People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

PrasadZ · Post by **PrasadZ** » 14 Sep 2010 13:28

http://economist.com/node/16990673/comments?page=13
Its surprisingly easy to needle the Chinese on Tibet as you can see in the comments on the above link. A couple of Indian posters are doing that with posts like "Free Tibet". When they do that, its surprising how often the Chinese draw an == to India !!!
"Why you are so agressive occupied all the land which don´t belongs to India at all. You should stop your agression and learn to be peace with other neighbours---You holy biggest world democracy "
"Stop characterize situtaion along such simple lines and see democratic reform as a cure all. for one, the question posed by above can not be solved by Democracy.
and as an counter example, democracy in India certainly has failed to solve the Kashmir question... or Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujurat. why do you expect the cure all to work in China???"

Some also equate the West and India ..
"But if this is an real attempt by the west/india to push for the real "settlement" of Dalai Lama issue, then this strategy do not do service to those who are you attempt to "free". If what's propose is what actually materializes, then you will see a best, a roll back to economic and political rights of a vast swath of land in China, and at worst, a balkanized china that will make Yugoslavia look like child's play.
Will you push for bloodshed and tears? or will you push for peace?"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2010 13:57

The best way to defeat the inscrutable "oriental" from Beijing?
Make HH the Dalai Lama President of India.He being the spiritual and political head of Tibet will see Tibet automatically and legally become part of the Indian Republic! It is not an impossibility,he has lived in India for decades now.Buddhism's spiritual home IS India,as I've said many a time and Tibet by that yardstick gives India a far greater claim to it as a "protectorate" than Confucian China.This calls for an all-party agreement on it.We've already had a Sikh and Muslims as Pres. before,why not this great humanitarian and spiritual head of Buddhism,who says many a time that he is both Tibetan and "Indian"?I'm sure that the BJP and the larger rump of the Congress will agree,plus all the parties that proclaim Dr.Ambedkar as their political guru.I'm sure that our current Pres.,Pratibha,if requested to step aside in the interests of the nation at this crucial time,will do so gladly.She can then go down in history as a great heroine and saint of India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2010 14:04

PS:And what will the gerontocracy of Zhongnanhai do?Apart from many of them bursting their bloodvessels,a-ranting-and-a-raving,precious little.At the most the PRC can suspend/break diplomatiuc relations with India,send hundres of thousands of troops into Tibet,thus making them vulnerable to a two-front war (Tibet and Taiwan) but then that leaves us perfectly placed to recognise Taiwan and wreck the barrier that prevents Taiwanese recognition globally by other countries.What then can the Chinese do? Go to War with Taiwan and or India? It would turn the whole world against them and finish off the PRC's political system forever,which having been disgraced so badly will have little credibility with its people.The "spliitist" province of Xinjiang will next shake off its bonds and China will undergo a fate similar to that taking place in Pak,with various factions and regions jostling for power.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2010 14:05

Dear harthetherem, welcome.

In accordance with forum rules, your handle has been changed to PrasadZ. If you prefer a different handle, you may suggest one by reporting this post. If available and is within forum guidelines, it will be allocated. Otherwise, this handle will stay.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2010 14:15

Philip wrote:The best way to defeat the inscrutable "oriental" from Beijing?
Make HH the Dalai Lama President of India.He being the spiritual and political head of Tibet will see Tibet automatically and legally become part of the Indian Republic! It is not an impossibility,he has lived in India for decades now.Buddhism's spiritual home IS India,as I've said many a time and Tibet by that yardstick gives India a far greater claim to it as a "protectorate" as Confucian China.This calls for an all-party agreement on it.We've already had a Sikh and Muslims as Pres. before,why not this great humanitarian and spiritual head of Buddhism,who says many a time that he is both Tibetan and "Indian"?I'm sure that the BJP and the larger rump of the Congress will agree,plus all the parties that proclaim Dr.Ambedkar as their political guru.I'm sure that our current Pres.,Pratibha,if requested to step aside in the interests of the nation at this crucial time,will do so gladly.She can then go down in history as a great heroine and saint of India.

Philip, a great idea!

