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

  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    ADIZ is for tracking hostile aircraft entering an area, for self defense.

    Does not scale up to traffic control of commercial aircraft which is what the Chinese wanted.
    It does not scale up to Chinese capabilities but that doesn't mean the capabilities don't exist. 11 Sept - FDA and Transport Canada grounded all civilian and not just commercial flights. NORAD was ready to shoot down any plane not responding to such an order. CF-18s and F-16s were scrambled to meet incoming flights who were unable to respond due to communications malfunctions and escourted to appropriate airfields.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    If war erupts, IOR region will be cut off for Chinese vessels (PLAN+trade). How long can China afford this blockade?
    How long before the USN come slapping the both of you home so that American and European kids still get to enjoy their Iphones and their Android knockoffs. Woe be the day that you stop a shipment of 80 inch TVs from China before Superbowl.

    RE: The Tanker War which drew in the USN and the resulting Operation PRAYING MANTIS.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; Today, 21:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2020-12-02 at 5.58.14 PM.png
Views:	0
Size:	313.2 KB
ID:	1569410

    Source

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Take what you said to its logical conclusion and we end up with the line to confront China is to invite war.
    And it will be a short war and they know it. It's a diplomatic tool, not a military one.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    When Reagan entered office they said he would start WW3 because of the manner in which he confronted the Soviets. Never happened.
    You don't want to know how close we were. Operation ABLE ARCHER and the Soviet countpart Operation RyAN. The Soviets were so scared of Reagan that it was official policy to put their nukes on a hair trigger.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The Trump administration had it in for China for over three years. We're still not closer to a war.
    Trump is fighting a trade war. The FNOPS have two mission. To show that the Chinese don't own the waters ... and to show just how easy we can take them out. By the time the Chinese challenge our ships, it was already way too late. They need to challenge out ships 100 miles out to have any semblence of island defensive capbilitiies. They're not challenging our ships 100 miles out.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    It's not that to have peace we have to go to war. It's the difference between surrender and standing up.
    We don't have AK47s but rocket launchers will do.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Straight out of the cold war playbook.
    Part of that playbook is to allow some semblance of maintaining a facade of negotiation, to allow the other side a bone. Deny them that bone like we did with Mao and Kruschev lead to decades of increased hostilities. In this case, let them thump their chest drown out our soft speech but let them see the big stick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    We do that and they can cut the communications cable between North America and Asia.
    The companies that participated in land reclamation were recently sanctioned. Imagine if that were done shortly after they started in 2013.

    Take what you said to its logical conclusion and we end up with the line to confront China is to invite war.

    This was the thinking that i have to admit even i bought into during that era. By not making them an adversary and keeping things ambiguous we avoid a war.

    When Reagan entered office they said he would start WW3 because of the manner in which he confronted the Soviets. Never happened.

    The Trump administration had it in for China for over three years. We're still not closer to a war.

    It's not that to have peace we have to go to war. It's the difference between surrender and standing up.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Again, it is not illegal for them to build nor is it illegal for them to house people there. What is illegal is for them to claim the waters and the man-made land as theirs.

    That being said, it is hard to tell someone to get out when he's holding an AK47 when all you have is a piece of water with the law on it and not even an eviction order at that.
    I'd like to think the ICJ ruling their claims as without merit will have an effect.

    Not illegal for the Fillipinos to occupy the shoal either and that's what they did.

    State dept tries to mediate between the two parties between Apr & Jun 2012 and the agreement reached is both sides will vacate on Jun 12.

    PH did so, China stayed on and that is how they got the shoal.

    Pertinent lesson for India there in this current standoff.

    Better would have been for US to allow the Fillipinos to confront China on the spot while at the same time supporting them with public statements from time to time.

    The will to do so & mindset of the Obama administration was clearly lacking.

    Look at the difference with Taiwan now. Arms sales, statements and visits of support. That is the way.

    Americans are doing the same with India as well.

    Straight out of the cold war playbook.
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday, 23:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Hmmm, reluctantly agree.
    I'll give you another example why naval blockade or control of traffic is ineffective.

    It's trying to do what China already tried with air traffic and failed

    Back in 2013 they declared they will setup an ADIZ in the east China sea so every commercial aircraft transiting the area would have to identify itself.

    The process of doing so then gives them fine grain control over which countries assets they allow or disallow and screws up commercial interests who will not fight back. The same idea applies in the SCS. They can squeeze any country's supply chain that has interests in the region via ships.

    Guess what. They couldn't do it because the volume of traffic in and out of China, into Korea, Japan and back to Europe was just too high. Millions of flights pass through that region in just a year.

    ADIZ is for tracking hostile aircraft entering an area, for self defense.

    Does not scale up to traffic control of commercial aircraft which is what the Chinese wanted.
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday, 20:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    So if building those islands was not legal then stopping them or interfering with the process should not be restricted.
    We do that and they can cut the communications cable between North America and Asia. Again, it is not illegal for them to build nor is it illegal for them to house people there. What is illegal is for them to claim the waters and the man-made land as theirs.

    That being said, it is hard to tell someone to get out when he's holding an AK47 when all you have is a piece of water with the law on it and not even an eviction order at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    DE is missing for a few days. Seems he is on some diplomatic mission.
    Been a quiet couple of weeks at the border.

    No updates from that Chinese village in Bhutan ? AIM & Nitin have not said anything here.

    Can we conclude the opposition news channel NDTV was up to their usual rumour mongering
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday, 18:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    There's no real legal mechanism to stop the Chinese from building islands. However, there is legal mechanism saying those islands cannot be used for territorial claims.
    Which should have been enough to deter them from building them in the first place because there is no legal claim after doing so.

    What they were doing was grey area. Enough to send a message but low enough not to start a war.

    So if building those islands was not legal then stopping them or interfering with the process should not be restricted.

    But under Obama the line was the US does not take a position on territorial claims. They had a do not provoke, do not upset China mindset.

    Scarborough shoal back in 2012 taught them they could get away with it. Some would go so far as to say the US turned its back on a treaty ally ie. the Phillipines and Duterte has said that as well.

    Former director of intel and information operations for the US Pacific fleet, Captain Jim Fannell was reassigned in 2014 as he was a little too outspoken about the affair.

    We seen this before, in Afghanistan, haven't we.

    Conduz transfer back in 2004 comes to mind. The bad guys are being squirrelled out under your very nose and the orders from on high are to stand down (!)

    The point is if China wants to pull off these grey zone tactics with us they will find India a more than even match. The local populace are expert at this sort of nonsense and city councils have to deal with it.

    Laws & regulations say one thing but some how people manage to flout them and on a regular basis. The govt then has to resort to forced demolitions of illegal constructions, extensions and encroachments. If it wants to maintain its writ or allow them for also the same reason.

    No land records or clear title ? The game is grabbers, keepers until challenged.

    We managed it at Doklam. The challenge is we have to keep at it for a long time to come.


    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    As an engineer, those islands need constant maintenance. I'm damned scare of underwater errosion that would decimate the foundation.
    Read some where it was German tech that allowed them to build those islands. German surprised me, thought the Dutch would be the leaders in this field.
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday, 18:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Bengaluru company's artificial intelligence tool to interpret cross-border Mandarin intercepts

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    DE is missing for a few days. Seems he is on some diplomatic mission.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Why can't a sandcastle last beyond a tide? There are prefab concrete retaining walls that were first installed to hold the sand in place. Otherwise, no amount of compacting would stop the sand being washed away overnight.
    Aye! Aye! Colonel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Sir, those islands were built using sands dredged from the sea bed, and then compacted. There are no foundations involved. You're right, they do have risks from erosion.
    Why can't a sandcastle last beyond a tide? There are prefab concrete retaining walls that were first installed to hold the sand in place. Otherwise, no amount of compacting would stop the sand being washed away overnight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Indian Navy inducts two American Predator drones on lease, can be deployed on China border

    For reconnaissance. I don't think it is armed, since it's leased. And it was retired by the USAF in 2018, so.....why not the Reaper? 18 more would be Reaper or old Predators?

    State department has approved sale of 22 MQ-9 Reaper drones in 2017, so why MQ-1 Predator has been taken on lease? Familiarity with the platform and an urgent need for longer hours of reconaissance?

    Expecting a lot of noise from Pakistan.

    India bans 43 more mobile apps as it takes on China

    Last edited by Oracle; 25 Nov 20,, 13:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    There's no real legal mechanism to stop the Chinese from building islands. However, there is legal mechanism saying those islands cannot be used for territorial claims. As an engineer, those islands need constant maintenance. I'm damned scare of underwater errosion that would decimate the foundation.
    Sir, those islands were built using sands dredged from the sea bed, and then compacted. There are no foundations involved. You're right, they do have risks from erosion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X