Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

1962 Sino-Indian War: Declassified CIA Documents

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jul 2007 08:01

bala wrote:In retrospect, both Nixon and Kissinger guessed wrong on the policy front about Pak-China. Now the US is at odds with China. The old Soviet Union is gone. Bangladesh is not a problem anymore. The US is trying to co-opt with India against China. Pakistan is a problem and so is China. Just goes to prove that all that Harvard education must have clouded Kissinger to bad judgments and turned him & Nixon into the 20th century's most despicable criminals for the slaughter of innocent Bangladeshis at the hands of TSP leaders - Yahya Khan, Niazi et al. Murderer Kissinger that is his legacy.
Bala: The China policy for the US at that time was all about creating strategic space for the US and taking advantage of a rift between China and the USSR. All that mattered at that time was to check the power of the USSR and it was achieved. The life of Bangladeshis and the animosity generated with India was a side show. India at that time was firmly seem to be in its enemy camp, by the US. Pakistan was the ally.

From a US perspective, the policy was not so bad after all. They believe, correct or not that the sending of the 7th fleet into the Bay did check the ambitions of IG towards West Pakistan. A relationship was established with China and the fruits of which are in evidence today. From a security perspective of the the US, it was a master stroke by Kissinger/Nixon - and widely viewed as such.

SGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 16:46

Postby SGupta » 11 Jul 2007 08:31

ShauryaT wrote:
bala wrote:In retrospect, both Nixon and Kissinger guessed wrong on the policy front about Pak-China. Now the US is at odds with China. The old Soviet Union is gone. Bangladesh is not a problem anymore. The US is trying to co-opt with India against China. Pakistan is a problem and so is China. Just goes to prove that all that Harvard education must have clouded Kissinger to bad judgments and turned him & Nixon into the 20th century's most despicable criminals for the slaughter of innocent Bangladeshis at the hands of TSP leaders - Yahya Khan, Niazi et al. Murderer Kissinger that is his legacy.
Bala: The China policy for the US at that time was all about creating strategic space for the US and taking advantage of a rift between China and the USSR. All that mattered at that time was to check the power of the USSR and it was achieved. The life of Bangladeshis and the animosity generated with India was a side show. India at that time was firmly seem to be in its enemy camp, by the US. Pakistan was the ally.

From a US perspective, the policy was not so bad after all. They believe, correct or not that the sending of the 7th fleet into the Bay did check the ambitions of IG towards West Pakistan. A relationship was established with China and the fruits of which are in evidence today. From a security perspective of the the US, it was a master stroke by Kissinger/Nixon - and widely viewed as such.


This master stroke excuses the human rights violations, how? Help me understand.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jul 2007 08:37

SGupta wrote:This master stroke excuses the human rights violations, how? Help me understand.
The same way it is in Darfur now or was in the 90's in Rwanda. The national interests of the US is what matters to the NSA Director of the US and Human Rights are a poor replacement - by itself.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 11 Jul 2007 11:20

A relationship was established with China and the fruits of which are in evidence today. From a security perspective of the the US, it was a master stroke by Kissinger/Nixon - and widely viewed as such.


ShauryaT, please explain this dichotomy. What fruits are in evidence? Come again. The China policy is a sheer disaster waiting to happen. The shift in manufacturing to China is really not helping the US long term. There are rumblings from the Congress about loss of jobs, blah blah. China controls 1T in US bonds. From a security perspective the new threat the US faces is CHina. All that the Nixon/Kissinger plan did was a short term fix/patch for the Soviet problem but the long term damage is enormous. My malaysian friend always says this about a China man: he may be down now but he will always come back. The Chinese long term plan is at odds with the US. Economically the Chinese play to win the strangle hold on money/commerce and thus clout. Right now things may appear benign but make no mistake about the future. As an example, there are pockets in US where Chinese take over entire shopping complexes and drive out any competition completely. The US is going to face this problem eventually on the economic front from China.

Security is another problem. All the Asian nations surrounding China feel threatened by a rising China and its modernization of the armed forces. There is palpable fear. China is a conquering nation and would not think twice about invasion of another country. Long term the US faces a chinese challenge on the security front, no ifs ands or buts.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 11 Jul 2007 11:59


SGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 16:46

Postby SGupta » 11 Jul 2007 16:41

bala wrote:The China policy is a sheer disaster waiting to happen.


