, Black Sea states are also allowed to send submarines through the Straits, with prior notice, as long as the vessels have been constructed, purchased or sent for repair outside the Black Sea. The less restrictive rules applicable to Black Sea states were agreed as, effectively, a concession to the Soviet Union, the only Black Sea state other than Turkey with any significant number of capital ships or submarines.[8][14] The passage of civil aircraft between the Mediterranean and Black Seas is permitted, but only along routes authorised by the Turkish government.[15]

    The terms of the Convention were largely a reflection of the international situation in the mid-1930s. They largely served Turkish and Soviet interests, enabling Turkey to regain military control of the Straits and assuring Soviet dominance of the Black Sea.[15] Although the Convention restricted the Soviets' ability to send naval forces into the Mediterranean sea - thereby satisfying British concerns about Soviet intrusion into what was considered a British sphere of influence - it also ensured that outside powers could not exploit the Straits to threaten the Soviet Union. This was to have significant repercussions during World War II when the Montreux regime prevented the Axis powers from sending naval forces through the Straits to attack the Soviet Union[citation needed]. The Axis powers were thus severely limited in naval capability in their Black Sea campaigns, relying principally on small vessels that had been transported overland by rail and canal networks. Auxiliary vessels and armed merchant ships occupied a grey area, however, and the transit of such vessels through the straits led to friction between the Allies and Turkey. Repeated protests from Moscow and London led to the Turkish government banning the movements of "suspicious" Axis ships with effect from June 1944 after a number of German auxiliary ships were permitted to transit the Straits.[16][17]

    Development of the Convention since 1936
    Type 209/1400 (Preveze class) submarine of the Turkish Navy at the Bosporus in Istanbul.The Convention remains in force today, with amendments, though not without dispute. It was repeatedly challenged by the Soviet Union during World War II and the Cold War. As early as 1939, Joseph Stalin sought to reopen the Straits Question and proposed joint Turkish and Soviet control of the Straits, complaining that "a small state [i.e. Turkey] supported by Great Britain held a great state by the throat and gave it no outlet."[18] After the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov informed his German counterparts that the USSR wished to take military control of the Straits and establish its own military base there.[19] The Soviets returned to the issue in 1945 and 1946, demanding a revision of the Montreux Convention at a conference excluding most of the Montreux signatories, a permanent Soviet military presence and joint control of the Straits. This was firmly rejected by Turkey, despite an ongoing Soviet "strategy of tension". For several years after World War II, the Soviets exploited the restriction on the number of foreign warships by ensuring that one of theirs was always in the Straits, thus effectively blocking any nation other than Turkey from sending warships through the Straits.[20] Soviet pressure eventually resulted in Turkey abandoning its policy of neutrality; in 1947 it became the recipient of US military and economic assistance under the Truman Doctrine of "containment" and joined NATO, along with Greece, in 1952.[21]

    The passage of US warships through the Straits also raised controversy, as the convention forbids the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships with guns of a calibre larger than eight inches (203 mm). In the 1960s, the US sent warships carrying 305 mm calibre ASROC missiles through the Straits, prompting Soviet protests. The Turkish government rejected the Soviet complaints, pointing out that guided missiles were not guns and that such weapons had not even existed at the time of the Convention's agreement so were not restricted.[22]

    In April 1982, the Convention was amended to allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in peacetime as well as during wartime.[23]

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force in November 1994, has prompted calls for the Montreux Convention to be revised and adapted to make it compatible with UNCLOS's regime governing straits used for international navigation. However, Turkey's long-standing refusal to sign UNCLOS has meant that Montreux remains in force without further amendments.[24]

    The safety of vessels passing through the Bosporus has become a major concern in recent years as the volume of traffic has increased greatly since the Convention was signed - from 4,500 in 1934 to 49,304 by 1998. As well as obvious environmental concerns, the Straits bisect the city of Istanbul with over 11 million people living on its shores; maritime incidents in the Straits therefore pose a considerable risk to public safety. The Convention does not, however, make any provision for the regulation of shipping for the purposes of safety and environmental protection. In January 1994 the Turkish government adopted new "Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and the Marmara Region". This introduced a new regulatory regime "in order to ensure the safety of navigation, life and property and to protect the environment in the region" but without violating the Montreux principle of free passage. The new regulations provoked some controversy when Russia, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria raised objections. However, they were approved by the International Maritime Organisation on the grounds that they were not intended to prejudice "the rights of any ship using the Straits under international law". The regulations were revised in November 1998 to address Russian concerns.[25]
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Dec 11, at 04:32.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  12. #267
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Aug 10
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    210
    Been MIA for the holidays.
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You are deliberately ignoring facts when it does not suit your view. You are confuse terminologies and intent with a deliberate attempt at confusing the situation beyound what it really is.
    I don't think so. Consider this simple example.