Dalai Lama would however have to let go of his "Spiritual Leader of Tibetan Buddhism" position, because otherwise it would not gel with India's secular Constitution. I am not sure, whether a Dalai Lama can simply stand down from that position.

It is perhaps up to him, whether he wants to be the "Political Leader of the Tibetan People", or "The Head of the Tibetan Government in Exile". If he becomes President of India, he would have to step down from that position as well. He cannot be the head of two States. Even if Tibet, hypothetically, is to be considered part of India, he still can't be a Governor/CM of a State in the Indian Union and at the same time the President of India.

But I still like the idea.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2010 14:29

He will bring Tibet with him in a "union" of Tibet and India.Remember the days when Libya and Egypt merged? Anyway,I'm sure that our galaxy of lawyers will find a solution to any legal knot and if he happens to be the head of a branch of Buddhism,so what? It will not affect the Indian Constituion,as it would not imply that he would be making Tibetan Buddhism India's "official" religion,unlike the Quuen.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Sep 2010 14:31

a free Tibet should remain a buffer state between India and China
a free Uighuristan a buffer between Russia/Kazakhstan and China
Mongolian reunification must be encouraged, the wild horses yearn to run free

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2010 14:58

Philip wrote:He will bring Tibet with him in a "union" of Tibet and India.Remember the days when Libya and Egypt merged? Anyway,I'm sure that our galaxy of lawyers will find a solution to any legal knot and if he happens to be the head of a branch of Buddhism,so what? It will not affect the Indian Constituion,as it would not imply that he would be making Tibetan Buddhism India's "official" religion,unlike the Quuen.

Philip, I am sold on your idea!

We must however then know, that India would cease to be a "Status Quoist" Power, and getting Freedom for the Tibetans would become our national duty. We would also be in direct conflict with China for a very long eternity.

It would however be prudent to go about it, after India has shown that India can get back land, e.g. in PoK, which would give India an immense psychological boost, enough to have the confidence to take on the Chinese.

Just some thoughts!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2010 15:29

Freedom for the Tibetans is the world's national duty! Many international issues like this have been resolved through the UN like East Timor,etc.So there need not be any physical spat between the PRC and Indo-Tibet,and we can afford to wait,we think in "cosmic calendar" time unlike the impatient nations of the Occident.In fact,if the PRC actually sit down and think intelligently,they could even see the possibility of a confederation (unlikely?) between India and China via Tibet !For that however,they would have to swallow a lot of "Middle Kingdom" mentality and acknowledge that we all live in an equal world.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2010 15:43

I think we can keep open the option of electing Mr. Tenzin Gyatso as India's President, if China needles India in the future, which it invariably will.

Philip ji,
May be you can start a facebook page asking Indians to elect the Dalai Lama as India's next President.

vina · Post by **vina** » 14 Sep 2010 16:29

Tony Montana wrote:Assume for a second that Pakistan did indeed went ahead with this low yield attack without PRC approval. Would you still exterminate the Chinese people?

Actually I think India should. China gave Pakistan the nuclear weapons, materials and everything.. The nuclear plans that turned up in Iran and Libya were in Chinese

, after all the Pakis just passed them on.

On a more serious note, India should put out a clear nuclear doctrine that should unambiguously put down the following.

1) Any nuclear attack on India , formally or via proxies/non state actors will be responded to in kind and with overwhelming force

2) Any attack from Pakistan will involve full retaliation on Pakistan and a full force attack on all PR China.

The Indian weapons stockpile will be of a size and power that every inch of Pakistan and China glow in the dark without any lights for the next millennium.

That is the way to deter PRC. A clear articulation , backed up by credible arsenal to do it is the best way to deter an attack on India. There is logic in MAD after all. The Chinese should be made clearly aware that if there is a nuclear Armageddon in "South Asia" , they too go up in smoke with the Pakis to get their 6 dozen. The much vaunted "Chinese Race" per Hu Djinn Tao (does such a thing exist in a country with 51 nationalities ) will exist purely in vapor state then.

