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

  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    We were not going to join a coalition that treated the Paks as a major partner.
    1) Since when were the Pakistanis a major partner with the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan?

    2) Explain how Pakistani battlion groups answered to an Indian General and vice versa during the various UN Peacekeeping operations.

    3) Did you not even imagine the Pakistani headaches and heartaches of having an Indian brigade or two on the Afghan-Pakistani border? I know I would be giddy at the thought.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Who found safe sanctuary thanks to enabling actions by the Paks and have done so yet again.
    OBL was neutered once his HQ was destroyed, never managing another operation. Hell, he couldn't even move his money around. And again, Pakistani support was neutralized. The Taliban didn't strike from the Afghan-Pakistani border, they struck from Central Asia.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Because you were protecting them. Right from the start ie. 1947 they had protection, we were never allowed to finish the job.

    We fell for the ceasefire ploys earlier but ignored them in '71.
    Can't have it both ways. Either you were too lazy to finish the job or you were too chickenshit to finish the job. Either way, it was your job to finish Pakistan, not ours.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    You wanted a war on terrorism.
    What the hell does that even mean? I mean seriously, what does it mean? Is there a military objective? No. Is there a political objective? Tell me who we can confront globally? Is there a social objective? Well, how do you social engineer away the bad guys?

    It's a nice sound bite and all but all that it really says is that we don't know what we want.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Fight it anywhere and everywhere.
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's the whole crust of this.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    But for some reason the Paks got a pass (!)

    How could we join you ?
    Two brigades.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    I don't think India holding out on Afghanistan correlates with India holding out in an Indo Pacific war. Where as Gen Dhruv Katoch said amounts to suicide.
    Hardly. India is not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into Afghaniustan nor Taiwan. In fact, she's throwing nothing.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Why reward them by making MFN status permanent in 2001 ?
    What didn't you understand about bargin basement prices?

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The opposition Democrats wanted all manner of sanctions after TIanamen but the elder Bush would not go as far.
    No bearing on individual companies and investors who suddenly lost confidence in China.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Vietnam was dealing with old school PLA human wave tactics. The Viets knew it and set that up. PLA don't fight like that any more because of the changes that war with Vietnam brought about.
    We're not dealing with the military operations but the results of the war. The result of the 1979 Sino-VN War was the CCP got hurt and got hurt bad. Entire cadres lost their positions and pensions.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    China will not go at Taiwan like they did with Vietnam.
    No shit, Sherlock.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    What i want to convey is a mostly non-military capitulation of Taiwan. This could happen if China is able to isolate Taiwan to the point that Taiwan believes no one will come to their help.
    How? The one scenario that you came up with, a blockade, is militarily undoable with or without the USN.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    I did post a discussion earlier with a Taiwanese colonel now Professor who said Taiwan was on its own in such a conflict. That was their expectation.
    That's because they don't need any help. AGAIN! A 30,000 man landing force with a 100 mile exposed LOC vs 400,000 entrenched troops with interior communications.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    When i see Tianamen, it all ended in Beijing. There were no fires in other parts of China. Jiang handled whatever fallout there was in Shanghai.
    Not Jiang, DXP.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    You mention Chinese parents. What about Taiwanese parents ?
    Fathers manning the Wall with their sons. Mothers cooking meals for both. Grandparents in the bunkers with the grandkids.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Fine, the Americans could read the writing on the wall. And i'm arguing India should do the same.
    The US and Great Britain shared strategic objectives. What strategic objectives do India and Taiwan share?

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    A good plan. But Taiwan can only keep that up for so long. There will come a point after where we will have to decide what comes next.
    That's the plan since 1949.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    There is a line of reasoning that argues the US must change its policy towards Taiwan because the present course is leading towards a conflict with no good outcomes. I will post more about this in a subsequent post.
    The status quo is the outcome.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    And India isn't asking for anyone to march on Beijing.
    No, you just want to be at the victor's table with a MAYBE you'll wave the flag.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    That is the stated intention so long as the CCP is in charge.
    And it's been 71 years and counting. You know the one thing wrong about doing things tomorrow? Tomorrow never comes.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Loss of Taiwan means harder for the US to have influence in the Far East.

    What comes next ? do countries in the region continue to stick with the US or go with China.
    That's your problem. You think Taiwan is already lost wheras no military man can even envision it. Once you come back down to the details, it's still 400,000 men vs 30,000. 40 to 3 odds. An invasion of Taiwan would make D-Day a cake walk. The only thing remotely coming close is Operation OLYMPIC - 15 Allied Divisions, 42 Carriers, and 24 battleships and that is with total air and naval superiority.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    There's two answers here and i don't know which is correct.

    One, argues they stick with the US because there is no alternative.