Bala China is a disaster that has happened. Fact is that the US consumer is being lead down the road by US corporations who are anxious to shore up their stock prices for short term gain. With US and other corporations grabbing headlines everyday regarding immoral behavior, stock dating options, Arthur Anderson & Enron and many more. The system of governance that allows immoral entities a lead in such matters will be subject to failure in the long or short term. The issue is that the executive branch of the US government has failed the country over the last several years with regard to its foreign policy and initatives

You are absolutely right in that China controls the US with purchase of US treasuries Further the US desperately needs FDI to continue its spending spree, $12 billion per month in Iraq and Afganistan.A $263 billion dollar trade defict with China, the US dollar continues to weaken at least against currencies that allow a free float.

Kissingers opening China was in fact a disaster.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jul 2007 18:35

bala wrote:
A relationship was established with China and the fruits of which are in evidence today. From a security perspective of the the US, it was a master stroke by Kissinger/Nixon - and widely viewed as such.


>>ShauryaT, please explain this dichotomy. What fruits are in evidence? Come again.

Me sitting in the US being able to wear almost 90% of my wardrobe for 10% of the price for comparable US clothes - if found anyhere. So, that, I can spend the 90% on buying more, saving more, investing more - reduces prices, keeps inflation in check.

The ability of companies to reinvent themselves by outsourcing low value jobs for its economy and forcing itself and its employees to reinvent itself and create new value and products. - Promotes invention due to necessity - the mother of all reasons.

Create a significant presence in one of the largest emerging economies in the world, in a way that as it grows the most likely companies to benefit from such growth are US corporations. E.G : Walmart. This process creates wealth for US companies, who may choose to repatriate the profits back to the US, if that is how the best see the use of their profits, as done to the tune of $350 billion, last year. US companies made 50% of their revenue outside the US for the first time last year - a trend likely to continue, due to growth of India and China.

>>The China policy is a sheer disaster waiting to happen.

We are still waiting.....waiting....waiting....you get my drift

>>The shift in manufacturing to China is really not helping the US long term.

Yes, I agree, it will not help at all in the very long term, when China will manufacture everything, and the US Nada. China would just wish they own the IP to the next generation of OLED devices and 70% of the new bio-drugs filings were not in the US. I mean, what do you have against the Chinese in general and your arguments are sounding like being agains globalization in general.

>>There are rumblings from the Congress about loss of jobs, blah blah.

The same blah blah was there against Japan in the 80 and early 90's.

>>China controls 1T in US bonds.

So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and will be done again.

>>From a security perspective the new threat the US faces is CHina.

Except for China's economic growth and its corresponding investments into its military infrastructure as a result of this growth, nothing has really changed in the security environment. The alternative is for the US to design policies to keep China poor and isolated. Even if the US can do that, it is a proven fact that, so far, the reduction of prices in a vast number of consumer goods has helped the US - in every measure.

>>All that the Nixon/Kissinger plan did was a short term fix/patch for the Soviet problem but the long term damage is enormous.

I agree that Nixon/Kissinger had a short term agenda, with a long term vision. The short term was a master stroke for the US. The vision has worked so far. There is a risk with China - almost all of it stemming from its non democratic character. We will see, if the capitalism of china eventually succeeds in making a smooth democratic transition of some kind or the communist leadership manages to subvert, its own and world capitalism - as some rumors suggest. I believe, this US risk is worthwhile.

>>My malaysian friend always says this about a China man: he may be down now but he will always come back.

Your Malaysian friend is conditioned by circumstances in his country, where the ethnic Chinese control the world of business and there is a level of animosity due to the success of the ethnic Chinese in their country.

>>The Chinese long term plan is at odds with the US. Economically the Chinese play to win the strangle hold on money/commerce and thus clout. Right now things may appear benign but make no mistake about the future. As an example, there are pockets in US where Chinese take over entire shopping complexes and drive out any competition completely. The US is going to face this problem eventually on the economic front from China.

As I said, we are all still waiting for that eventual problem, I guess because the Chinese gene must be working differently from everyone else in Asia.

>>Security is another problem. All the Asian nations surrounding China feel threatened by a rising China and its modernization of the armed forces. There is palpable fear.

There is anxiety and hope. Both stem from a rising but undemocratic China. It also stems from a possible conflict between the interests of a rising China and a dominant US and its presence in the region.

>>China is a conquering nation and would not think twice about invasion of another country.

China has been under tremendous changes over the past 100-150 years, just like India. China has the same views about India that India and Indians have ambitions to conquer, what they say belongs to China.

It is my view that underlying all this animosity is the particular form of government in China. If China were to suddenly transition to a democratic form of governance with religious freedom, one will see that the Indic and Chinese world views are far more synergistic than opposing and its disputes can be resolved.