That will surely make the Chinese pause and think before they do any more missile and material transfers and nuclear reactor transfers to Pakistan.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 14 Sep 2010 17:14

This article appeared today in the Taipei Times - very appropriate given recent discussion on this forum.
EDITORIAL : Does Taiwan need nuclear weapons?

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 14 Sep 2010 17:29

PrasadZ wrote:http://economist.com/node/16990673/comments?page=13
Its surprisingly easy to needle the Chinese on Tibet as you can see in the comments on the above link. A couple of Indian posters are doing that with posts like "Free Tibet". When they do that, its surprising how often the Chinese draw an == to India !!!
"Why you are so agressive occupied all the land which don´t belongs to India at all. You should stop your agression and learn to be peace with other neighbours---You holy biggest world democracy "
"Stop characterize situtaion along such simple lines and see democratic reform as a cure all. for one, the question posed by above can not be solved by Democracy.
and as an counter example, democracy in India certainly has failed to solve the Kashmir question... or Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujurat. why do you expect the cure all to work in China???"

Some also equate the West and India ..
"But if this is an real attempt by the west/india to push for the real "settlement" of Dalai Lama issue, then this strategy do not do service to those who are you attempt to "free". If what's propose is what actually materializes, then you will see a best, a roll back to economic and political rights of a vast swath of land in China, and at worst, a balkanized china that will make Yugoslavia look like child's play.
Will you push for bloodshed and tears? or will you push for peace?"

What you've said re some Indian netizens keeping the Free Tibet issue raises some interesting questions. China has for a long time cultivated a massive army of uber-nationalistic netizens - whose fury is strategicaly unleashed when there is political value (recall the wave of anti-Japanese hysteria is China a few years back - it seemed to have been switched on by central diktat, and just as easily switched off). Often an interesting tool for leverage. Might be worthwhile to organize our own. Unlike China's, which operates by central command (although many in the Chinese diaspora worldwide are willing participants), ours would be organic, and would by and large represent India's position...

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 14 Sep 2010 17:31

Philip wrote:The best way to defeat the inscrutable "oriental" from Beijing?
Make HH the Dalai Lama President of India.He being the spiritual and political head of Tibet will see Tibet automatically and legally become part of the Indian Republic! It is not an impossibility,he has lived in India for decades now.Buddhism's spiritual home IS India,as I've said many a time and Tibet by that yardstick gives India a far greater claim to it as a "protectorate" as Confucian China.This calls for an all-party agreement on it.We've already had a Sikh and Muslims as Pres. before,why not this great humanitarian and spiritual head of Buddhism,who says many a time that he is both Tibetan and "Indian"?I'm sure that the BJP and the larger rump of the Congress will agree,plus all the parties that proclaim Dr.Ambedkar as their political guru.I'm sure that our current Pres.,Pratibha,if requested to step aside in the interests of the nation at this crucial time,will do so gladly.She can then go down in history as a great heroine and saint of India.

Very nice idea. Love it....

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 14 Sep 2010 20:06

China reaffirms commitments to nuclear security at IAEA meeting

China remains committed to strengthening international cooperation against nuclear terrorism and promoting nuclear safety, a Chinese diplomat told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) directors meeting here Tuesday.

the Chinese government always pays great attention to security issues on nuclear materials and facilities and positively participate in various activities on nuclear security led by the IAEA.

China has joined the agency's Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) program and constantly improved the management and access control of its domestic radioactive source in the light of the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and supplementary Guidance on the Import and Export of Radioactive Sources.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 14 Sep 2010 20:22

"Actually I think India should. China gave Pakistan the nuclear weapons, materials and everything.. The nuclear plans that turned up in Iran and Libya were in Chinese

, after all the Pakis just passed them on.

On a more serious note, India should put out a clear nuclear doctrine that should unambiguously put down the following.

1) Any nuclear attack on India , formally or via proxies/non state actors will be responded to in kind and with overwhelming force

2) Any attack from Pakistan will involve full retaliation on Pakistan and a full force attack on all PR China."

