Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chinese proliferation in doubt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    To be brutally honest here, I think it is time for India to accept the LOC and move on. Too much at stake elsewhere to waste time and effort on the irretrievable and cantankerous piece of real estate. Aksai Chin is a different matter. What close friendship with Taiwan would achieve is of course a different question
    And to be equally honest, I think when it comes down to real, sustainable, long-term security India has a lot more to gain from securing the said pieces of its own real estate than from the friendship of a cantankerous Chinese island thousands of miles away. I just can't see what possible security you see from an entity that (a) owns a major stake in your rival's security and economic progress, and (b) owes its position to a power that is accruing massive amounts of debts to your said rival.

    It would be a very uncomfortable position for you if one day they all woke up and cut a three-way deal: PRC burns half of the US bonds it holds in the interest of national pride, peaceful settlement and socio-economic stability; ROC reenters "China" as a special administrative region, gets enhanced economic and other relations, and continues business as usual; and the US gets back on sound financial footing while acceding to the interests of the Taiwanese themselves. Taiwan is a business India has no stake in, and while matters remain so unknown it is best not to buy any. Notice this is not an isolationist/insular view of India, I say nothing about the Outer Ring (Japanese, Filipinos, Australians) or the Old Friends (Russia, Mongolia).

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Thats why so many allies went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Most of our allies who got hit, got hit after joining us.
      MMM hmm, and the price was paid both in Britain and Australia - the only reason the govt survived was an inept opposition.... Irrepairable damage has been done to the government in terms of its use of intel.


      prosperity takes a back seat to security, and Japans sovereignty and security rests on the US. We've seen how fast the CCP can whip up crowds vs anything Japanese.
      Nobody in a position to do anything about Germany did so - WW2 was instigated by Germany. Korea was instigated by North Korea, Vietnam is the only recent example - Panama does not fit the equation, and Desert Storm does not either. The only thing we did fully instigate, OIF - was a public relations disaster.




      Australia has gone to every war the US has had outside of the Americas for nearly 100 years.
      59 Years... (Korea) and really more like 1962 - Vietnam. Sure we put out Pacific forces under your command in ww2, but the c/w went to war in 1939. We did not go to war because the U.S did, although we sure did like asskissing commitments. We barely have, ever since vietnam had the courage to use much more than the SAS / Cdo groups / blokade frigates & P3's... Hornets did show up in OIF at the start though - Not regulars & sending regulars is the true determiner of what political spirit there is behind a battle/campaign/war.

      ABCA might be a warm fuzzy word but not one of those members have been in every blood and guts war the U.S has been in, in a substantial way since WW2. Certainly our contribution to GW/1 was pissant, and, on the scheme of comparable contributions per capita (despite other commitments) we also tokenised with OIF although we did commit in country units.
      Ego Numquam

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by zraver View Post

        India's biggest trump is the softly spoken whisper that if China pushes to hard India will simply seek a formal alliance with the US.
        A military alliance with the US is impossible in the short to medium term. Any government which tries to ink such a pact will collapse overnight. I'm sure the Chinese aren't clueless about this.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        To be brutally honest here, I think it is time for India to accept the LOC and move on.
        What makes you think the Pakistanis want to accept the LOC as it is ? I'd think the numerous wars and the constant supply of terrorists should be some sort of indicator.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by axeman View Post
          A military alliance with the US is impossible in the short to medium term. Any government which tries to ink such a pact will collapse overnight. I'm sure the Chinese aren't clueless about this.
          Which is why I was SO HAPPY that the Third Front collapsed:)
          They are the biggest obstacles to closer relations between US and India

          Originally posted by axeman View Post
          What makes you think the Pakistanis want to accept the LOC as it is ? I'd think the numerous wars and the constant supply of terrorists should be some sort of indicator.
          I don't dispute that at all. I am merely stating what is remotely agreeable from India's POV. Another advantage if this finally comes through is that we get to seal the bordert like we have done eslewhere. I know that is logistically difficult anyway, but now there is a weird political/ nuclear angle to it which will hopefully reduce
          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            Which is why I was SO HAPPY that the Third Front collapsed:)
            They are the biggest obstacles to closer relations between US and India
            I think we all celebrated when the commies got thrashed. It is in India's interest to have closer relations with America. However, I do not believe we need or want a formal alliance. India does not need to be another Japan or South Korea which sold part of their sovereignity for the sake of closer relations and the economic/military benefits which comes from kowtowing to America.