    Two, argues they bandwagon towards China because a resurgent China can't be countered. Which means the US is out in the deep blue sea and its a matter of time they quit the region.

    So far the consensus seems to go with two which means an anti-Indian Asia is in the cards.
    Follow the money. There's your answer.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    China neutral India. An India that has no say in the progress of Asia.

    The rocks are incidental.
    What the hell does that even mean? Chinese say in Asia is economic, not military. If India got money, she got a say. If not, can't blame the Chinese for outbidding you.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The same thing they've done to us since the last few years. Mass troops along the border.

    We continue to complete those 44 strategic roads. Now we have forces that can show up along more points of the border than is possible today.

    India without doing anything threatens the link between Xianjiang & Tibet as well as the route to Pakistan.
    Do you see another 10-20 Chinese divisions moving up?

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Any infrastructure that brings forces in mass to either of those two points is going to get them jumpy.
    Let's not overstate the threat. A brigade or regiment at either point is sufficent defence.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Sounds good. No need for Indian ships to police cargo then. We'll keep our powder dry for other actions.
    Precisely the point, you have zero impact on the Taiwan issue.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    I don't have to justfy quad. That Quad exists is self evident that the US can't handle China alone.

    Quad alone isn't enough. It can be augmented by more branches with like minded powers. This is in the works .Now you have a net criss-crossing a diamond.

    In anticipation of your reply bear in mind military is the last option. Grey zone is everything building up to that. Hopefully preventing use of military.
    Or for fuck sakes, the Americans want your flag, not your guns. It is without the a doubt that the Americans can do the job without NATO but it is also without a doubt that the Americans can do the job faster and better with NATO. QUAD would just get into the Americans' way. It's a freaking dog and pony show with zero military applications.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    We don't go into the straits. marching north is an option if the possibility presents itself.
    Present to me a scenario that China cannot hold you at bay while duking it out with Taiwan.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    You're forgetting something else. Nobody knows what the US will do and that will condition what India and the rest does.
    But we know what Taiwan will do. 40 to 3 odds the PRC will fail and fail big.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    This again i wil address in a subsequent post.

    1. How long Taiwan holds out
    71 years and counting

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    2. US Policy towards Taiwan
    Arms sales.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 22 Jan 22,, 21:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

    I just love and look forward to this back and forth between you and DE. Almost an equal to a good Netflix series. You, Sir, deserve a royalty or at least a good bottle of Scotch.

    As for the Chinese I always thought they were like Coors Beer as in "its' the water"
    This is the reason that compelled me to join the board. It was getting frustrating reading discussions getting interesting and then suddenly people would just give up.

    Why ??!!!

    People either agreed with OOE or hijacked what he was saying with something else.

    This is not a guy to run away from. You ENGAGE. Only way to give the current narratives a good work over.

    I'd be screaming at the screen to say this and that to whatever he said and then finally decided i'd sign up and do it myself.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 17:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    The Chinese aren't stupid enough to equate exercising together with joining up in defense of Taiwan. Even the US hasn't spelled out its position on Taiwan unambiguously, and you expect the QUAD to be a part of it?
    Malabar 2007 freaked the Chinese out just enough to send demarches to participating countries. Aussies peeled away soon after and India toned down the tenor of exercises with the US.

    This was at a time when the myth that China's rise would be peaceful still had currency. Including on this board.

    Quad is the process of putting together the building blocks to counter the Chinese. Once that is in place what happens next is an overnight decision in the capitals concerned.

    Chinese know that. And the idea is China knowing that tempers how far they go.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    Let me put it this way, if the Chinese go toe-to-toe with the US in an attempt to take Taiwan, I don't think India will have to worry about China militarily for many years in the aftermath of that. If on the other hand the US does not intervene and/or the Chinese can force Taiwan to capitulate before it can, then Taiwan is lost and there is nothing that India can do to prevent it. In either case, India's involvement makes little difference.
    If the US does not intervene.... is the key point and in that instance yes agreed because then there is no Indo-Pacific war.

    China called our bluff and we were found wanting.


    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    Like the Colonel mentioned, the total manpower requirement for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be around 30000 men. Even accounting for reserves that hardly looks like a number which would prompt them to denude Tibet of manpower. They're not going to move their AD assets either since they do not face an aerial threat to the mainland from Taiwan. As for "tying down" their divisions we are already doing that as much as possible. Since 2020 the PLA has heavily deployed to forward areas near the LAC, something they never did previously. Short of going to war there is little we can do to force them to deploy more troops. Bear in mind that this round the year deployment costs the IA a lot of money and eats into our operational budget.
    If you are saying we can't do more at the border than at present and OOE is saying we have to sail ships to the straits which we won't do.

    Then we need other ideas here. Ones that India can do that will affect their calculations on Taiwan.

    Failing that we prepare for a new reality in this region.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 17:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Neocons had a very good perception about security that has yet to be matched by any US administration since.

    They foresaw Saddam could become a threat and acted on it.


    The only thing the Neocons did was cause the entire Mideast to explode and make life so much worse from tens of millions and more to come.

    In the process they ended wrecking DOD and putting weapons development decades behind. All new systems for the Army got swallowed up in paying for the wars over the last 20+ years. The Navy had to buy the crappy LCS instead of buying a legit frigate replacement for the OHPs.

    Rumsfeld and crew wrecked the careers of several really good officers and politicized are officer corps.

    Saddam was in a box he could not get out of. He ceased to be a threat to his neighbors. Any offensive move and he got smacked.

    The Neocons did this to us and the world on 12 September when they determined Saddam, a Baathist, had anything to do with Al Qaeda or Bin Laden.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Collapse of the Chinese economy.

    Western investments disappeared overnight and contracts cancelled.

    Bargin basement prices with slave level wages and unsafe working conditions with devastatng environmental impact.
    Why reward them by making MFN status permanent in 2001 ?

    The opposition Democrats wanted all manner of sanctions after TIanamen but the elder Bush would not go as far.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The thing with your conclusions is that these events were cases when the CCP won. How about choosing a case when the CCP lost. I point to you the 1979 Sino-VN War. 30,000 casualties. Parents of dead soldiers demanding explainations why their sons were dead or capture. Those local CCP cadre who boasted about the rightousness of the war couldn't leave town fast enough. Entire HQs were purge with Generals having to immigrate to work as dishwashers in the West because they lost their pensions. An entire generation of CCP leaders were sent packing leaving DXP well in command. Military budgets were cut (and hence pensions) forcing the PLA to come up with ideas do more with less, hence the start of PLA modernization
    Vietnam was dealing with old school PLA human wave tactics. The Viets knew it and set that up. PLA don't fight like that any more because of the changes that war with Vietnam brought about.

    China will not go at Taiwan like they did with Vietnam.

    What i want to convey is a mostly non-military capitulation of Taiwan. This could happen if China is able to isolate Taiwan to the point that Taiwan believes no one will come to their help.

    I did post a discussion earlier with a Taiwanese colonel now Professor who said Taiwan was on its own in such a conflict. That was their expectation.

    When i see Tianamen, it all ended in Beijing. There were no fires in other parts of China. Jiang handled whatever fallout there was in Shanghai.

    You mention Chinese parents. What about Taiwanese parents ?


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No. The US getting ready for war against Hitler with or without Hitler declaring war. Shooting between the Kreigsmarine and the USN were already taking place before Pearl Harbour. AR provided the link above. By April at the latest, the US would be full on shooting at Hitler even if he didn't declare war. Ever noticed how the US was full on ready to take on Hitler?
    Fine, the Americans could read the writing on the wall. And i'm arguing India should do the same.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    This would be a traditional territorial war of old where provinces trade hands between empires. This means we have no intentions of marching to Beijing on India's behalf.

    No, we'll just make sure any force attacking Taiwan dies. And let Xi explain to dead soldiers' parents why he threw 30,000 men away and cause the economy to go bust.
    A good plan. But Taiwan can only keep that up for so long. There will come a point after where we will have to decide what comes next.

    There is a line of reasoning that argues the US must change its policy towards Taiwan because the present course is leading towards a conflict with no good outcomes. I will post more about this in a subsequent post.

    And India isn't asking for anyone to march on Beijing.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Sure and can you give me next week's lotto numbers while you're at it? China, India, Arabia, Persia, all the ancient almighty billion moons old civilization are no better at doing the 100 year management than the 200 year old civilizations. Tell me, why isn't the Han Dynasty still in charge? Chinese history proves the 100 year long view is a very much a lie.
    That is the stated intention so long as the CCP is in charge.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Yeah sure and Dehli and the Indian Army would be just too scared to stand up to the China Army by reputation alone. The recent kung fu brawls says you have nothing to worry about the InA not having balls.
    Loss of Taiwan means harder for the US to have influence in the Far East.

    What comes next ? do countries in the region continue to stick with the US or go with China.

    There's two answers here and i don't know which is correct.

    One, argues they stick with the US because there is no alternative.

    Two, argues they bandwagon towards China because a resurgent China can't be countered. Which means the US is out in the deep blue sea and its a matter of time they quit the region.

    So far the consensus seems to go with two which means an anti-Indian Asia is in the cards.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    What's in it for the Chinese? What possible advantage would they gain over a few rocks?
    China neutral India. An India that has no say in the progress of Asia.

    The rocks are incidental.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    So tell me what do you need to bluff 10-20 Chinese divisions.
    The same thing they've done to us since the last few years. Mass troops along the border.

    We continue to complete those 44 strategic roads. Now we have forces that can show up along more points of the border than is possible today.

    India without doing anything threatens the link between Xianjiang & Tibet as well as the route to Pakistan.

    Any infrastructure that brings forces in mass to either of those two points is going to get them jumpy.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What I am saying is that India WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to interfere WITH OUR TRADE. If we want to stop Chinese trade, blockading their ports is a lot easier, requires fewer ships, and DOES NOT interfere with the Freedom of the Seas. Indian Naval actions in the Indian Ocean does squat all in confronting the Chinese and India will NOT be allowed to search and every ship just to determine if they have Chinese cargo.
    Sounds good. No need for Indian ships to police cargo then. We'll keep our powder dry for other actions.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You are reaching big time to justify the QUAD.
    I don't have to justfy quad. That Quad exists is self evident that the US can't handle China alone.

    Quad alone isn't enough. It can be augmented by more branches with like minded powers. This is in the works .Now you have a net criss-crossing a diamond.

    In anticipation of your reply bear in mind military is the last option. Grey zone is everything building up to that. Hopefully preventing use of military.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Until India cares to sail an Indian naval task force into the Taiwan Straits or march an Indian Army north if a Chinese fleets sails east, no one cares what India thinks or does. Not the Chinese. Not the Taiwanese. Not the Americans. Not the Japanese. Not any single one of the American allies. You're reaching to be of participation significance when no one wants Indfia to be, not even Dehli.

    Those ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS available to India to be of significance to Taiwan. Sail into the Taiwan Straits or march north. Anything else is just hot air ... AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
    We don't go into the straits. marching north is an option if the possibility presents itself.

    You're forgetting something else. Nobody knows what the US will do and that will condition what India and the rest does.

    This again i wil address in a subsequent post.

    1. How long Taiwan holds out
    2. US Policy towards Taiwan

    Those are the two points i see here that determine what comes after.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 16:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    So that was why you've said no to the Soviets? We didn't asked you the first time for help in Afghanistan. Moscow did.
    We were not going to join a coalition that treated the Paks as a major partner.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And the source of our terror was an Al Qaeda HQ. Going after Pakistan would leave that HQ free to do another 11 Sept, on what planet does that make strategic sense?
    Who found safe sanctuary thanks to enabling actions by the Paks and have done so yet again.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And you're blaming us for not finishing the job that you started.
    Because you were protecting them. Right from the start ie. 1947 they had protection, we were never allowed to finish the job.

    We fell for the ceasefire ploys earlier but ignored them in '71.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Damned easy to explain. We had no idea what we wanted. If we don't know what we want, we most certainly get what we don't want. We most certainly are not going abandon Pakistan just to pursue a better relationship with India. That leaves a hell of a lot leadway for them to play. 19thC Afghanistan played Britain against Russia.
    You wanted a war on terrorism. Fight it anywhere and everywhere.

    Neocons had a very good perception about security that has yet to be matched by any US administration since.

    They foresaw Saddam could become a threat and acted on it.

    They were the ones who gave India a nuclear deal because they knew what could come up later.

    But for some reason the Paks got a pass (!)

    How could we join you ?

    I don't think India holding out on Afghanistan correlates with India holding out in an Indo Pacific war. Where as Gen Dhruv Katoch said amounts to suicide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    This development came as a surprise as we'd been in talks with the Viets for longer.

    The real deal behind selling Brahmos to the Philippines | Asia Times | Jan 18 2022

    The landmark US$375 million defense deal, however, is likely just the opening act in India’s gradual yet steady emergence as a major defense supplier and strategic partner to Southeast Asian nations – from the Philippines to Indonesia to Vietnam – which have been at the forefront of maritime disputes with a resurgent China.

    The true significance of the Brahmos acquisition deal, however, is its broader strategic implications.

    Currently, Indonesia and Vietnam are also in talks with India to acquire the Brahmos missile system.

    Down the road, India could potentially become a major provider of a full range of advanced yet affordable weaponry to China’s rivals in Southeast Asia.
    This is a bigger version of putting stingers into the hands of the mujaheddin.

    As more countries enhance their capabilities things get much harder for China.

    Lilliputs holding Gulliver back
    Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Jan 22,, 16:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Fewer chew toys around these days to really go ballastic. So, really have to nuaince the hell out of the answers for DE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I just love and look forward to this back and forth between you and DE. Almost an equal to a good Netflix series. You, Sir, deserve a royalty or at least a good bottle of Scotch.

    As for the Chinese I always thought they were like Coors Beer as in "its' the water"
    Fewer chew toys around these days to really go ballastic. So, really have to nuaince the hell out of the answers for DE.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X