So, do not close your mind and judge China for what China did under Mao. It will change - is the only guarantee, as the regime in China is strong but superficial.

>>Long term the US faces a Chinese challenge on the security front, no ifs ands or buts.

I agree, a rising China will challenge the US, especially in the common pond they share. This is inevitable and would be considered normal for a nation the size of China. It is upto the US to a degree on how to respond to this unfettered hegemonic hyper power base it enjoys today and accommodate other rising powers or not.

Laks
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 20:47

Postby Laks » 11 Jul 2007 22:49

link
US assurance critical to China’s 1962 India attack
[quote][b]A critical element in the Chinese decision to launch military action against India in 1962 lay in an “assuranceâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 00:36

[quote="Laks"]
[b]“An urgent meeting of (Chinese and American) envoys was convened in Warsaw on June 23, 1962, where Ambassador Wang Bingnan warned Ambassador John Moors Cabot against supporting a KMT invasion. He was assured that the U.S. would not support any such venture. President Kennedy confirmed it publicly later,â€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2007 00:42

And that was the precursor to the bonhomie in the seventies and then onwards. In simple terms Aksai Chin was the price that US had to pay the PRC (so that PRC can secure Tibet) to get them to believe them for future projects. And India was the patsy. They had fun drawing up the cartoon of JLN being helped by Kennedy and Macmillan. It really ment India not just JLN

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 00:54

ramana wrote:And that was the precursor to the bonhomie in the seventies and then onwards. In simple terms Aksai Chin was the price that US had to pay the PRC (so that PRC can secure Tibet) to get them to believe them for future projects. And India was the patsy. They had fun drawing up the cartoon of JLN being helped by Kennedy and Macmillan. It really ment India not just JLN


Not only that India confided in US through Amb Galbraith that India would make the move to evict the troops in Tibet. [i]
On October 13, 1962, Foreign Secretary M.J. Desai confirmed to US ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith of the Indian Army plan to “evict the Chinese from the NEFA (North East Frontier Agency, now known as Arunachal Pradesh)â€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jul 2007 01:31

Acharya, Ramana: The article above can be interpreted in different ways, right? Sure, it can be. In order to believe, one interpretation over the other, one has to understand motives. So, what were the possible and most likely motives for the US to support overtly or covertly a PRC - still firmly in the Soviet camp, launching an action with Soviet approval, only for the US to offer help to India against the PRC, in the end.

My most likely interpretation of the above is Mao and Chou were way too smart and confronted the US with artificial information to put the US on a back foot and reveal its intentions. The answer meant that PRC had little to worry about from the US or its KMT allies, in the island.

There is a difference between unintended and intended consquences. For every percentage of hope that the US could wean China away from the USSR there was a higher hope that they could do the same with India. At least by implication you are saying the US intended and was smart enough to put 2+2 together and indirectly supported the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin. I still believe (unless convinced otherwise and my ears, heart and brain is open to it) that the US did not intend support for the Chinese in 62.

On 71 - There is no debate. They clearly did.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 12 Jul 2007 01:46

All this talk of blaming US about helping/supporting China is BS,a psy ops being carried out by kangreez(Nehru inparticular) sympathsizers and those who were guilty of inaction and eventually our loss.

What is baffling is why do we put the blame on Nehru alone wtf were opposition,president and our service chiefs upto after the Chinese had annexed our territory what was their strategy or outlook wrt to the same ?
Was influence of Nehru and his Gandootva so overwhelming that all of the above lost the sense of right or wrong ?

---I am happy that I was not born at that time to see our loss and those shameless people------ :evil:

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 01:59

negi wrote:
Was influence of Nehru and his Gandootva so overwhelming that all of the above lost the sense of right or wrong ?


India was a new nation with Nehru in control of the entire foreign policy.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 12 Jul 2007 02:43

ShauryaT - Let us agree to disagree on China.

Nehru was a clueless politician who behaved like a brat on the international scene with his wrong sense of self importance. His excessive preening under NAM and the boring international lectures by his lieutenant Krishna Menon led to many follies on the foreign policy front for India. Results ultimately speak for themselves and in this sense Nehru was caught napping in crucial outcomes for India. Tibet was practically gifted by the clueless Nehru to China. He also turned down a security council seat for India and instead gave it away to China. The Kashmir fiasco is another of his brainless ideas (running to the UN for solution -right!). Another boondogle was the poor and ill prepared Indian Army, under his defence minister, which was caught on the wrong foot by China's invasion in '62.

