And lose the propaganda war? They're throwing beer at you and raising banners, not throwing grenades and digging in machine guns. These has to be the friendliest border clashes the world has ever seen.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Japan vows to invest $35 billion over 5 years in India
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd lose the propaganda war? They're throwing beer at you and raising banners, not throwing grenades and digging in machine guns. These has to be the friendliest border clashes the world has ever seen.
Setting up tents and then packing and running away when things gets flared up.
Using civilians to show a poster in Chinese.
Writing Chinese on barren lands and rocks in night and then running away.
Threatening locals when the Indian Army is not around and then running back.
How stupid it can get.
Comment
-
Originally posted by commander View PostMaybe as to let the neighbouring countries know that if it comes down to engage in a war China will not hesitate to do so ? Also a media release creates far more ripples than ordering PLA from within IMO.
Seems like something happened in the recent visit to India and left Xi frustrated and embarrassed thus issuing a Anonymous Warning at the moment he got back.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batista View PostThe 100 Billion investment turned out to be 20.
Originally posted by Batista View PostSeems like something happened in the recent visit to India and left Xi frustrated and embarrassed thus issuing a Anonymous Warning at the moment he got back.
To invest more India has to allow for it. Changes have to be made or do we forget this bit.
PLA might not want to march to Delhi but any businessman is willing to get on their hands and knees and go to Delhi.
Development is a state subject. Centre clapping hands does not mean states will tow the line.
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd lose the propaganda war? They're throwing beer at you and raising banners, not throwing grenades and digging in machine guns. These has to be the friendliest border clashes the world has ever seen.Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Sep 14,, 12:59.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostI'm pretty sure that anyone that has nuclear tipped ballistic missiles also possesses the technical prowess to pre-program a whole slew of potential targeting scenarios into them.
In the case of the US, Russia, and China, having ICBMs with extremely long ranges means that a missile sitting in China targeting San Diego could be quickly re-targeted to hit New Delhi. Similarly, heavy bombers that can be refueled in the air can pretty well go where they please. So in that sense, the big players in the nuclear club aren't too handicapped by geography. However the Russians may not want to use all their bombs on China and leave themselves defenseless against the US.
In the case of Pakistan, they don't have any nuclear delivery platforms with global range. In fact, it appears that the maximum distance they can throw a nuke is about 700-1000 km. So I would say it is a pretty safe bet that India would be on the receiving end of everything they have unless they get pissed at someone else in the immediate region. I don't know how Pakistan feels about Israel, but considering their missiles don't have the range to hit Israel it is rather a moot point where nukes are concerned.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post1) Convince the Soviets not to invade Pakistan
2) Convince the Chinese that there is no threat to Tibet.
(2) I am not convinced that even if there was a threat to Tibet from the USSR, China could do much about it.
Did you not say many times in the past that China was willing to / ready to die (or armies die), but would not use their then meager nukes against the Soviet forces. This was 1979. What changed?
Comment
-
Originally posted by sated buddha View PostCould it not in such case be a good idea for India for someone else to enter the picture and cause Pakistan to redivert some of its hitherto undivided attention? And in doing so allow India to move some of its Pakistan centric firepower (forces, nukes, man, machinery, monitoring - all lumped into a generic term for want of a better term to a layman like me) now towards China?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostIsn't India enough?
And you have a big time misconception. China's nuclear arsenal is not directed against India, the US, and Russia. It is directed at India OR the US OR Russia. At ~225 warheads, China doesn't have anything left to spare after a nuke exchange. Espeically against an arsenal in the 1000s. China can ONLY take on one nuclear enemy. After that, she is spent. She would have nothing left against a second enemy.
250 nukes would equate to cancelation. But I do not think the Chinese would wait for us to catch up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostBecause then we let the disputes dictate and dominate the course of the relationship. It would increase tensions rather than moderate them. This was the course of affairs up to the nineties until we had our balance of payments crisis. To get out of that crisis others in the region encouraged us to open up more to China. To create some stability.
Consider Japan or Taiwan. Both one could say would have much bigger issues with China and vice versa. How does trade between them and China stand. Its much larger. China is their biggest trading partner. Why is that. Is there a lesson to be learnt. Take US & China, same story again, biggest trading partners and also competitors.
There is a counter here that it gives China a bigger peace of the pie and in turn allows them to gain an advantage over their neighbours without going to war. In the sense it forces them to acknowledge China's concerns. Ignoring them would piss the Chinese off royally. They want to be listened to and heard.
And doing as you suggest would condemn us to remain at that position.
Comment
-
Originally posted by commander View PostPlaying nice with them doesn't seem to improve anything either isn't it ? It has to be mutual for many years China has blocked Indian services industry from entering China and they expect us to open up more for them ? Why so they can increase their profits. If they want us to open our markets let them also allow our pharma, IT and other industries and then we can call it being a fair trade.
its early days but there is potential.
You are asking for a solution in the short term for what is a historical problem. neither govt has a solution as yet. The idea is to leave it aside and prevent it from interfering or becoming a problem.
What do you make of this line from Reagan ?
Peace is not the absence of tension but war.
Originally posted by commander View PostAnd now they risk their investments and are bound by some extent to not agonise the Chinese dragon aren't they. Do we want our investment to be at such risk and be an economical slave ? Let the Chinese invest more in India (not the meager 20$ Billion) compensate for the trade deficit or open up their markets , if the Chinese want to be too greedy then we can't do much about it.
Am not saying more trade can prevent war, we've seen numerous examples (latest is Russia vs EU and EU provides 50% of russian govt income via energy sales) where that has not been the case but its a useful diversion.
Originally posted by commander View PostForcing them to acknowledge by encroaching others borders ? That's absurd DE
when's the last time that happened in India ? aksai chain back in '62. Everything since has been what we term as 'transgressions', coming over and then returning or dithering longer and we try the same. But there is no agreed line. Coming and going is not encroachment.
Take Scarborough Shoals and the Phillipines, the Chinese tried many times something like fifteen times but the Phillipinos would not see reason so one fine day they came over and planted their flag.
These are two examples i can give where the failure to reach an agreement forced actions from the Chinese side. We can't force an agreement on the Chinese.Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Sep 14,, 13:46.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sated buddha View Post(1) I still do not understand why China has to come through India to take on the USSR
Originally posted by sated buddha View Post(2) I am not convinced that even if there was a threat to Tibet from the USSR, China could do much about it.
Originally posted by sated buddha View PostDid you not say many times in the past that China was willing to / ready to die (or armies die), but would not use their then meager nukes against the Soviet forces. This was 1979. What changed?
Originally posted by sated buddha View PostBut that's the case for all the nuclear powers except the US and Russia.
Originally posted by sated buddha View PostI realise that its not just the number of nukes, but also their type, their size and yield, and how far each country can throw them. But deterence does not equate to spending yourself. It equates to mathematical demonstration of possibilities of unacceptable damage infliction. And the demonstrated ability to do so. Hence India with 130-140 odd nukes to pakistan's 120-130 odd nukes, gets canceled out. It can inflict unacceptable damage on China. 7-8 major cities. That is deterrence.
250 nukes would equate to cancelation. But I do not think the Chinese would wait for us to catch up.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostTo destroy the threat to Tibet which includes the Indian Army. You were perceived to be under Moscow's command.Either they attack to destroy the threat or yield by default. There is no 100 miles into Tibet that they can yield without giving up Tibet.The Chinese were not going to use nukes but all Soviet battle plans against China starts off with a nuke at Lop Nor.
If anything, in taking out India, they are a spent force. The Soviets then simply walk in (after taking Pakistan) and take BOTH India (if they want to) and China (which they do).
In the defeat of India, China is ensuring her own.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batista View PostThe 100 Billion investment turned out to be 20.
Seems like something happened in the recent visit to India and left Xi frustrated and embarrassed thus issuing a Anonymous Warning at the moment he got back.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostChinese MOU for mysore - bangalore - madras corridor. Is this an improvement over pre-90s ?
its early days but there is potential.
You are asking for a solution in the short term for what is a historical problem. neither govt has a solution as yet. The idea is to leave it aside and prevent it from interfering or becoming a problem.
What do you make of this line from Reagan ?
Peace is not the absence of tension but war.
You forget the part that China benefits from these investments as in its people get paid in the agreement that makes manufacturing in China profitable for both. Many Indian companies manufacture in China and resell back home.
Am not saying more trade can prevent war, we've seen numerous examples (latest is Russia vs EU and EU provides 50% of russian govt income via energy sales) where that has not been the case but its a useful diversion.
I define encroachment as grabbing land and then sitting on it. This usually leads to a war.
when's the last time that happened in India ? aksai chain back in '62. Everything since has been what we term as 'transgressions', coming over and then returning or dithering longer and we try the same. But there is no agreed line. Coming and going is not encroachment.
Take Scarborough Shoals and the Phillipines, the Chinese tried many times something like fifteen times but the Phillipinos would not see reason so one fine day they came over and planted their flag.
These are two examples i can give where the failure to reach an agreement forced actions from the Chinese side. We can't force an agreement on the Chinese.
Tajikistan cedes land to China
China and Tajikistan say that they have settled a century-old border dispute, after the Central Asian nation agreed to cede land to China.
The Tajik parliament voted on Wednesday to ratify a 1999 deal handing over 386 square miles (1,000 sq km) of land in the remote Pamir mountain range.
The Tajik foreign minister said that this represented 5.5% of the land that Beijing had sought.
China said the move thoroughly resolved the border dispute.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei gave no details on the treaty.
But he said the dispute was solved "according to universally recognised norms of international law through equal consultations".
An opposition leader described the deal as a defeat for Tajik diplomacy and a violation of the constitution.
The Pamir mountain range stretches along the Tajik border with China and Afghanistan.
It is not clear where exactly the land to be ceded is or how many people live there.
China is the biggest investor in the Tajik economy, particularly in the energy and infrastructure sectors.
So we have to sell our sovereignty to another nation ? I chose not to , even if it means having a slow growth rate.
Comment
Comment