Vina, this is the best and most clearly spelled out course for India in the worst case scenario. The idea of India having significant retaliatory capacity is precisely to inflict such unacceptable damage on both the country/entity that directly attacksIndia, and the country that enabled the attack. Which definitely means Pakistan, China and North Korea. What transpires in the post-war scenario is not India's immediate concern. The assumption is that there will be widespread if not total devastation across South and East Asia. But it won't be India's fault.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 14 Sep 2010 20:35

Maybe we can first start with appointing Rinpoche as Raja Sabha member representing Tibetian community as baby step before anointing Dalai Lama as President.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Sep 2010 22:11

Kanson - that makes much more sense, but it probably also means the Tibetans have to declare dual nationality - and GOI will have to change the law on that score

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 14 Sep 2010 22:31

Han played phucked up double game with Yindoo. For three years in the last decade it said "hey we hebb the Goras by their balls for the first time in a long time , the Asian dawn has come".

Yindoo believed it for a bhile as well before Han stabbed Yindoo in the back before showing that it was Continental domination that Han sought first.

Yindoo is now going to use Gora help to make sure Han behaves.

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 15 Sep 2010 00:51

vina wrote:Any attack from Pakistan will involve full retaliation on Pakistan and a full force attack on all PR China.

This will actually create an incentive for Pakistan to initiate a nuke war. Why constrain ourselves to a written word? We should act as situation demands.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 15 Sep 2010 01:07

"This will actually create an incentive for Pakistan to initiate a nuke war. Why constrain ourselves to a written word? We should act as situation demands."

Why would this policy be any more of an incentive, than simply limiting retaliation to Pakistan?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Sep 2010 01:09

It can be seen as insurance to ensure PRC leans on TSp not to do anything foolish.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 15 Sep 2010 01:55

Exactly, and that's why it's the best policy, in a bad situation of course.

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 15 Sep 2010 02:36

ramana wrote:It can be seen as insurance to ensure PRC leans on TSp not to do anything foolish.

In a scenario where POK is slipping out of hand, IA marching to cut off Sindh, and IN/IAF taking out its ports and air bases, Pak is highly likely to use its nuclear assets on India (if it still has any control on them). At that time, should India finish off its kill (i.e. capture POK, take Sindh, and full nuclear retaliation on Pak), or engage in an all-out nuclear duel with China?

Do you think that at that time, China will have any say/control on what Pakistan might do? How is it an insurance then?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Sep 2010 02:38

Yogi, Do both. Its not an either or situation.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 15 Sep 2010 05:33

ramana wrote:It can be seen as insurance to ensure PRC leans on TSp not to do anything foolish.

What leverage do the Chinese have? If Pakistan nukes India then it is already assumed that Pakistan would be annihilated by India in return. What can China threaten them with that's more powerful than assured nuclear annihilation? Really, Pakistan is making out like bandits here.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 15 Sep 2010 05:58

People who knowingly give dangerous toys to kids should know the repurcussions if the kid misuse the toy to hurt others. It has to be a serious repurcussion when they are warned in advance by the victim to take away the toy.

naren · Post by **naren** » 15 Sep 2010 12:09

ramana wrote:It can be seen as insurance to ensure PRC leans on TSp not to do anything foolish.

The problem with this approach is that Pakis, being true Pakis, have an incentive to go nuke war with India. Do you really think Pakis give a shiite about Cheenis ? By our policy of holding China accountable, Pakis can be darn sure that India will drag China into war. Result, China will "finish" what Bakistan started. Bakistan will happily await their 72, with the satisfaction that India is totally annihilated in a nook showdown.

A better approach is to prop up proxies. Proliferate nukes to Taiwan & Japan. Turn the heat on in Xinjiang and Tibet.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Sep 2010 12:13

Naren_> if we have enough nukes with credible delivery systems to wipe a large portion CHina properous East and population, they will ensure through spurious parts for missiles and Bombs which require maintence, that the pakis ultimately become Nuke nuud. But for such a policy to work, India needs enough Bombs with delivery syatems which can wipe Pakistan and China's eastern seaboard at short notice.