    A buys a gun and gives it to B knowing completely well that B will use that gun on C.

    What does it matter who uses the gun? The point is that C is going to be hit with a gun. C can choose to confuse the situation prior to being attacked but post-attack, C HAS to make the pragmatic interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    To achieve what you want, you need 10,000 nukes and that is not going to happen no matter how well you like it.
    I agree. But I'm also an optimist. I see the glass half full rather than half empty. India signing the FMCT equates to accepting another nations nuclear umbrella. That is equal to treason.
    Power Respects Power
    --- Dr. APJ Kalam

  13. #268
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Aug 10
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Negotiating the terms of bilateral treaties between NSG countries and India for civilian nuclear trade. Our understanding at the outset after signing the indo-us nuke deal was it would include the full fuel cycle. It turns out there are some outstanding wrinkles to this understanding.
    You are wrong. You are ignoring their attempts to create contingencies. Like I said earlier, US wants "returns".

    NSG ends India's 'clean' waiver - Siddharth Varadarajan

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    We don't need ten thousand nukes. All we need is to complete the triad our deterrence posture dictates.
    The WIP has to continue to enable us to move from a defensive posture to an offensive one. At least, because the current defensive posture is not enough to stop proxy warfare.
    Power Respects Power
    --- Dr. APJ Kalam

  14. #269
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,104
    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    Been MIA for the holidays.

    I don't think so. Consider this simple example.

    A buys a gun and gives it to B knowing completely well that B will use that gun on C.

    What does it matter who uses the gun? The point is that C is going to be hit with a gun. C can choose to confuse the situation prior to being attacked but post-attack, C HAS to make the pragmatic interpretation.
    Wrong example. A shows B how to build a gun.

    However, all this being said, I buy a gun or I got a gun as a gift. At what point do the seller or the gift giver is responsible for my actions? I shoot a deer. Does the seller or gift giver have any say to any of the meat? I shoot a man. Do they deserve prison sentence as well?

    And following your example, the Russians gave nuclear delivery technologies to India. Are they responsible for Indian nuclear delivery?

    Your ground is not legal, operationally irresponsible, and frankly militarily idiotic. Pakistan is shooting at you. You don't go shooting at China when they`re not shooting at you.

    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    I agree. But I'm also an optimist. I see the glass half full rather than half empty. India signing the FMCT equates to accepting another nations nuclear umbrella. That is equal to treason.
    India has no nuclear umbrella from anyone. The last time they had a nuclear umbrella was unintentional. The Chinese had to reserve all their nukes against a Soviet nuclear strike across Lop Nor.

    If you would be so kind, tell me who has threatened nuclear war over the defence of India.
    Chimo

  15. #270
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,104
    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    You are wrong. You are ignoring their attempts to create contingencies. Like I said earlier, US wants "returns".

    NSG ends India's 'clean' waiver - Siddharth Varadarajan
    France and Russia already stated that India was grandfathered.


    Quote Originally Posted by nvishal View Post
    The WIP has to continue to enable us to move from a defensive posture to an offensive one. At least, because the current defensive posture is not enough to stop proxy warfare.
    India does not have nor is seeking a nuclear offense posture. You don't have the money for it.

    Aside from that, nukes have NEVER stopped proxy war.

    You just want to chest thump.
    lemontree and Deltacamelately like this.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lincoln asked Britain to help set up colony for freed slaves
    By T_igger_cs_30 in forum American Civil War
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 15 Mar 11,, 19:04
  2. The Nanny State? You Asked for it
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11 Oct 09,, 13:53
  3. About that Nigerian yellowcake...
    By Bill in forum International Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 16 Apr 06,, 02:52
  4. I recently met with Senator Kerry, and I asked him a few questions...
    By TruthSpeak in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Sep 04,, 20:32

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •