Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • What the Brahmos deal means for PH



    Strategic deterrent. Not meant to be used. Won't make a difference to China's greyzone tactics. Important that this point be understood.

    Brahmos serves to keep China in the grey zone. Meaning China won't use military to escalate further. Second point to understand.

    Unless they want to lose $100m ships to a $1m missiles.

    ASEAN can't beat China to a fight so the goal is to prevent the fight. Buys time for a years long diplomatic process.

    Brahmos is part of a layered defence. The Pinoys want to acquire multi-role fighters and subs next as part of their military modernisation program.

    No CAATSA risk.

    Strategically its in New Delhi's interest to see a broad coalition of states push back China's bad behaviour because you see what happens in the SCS, the Taiwan straits and you see parallels with what you deal with at your land border in the Himalayas and in both cases its a China that does not respect rules
    Bingo !

    People have said that countries in the region acquiring weapons is adding to the arms race.

    Greg Polling disagrees with that notion because the countries in the region cannot keep up with the Changs.

    The code of conduct talks have been going no where since 2002. Because the aim is to keep countries talking while China makes advances in the region.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 16 Feb 22,, 16:19.

    Comment


    • Good LOL moment this from recent quad minister meet

      Click image for larger version  Name:	Confused Quad ministers.jpg Views:	0 Size:	255.9 KB ID:	1580774

      Shot at the Melbourne Cricket Grounds and you can see Japanese minister and SECSTATE have no idea what Indian & Australian minister are talking about

      Comment


      • Series of four articles from Australia covering army, air, navy and cyber

        Is Australia ready for war? The army’s battle for relevance | SMH | Feb 07 2022

        In the first of a four-part series exploring Australia’s preparedness for war, we examine the army’s role in modern combat - and why the nation still spends billions of dollars on tanks.
        Is Australia ready for war? The air force’s biggest problem with China is how to get there | SMH | Feb 10 2022

        Click image for larger version  Name:	how far can it go.jpg Views:	0 Size:	175.9 KB ID:	1580989


        ‘Pathetically undergunned’: The navy’s nuclear dilemma | SMH | Feb 14 2022

        The navy has spent billions on new surface ships. But experts warn they’re all but useless against China. Modern naval warfare will be won underwater, and time’s running out for Australia to be ready.
        Click image for larger version  Name:	sub time on target.jpg Views:	0 Size:	440.0 KB ID:	1580990

        Cyber soldiers and the final frontier will influence the next war. Is Australia ready? | SMH | Feb 17 2022

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/robo...07-p57ha5.html

        During the 2014 Islamic State campaign in Iraq, a carefully orchestrated jihadist storm online (featuring horrific videos of executions and overblown claims of victories) convinced the 25,000-strong Iraqi garrison that they didn’t stand a chance against the terror group. In reality, IS fighters in the area numbered only about 1500. “The Iraqis surrendered and gave IS [the city of] Mosul,” recalls Stephens, who was serving elsewhere in the region at the time.
        the world did not see a direct military retaliation to a cyber attack until Israel bombed a building linked to Hamas hackers in Gaza in 2019.
        Years on from the Estonia hack, NATO now says it will invoke Article 5 in the event of a serious cyber assault against an ally (the mode of retaliation depending on the severity). In 2019, Australia solidified its own position: when a cyber attack poses an imminent risk of damage equivalent to a traditional armed attack, such as significant loss of life or critical infrastructure, then a country should be able to defend itself. France and Denmark have spoken of their right to sovereignty, not just safety, in cyberspace.

        The US has left the door open to taking some extraordinary steps, even nuclear ones, against a serious cyber attack – and has loosened the reins on US Cyber Command, allowing the military to launch some strikes without presidential approval in the same way they do in other theatres of war. It’s part of a modern “defend forward” strategy on cyber, which Australia, as a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, is also following to some degree.
        Overall, Austin says, the West (specifically the US) is winning the cyber battle. “The broad narrative that China is winning is really a gross exaggeration; their cyber defences are weak,” he says. “And we never hear of all the times the West successfully hits them or Russia.”
        Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Feb 22,, 01:45.

        Comment


        • The moderator at the Munich Security Council conference 2022 gave all the four quad ministers a good grilling as to what their respective countries were doing.

          Her questions did have a some what Chinese flair to them. Pointed.



          This is the Indian FM responding to her questions. Quite well I might add.

          And Jaishankar gets to give us his definition of the quad for the umpteenth time.

          He was also at the French think tank IFRI earlier and had an interesting answer to the supposedly "counter quad" forming, that is China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia aka the PRIC's

          This collective that earlier AIM crapped his pants about.

          Q. Considering the geometry of international meetings which have followed the Taliban return to power particularly

          - the format neighbours plus Russia which has been held in Tehran last October
          - the new security relationship between Russia and Pakistan,
          - the upgraded relation between Iran and China
          - the visit of Iranian president to Moscow last month
          - the coming visit to Moscow of Pakistan prime minister
          - the Putin-Xi Jinping joint declaration early February

          Do you believe whether some sort of an informal second quad, an Eurasian one is under construction between China, Russia Iran and Pakistan ?


          A. On the geometry question, that was an interesting one because you know four corners do not necessarily make a geometry.