To a suggestion what CHina can do, while Nuclear material last for years, parts in Nuclear weapons and missiles require maintence. The CHinese can as part of maintence, render these ineffective. But they need an incentive to so.

naren · Post by **naren** » 15 Sep 2010 12:36

Feels more and more like this movie: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

The disincentive for China need not necessarily be the threat to nuke them. Indeed such an approach might back fire. If India is surely going to nuke China, then it is in their interests to provide as much nukes to Pak and may be to other "pearls" too.

rahuls · Post by **rahuls** » 15 Sep 2010 12:56

Some interesting views from MD Nalapat, basically saying that PLA is becoming more powerful within Chinese leadership compared to the times of Mao and Deng, and hopes to replace the United States as the pre-eminent military power in the region. Posting in full:

Afghanistan's fate may matter most for China.

Nostalgia for the days of Kipling has prompted some to say that today’s Afghan situation resembles the Great Game played out by the British and Russian empires in the 19th century. They are wrong. What is taking place in Afghanistan is indeed a repeat of history, but the relevant period is the 1980s, when the United States and Saudi Arabia used the Pakistani army to wage an unconventional war against the Soviets.

Today, that very army – the only state military to have jihad as its official motto – is being used by the emerging superpower China to humiliate the United States. The influence of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has helped to drive the effort.

Both Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping kept the army on a tight leash; the former using it to repress elements of Chinese society, and the latter pushing it into the background. However, in the 1990s, the Communist Party began to pamper the PLA, a process that has been continued by Hu Jintao into the present day.

Part of the explanation is that the Communist Party general secretary now seeks the job of chairman of the armed forces after he steps down from party leadership. Jiang Zemin extended his relevance for two years after handing over the party baton to Mr Hu in 2002, and Mr Hu is likely to attempt to do the same when he steps down in 2012. Because the military plays a role in party leaders’ “extension of service”, the PLA now plays a more prominent role in decision-making.

Over the past two decades, the party’s control over the military has eroded. That can be seen in the displays of muscle that contradict Deng’s policy of speaking softly while carrying a big stick. The results have been the displays of temper across the Taiwan Strait in the 1990s, the present stand-off with India over the status of Kashmir, and tensions with South-east Asian countries about claims in territorial waters. In foreign policy, the PLA has in effect become autonomous from the foreign affairs ministry and state council because of the reluctance of the party to rein it in.

In the view of the PLA’s top leadership, the two regional militaries that are the most loyal to it are those of Myanmar and Pakistan. While the Pentagon fantasises about the reliability of the Pakistan army, the reality is that since the Afghan war and occupation of Iraq, more and more members of the officer corps have turned hostile to the United States. It is a sentiment that is readily visible at regimental dinner tables.

Just as the general secretary of Community Party needs the backing of his peers, the “all-powerful” chief of staff of Pakistan’s armed forces, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, needs the backing of key corps commanders to maintain the military’s primacy over the civilian establishment in Pakistan. Even after the military coup in 1999, Gen Pervez Musharraf had to win the approval of the five corps commanders who met him at Karachi airport before four stars were once again affixed to his official car.

Among the top generals in Pakistan, only a small minority are believed to prefer the United States over China as a partner. As a group, the commanders view Beijing as a far more natural ally for them than Washington.

Although India is worried that it is the target of the PLA’s expansion in the Indian Ocean Rim, the reality is that India plays only a subsidiary role in the calculations of the Chinese military. The PLA sees the United States as its main rival, and responds to India only to the extent that it perceives New Delhi to be subservient to US diktat. It is hardly a secret that the PLA would like the US military to exit Asia. It is likely to view a US defeat in Afghanistan as a catalyst for this process. It may also see that Pakistan’s army has a role to play.

Often Pakistan has done the opposite of what it has promised Washington, and is alledged to have used “retired” and “on leave” personnel to mask its actions. Both Chinese and Pakistani militaries believe that a US victory in Afghanistan would entrench US forces there. A defeat may leave the country to become a low-hanging fruit for its neighbours’ influence.

Small wonder that the Pakistani army’s operations against the Taliban have had zero success, even though they are widely loathed and feared by Pashtuns, unlike during the Soviet war in the 1980s. Small wonder that Beijing is willing to make a foe of New Delhi over Kashmir, including rejecting visas for Indian army commanders who had been invited to visit China.