These transcripts with a CIA editorial is revealing but does not provide true intentions nor definitive decisions/outcomes.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 03:04

ShauryaT wrote: So, what were the possible and most likely motives for the US to support overtly or covertly a PRC - still firmly in the Soviet camp, launching an action with Soviet approval, only for the US to offer help to India against the PRC, in the end.


This book should help you. You may have to revise your history perception.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1525/15250740.htm
Fresh insights into the 1962 war
A. G. NOORANI
The Origins of the Cultural Revolution, Vol. 3: The Coming of the Cataclysm 1961-1966 by Roderick MacFarquhar; Oxford University Press; pages 733, £70.


Image
MacFarquhar was the son of Sir Alexander MacFarquhar, a member of the Indian Civil Service and later a senior diplomat at the United Nations where he eventually became Under Secretary for Personnel. He was born in Lahore, Pakistan. His father eventually became Director of Personnel for the United Nations secretariat. He was educated at the leading Scottish public school, Fettes College.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jul 2007 03:13

Acharya: How many books do you want me to buy :!:

OK, I will go and seek this book worth 125 fricking dollars, it better be good. :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2007 03:21

Its worth every penny if it lets you see things in a new perspective.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 12 Jul 2007 07:13

Acharya wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: So, what were the possible and most likely motives for the US to support overtly or covertly a PRC - still firmly in the Soviet camp, launching an action with Soviet approval, only for the US to offer help to India against the PRC, in the end.


This book should help you. You may have to revise your history perception.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1525/15250740.htm
Fresh insights into the 1962 war
A. G. NOORANI
The Origins of the Cultural Revolution, Vol. 3: The Coming of the Cataclysm 1961-1966 by Roderick MacFarquhar; Oxford University Press; pages 733, £70.


Image
MacFarquhar was the son of Sir Alexander MacFarquhar, a member of the Indian Civil Service and later a senior diplomat at the United Nations where he eventually became Under Secretary for Personnel. He was born in Lahore, Pakistan. His father eventually became Director of Personnel for the United Nations secretariat. He was educated at the leading Scottish public school, Fettes College.


The article quoted above by A.G. Noorani also states the following:

Even at the height of the border row, India was opposed to any U.S.-aided attack by Taiwan on China. It is, however, clear in retrospect that China would not have conceived of action along its borders with India, on October 20, 1962, were it not for the fact that the U.S. had, unwittingly, eased its fears of a second front. Half a million Chinese troops were positioned in Fujian province, opposite Quemoy, all set to repel a full-scale assault. An urgent meeting of envoys was convened in Warsaw on June 23, 1962, where Ambassador Wang Bingnan warned Ambassador John Moors Cabot against supporting a KMT invasion. He was assured that the U.S. would not support any such venture. President Kennedy confirmed it publicly later. Ambassador Wang wrote in his memoirs that the statement of American policy "had a great impact on policy decisions at home."


So this establishes that Nehru's anti western blinkers were so extreme that while he wanted India to *settle* its border issue with China, he also did not want any support from the US and in fact did not want the US to attack China even if that meant that China would be distracted in its confrontation with India. With this kind of genuius as its leader not even God could have helped India.

Secondly, this book talks about half a million Chinese troops facing the Taiwan Straits waiting to repel a Nationalist attack. By some accounts, only 20,000 Chinese troops were involved in the 1962 war against India of whom 2400 were killed. Would somebody check this number? What this means is that notwithstanding the US assurance that they would not support a Nationalist attack on the PRC, the PLA did not deem it necessary to move the half a million men to the Indian border and were able to deal with the Indian Army with 20,000 soliders out of their standing army of some 5 million plus soldiers. In contrast according to the article posted below from the Kentucy Press (somebody may again please verify the accuracy of some of those numbers), the PLA sent 3.1 million men to Korea to fight the US and suffered 1.1 million casualties. It also sent 200,000 men to fight Vietnam in 1978 of whom 26,000 were killed.

http://www.kentuckypress.com/prlitimeline.doc


[quote]A Timeline of the Development of the Chinese Army

• August 1, 1927: The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is founded as the Red Army
• 1928: Li Zhen becomes the first woman promoted to the rank of general
• May 1930: The Red Army is Renamed the Chinese Red Army of Workers and Peasants
• 1934-35: Mao Zedong and 12,000 men survive the Long March
• August 1937: The military is reorganized into the Nationalist Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army in the Anti-Japanese War, but still under Mao and CCP command
• 1937-45: Troop strength increases from 56,300 to 1.27 million in the regular army and 2.68 million in the militias during WWII
• 1946-49: Fights Jiang Jieshi’s Nationalist Army during the civil war
• November 1948: Military is renamed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA); troop strength totals 3 million
• 1949: The PLA Air Force is established in January and the Navy in April
• April 1949: The PLA takes over the capital city of Nanjing, forcing Jiang and his army to withdraw to Formosa
• October 1, 1949: The People’s Republic is founded on the mainland; troop strength totals 5.5 million
• October 19, 1950: PLA forces enter Korea to fight against the United Nations’ Forces in the Korean War as the “Chinese People’s Volunteer Forcesâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 07:39


rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 12 Jul 2007 09:12

Ok, even if we consider both sides of the argument - whether the US was scheming in making an Indo-China border war happen at Chinese terms (or not), how does it explain:

1) the intense co-operation between CIA and the SSB?
2) US monitoring of Chinese nuclear activities from India?
3) the two highly enriched plutonium devices planted on top of Nanda Devi (one of which was lost and is alleged to have contaminated the inner-Nanda Devi santuary with enriched plutonium so as to make GoI ban the area completely to trekkers and mountain climbers on "environmental grounds"?) to monitor Chinese nuclear tests in Lop Nor.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 10:52

rocky wrote:Ok, even if we consider both sides of the argument - whether the US was scheming in making an Indo-China border war happen at Chinese terms (or not), how does it explain:

1) the intense co-operation between CIA and the SSB?
2) US monitoring of Chinese nuclear activities from India?
3) the two highly enriched plutonium devices planted on top of Nanda Devi (one of which was lost and is alleged to have contaminated the inner-Nanda Devi santuary with enriched plutonium so as to make GoI ban the area completely to trekkers and mountain climbers on "environmental grounds"?) to monitor Chinese nuclear tests in Lop Nor.


They work with both sides of the conflict.
Only thing Indians took seriously the rhetoric that US is against the communist block

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 12 Jul 2007 11:30

In Acharya's Hindu (isnt this a commie left oriented china loving newspaper) link

Comrade YE ZHENGJIA, benign start with noble objectives and great compromise is so very touching. He talks about the "Tibetan rebellion" oh so very charmingly. Why, oh why were the chinese involved in border clashes with India, comrade. Calisthenics perhaps. Yes, and as evidence he uses the impression of the Western Press (who can be bought out for a few dollars, steak dinners, good wine) as proof by pompously stating that "declaration of Nehru's was seen by the British and American press as India's ultimatum to China". Then he quotes this Chinese principle "from an exchange of blows, friendship grows" rather ironic way to show err friendship you say. Please, enough of the tripe and brainwash, comrade.

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 12 Jul 2007 12:35

The fact puzzles me why it is so hard for India and China to come to understand each other 36 years after the 1962 border conflicts.


:P :twisted: He has got an understanding problem.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 12 Jul 2007 19:52

Our late For.Sec.,J.N.Dixit in his writings has written extensively about the '62 debacle,the non-usage of the IAF and why China doublecrossed us.In fact,Nehru had been offered Taiwan's seat in the UNSC,but he as a matter of principle said that the PRC should get it.Despite all that he did for China as a friend,the Chinese looked at his friendship and kindness as a patronising attitude and weakness.The superiority complex,arrogance and cutthroat nature of the Chinese Communists has only expanded with time.If one remembers the shreiking from the senile,scheming,spittle-faced species of the Zhongnanhai rodents after P-2,demanding that India rollback on our nuclear capablity and their coordinated efforts with a Chinese bankrolled Clinton presidency,one will meet them only at a table that has a very wide top! Shame on Constable Singh for calling them our bum chums.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Jul 2007 21:17

ldev wrote:

Lastly, some folks who want to see a US hand behind every *bush* should see the possibility that the world in 1962 had the US and the Soviets with the big bum but not China.

Isnt it just possible that the US preoccupied as it was with its Soviet confrontation, did not want to open up another front with the Soviets by backing a Nationalist attack on the mainland?

They have close relations with the Nationalists. There was never an intention of creating a large scale Taiwan confrontation in the 4 confrontations. It is a tool to keep the CPC in check.

India may have been a sideshow as far as the US was concerned. Is this definitive? Certainly not - but it should certainly be considered as a possibility before the battle cry of a US-Chinese conspiracy to attack India rents through the air - err sorry through this thread. Notwithstanding all of these US assurances to the Chinese, as previously stated, the Chinese did not really have dig deep in to their 5 million plus army to take on India.