            I don't dispute that at all. I am merely stating what is remotely agreeable from India's POV. Another advantage if this finally comes through is that we get to seal the bordert like we have done eslewhere. I know that is logistically difficult anyway, but now there is a weird political/ nuclear angle to it which will hopefully reduce
            I don't disagree completely. But think about it - what's to stop Pakistan from pushing terrorists even if the LoC is made an IB ? The whole premise has moved away from just Kashmir.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by axeman View Post
              I think we all celebrated when the commies got thrashed. It is in India's interest to have closer relations with America. However, I do not believe we need or want a formal alliance. India does not need to be another Japan or South Korea which sold part of their sovereignity for the sake of closer relations and the economic/military benefits which comes from kowtowing to America.
              Japan and South Korea are remarkably homogeneous countries, historically quite insular, who could make formal alliances with one power exclusively without fearing internal disruptions. They made a calculated decision - after extremely eventful incidents in their histories, World War II and the Korean War - and went with it. India is an extremely heterogeneous and open country - it could not, and to a large extent still best not, pick sides unless faced with an existential threat. Make no mistake about it: if India had picked a side in the Cold War, the other side would have gone all out to rip it apart and would probably have succeeded; or Indians would have lost their freedom to a domestic tyrant who kept the country together under an iron heel. It is not a matter of selling or kowtowing: Everyone is sold to their histories and bows down to it daily, Americans included.

              Originally posted by axeman View Post
              I don't disagree completely. But think about it - what's to stop Pakistan from pushing terrorists even if the LoC is made an IB ? The whole premise has moved away from just Kashmir.
              I disagree completely with Antimony, and one of the minor, last-ditch reasons I would give is what you did above. The terrain features and force distribution are the two main difficulties India faces in completely cutting off the infiltration, and that is not going to change whether you call it IB or LoC. But calling it IB will hurt your interests a lot more in the long-run.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                Japan and South Korea are remarkably homogeneous countries, historically quite insular, who could make formal alliances with one power exclusively without fearing internal disruptions. They made a calculated decision - after extremely eventful incidents in their histories, World War II and the Korean War - and went with it. India is an extremely heterogeneous and open country - it could not, and to a large extent still best not, pick sides unless faced with an existential threat. Make no mistake about it: if India had picked a side in the Cold War, the other side would have gone all out to rip it apart and would probably have succeeded; or Indians would have lost their freedom to a domestic tyrant who kept the country together under an iron heel. It is not a matter of selling or kowtowing: Everyone is sold to their histories and bows down to it daily, Americans included.
                "Gone all out to rip it apart" ? Well, what was Pakistan doing all those years ? Kashmir, Punjab, the North East ? They didn't happen by themselves. India chose not to pick a side not for the fear that one day there would be a possibility that it would break up or that some general would overthrow the government. India chose to remain non-aligned because she didn't want to sign off her freedom and sovereignity to some foreign power as it had been for the last century. The concept of independence was very clear to the freedom fighters who later became policy makers.
                As for the calculated decision - at either rate, they still have thousands of foreign troops on their soil and a foreign government which dictates foreign policy. So, you can call it whatever you want, but that is NOT what I want India to be.

                I disagree completely with Antimony, and one of the minor, last-ditch reasons I would give is what you did above. The terrain features and force distribution are the two main difficulties India faces in completely cutting off the infiltration, and that is not going to change whether you call it IB or LoC. But calling it IB will hurt your interests a lot more in the long-run.
                I know. I wasn't advocating calling the LoC an IB. That would be a disaster.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by cdude View Post
                  I don't think Chinese have lower opinions on Indians than Americans/Europeans/Aussies do.
                  Prove me wrong
                  please elaborate your point, is it a rant, if we are talking about this very topic/strategic partnership or choosing sides then appropriate answer may be;
                  1.Indo-US nuclear deal and the list is on..
                  2.Less significant as far as countering china or vise a verse is concerned, Euro fighter in MMRCA deal/trails
                  3.They still needs Indian students over there isn't it, i have some reservation about them cause of yellow cake. But possibility of very strong chines lobby can not be ruled out.
                  Further more Australian will not allow chines to use their sea routs during blockade in Straits of Malacca.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    59 Years... (Korea) and really more like 1962 - Vietnam. Sure we put out Pacific forces under your command in ww2, but the c/w went to war in 1939. We did not go to war because the U.S did, although we sure did like asskissing commitments. We barely have, ever since vietnam had the courage to use much more than the SAS / Cdo groups / blokade frigates & P3's... Hornets did show up in OIF at the start though - Not regulars & sending regulars is the true determiner of what political spirit there is behind a battle/campaign/war.

                    ABCA might be a warm fuzzy word but not one of those members have been in every blood and guts war the U.S has been in, in a substantial way since WW2. Certainly our contribution to GW/1 was pissant, and, on the scheme of comparable contributions per capita (despite other commitments) we also tokenised with OIF although we did commit in country units.
                    Chunder, just a point on Korea. It most definately does count on this list. We were literally second committed after the US (I guess 3rd if we count the RoK). If I remember the decision was made by the deputy PM or foreign minister because Menzies was out of the country. Apparently he was livid because he'd wanted to consult Britain before making a decision (sad bastard).
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      Chunder, just a point on Korea. It most definately does count on this list. We were literally second committed after the US (I guess 3rd if we count the RoK). If I remember the decision was made by the deputy PM or foreign minister because Menzies was out of the country. Apparently he was livid because he'd wanted to consult Britain before making a decision (sad bastard).

                      What Im trying to say is that although the alliance is strong in many ways from technology right through to deployment - whether or not one of those countries commits or can't be taken for granted.