The prize of this 21st century version of the Great Game is nothing less than military control of Asia. Through a Nato humiliation in Afghanistan, China hopes to replace the United States as the pre-eminent military power in the region. In the same way, the defeat of the Soviets in 1988 led to the eclipse of Moscow by Washington across the globe.

rahuls · Post by **rahuls** » 15 Sep 2010 13:14

vina wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:Assume for a second that Pakistan did indeed went ahead with this low yield attack without PRC approval. Would you still exterminate the Chinese people?
Actually I think India should. China gave Pakistan the nuclear weapons, materials and everything.. The nuclear plans that turned up in Iran and Libya were in Chinese , after all the Pakis just passed them on.

I knew Photochor passed on designs to Libya, Iran etc. but didn't knew they were in Chinese. I just googled up and there are enough articles saying there were notes/explanations written in Chinese. However, I can across this paragraph in an article from 2004 describing the behaviour of Pakis is exactly similar to their all weather friend -- which we in BRF discussed about.

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2066.html

The proliferation modus operandi - whether in China or Pakistan - remains strikingly similar: first, complete denial and protestations of innocence; second, when that becomes unsustainable in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, denial of state sponsorship; third, shift of responsibility to some rogue individuals or non-state actors, followed by some token "action" against them; fourth, when even this becomes unsustainable or if sanctions are imposed, some stronger action (in the form of new policy guidelines, attribution of responsibility to previous administrations, and "sacrifice" of some individuals to salvage the regime's reputation) and new assurances to the international community that past proliferation activities have now been "completely and permanently shut down." This cycle is repeated despite the fact that state accountability cannot be absolved on grounds that proliferation was the result of private enterprise.

Same trend from proliferation to terrorism to cricket.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Sep 2010 13:49

naren wrote:The disincentive for China need not necessarily be the threat to nuke them. Indeed such an approach might back fire. If India is surely going to nuke China, then it is in their interests to provide as much nukes to Pak and may be to other "pearls" too.

Nah.. The problem with the "current stated" or rather the "past" Indian approach of recessed deterrence and the self imposed shackles on nuke deployment was that proliferation was a cost free exercise for China. All gain and no pain. Now that has changed with India's formal nuclear testing and armament program.

The point is to increase the cost of China's actions. For that, there has to be huge pain. The pain has to come from many directions and that will absolutely have to include full retaliation from an attack by a proxy like Pakiland.

Sure , it need not be the ONLY pain, we could also start arming /collaborating with the Vietnamese, the S. Koreans and Japanese and Taiwan especially given the S. China sea tensions and Chinese attempt to brow beat the smaller ASEAN nations. Multiple things can and should be done to raise the cost of bad behavior by the Chinese.

Recall the fire and brimstone and the rage from the Chinese when the Arihant was launched. They know fully and totally well what Arihant (unstated ) means. It is just a plain non stated verbally , but more damningly, actually putting right in front of everyone the means of what I put down in type.

With India, capability came first here , the statements later. See, dear Chinese lurkers here, Indians are really not "boasters" on this one , but is deadly serious. India will simply not allow China to sit by and watch the fun to enjoy the show if there is a nuclear Armageddon in this part of the world. Enough nukes will fall all the way from Heliolong to Hainan, from Tianjin/Port Arthur to Xingjiang/East Turkestan to obliterate everything. You dont have to take my word for it. You just have to take a look at the capability on the ground.

Doing so should be the way to make sure that in case things turn "hot" with Pakistan for any reason (say Indian response to a terrorist outrage from Pakistan), the 3.5 and specifically the Chinese come running around to counsel "restraint" by grabbing the finger button , coz they will know that if the Pakis press the button, they go poof. Oh.. Maybe, the doctrine should include Saudi Arabia as well along with the Chinese.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Sep 2010 16:25

Chinese misunderstanding in the maritime arena can provoke a conflict says this report.

Asia's maritime security is all at sea
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op ... 5922896731

Xcpt:

In the Indian Ocean, the potential for confrontation between Beijing and New Delhi is gradually growing. On the bright side, there has been some welcome co-ordination between China's and some of the other naval taskforces patrolling against Somali pirates.