          All that you said was true. I mean Russia is dealing with Pakistan, Iran is dealing with China, Iran is dealing with Russia, there was a China-Russia summit,

          All completely true but in a sense what your question would suggest is one plus one plus one plus one is one thousand one hundred and eleven.

          i would say it takes much more and i say this out of experience. We were speaking earlier about the quad.

          What does it take to put a quad-like body together ?

          It takes a lot of comfort, it takes a lot of systemic interaction, it takes a strong leadership commitment.

          It's only when all those things are there that actually some kind of grouping, the geometry actually begins to form and even in quad the reason the geometry didn't work earlier was because all those ingredients were not there,

          So I would on geometry say aggregating interactions does not automatically lead to a geometry, it takes something more.

          There is a further catalyst or a higher upgrade that is required and by the way interestingly with many of these countries, I'm now speaking for India we are also discussing Afghanistan so by some of your logic even we could end up with with a geography and if you add a fifth factor you know what the geography could be called.

          So i would i would therefore enter a note of caution there
          Recently, I heard something similar about navies.

          3 years to build a ship, 300 to have a navy
          Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Feb 22,, 03:38.

          Comment




          • General Shankar apprehends that since Putin made nuclear threats to deter others from intervening that this creates a precedent and now China & Pakistan can do this to India to retake Kashmir or Arunachal. We need to think about it he says.

            If they could they would have already tried. They have not because it would amount to nothing more than a bluff. So No!

            The most telling is even the Paks have not tried to pull off this stunt. Because.....

            Deterrence is not warfighting.

            Must find a way to get Sundarji's essay to the general. More than ever these days the man's essay has to be read.

            Putin or the US making those threats is normal, they are warfighting powers. Pakistan and China are not warfighting powers they are deterrence powers.

            It is an open question how US & Russia can continue to remain nuclear warfighting powers given their much reduced nuke arsenals these days.

            Are those days over for the US & Russia ?

            They still have enormous fissile materials reserves. It is cheaper to store in that format than weaponised.

            In theory yes, but in practice i am saying no at this point in time.

            Not unless they up their nuke numbers. Which they can. But why would they,
            Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Mar 22,, 16:45.

            Comment


            • US admiral says China fully militarized isles | AP | Mar 22 2022

              OVER THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (AP) — China has fully militarized at least three of several islands it built in the disputed South China Sea, arming them with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, laser and jamming equipment, and fighter jets in an increasingly aggressive move that threatens all nations operating nearby, a top U.S. military commander said Sunday.

              U.S. Indo-Pacific commander Adm. John C. Aquilino said the hostile actions were in stark contrast to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s past assurances that Beijing would not transform the artificial islands in contested waters into military bases. The efforts were part of China’s flexing its military muscle, he said.

              “I think over the past 20 years we’ve witnessed the largest military buildup since World War II by the PRC,” Aquilino told The Associated Press in an interview, using the initials of China’s formal name. “They have advanced all their capabilities and that buildup of weaponization is destabilizing to the region.”
              The AP article does not explain why the Admiral is using such dramatic language


              Pacific Deterrence Initiative: A look at funding in the new defense bill, and what must happen now | Defense News | Dec 16 2021

              The Pentagon’s first draft of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative has been dead on arrival since its submission to Congress in May. But with the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2022 headed to the president’s desk, Congress has rewritten the PDI and established a new baseline against which future Pentagon efforts to deter China will be measured.
              I started to fret when I did not hear much about PDI that the previous INDOPACOM commander Davidson was asking for. A cool $27bn and all.

              This is round 2

              Congress also expressed concern about a platform-centric approach to deterring China, one that overemphasized high-profile procurement as well as research and development programs while neglecting critical joint and enabling capabilities, especially distributed and resilient theater-based force posture and logistics.

              In its first attempt to craft PDI, the Pentagon floundered — doubling down on platform investments at the expense of joint and enabling capabilities. Funding for one destroyer, one fleet oiler and F-35 upgrades accounted for nearly three quarters of the initiative. Meanwhile, paltry sums were left for other key lines of effort, such as a pitiful $500,000 for “strengthening alliances and partnerships.” The request also puzzlingly omitted Indo-Pacific investments that would have better aligned to PDI’s objectives.

              Congressional criticism was swift and bipartisan. Top Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services committees said the Pentagon had “entirely missed the point” of the PDI. Sen. Jack Reed, D.-R.I., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed concern with a “heavily platform-centric approach” to the PDI.
              Heh, just $500k ? thought the initiative set aside more. A hell of a lot more or at least that is what we were led to believe over six months back.

              Congress’ rewritten version of the PDI represents a major improvement. It removed spending that does not belong in the PDI. It refocused funding on joint and enabling capabilities primarily west of the international dateline. Congress also effectively targeted new spending on high-priority needs such as the Guam Defense System, the Pacific Multi-Domain Training and Experimentation Capability, and “planning and design” activities that will be used to develop shovel-ready military construction projects to advance a distributed and resilient theater force posture.

              The fiscal 2023 budget request will be a major test of whether the Pentagon can get with the program and make the necessary changes to carry out the congressional intent behind PDI. For its part, Congress must remain vigilant and prepared to step into the breach once more.


              Comment

              Working...
              X