Page 49 of 89 FirstFirst ... 40414243444546474849505152535455565758 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 735 of 1327

Thread: Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

  1. #721
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Capabilities apart, intent is what should worry us. Mountain divisions are not yet filled, DE.
    The strike corps isn't filled but what about the divisions configured defensively that Nitin mentions



    I counted 9 mountain divisions just looking after the eastern sector alone. Six of which are based in your state.

    China needs a 7:1 ratio to win in the mountains.

    Not happening.

    They have no choice but to stick to the 1993 peace treaty.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 May 20, at 23:35.

  2. #722
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,567
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  3. #723
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Their testing us, how quick we can do what, where and how many

    A learning experience for both sides


    The trigger for the face-off was China's stiff opposition to India laying a key road in the Finger area around the Pangong Tso Lake besides construction of another road connecting the Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie road in Galwan Valley.

    The sources said China was also laying a road in the Finger area which is not acceptable to India.
    They feel nervous it abuts into Xianjinag & Tibet then let them remove their roads into our sensitive areas.

    Otherwise we intend to continue road building on our side as planned.

    It's interesting how the mindset changed around 2008 where we no longer thought as earlier that building roads in these areas would only help them if they invaded. If that were true then they would not be behaving like they are presently : )
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jun 20, at 01:33.

  4. #724
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,567
    My understanding says, we've got a tacit understanding with the Americans since the signing of the civilian-nuclear deal, to expand our nuke arsenal.

    #1. Why would America want that? Just to counter an aggressive China? Or, the Americans think that a democracy with nukes can be managed better, than a failed state like Pakistan or authoritarian regime like China?

    #2. Since then we've been buying billions of dollars of top notch US defence equipments. So, where does this lead to? Being the top-dog in South-East Asia?
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  5. #725
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    My understanding says, we've got a tacit understanding with the Americans since the signing of the civilian-nuclear deal, to expand our nuke arsenal.
    I don't have this exact impression.

    The nuke deal seperated civilian from military reactors. The military reactors can continue with enrichment.

    If we follow a doctrine of credible deterrence as opposed to war fighting where is the incentive to expand our nuke arsenal ?

    We continue work on the triad as usual. That is delivery vehicles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #2. Since then we've been buying billions of dollars of top notch US defence equipments. So, where does this lead to? Being the top-dog in South-East Asia?
    They have an interest in us not falling. Many items were off limits to us until recently. These are qualitative upgrades that have been on the list for long now. We've not recd any armed drones as yet AFAIK.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jun 20, at 12:16.

  6. #726
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I don't have this exact impression.

    The nuke deal seperated civilian from military reactors. The military reactors can continue with enrichment.
    Yes, very much so. Why give a special one off kind of a deal to India to separate mil-civil reactors, where mil reactors are outside the purview of the IAEA? Why do we need enrichment? Why the huge project in Challakere?

    If we follow a doctrine of credible deterrence as opposed to war fighting where is the incentive to expand our nuke arsenal ?

    We continue work on the triad as usual. That is delivery vehicles.
    Who says that today? Who guarantees it? If we need an effective triad, we need more than a credible minimum deterrence. How much? IDK, it's for policy makers to decide. That is, the count of nukes go up.

    They have an interest in us not falling. Many items were off limits to us until recently. These are qualitative upgrades that have been on the list for long now. We've not recd any armed drones as yet AFAIK.
    Then why not pump billions of dollars into our economy/healthcare/education sectors like they did for Pakistan? Why America doesn't even sneeze when India conducts BM tests, and that too regularly, but criticizes even failed NKorean missile tests?

    Vis-a-via armed drones, India does not have the money to buy everything it wants, there are other priority areas. And we are always bargain hunting.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  7. #727
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Yes, very much so. Why give a special one off kind of a deal to India to separate mil-civil reactors, where mil reactors are outside the purview of the IAEA? Why do we need enrichment? Why the huge project in Challakere?
    The world can have India inside the tent or outside. This was the compromise to get India into the tent. All goes back to Strobe Talbott & Jaswant Singh. His line, India is in the doghouse, they want to get into the big house we're trying to find them a half way house.


    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Who says that today? Who guarantees it? If we need an effective triad, we need more than a credible minimum deterrence. How much? IDK, it's for policy makers to decide. That is, the count of nukes go up.
    The doctrine we follow argues for minimum credible deterrence. Who says it has changed ?

    What guarantees it is cost. Nukes aren't cheap to maintain. To make them needs fissile material and we can produce that at a finite rate. I'm not aware of the amount of fissile material we have presently.

    Tell me why we need more. What is driving this


    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Then why not pump billions of dollars into our economy/healthcare/education sectors like they did for Pakistan? Why America doesn't even sneeze when India conducts BM tests, and that too regularly, but criticizes even failed NKorean missile tests?

    Vis-a-via armed drones, India does not have the money to buy everything it wants, there are other priority areas. And we are always bargain hunting.
    Our trade balance is positive with the US, should we be doing more of course we should.

    India joined MTCR in the middle of 2018

    India joins MTCR: 7 things the country stands to gain | ET | Jul 12 2018

    I'm not sure whether its funds that limits armed drones from being acquired or sales conditions that restrict their use.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jun 20, at 16:23.

  8. #728
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Yes, very much so. Why give a special one off kind of a deal to India to separate mil-civil reactors, where mil reactors are outside the purview of the IAEA? Why do we need enrichment? Why the huge project in Challakere?
    You do know that enriched uranium is needed for civilian reactors as well as weapons production. It would be completely idiotic to rely solely on foreign sources for your reactor fuel. While the IAEA stipulates that the 123 civilian reactors must account for all their fissile materials, there is no stipulation on where that fissile material comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Who says that today?
    Numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Who guarantees it?
    India does. Actually, anyone who is not the big 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    If we need an effective triad, we need more than a credible minimum deterrence. How much? IDK, it's for policy makers to decide. That is, the count of nukes go up.
    Just do your numbers. India, Pakistan, Israel, France, UK, China, North Korea all combined could not add up to even 25% of Russia or the US. That is, the BEST you can hope for is credible minimum deterrence.

  9. #729
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    No Chinese ‘occupation’. Geolocated images show fast in-and-out intrusions by India and China | The Print | Jun 01 2020

    It turns out our initial assessment of the situation — that there is no Chinese occupation of Indian territory — is quite correct.

    The reason the satellites did not see any “occupation” is that there was none. Instead, what has been happening is a series of fast-paced in-and-out intrusions by the forces of India and China into each other’s territory.

    While the gravity of China’s provocation has been much more serious, but note that India stemmed this, push the Chinese back and retaliated swiftly in order to re-establish deterrence.
    Name:  pangong tso fingers.jpg
Views: 60
Size:  158.3 KB

    Ahh, finally a proper map with those fingers indentified.

    Looks like the Persian Gulf with those finger areas where Iran would be : )
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jun 20, at 08:24.

  10. #730
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Another map of Pangong Tso showing the differing percepetions from SNG with a discussion with Colonel Dinny that commanded a battalion sending patrols to the area in 2017.

    Name:  pangong tso with LAC.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  251.6 KB

    Chinese patrol up to F-4 we patrol up to F-8. There is likely to be a clash at some point given our force projection to the border has improved over the previous decade. Without parity there is no conflict. That there are face offs and flare ups from time to time is proof of parity. That the new army chief prefers to play down these events is further proof of that parity.

    From the base after F-3 to F-4 there is no road, troops have to move single file to reach the tip of F-4 as shown below so the point being made is Chinese have not come into our area. Meaning F-3 etc and below etc. No access for vehicles to reach F-3.

    Name:  Ledge between F-3 to F-4.jpg
Views: 38
Size:  128.6 KB

    Name:  pangong tso base to F-4.jpg
Views: 46
Size:  183.8 KB

    F-4 to F-8 is the disputed areas and our patrols are going to continue to patrol to F-8 regardless of what happens.

    He makes the key point that the Chinese do not oppose infrastructure build except when its near the border areas. So they would oppose us building a road to F-4 or building anything between F-4 to F-8. He further adds their actions have nothing to do with the existing road between DBO & Shyok. That road was completed so the time to oppose its building was back then not now.

    It's amusing to hear the Colonel say in this era of so many experts he some times gets confused by the narratives and wonders whether they are referring to the same area he commanded just three years back.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jun 20, at 15:22.

  11. #731
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,567


    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  12. #732
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,567
    I read somewhere, that analysts in China have called for increasing their nuke arsenal. If that's PRC policy, then what? I mean, what follows? Colonel.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You do know that enriched uranium is needed for civilian reactors as well as weapons production. It would be completely idiotic to rely solely on foreign sources for your reactor fuel. While the IAEA stipulates that the 123 civilian reactors must account for all their fissile materials, there is no stipulation on where that fissile material comes from.
    I'm saying mil reactors are free to enrich Uranium, so...should we think India is expanding its arsenal.

    Numbers. India does. Actually, anyone who is not the big 2.
    How will US or the P5 know, when things are so secretive in India. Satellites picking up radiation levels?
    Last edited by Oracle; 04 Jun 20, at 04:20.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  13. #733
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I read somewhere, that analysts in China have called for increasing their nuke arsenal. If that's PRC policy, then what? I mean, what follows? Colonel.
    The Chinese have stopped fissile material production in 1996, verified by the IAEA. They have eniough for 400 warheads. Their current arsenal is ~200 warheads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I'm saying mil reactors are free to enrich Uranium, so...should we think India is expanding its arsenal.
    India is expanding her arsenal but not to the extend you think. There are other things to look for, mainly, any increase in training/storage/launch platforms/personelle. Having warheads with no body to use nor maintain them is useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    How will US or the P5 know, when things are so secretive in India. Satellites picking up radiation levels?
    The same way we know about each other. We look for LOCs that lead nowhere and start counting holes in the ground.

  14. #734
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I read somewhere, that analysts in China have called for increasing their nuke arsenal. If that's PRC policy, then what? I mean, what follows? Colonel.



    I'm saying mil reactors are free to enrich Uranium, so...should we think India is expanding its arsenal.



    How will US or the P5 know, when things are so secretive in India. Satellites picking up radiation levels?
    Listen to Manpreet

    She seems to think what Hu Xijin said matters but its for a different reason.

    Chinese do not want to get into arms control talks with the US with the present low number of nukes they have. They think it puts them at a negotiating disadvantage.

    If the US has more then they think they need more too. So the reason to increase China's nukes comes from that stand point.

    Thing is it does not make sense from a deterrence pov. China follows a doctrine of minimum credible deterrence too.

    The only reason for China to need more nukes is US BMD makes it necessary. For China to have a credible deterrence against the US requires them to credibly say they can get around US BMD with MIRV's for example. US BMD is to protect against strikes from Iran or N.Korea. Not China so why China brings this up isn't clear.

    China does not have a BMD that troubles us. This means China does not as yet see the need for a BMD to protect from American nukes.

    And BMD does not make much sense for us any way when we are already surrounded by 100's of potential nukes. We'd have to spend more than the Americans to have a country wide working BMD in our situation.

    Our deterrence stems from resolve. That we can retaliate and will if attacked. And the modes for that attack has to be proven and credible.

    This way we do not get into the numbers game.

    You seem to think we should be wary but it is China that needs to be more wary about us as they do not even consider us a nuke power to begin with.

    Once the Agni-5 comes on line that might change their way of thinking and it will come as a bigger shock for them that they might want to discuss this topic with us which to date never comes up for the reason mentioned.

    Think about it, we gain deterrence going from zero to x warheads. We gain credibility when they are tested and delivery vehicles are proven. Our position gets further strengthened if we display resolve. Interestingly, she mentions the notes ban and nation wide strict corona lockdowns as two demonstrations of such national resolve.

    To go from x to 2x or 4x more warheads entails a quadrupling of maintenence costs. What does that increased cost buy for us ?

    It does not buy us 4x deterrence, and for the 4x increased cost i'm expecting much more than that.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jun 20, at 16:59.

  15. #735
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    11,318
    On to Part 2 of the series

    Chinese intrusion in Galwan lasted for two weeks before it was cleared by Indian troops | Print | Jun 02 2020

    If Pangong was a case of rapid intrusions that lasted mere hours, Galwan was a case of a minor intrusion that lasted a few weeks. Satellite images from a classified and proprietary report in possession of the defence ministry, seen by one of the authors have been visualised below. Given the extremely high-resolution, sensitive and proprietary nature of the original images, we are unable to share them.

    Those images have confirmed three things:

    1) the intrusions in Galwan were at a single point, involving not more than 40 to 50 Chinese troops;

    2) the Chinese intrusion lasted at best for two weeks and had been cleared by the third week of May, when the status quo was restored in the Galwan sector.

    3) However, a serious situation has arisen due to China cutting off the waters of the Galwan river, which amounts to a weaponisation of China’s upper riparian rights. If not challenged immediately, this could lead to cutting off of waters to other rivers with serious consequences for agriculture and potable water in India.
    Scanning the entire Galwan area, this was the only tangible “infrastructure” one could pick up. In fact, not only was there nothing to report on the other points, where the Galwan runs close to the LAC, but even here, the maximum number of Chinese troops was 40 to 50 at best.

    Nowhere in this entire region was anything seen supporting either a large force or a large build-up of forces on the Chinese side.

    While it is possible that like in Pangong there may have been rapid drive through Chinese reconnaissance as described in part one of this report, the terrain simply would not support the rapid vehicles like the Dongfeng CSK131.
    As for point 3 he does not show how the Chinese have diverted the water. Where's the dam. So this is the one point that remains to be clarified. The Galwan is one of the up stream tributaries into the Indus river and in theory this blocking of the Galwan will also affect Pakistan.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jun 20, at 20:01.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 4 guests)

  1. snapper

Similar Threads

  1. PLA troops spotted near China-Vietnam border
    By Mithridates in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 15 Jun 14,, 04:57
  2. China, India Sign Border Defense Pacts
    By Cactus in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23 Nov 13,, 15:40
  3. China, India should settle border issues: Wen
    By Tronic in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 25 Jun 12,, 16:58
  4. India, China face-off in the Indian Ocean
    By CityOfNineGates in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07 Feb 09,, 18:03
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 Nov 03,, 01:06

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
  •