Not enough to back it up. If you read the history carefully they should have done it in 1959. They waited for the appropriate moment. They needed consensus from the big boys to take on Nehru. When the time came in they looked for the assurance and then they charged. They withdrew just when the situation stabilized so that India will get sympathy from other 'democracies'


ldev wrote:

Lastly, some folks who want to see a US hand behind every *bush* should see the possibility that the world in 1962 had the US and the Soviets with the big bum but not China.


How did the PRC manage to explode the first one in 1964 and again a Hydrogen bomb in 1967. No country has taken such a short time to do this. How did they do it. They had cut off their nuclear cooperation with Soviets in 1955. They could rely on only one country.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jul 2007 08:29

Acharya wrote:How did the PRC manage to explode the first one in 1964 and again a Hydrogen bomb in 1967. No country has taken such a short time to do this. How did they do it. They had cut off their nuclear cooperation with Soviets in 1955. They could rely on only one country.
What in the world are you smoking? There is reams and reams of evidence to indicate a transfer of nuclear weapons technology from USSR to PRC between 55-59. Kruschev made the transfer but regretted it. The 1000 scientists deputed to the project were called back in 59. It was a further 5 more years from the point, where the Soviets left to the first test in 64.

If you must claim that the US assisted China procure nuclear weapons, you have to provide motives and credible evidence and reasoning.

I am not buying another book. :)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 13 Jul 2007 08:53

Ask the nuke experts here in BR how much time does it take to
develop a thermonuclear.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/nuke.htm

When Sino-Soviet relations cooled in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Soviet Union withheld plans and data for an atomic bomb, abrogated the agreement on transferring defense technology, and began the withdrawal of Soviet advisers in 1960. Despite the termination of Soviet assistance, China committed itself to continue nuclear weapons development to break "the superpowers' monopoly on nuclear weapons," to ensure Chinese security against the Soviet and United States threats, and to increase Chinese prestige and power internationally.


China made remarkable progress in the 1960s in developing nuclear weapons. In a thirty-two-month period, China successfully exploded its first atomic bomb (October 16, 1964), launched its first nuclear missile (October 25, 1966), and detonated its first hydrogen bomb (June 14, 1967.


The first Chinese nuclear test was conducted at Lop Nor on 16 October 1964 (CHIC 1). It was a tower shot involving a fission device with a yield of 25 kilotons. Uranium 235 was used as the nuclear fuel, which indicates Beijing's choice of the path of creating high-yield nuclear weapons right away. Of the ten test shots that followed by 29 September 1969, six are believed to have been related to thermonuclear development. The others had as their goals the adaptation of CHIC 1 for bomber delivery and test of a missile warhead (CHIC 4). The third nuclear test was conducted on 9 September 1966 using a Tu-16 bomber. In addition to uranium 235, this nuclear device, with a yield around 100 KT, this time contained lithium 6, which attested to China's readiness to test a thermonuclear explosion. CHIC 6, an airdrop test on 17 June 1967, was the first full-yield, two-stage thermonuclear test.






www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications ... DeGeer.pdf
If the Chinese came up with a working scheme through some
help, thinking on their own and analyzing foreign literature, it could very
well be that their first full-scale fusion test, which was conducted in the atmosphere
in June 1967, was of some final help for the French in designing their
first working device tested in August of the following year.

The United States tested its first H-bomb, codenamed
Mike, on November 1, 1952 at the Eniwetak atoll in the Pacific, less
than two years after the Teller-Ulam idea was conceived. It has been suggested
by many that the Soviets managed to duplicate the success Quite soon
a. National Defence Research Establishment, Sweden
352 De Geer
thereafter on 22 November 1955, partly by reading the Mike debris.3 According
to Hans Bethel the British then in turn read the Soviet debris and tested
their first fusion device successfully at Christmas Island in the Pacific on 15
May 1957.5 The French probably did not collect and analyze foreign debris
carefully enough. At least they didn't do it before the Partial Test Ban Treaty
went into force in 1963, stopping US, USSR, and UK atmospheric tests and
hindering continuing announcements of the H-bomb secret to the winds. For
France eight years passed between its first fission bomb test in the Sahara on
13 February 1960 and its first successful thermonuclear test at Moruroa in
the South Pacific on 24 August 1968.5 Chinese progress was very rapid
between their first fission test on 16 October 1964 and their first fusion test
on 17 June 1967, both at their Lop Nor test site in Xinjiang (Sinkiang). Liu
Xiyao, the administrative leader of the Chinese hydrogen bomb project, has
said that China could not get "any secret scientific or technical data concerning
hydrogen bomb development," but that it did benefit from analyzing the
relevant reports published abroad.6 He also said, however, that the Chinese
at the outset of their thermonuclear program "commanded the necessary fundamentals
that had been used to make hydrogen bombs in the United States,
the Soviet Union and Great Britain."6 This might imply that they had gotten
the basic ideas from the Soviets before the termination of their nuclear assistance
program. If the Chinese came up with a working scheme through some
help, thinking on their own and analyzing foreign literature, it could very
well be that their first full-scale fusion test, which was conducted in the atmosphere
in June 1967, was of some final help for the French in designing their
first working device tested in August of the following year.



http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/214191.htm

http://english.people.com.cn/200706/20/ ... 85933.html
Complicated calculations became one of the main reasons for research being slow. In the 1960s, China only had one computer with a speed of 10 thousand times of calculations per second.

One day they obtained an important reference number from foreign sources, but they questioned how this number came about. Therefore, they needed to test the validity of this number. Yu Min pondered this issue for days.

One night he woke up from a nightmare and he held his wife's hand shouting, "I got it, I got it, it's clear to me, it's clear to me!"

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 14 Jul 2007 08:06

Acharya wrote:
Not enough to back it up. If you read the history carefully they should have done it in 1959. They waited for the appropriate moment. They needed consensus from the big boys to take on Nehru. When the time came in they looked for the assurance and then they charged. They withdrew just when the situation stabilized so that India will get sympathy from other 'democracies'


Why should the Chinese wait to attack India in 1962 and then withdraw "so that India will get sympathy from the other democracies". I would imagine that common sense would indicate that China would not want India to get any sympathy from any other country? Isnt that how wars are fought, that you demonize your enemy? Just as GWB has been trying to do with Iraq and Iran etc.? Would it not have been counterproductive for China to have the world sympathizing with India? Please explain.

How did the PRC manage to explode the first one in 1964 and again a Hydrogen bomb in 1967. No country has taken such a short time to do this. How did they do it. They had cut off their nuclear cooperation with Soviets in 1955. They could rely on only one country.


When you say only one country, what country do you mean? Based on innuendo in your past posts I presume you mean to say that you believe that the United States gave the big bum to China, both the A and the H bum. This would obviously have to be done before 1964 for the A bum and before 1967 for the H bum. However, in the 1965 to 1968 period, China sent across 320,000 troops to fight on the side of the North Vietnamese against the US and South Vietnam. And 10-12 years before this alleged transfer of bums by the US to China, the Chinese lost about 1 million troops fighting the US in Korea. So on the one hand Chinese troops were dying by the millions fighting the US and on the other hand the US was giving that very nation A and H bombs? Now why would you want to arm your enemies and that too with A and H bombs?

As far as the rapid Chinese progress in developing their H bum, there could be many reasons behind that i.e. transfer of Soviet technology, design and material prior to the break in the late 1950s, enough evidence indicates that did happen, single minded Chinese efforts to try and develop the bomb, industrial spying and stealing which has not yet come to light. My point is, do not underestimate the Chinese. Would anyone have believed in 1980 that in 30 years, China would have the second largest economy in the world?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 14 Jul 2007 09:22

That De Geer pdf is interesting. The declassified cables from US Consulate in Bombay is about HN Sethna on the monitoring of the third Chinese test where he says India probably learn't more about the test than the Chinese themselves.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Jul 2007 22:35

No Link.

Interesting modern article that should relate to post 1962 Indian Army.

[quote]
Ripples of Retreat
Dark predictions for a post-withdrawal world.

By Victor Davis Hanson


The present Washington parlor game is to argue over the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Vietnam is often the referent for both sides — the Left claiming that at least American human and material costs ceased after 1975, as Vietnam eventually found a weary sort of equilibrium. The Right replies with the genocide in Cambodia, the Boat People, and the thousands of Vietnamese executed and sent to reeducation camps — and, of course, the three decades of tyranny that followed.

But even that notorious parallel is inexact. Almost all American ground troops were already gone from Vietnam by 1973, in Richard Nixon’s multi-year “Vietnamizationâ€

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 22 Jul 2007 02:19

Frontier India...good job Chacko.

http://frontierindia.net/chinese-pla-me ... a-in-1965/

[quote]Chinese PLA menace at Nathu La in 1965
Jul 21st, 2007 by P. Chacko Joseph | 0
Chinese had tried to create diversion to aid their beleaguered allies Pakistan during the India-Pakistan war in 1965. Frontier India had an exclusive interview with Major General (Retd) Eustace D’Souza PVSM, who was the Brigade Commander at Nathu La during the time.