And New Delhi, rattled in 2008 by the speed of Beijing's deployment to an ocean India had long considered its own, has proposed limited maritime security co-operation with China.

But this idea may fall victim to wider differences between two rising giants, including recent arguments over their land border.

Broadly, Beijing's naval modernisation is the understandable response of a vast trading power to anxiety about its vulnerable energy supplies. It was inconceivable that China would forever outsource sea-lane security to the US.

At this time of unprecedented Chinese naval power, modernisation and audacity, it is troubling that diplomatic mechanisms for communication and preventing strife at sea remain weak to non-existent. This is as bad for China as it is for everyone else.

The increasingly crowded maritime highways of the Indo-Pacific lack even the basic code that helped keep the Cold War cool. In the early 1970s, the Americans and Soviets crafted a detailed agreement and operating rules to stop incidents at sea from escalating to war. Today, no such understanding exists between China and the other powers its navy is increasingly brushing up against.

And while Beijing, New Delhi and Japan are finally talking about setting up leadership hotlines to help cope with their security tensions, there remains much confusion about how these might work in practice. Beijing and Tokyo cannot so far even agree if their proposed military hotline would simply give warning of defence exercises or serve to manage crises in real time.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Sep 2010 02:29

South Asia beckons China
M.K. Bhadrakumar

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/16/stories ... 761000.htm

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 02:49

vina wrote: Doing so should be the way to make sure that in case things turn "hot" with Pakistan for any reason (say Indian response to a terrorist outrage from Pakistan), the 3.5 and specifically the Chinese come running around to counsel "restraint" by grabbing the finger button , coz they will know that if the Pakis press the button, they go poof. Oh.. Maybe, the doctrine should include Saudi Arabia as well along with the Chinese.

The Samson Option. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

The problem with being the mad dog in the region is that if you set the line too low. ( ie instead of the line being at "threat to existance", the line is at first nuke use by pakistan, no matter now small the damage is) You actually invites massive nuclear first strike. What if Pakistan degenerates into a state where China no longer have full control over their nuke? Would China wait and see if India will use the Samson option? Or should she strike first with a superior nuclear force and take her chances?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2010 03:12

Having supplied the mad dog with teeth its the PRC job to make sure it doesn't bite.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Sep 2010 03:22

TonyMontana wrote: The problem with being the mad dog in the region is that if you set the line too low. ( ie instead of the line being at "threat to existance", the line is at first nuke use by pakistan, no matter now small the damage is) You actually invites massive nuclear first strike.

On the contrary, if you don't put in massive retaliation in response to a "small" use as you put it, that is an open invitation for a "small" use and every incentive for China to use it's proxy like Pakistan to do it and use the "restraint" shown by India to have the cake and eat it too in strategic terms while the "international community" gives out "praise" and other useless platitudes to India. Sorry. That is plainly stupid.

India (just like China) has a No First Use policy declared. So that actually means that the Indian arsenal will be sized so that allowances are made for sufficient retaliation capability to wipe out all potential targets AFTER absorbing an overwhelming first strike.

On the contrary, what countries like US and USSR did against China was called "Second Strike Deterrence" basically "We will launch a small/limited attack against you, but you "rationally" will not retaliate because of what we can do to you with a second strike if you retaliate". So what will the "rational" response of China be in that Game scenario ?. That is exactly what India will do as well and not behave "rationally" in the conventional sense

What if Pakistan degenerates into a state where China no longer have full control over their nuke? Would China wait and see if India will use the Samson option? Or should she strike first with a superior nuclear force and take her chances?

Good question. Maybe the Chinese should start thinking harder before they let their proxies (NoKo and Paki land) trade with each other on nuclear materials and missiles and realize that they are not going to be immune to failure of a deterrence regime and that they might possibly seeding the roots of their own destruction and actually do something about it. For eg, turning the economic screws on NoKO and sending out a clear message to that nut case Kim Jong Il and his soon to be Prince /Heir apparent, sorry folks the game is up and pulling the plug on Paki land in terms of strategic support (China anyway plays only an anti India support to Paki land a sort of Ace in the hole, which is fully beholden to the US and Saudi for economic support and military hardware).

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Sep 2010 03:25

TonyMontana wrote:
The problem with being the mad dog in the region is that if you set the line too low. ( ie instead of the line being at "threat to existance", the line is at first nuke use by pakistan, no matter now small the damage is) You actually invites massive nuclear first strike. What if Pakistan degenerates into a state where China no longer have full control over their nuke? Would China wait and see if India will use the Samson option? Or should she strike first with a superior nuclear force and take her chances?

Oh that's easy. All one has to do is game it out.

Let's say Pakistan is degenerating into a situation where no one can predict if some party likely to launch a nuclear attack on India gets control of Paki nukes.

China can (1) wait and watch for India's response on actually getting nuked, or (2) nuke India first in the hope of pre-empting a Samson option that results in China being nuked.

If China (1) decides to wait and watch, the worst possible outcome for China will be if India exercises the Samson option on being nuked by Pakistan. It is anyone's guess whether the land of Panchsheel and Gandhi which has never initiated a war in its history, would do such a thing. But the worst outcome is that China sustains the disastrous aftermath of a nuclear war... something that any nation with nuclear weapons risks in the nuclear age.

The best outcome for China if they decide to wait and watch is that India gets nuked by Pakistan, nukes Pakistan in turn, and doesn't do anything to China. That is ideal for China. An economically devastated India will be completely knocked out of the race, and in fact a possible candidate for absorption into the Chinese orbit as a client state. Nothing will stand between China and mastery of Asia. This is what China hoped for when it gave nukes to Pakistan in the first place.

On the other hand if China (2) decides to pre-emptively nuke India and "take its chances"... it is certain that they will not be able to eliminate a second-strike capacity on India's part, especially with the advent of Arihant-class and Agni SLBMs. India will be thoroughly damaged, even comprehensively destroyed as a viable nation-state. However, India will retain enough capacity to massively reverse the Chinese economic miracle and eliminate the CPC's capacity to govern China.

So on the one hand you have a best-case scenario of China achieving uncontested overlordship in Asia.

On the other, you have a certainty of the Middle Kingdom regressing from a rising superpower to a decrepit nation of opium-eating coolies (or, the gods forbid, bayonet dummies) once again. The parts of China that get hit by the Indian second strike will be the lucky ones. You can bet the West and Japan will be all over what is left like white on rice.

Well worth India's calculating that China will make the former choice.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Sep 2010 04:49

Why not 40 years ago
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/16/stories ... 451000.htm

Chinese may be included in CBSE curriculum: Sibal

Ananth Krishnan
BEIJING: Students across India may soon find themselves staring hard at the complicated lines and squiggles of Chinese characters on blackboards, and memorising the four tuneful tones of Mandarin Chinese.

The language may be introduced as part of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum, Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal said on Wednesday.

He told Chinese officials in talks that he was “willing to include Chinese in the CBSE system as a course curriculum,” but needed Chinese assistance to help standardise a syllabus and train Indian teachers.

“I told the Chinese that I cannot do this unless I have standards and there is a test,” he said. “And that cannot happen unless I collaborate with you.”

Mr. Sibal said the CBSE chairman had agreed to the inclusion of Chinese in the syllabus as a language. Chinese officials, too, had expressed interest in collaborating on setting up such a programme, though discussions were only at an exploratory stage and the two countries had not formulated a method to take such an exchange forward. Chinese officials said they had two training programmes for foreign teachers, either training them in China or sending teachers overseas.

Mr. Sibal said language was an important way to bridge the gap between the two societies. “Let us get enough Indians to learn Chinese, and let us get a lot of Chinese trainers in India who will teach and train young people in schools in the Chinese language,” he said.

“That is how, ultimately, we will evoke interests in our kids on China. There is no other way to do it.”

He added: “If the argument with Pakistan [as a neighbour] is we have to deal with them, the argument with China is with much greater force. We cannot wish them away... Unless the human resource collaboration is in place, we will never be able to deepen this relationship.”

Mr. Sibal, who visited the prestigious Peking University on Wednesday, called for deepening exchanges between universities, as well as expanding mutual recognition of degrees.