                      We like to harp on about ABCA - but when you look at the deployments particularly post vietnam what is committed to a fight is indicative of political tentativeness at home. If we want examples of them well we can choose Gulf War One, Kosovo, OIF & Afghanistan - (IIRC we were very overcommitted at the time of Kosovo anyway).

                      Every conflict since is littered with this reality.

                      Though I am not saying that Alliance won't hold strong - One only needs to look at the U.S' suspending an alliance because of the Kiwi's opposition to nuclear power (its not like the U.S ever damn well needs to defend NZ with a damn CV anydamn way) for some food for thought. There is certainly no gaurantee that we would automatically join the U.S - at least publically (you can bet we'd offer covert support however)

                      But at least before ABCA is held up again - consider the history of it. THe real measure of an alliance is a willngness for equal sacrifice - and Australia, unlike the US, or Britain, or Canada has been very reluctant to send regulars to a warzone in recent times - where it has sought to contribute, it has done so with question. Canada was reluctant with Vietnam, with DS, with OIF, Britain with Vietnam, Lets not forget that if we are to use Korea as the start of true alliance, that between then and Vietnam there was the Suez Debacle and a rift with the US, and for us in Malaya.

                      ABCA sounds good if you overlook a countries inability / reluctance to contribute. It's those things, including economic ones, that can compell a nation to withold support...
                      Last edited by Chunder; 06 Sep 09,, 12:37.
                      Ego Numquam

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                        But at least before ABCA is held up again - consider the history of it. THe real measure of an alliance is a willngness for equal sacrifice - and Australia, unlike the US, or Britain, or Canada has been very reluctant to send regulars to a warzone in recent times - where it has sought to contribute, it has done so with question. Canada was reluctant with Vietnam, with DS, with OIF, Britain with Vietnam, Lets not forget that if we are to use Korea as the start of true alliance, that between then and Vietnam there was the Suez Debacle and a rift with the US, and for us in Malaya.
                        What you are ignoring is that ABCA does not mean American lead nor dominated. Before these American Wars, the BCA part of the Alliance had real committements to fulfill. In the case of the British and Canadians, UN Peacekeeping Missions. In actual fact, the two most deployed NATO armies before the Iraq War were the Brits and the Canuckians, most often on Peacekeeping missions approved by the US and at times started by US sponsored resolutions.

                        In the case of Canada, I agree with Vietnam but I do not agree with ODS and OIF.

                        During ODS, we already had two battlegroups committed to peacekeeping. We've sent a CF-18 sqn and a naval task group. If the Soviets ever crossed the Iron Curtain, within 30 days, Canada was supposed to have a fighter sqn, a naval task group, and a brigade in theatre. We sent two out of the three to ODS and was juggling our commitements around to supply the 3rd. 4th Brigade was getting ready to deploy when the ground war started.

                        For OIF, while our political commitements were noticably absent, our military contribution was not. Our Naval task group protected the left flank of American CVGs launching airstrikes against Iraq. This was done under the authority of Operation APOLLO which was supposed to be under the authority of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM but since CENTCOM commands both OIF and OEF, that line was blurred to allow the naval actions.

                        However, the way it turned out was better for everyone all around. The Americans wanted our Flag in Iraq but they needed our brigade in Afghanistan.

                        From the perspective of BCA members, we have stood right most of the time.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 06 Sep 09,, 16:18.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          I think there might two different sues here, the PRC does not need to fear a nuclear strike. But she is modernizing the rest of her arsenal at quite a pace and expanding her capabilities in a few areas. Her navy and air forces have done a lot to narrow the gap with both Japan and the US. Not there yet, but its a big enough threat that Japan and South Korea both have undertaken naval building programs that can only be in response to China.
                          Aren't they more directed at one another? The North Seas Fleet isn't very threatening.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Z,

                            How is that justify a full out war?

                            I believe most people in ROK believed their naval build up is geared toward Japan.
                            “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                              Z,

                              How is that justify a full out war?

                              I believe most people in ROK believed their naval build up is geared toward Japan.
                              Not likely, there are increasing ties between South Korea and Japan and both are firm US allies with US troops stationed in both. The rouge player in the area that would require a modern navy with Aegis type vessels is China. Japan doesn't have SSM's or cruise missiles to fire at the ROK, nor does the ROK have them to fire at Japan. Aegis is like wise useless vs North Korea since the flight path is over the Korean Peninsula not inbound from the Sea. The PLAN is the only threat that justifies having Aegis type vessels.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                Not likely, there are increasing ties between South Korea and Japan and both are firm US allies with US troops stationed in both. The rouge player in the area that would require a modern navy with Aegis type vessels is China. Japan doesn't have SSM's or cruise missiles to fire at the ROK, nor does the ROK have them to fire at Japan. Aegis is like wise useless vs North Korea since the flight path is over the Korean Peninsula not inbound from the Sea. The PLAN is the only threat that justifies having Aegis type vessels.
                                well, that is not the impression I got from reading press release and OpEd from ROK.
                                “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X