Here is the narration verbatim:

In old days when Tibet was under Dalai Lama, there were two ways to enter Tibet. The main one was Sikkim route, which was the old silk route of Gangtok- Nathu La-Lhasa via Gyantse and Ya-tung through the Chumbi Valley. The other route was Jelep La – Chumbi Valley. The Sikkim route was the shortest and Nathu La was preferred route. Those days the tarmac Gangtok -Nathu La road ended at “Mile Five.â€

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 22 Jul 2007 02:25

Captain VN Thapars son.

http://www.captainvijyantthapar.com/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 22 Jul 2007 02:38

JC I have been looking for an account of the Sept 65 incident at NathuLa. Thanks, ramana

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 22 Jul 2007 02:50

JCage wrote:Captain VN Thapars son.

http://www.captainvijyantthapar.com/


JC garu thanks for the great post.


why is Capt Thapars photo showing only two pips (that of a Lt) rather than three pips of Capt in the photo of his site?

Am I wrong?
Last edited by John Snow on 22 Jul 2007 18:35, edited 1 time in total.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 22 Jul 2007 03:29

ldev>> 1953 to 1959 PRC was very busy in Korean war hence wait till 1962. (one answer, thye were battle hardened in snow clad mountain warfare, and better equipped with Russian arms pouring into Korea via Bejing)

try here

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB38/

try here for nPRC rapid progress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

I have lot more referential data if you want but I mjay have dig to reach bejing

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 681
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Postby Rishi » 22 Jul 2007 09:48

John Snow wrote:
JCage wrote:Captain VN Thapars son.

http://www.captainvijyantthapar.com/


JC garu thanks for the great post.


wht is Capt Thapars phot showing only two pips (that of a Lt) rather than three pips of Capt in the photo of his site?

Am I wrong?


Posthumous promotion. Even Vikram Batra was made Capt only after death. (Though I think he was made Acting Capt. on the battlefield)

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 22 Jul 2007 10:00

Rishi got it. It was Lt Vijyant Thapar during his service, may he RIP

http://www.captainvijyantthapar.com/finalassault.html

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 00:55

Frontline's Noorani on the declassified papers
The CIA papers-PartI

He as usual blames India and bats for his master's paymasters. Still useful compliation of facts once you remove his bias. He is a water-melon_ Islamic on out side and red on the inside. Othertimes he is inside out.

[quote]
The CIA papers


A.G. NOORANI


A CIA Staff Study published in May on the Sino-Indian border dispute (1959-62) throws neglected light on relations between the two countries.





THE HINDU PHOTO ARCHIVES

New Delhi, November 28, 1956. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai received by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at Palam Airport.

“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.â€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 31 Aug 2007 02:12

Part II of AG Noorani's essay.

The CIA Papers- Part II

In my earlier post I had said
He as usual blames India and bats for his master's paymasters.


The concluding part of his essay is

Relations between India and China have improved vastly. Now what is needed is a readiness on both sides seriously to reflect on their mistakes, coupled with a determination to settle the boundary dispute by creative diplomacy. Both seek the U.S.’ friendship. But if a multipolar order is to be established, a Sino-Indian entente is indispensable. That will not be accomplished if either side is perceived to be sucked into the U.S.’ schemes in Asia. The boundary dispute must be settled within a political framework, in a political context and at the highest political level. Time is fast running out.


For whom? India can wait. Its the Chinese who have betrayed Indian friendship and stabbed us in the back.

[quote]
This brings us to India’s culpability. When the dispute erupted in private correspondence in 1958-59, Nehru banged the door to any compromise in his letter of March 22, 1959, citing a Ladakh-Tibet treaty of 1842 as having sett led the boundary in Ladakh. That was palpably false. Why, then, did the British appoint two Boundary Commissions in 1846 and 1847 and seek China’s accord? Why did they offer the Akai Chin to China in the Macartney-MacDonald note of March 14, 1899? Nehru’s stand was based on his confidential directive of July 1, 1954, and the map that followed it – this is boundary as we define it; it is not open to discussion. In truth, the boundary in the west was always undefined. In 1956, 1959 and 1960, Zhou was prepared to accept the McMahon Line. Nehru refused to compromise on this basis at the summit in April 1960. Zhou met S. Radhakrishnan, G.B. Pant and Morarji Desai in a gesture of conciliation. Their arrogance was matched by their ignorance and a desire to cut Nehru to size. Morarji was rude to Zhou.

Nehru underestimated his political strength, skills and resources. He could have put his foot down, offered Zhou a settlement to be worked out later and prepared the country by simply publishing the records of the 19th century. His advisers were grossly culpable. They fed him with palatable “historyâ€


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest