China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Selamat Pagi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 09:53

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Selamat Pagi » 01 Jan 2012 15:36

pankajs wrote:What make you believe "Gregory Clark former Australian diplomat" over many others? Is he not just another western observer, one amongst many? At best it means that the account is still hazy as to what was the exact sequence of the events.


No, there were many other western journalists at the Square like Graham Earnshaw and also student leader that admitted they saw nobody killed. There is also the PBS program called the Tankman. But of course there will always some people that will want to believe 3000 were killed no matter what. And the lying that went on for 20 years is not important to you ?

Until more evidence I will believe 200 to 300.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3859
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby suryag » 01 Jan 2012 15:46

This BS needs to stop as it is OT here please take it to appropriate threads my dear dlones post reported

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2012 17:20

Selamat Pagi wrote:
shiv wrote:OT My response here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6283&p=1219628#p1219628


Oh there are more. Starting from 2004 and 2008 from Japan Times by Gregory Clark former Australian diplomat .
hllp://tiananmenmyth.blogspot.com/


This blog is getting hits from here. That is the reason for persisting with this business.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Brando » 01 Jan 2012 19:22

Don wrote:I am not a big fan of Communism. I think its dead ideology. However, you must appreciate how the government of CHina has lifted millions out of poverty. Regardless of cities their the people are better educated, have better standard of living, and better future. Compared that to India where they have worse malnutrition than sub Saharan Africa and 42 percent still lives below poverty line. I think freedoom or democracy rings hollow when a government fails to provided even basic necessaties to large number of its population.

You also a talk about minorities in China. Every country have their own problems. How about oppression of the Dalits in your society. How about the Sikhs massacere at the Golden temple and the one after Indira Gandhi was assisinated where tens of thousands were lynched. HOw about the riots agaisnt the Muslims in Gujarat where numerous people were burned, raped and killed. You also have problem with numerous regional independent movement but that is not unique for a big country like India. The point is every country have its own problems.


I do recognize that they have done more to eradicate "poverty" and they have achieved a higher literacy rate but what about the "poverty of the soul" ? Mere education is a poor substitute to the freedom of spirit! I can make a similar point by saying that most of Sub-Saharan Africans have more freedoms, more rights as individuals than most Chinese do! Why don't you use those metrics to compare countries ? Is food in the belly and roof over one's head the epitome of "civilization" ?? If that is your definition then yes, India lags far behind but India would have it no other way! As to basic amenities, the right to dignity, life and free speech are also "basic amenities". Why hasn't generous China provided for these as well or does China not consider its people "sub-human" to grant them basic human rights ?

As to the problems of minorities in China and minorities in India the main difference between the two is that India "recognizes" the problems , while China doesn't! Mere recognition in itself places India's minorities and China's minorities worlds apart!
Tell me how many Fulan Gong practitioners are members of the Central Planning Commission in China ? How many Tibetans hold posts in the Chinese judiciary ? How many Kazakhs have risen to places of Power ? How many Mongols are business leaders in Shanghai ?? Tell me, what special privileges and rights are minorities granted in China that support their culture, their identity and their very way of life from government intrusion ?
In India, we've had a Sikh President, a Sikh prime Minister, Dalit President and many many Dalit ministers. We've also had Muslim Presidents and many muslim cabinet and other ministers. We have special privileges and rights offered to our minorities to protect their individual culture and their traditions and their faith!
As to massacres, I don't think there can be any competition between China and India in that regard because clearly China far exceeds anything in Indian history for the scale and scope of the massacres that took place during Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution" . Even during the darkest days of India's partition with Pakistan, the atrocities that took place during the Cultural revolution make anything done on the sub-continent look timid by contrast!

We have problems but we don't camouflage our problems or ignore them as trivial. Unlike China, the purpose of the Indian Government is not to boost its ego and retain popularity for continued rule over its citizens, unlike the Communist Party of China. It's ludicrous to taut about "progress" in a country that denies its people the right to even recognition their identity!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2012 19:37

India's malnutrition worse than xyz is said only because India openly publicizes these figures and allows foreigners to see. If India hid the truth you would not know. But India's strength is in being open - the poor malnourished people and people who work for them know hat their battle can be won. China? Who knows? As long as you believe all is well in China - great why worry? But don't worry if Indians or the West mock China for its hidden problems. The fact that Chinese are sensitive to such criticism shows that there is a raw wound there.

There is a lady in India who has refused to eat for years until the Armed Forces extra power in India's Manipur state are revoked. She is being force fed and kept alive You can see media interviews of her in Indian media. Show me one media interview of a Tibetan dissident cursing the ChiCom party in the Chinese media. Naturally Tiebtans are on the Indian side. We give them more dignity than the Chinese who think that they can be bribed and made rich and made to feel good.

China does have something to hide. And it shows. No amount of criticizing India;s poverty or squalor is going to change that. Also China has been trying to copy the US model. That is ignorant.

Sorry this is he mil thread but that ChiCom robot troll Ji Mi showed that military stuff and political stuff in China go hand in hand. The military gets first and prominent place in China. Control over the military is important for the Chicom party and the man who eventually controls the military is the most influential person. "I have so much money in China that i don't care about the military ruling me" is an excuse that can be taken only so far. Note that there is an ancient Indian counter argument. "material poverty is not a problem. But freedom for the soul is all that a human needs" There is nothing in this world to say that the ChiCom excuse about trading freedom for wealth is better that trading wealth for freedom.

PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby PrasadZ » 01 Jan 2012 20:01

self deleted
Last edited by PrasadZ on 01 Jan 2012 20:48, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 01 Jan 2012 20:08

Don wrote:This is why I don't usually waste my time arguing with people in this forum. I just post military news and thats it. The stupidity, denials, and ignorance is incredible. :)


Ignorance of China is not going to be reduced by angry spoiled brats who get upset at criticism. Some of your guys behave exactly like the Chicom party. As long as it is praise and admiration, fine. If there is criticism - blank it out!
Last edited by shiv on 01 Jan 2012 20:10, edited 1 time in total.

PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby PrasadZ » 01 Jan 2012 20:09

pankajs wrote:
Selamat Pagi wrote:Oh there are more. Starting from 2004 and 2008 from Japan Times by Gregory Clark former Australian diplomat .
http://tiananmenmyth.blogspot.com/

What make you believe "Gregory Clark former Australian diplomat" over many others? Is he not just another western observer, one amongst many? At best it means that the account is still hazy as to what was the exact sequence of the events.

From your reference

True, much that happened elsewhere in Beijing that night was ugly.
So would "ugly" mean 200 or perhaps 2000 where killed? Perhaps they were not killed in the center of the square or perhaps majority may not have even been killed in the square but just outside where the barricades where set?

When armed troops were finally sent in, they too met hostile crowds, but they kept advancing. Dozens of buses and troop-carrying vehicles were torched by the crowds, some with their crews trapped inside. In the panicky fighting afterward, hundreds, maybe even thousands, of civilians and students were killed. But that was a riot, not a deliberate massacre. And it did not happen in Tiananmen Square. So why all the reports of a "massacre"?

So you accept that "hundreds, maybe even thousands, of civilians and students were killed" and your only complain is "riot, not a deliberate massacre". Well I have never heard of a "riot" where the thousands die on one side and maybe not even a dozen on the other. If the above is what actually happened, it fits into the definition of a "massacre".

I do not care if it happened in the center of the square or on the periphery or even outside the square. The demonstration was held in the Tiananmen square and at the end there was a "massacre" but you can call it a "riot" if that is what you prefer.

Our difference it would seem is only in the semantics not in the substance. Peace!


Adding to pankaj's questions, here is a popular debunking of the myth of Nanking. Care to comment, any of you Chicom propagandists? :)

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20317 » 01 Jan 2012 20:32

Don wrote:This is why I don't usually waste my time arguing with people in this forum. I just post military news and thats it. The stupidity, denials, and ignorance is incredible. :)


Alternatively it could be that, that is all the capacity you got, copy paste. Else how can the usual length of a chinese post be characterised.

Anyhow you guys should stop looking at our poverty as your opportunity and instead be afraid of the 'self-discipline' or 'samyam' of our poor masses which they have managed inspite of everything. I have been to only one BRF meet and most of the guys there were not 'one son families given to ji hazoori'. You will get that in your tallel then khada fiends, not here. you want appreciation, chalta ban. Ctrl C, Ctrl V will not impress people here.

arnabh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 00:51

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby arnabh » 02 Jan 2012 11:28

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120102/j ... 951984.jsp

Shamed? Never again

If one anniversary in 2012 symbolises India’s progress, past demons and future challenges, it must be that of the humiliation by China 50 years ago. Sujan Dutta charts the changes

If one anniversary in 2012 symbolises India’s progress, past demons and future challenges, it must be that of the humiliation by China 50 years ago. Sujan Dutta charts the changes

At a mountaintop hut in the Eastern Himalayas on the border in late autumn, a senior colonel of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) confronted an Indian brigadier with photographs. The prints showed a bunker that the Indian troops had allegedly built in what the Chinese said was disputed territory.

“You have to take it out,” the Chinese officer told the brigadier, expecting the usual response.

The usual response from the Indian side at such flag-meetings is softly bureaucratic: “We have noted your complaint; it will be sent to higher authorities.”

“Okay, we will see what has happened,” the brigadier told his Chinese counterpart. But the Chinese officer was insistent, even mildly threatening. “You will bear the consequences of this if you do not take it (the bunker) out in good time,” he said — a statement the Chinese inevitably make at flag meetings to sort out border transgressions.

But this time the script was altered.

“You have said what you have to say and I have heard you,” the brigadier replied in fluent Chinese without raising his voice. “But don’t threaten me. If you do something we do not like, YOU will face the consequences.”

The BPM (border personnel meeting) had reached an uncharacteristic conclusion. Some months later, Chinese troops removed the unmanned bunker from the area that is not patrolled. It was what the Indian Army had expected. There was no encounter. The bunker was just a calling card that read: “We were here.”

This year, the Indian Army will not mark the remorse and the humiliation in the hands of the Chinese in 1962. In the half-century since that event, a different generation of soldiers is willing to look the Chinese in the eye at the very spots in which its predecessors were so thoroughly routed. That attitude is evident even in recent routine BPMs, such as the one recounted above.

Plucky or pro-active, bravura or brazenness, the Indian Army is less impressed by China’s growing military might now than it has ever been in the last 50 years.

In early (February) 2012, India will test its 5,000km-range Agni V missile for the first time. A commentary in the Chinese Communist Party paper, Peoples’ Daily, said it was China-specific.

“It is the Indian goal to continue to strengthen the military and possess a military clout that matches its status as a major power,” the paper said. “However, how many missiles is enough is a question for all governments in the missile era.”

If successful, the range of the Agni V, which can deliver a nuclear warhead, would be able to cover most cities of central and south China — Guangzhou and Shanghai among them.

Even if the first test fails, India will have stated its intent: despite the intensity of bilateral economic ties, New Delhi, like Beijing, will continue to reinforce its military capabilities.

China is far ahead in the missile race. Its 8,000km-range intercontinental ballistic missile Dong Feng-31 (the name means “Eastern Wind”) can cover most of India from depth launch pads in China, and its shorter-range DF series can hit cities in most of north India. The Chinese PLA Navy’s submarine fleet continues to expand at a faster rate than any other force, including America’s. Its surface combatants are reaching farther almost every passing month, largely to secure its sea lanes of communication through which much of China’s oil imports transit.

In the South China Sea, where China is locked in a dispute with four other countries, Beijing’s claim has got shriller. In July 2011, it buzzed an Indian assault ship, the INS Airavat, sailing in Vietnamese waters.

Combined with its economic heft, the Chinese military machine has put an aura around Beijing that the world is largely in awe of.

In New Delhi, though, the security establishment is convinced that it can read the Chinese mindset better than ever before. Within the security establishment, it is the military that has a measure of confidence not yet shared by the political class. The external affairs ministry, for example, worries about Chinese objections to the coverage of Sino-Indian relations in the Indian media. It is true that sections of the Indian media see a larger shadow of the Chinese ghost than the military itself does. TV channels have routinely played up the construction and re-construction of bunkers and watchtowers by the Chinese along the border, as if they represent the threat of invasion.

In the military and the defence ministry, cooler analysts point out that such defences are requirements for peacetime rather than preparations for war. Wars are not conducted from visible control stations.

“The idea is not to keep India-China relations hostage to the border dispute," a top adviser remarked recently. “The border has been largely peaceful for more than three decades. Indeed, the so-called transgressions — the crossing of the line by patrols — now have such a pattern that we can almost predict when and where they will occur.”

Without a shade of doubt, the paranoia originates from the border war 50 years ago. Indian border patrols discovered much to their shock in 1959 that China had built the Western Highway, a road linking Tibet with Sinkiang province of China through Aksai China, the northern and eastern bulge of Jammu and Kashmir that Jawaharlal Nehru’s government then believed it was in possession of.

The furore in Parliament and an inability to determine the exact nature of the threat it posed led to the government ordering the army to take a “forward posture”. The army moved its posts closer to the disputed boundary and, on occasion, crossed it in 1960-1961.

For months, Beijing — then called Peking — absorbed the pricks. China was emerging from its revolution in 1949. Mao Zedong famously told the Communist Party’s central military commission: “Lack of forbearance in small matters upsets great plans. We must pay attention to the situation.”

Then, in 1962, Indian army units led by Brigadier Dalvi in Eastern Arunachal Pradesh crossed a rivulet called the Namka Chhu — which was conventionally acknowledged as the undefined border — and established posts along the Thagla Ridge, an event documented by journalist Neville Maxwell in India’s China War.

China sent Premier Chou En Lai to New Delhi to talk things out with Nehru just a week before hostilities broke out. By this time, China was beginning to suspect “creeping annexation”. In subsequent years, even Brigadier Dalvi admitted that “the territory we were fighting for, we were not convinced it was ours”.

By October 18, Chinese troops were ordered to restore the balance. Mao changed his policy.

Henry Kissinger quotes the Chinese Chairman in his book On China: “...Since Nehru sticks his head out and insists on us fighting him, for us not to fight would not be friendly enough. Courtesy demands reciprocity.”

Wave upon wave of Chinese troops cut through Bumla and Tawang. Despite heroic efforts by some of the Indian troops, the sheer numbers of the war-honed Chinese army overran the Indian posts. Civic authorities in Tezpur, Assam, prepared to evacuate citizens. New Delhi all but lost hope for the tea town.

In Ladakh, China consolidated its hold over Aksai China. India had only two divisions — about 30,000 soldiers, poorly equipped and not acclimatised to walk and fight in heights of 13,000 feet and above — in the areas where the most intense battles took place.

The entire higher command and control structure of the army had failed to read the situation in their effort to please the political leadership led by Nehru and defence minister V.K. Krishna Menon. Much of the command and control failures were studied by Lt General Henderson-Brooks and Brigadier P.S. Bhagat in a post-operations study that was ordered. The report is still a state secret, wrapped in brown package in the defence secretary’s cabinet. Defence minister A.K. Antony told Parliament as recently as July that its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but of current operational value”.

Senior army officers say 50 years down the line that that is an overstatement. There is quiet suspicion that the report is under wraps because it could rip the aura around the political leadership of Nehru. Chinese troops withdrew unilaterally from Arunachal Pradesh to positions north of the McMahon Line, believing that they had delivered to India the lesson it deserved, by December 1962. They continued to hold Aksai China, though, for the strategic reason of giving depth to the crucial Western Highway, the connect between Tibet and Sinkiang.

Neither China nor India had used their air forces or their navies. China, probably, for an inability to operate aircraft from the high Tibetan plateau where the air is rarer. The Indian military now recognises that not using its air force was a gross miscalculation.

In the immediate aftermath of the war there was a churning. Six years later, India recorded its most — and probably its only — convincing military victory in modern warfare. In 1971, it routed Pakistan, mid-wifed the birth of Bangladesh and took 90,000 prisoners of war.

Relations with China, after a freeze till the early 1980s, were gradually revived. Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1988, the agreements of 1993 (on border peace and tranquillity) and 1996 (on military confidence-building measures) and Vajpayee’s 2003 visit (which decided to establish the special representatives’ talks on the border) paved the way for increased trade and cultural exchanges. Even then, bilateral ties were subservient to the border dispute. The effort now is to de-link the border from other exchanges. Through 2012, it is likely that bilateral relations will continue to follow a pattern that has emerged towards the end of 2011 when the fourth Annual Defence Dialogue took place after a gap of two years. Even in those two years, Indian border policy has seen changes on the ground.

The army has raised two new mountain strike divisions in the Northeast. The air force has begun basing its most potent assets — the Sukhoi 30 Mki — in Assam and the Indian Navy has, with encouragement from Asean nations and the US, stated its interest in “the freedom of navigation in international waters”, a euphemism for the freedom of access to and through the South China Sea.

On the economic front, it is against Beijing’s interests to disrupt exchanges because the balance of trade favours it.

“Militarily,” said a top adviser, “there is a beefing up of defences on either side of the border; you might say we now have a higher state of equilibrium”.

Fifty years after 1962, neither is the Tiger crouching nor is the Dragon hidden in the script for India and China. When the forest itself has changed, breathing fire will burn the trees and even a growl can awake sleeping dogs.

ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ashi » 03 Jan 2012 04:35

Pretty good video of a military drill
Artillery and Air Defense

rohankumaon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 14:34

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rohankumaon » 03 Jan 2012 19:23

Thanks Vasu for reminding. Personally, I dislike to go OT.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Gerard » 03 Jan 2012 19:37

Can we please get this thread back on topic?

wong has already been warned. We have no patience for any more of this.

Some of the OT posts moved to trash

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby pankajs » 03 Jan 2012 23:20

China wants to set up bases in Pakistan, reveals intelligence report
China might be allowed to use Pakistan's military facilities, a secret intelligence report accessed by Headlines Today has revealed.

The intelligence report has set alarm bells ringing in the government circles. Moreover, all this is being done without any public announcement.

China has been keen on building military bases in federally administered tribal areas (FATA) in the northwest region of Pakistan. In the last few months there have been several high level meetings of Pakistani and Chinese officials.

The intelligence report says: "China's desire for a military presence in Pakistan has been discussed by the political and military leadership of that country in the recent months. China's deepening strategic penetration of Pakistan and joint plans to set up... oil pipelines/rail/roads as well as naval and military bases are a matter of concern."

According to the assessment report, Chinese presence in this area might enable People's Liberation Army (PLA) to counter the Muslims separatists operating from this part of Pakistan for terrorist activities in its Xinjiang province.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby pankajs » 04 Jan 2012 12:41

Apologies for posting the long article in full.

China Takes Aim at U.S. Naval Might
Since 1945, the U.S. has ruled the waters of the western Pacific, thanks in large part to a fleet of 97,000-ton carriers—each one "4.5 acres of mobile, sovereign U.S. territory," as the Navy puts it. For nearly all of those years, China had little choice but to watch American vessels ply the waters off its coast with impunity.

Now China is engaged in a major military buildup. Part of its plan is to force U.S. carriers to stay farther away from its shores, Chinese military analysts say. So the U.S. is adjusting its own game plan. Without either nation saying so, both are quietly engaged in a tit-for-tat military-technology race. At stake is the balance of power in a corner of the seas that its growing rapidly in importance.

Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk publicly about potential conflict with China. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing isn't an explicit enemy. During a visit to China last month, Michele Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told a top general in the People's Liberation Army that "the U.S. does not seek to contain China," and that "we do not view China as an adversary," she recalled in a later briefing.

Nevertheless, U.S. military officials often talk about preparing for a conflict in the Pacific—without mentioning who they might be fighting. The situation resembles a Harry Potter novel in which the characters refuse to utter the name of their adversary, says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. "You can't say China's a threat," he says. "You can't say China's a competitor."

China's state media has said its new missile, called the DF-21D, was built to strike a moving ship up to about 1,700 miles away. U.S. defense analysts say the missile is designed to come in at an angle too high for U.S. defenses against sea-skimming cruise missiles and too low for defenses against other ballistic missiles.

Even if U.S. systems were able to shoot down one or two, some experts say, China could overwhelm the defenses by targeting a carrier with several missiles at the same time.

As such, the new missile—China says it isn't currently deployed—could push U.S. carriers farther from Chinese shores, making it more difficult for American fighter jets to penetrate its airspace or to establish air superiority in a conflict near China's borders.

In response, the Navy is developing pilotless, long-range drone aircraft that could take off from aircraft carriers far out at sea and remain aloft longer than a human pilot could do safely. In addition, the Air Force wants a fleet of pilotless bombers capable of cruising over vast stretches of the Pacific.

The gamesmanship extends into cyberspace. U.S. officials worry that, in the event of a conflict, China would try to attack the satellite networks that control drones, as well as military networks within the U.S. The outcome of any conflict, they believe, could turn in part on who can jam the other's electronics or hack their computer networks more quickly and effectively.

Throughout history, control of the seas has been a prerequisite for any country that wants to be considered a world power. China's military buildup has included a significant naval expansion. China now has 29 submarines armed with antiship cruise missiles, compared with just eight in 2002, according to Rand Corp., another think tank with ties to the military. In August, China conducted a sea trial of its first aircraft carrier—a vessel that isn't yet fully operational.

At one time, military planners saw Taiwan as the main point of potential friction between China and the U.S. Today, there are more possible flash points. Tensions have grown between Japan and China over islands each nation claims in the East China Sea. Large quantities of oil and gas are believed to lie under the South China Sea, and China, Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations have been asserting conflicting territorial claims on it. Last year, Vietnam claimed China had harassed one of its research vessels, and China demanded that Vietnam halt oil-exploration activities in disputed waters.

A few years ago, the U.S. military might have responded to any flare-up by sending one or more of its 11 aircraft carriers to calm allies and deter Beijing. Now, the People's Liberation Army, in additional to the missiles it has under development, has submarines capable of attacking the most visible instrument of U.S. military power.

"This is a rapidly emerging development," says Eric Heginbotham, who specializes in East Asian security at Rand. "As late as 1995 or 2000, the threat to carriers was really minimal. Now, it is fairly significant. There is a whole complex of new threats emerging."

Beijing's interest in developing anticarrier missiles is believed to date to the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996. The Chinese government, hoping to dissuade voters in Taiwan from re-electing a president considered pro-independence, conducted a series of missile tests, firing weapons into the waters off the island. President Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups, signaling that Washington was ready to defend Taiwan—a strategic setback for China.

The Chinese military embarked on a military modernization effort designed to blunt U.S. power in the Pacific by developing what U.S. military strategists dubbed "anti-access, area denial" technologies.

"Warfare is about anti-access," said Adm. Gary Roughead, the recently retired U.S. chief of naval operations, last year. "You could go back and look at the Pacific campaigns in World War II, [when] the Japanese were trying to deny us access into the western Pacific."

In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao unveiled a new military doctrine calling for the armed forces to undertake "new historic missions" to safeguard China's "national interests." Chinese military officers and experts said those interests included securing international shipping lanes and access to foreign oil and safeguarding Chinese citizens working overseas.

At first, China's buildup was slow. Then some headline-grabbing advances set off alarms in Washington. In a 2007 test, China shot down one of its older weather satellites, demonstrating its ability to potentially destroy U.S. military satellites that enable warships and aircraft to communicate and to target bases on the Chinese mainland.

The Pentagon responded with a largely classified effort to protect U.S. satellites from weapons such as missiles or lasers. A year after China's antisatellite test, the U.S. demonstrated its own capabilities by blowing up a dead spy satellite with a modified ballistic-missile interceptor.

Last year, the arms race accelerated. In January, just hours before then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sat down with Chinese President Hu to mend frayed relations, China conducted the first test flight of a new, radar-evading fighter jet. The plane, called the J-20, might allow China to launch air attacks much farther afield—possibly as far as U.S. military bases in Japan and Guam.

The aircraft carrier China launched in August was built from a hull bought from Ukraine. The Pentagon expects China to begin working on its own version, which could become operational after 2015—not long after the USS Gerald R. Ford enters service.

American military planners are even more worried about the modernization of China's submarine fleet. The newer vessels can stay submerged longer and operate more quietly than China's earlier versions. In 2006, a Chinese sub appeared in the midst of a group of American ships, undetected until it rose to the surface.

Sizing up China's electronic-warfare capabilities is more difficult. China has invested heavily in cybertechnologies, and U.S. defense officials have said Chinese hackers, potentially working with some state support, have attacked American defense networks. China has repeatedly denied any state involvement.

China's technological advances have been accompanied by a shift in rhetoric by parts of its military. Hawkish Chinese military officers and analysts have long accused the U.S. of trying to contain China within the "first island chain" that includes Japan and the Philippines, both of which have mutual defense treaties with the U.S., and Taiwan, which the U.S. is bound by law to help defend. They now talk about pushing the U.S. back as far as Hawaii and enabling China's navy to operate freely in the western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and beyond.

"The U.S. has four major allies within the first island chain, and is trying to starve the Chinese dragon into a Chinese worm," Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military commentators, told a conference in September.

China's beefed up military still is a long way from having the muscle to defeat the U.S. Navy head-to-head. For now, U.S. officials say, the Chinese strategy is to delay the arrival of U.S. military forces long enough to take control of contested islands or waters.

Publicly, Pentagon leaders such as Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said the U.S. would like to cultivate closer military-to-military ties with China.

Privately, China has been the focus of planning. In 2008, the U.S. military held a series of war games, called Pacific Vision, which tested its ability to counter a "near-peer competitor" in the Pacific. That phrase is widely understood within the military to be shorthand for China.

"My whole impetus was to look at the whole western Pacific," says retired Air Force Gen. Carrol "Howie" Chandler, who helped conduct the war games. "And it was no secret that the Chinese were making investments to overcome our advantages in the Pacific."

Those games tested the ability of the U.S. to exercise air power in the region, both from land bases and from aircraft carriers. People familiar with the exercises say they informed strategic thinking about potential conflict with China. A formal game plan, called AirSea Battle, now is in the works to develop better ways to fight in the Pacific and to counter China's new weapons, Pentagon officials say.

The Navy is developing new weapons for its aircraft carriers and new aircraft to fly off them. On the new Ford carrier, the catapult that launches jets off the deck will be electromagnetic, not steam-powered, allowing for quicker takeoffs.

The carrier-capable drones under development, which will allow U.S. carriers to be effective when farther offshore, are considered a breakthrough. Rear Adm. William Shannon, who heads the Navy's office for unmanned aircraft and strike weapons, compared the drone's debut flight last year to a pioneering flight by Eugene Ely, who made the first successful landing on a naval vessel in 1911. "I look at this demonstration flight…as ushering us into the second 100 years of naval aviation," he said.

The Air Force wants a longer-range bomber for use over the Pacific. Navy and Air Force fighter jets have relatively short ranges. Without midair refueling, today's carrier planes have an effective range of about 575 miles.

China's subs, fighter planes and guided missiles will likely force carriers to stay farther than that from its coast, U.S. military strategists say.

"The ability to operate from long distances will be fundamental to our future strategy in the Pacific," says Andrew Hoehn, a vice president at Rand. "You have to have a long-range bomber. In terms of Air Force priorities, I cannot think of a larger one."

The U.S. also is considering new land bases to disperse its forces throughout the region. President Barack Obama recently announced the U.S. would use new bases in Australia, including a major port in Darwin. Many of the bases aren't expected to have a permanent American presence, but in the event of a conflict, the U.S. would be able to base aircraft there.

In light of China's military advances and shrinking U.S. defense budgets, some U.S. military officers have begun wondering whether the time has come to rethink the nation's strategic reliance on aircraft carriers like the USS Ford. A successful attack on a carrier could jeopardize the lives of as many as 5,000 sailors—more than all the troops killed in action in Iraq.

"The Gerald R. Ford is just the first of her class," wrote Navy Captain Henry Hendrix and retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Noel Williams in an article in the naval journal Proceedings last year. "She should also be the last."

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby keshavchandra » 04 Jan 2012 20:01

China Navy review 2011 by robert knepp
http://www.defenceiq.com/naval-and-mari ... with-risi/

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby pankajs » 05 Jan 2012 17:54

X-37B spaceplane 'spying on China'
America's classified X-37B spaceplane is probably spying on China, according to a report in Spaceflight magazine.

The unpiloted vehicle was launched into orbit by the US Air Force in March last year and has yet to return to Earth.

The Pentagon has steadfastly refused to discuss its mission but amateur space trackers have noted how its path around the globe is nearly identical to China's spacelab, Tiangong-1.


There is wide speculation that the X-37B is eavesdropping on the laboratory.

"Space-to-space surveillance is a whole new ball game made possible by a finessed group of sensors and sensor suites, which we think the X-37B may be using to maintain a close watch on China's nascent space station," said Spaceflight editor Dr David Barker.

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Don » 06 Jan 2012 18:27

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-space-ambi ... 13473.html

China's space ambitions ally glory with pragmatism

China last year launched its version of the US Global Positioning System (GPS), the Beidou satellite navigation system. Further satellites will enable the new system to cover Asia this year, and the whole world by 2020.

Sourbes-Verger said China's ambitions in Earth observation -- an expertise that has both civilian and military applications -- were well ahead of anything currently planned by Europe.

The white paper outlined ambitions for "24-hour continuous, high-resolution surveillance of the Earth," she said, adding that the plan, if realised, would put China almost on a level with the United States in this field.

China has long maintained the rapid development of its space capabilities is peaceful in nature, and the white paper reiterated this, saying Beijing "opposes weaponisation or any arms race in outer space."

But concerns remain over China's intentions. In 2009, air force commander General Xu Qiliang caused a stir when he said armed forces should prepare for the "inevitable" militarisation of outer space -- a claim hastily disavowed by President Hu Jintao.

Jones noted that China had tested anti-satellite weapons by blowing up one of its own in 2007. "No nation that has a respectable major space programme has an entirely peaceful programme," he said.

"The world over, space technologies are used for military communications and to deploy spy satellites. China's no different."

The white paper also outlined plans to equip China's next-generation rockets with the ability to carry heavier cargoes.

The Long March-5 rocket being developed will be able to place 25-tonne payloads into near-Earth orbit -- more than the 20 tonnes Europe's Ariane 5 rocket can carry.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 06 Jan 2012 22:52

IAF officer from Arunachal denied visa by China

In an unpleasant development, China has denied visa to a senior IAF officer hailing from Arunachal Pradesh, who was to be part of the team scheduled to travel to Beijing from January 10.

Group Captain Panging, based in Northeast, was refused visa by the Chinese embassy without being given any reasons, sources said here.

The officer who was to be part of the Integrated Defence Staff team travelling to China on a four-day visit under a bilateral defence exchange programme.

The 30-member tri-Service Indian delegation, being led by an Air Vice Marshal-rank officer, will visit Beijing, Nanjing and Shanghai there.

The sources said as of now the visit is on.

China, which lays claim over Arunachal Pradesh, has often denied visa to those hailing from the state despite protests by India.

The visit by Indian military delegation was reciprocal to the one undertaken by the Chinese last month and is part of the confidence building measures between the two sides.

Relations between India and China had soured in 2010 when the then Northern Army Commander Lt Gen B S Jaswal was denied visa as he was serving in Jammu and Kashmir, inferring that it questioned the status of the state.

Jaswal was to head a military delegation and an angry India cancelled that visit, besides putting on hold defence exchanges.

The ice was broken when India sent a delegation under a Major General in June last year. After that visit, two more visits took place between the two sides.

The two countries had decided to enhance defence exchanges as part of CBMs during their Annual Defence Dialogue (ADD) held earlier this month.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 06 Jan 2012 23:07

A general Ques - should India continue including Arunachal Pradesh officers/personnals is such delegations?

What are we aimming to gain? That someday chinese will forgot there stand and start freely giving them visas!

They have a clear stand as per there believes, we have our stand as per our believes, we hold regular talks to solve our border disputes. Any possible solution to border problems will probably come from there. What is the sense in creating diplomatic red faces every now and then... with NULL political/diplomatic gains?


*Comment not related to j&K people/officers.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3468
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Tanaji » 07 Jan 2012 00:09

^^ It is a question of precedence. GoI regards Arunachal as sovereign territory and the status of it and its inhabitants in non-negotiable. IF this axiom is true, then both GoI and IA must and SEEN to be treating residents of Arunachal on par with those of other parts of India. Changing delegation members purely to humour Chinese is a signal given that we ourselves dont follow our axiom. IF that happens why should the Chinese or any one else for that matter respect our view?

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 07 Jan 2012 00:46

...how does a rejected visa adds respect to our view!


This repeated attempt to > sneak in a guy from arunachal > get a visa denial > suspend talks > let months pass > resume talks without gaining anything.. doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

Fine if we want defense talks with china to go ahead only if they provide a proper visa to all indian citizens including those from AP, then lets say that and stand by it whatsoever. Why this foolish circus.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Airavat » 07 Jan 2012 08:46

Chinese experience of handling mixed ethnicities army units

But it's not easy to manage ethnic companies, which also have some Han soldiers, especially when it comes to language, as most of ethnic minority groups, coming from remote mountainous areas, have little knowledge of the Mandarin. Kuang Caidong is Commander of the 8th Ethnic Company, which is made up of soldiers from the Han, Uygur, Hui, Khalkha, and Kazakh ethnic groups. Kuang got embarrassed on the first day that he came to the company, when many soldiers did not respond to his orders. :mrgreen: Later he learned from a Uygur soldier who can speak Chinese that the Chinese pronunciations of soldiers' names are much different from that of the original ethnic languages.

Mao Rui, a political instructor of the 5th Ethnic Company, said they have various measures for language learning. They train the bilingual soldiers so that they can teach the others. Soldiers also divide into different groups based on their Mandarin skills and learn from each other. Soldiers are also required to write regular learning summaries in Chinese.

The 8th Ethnic Company soldiers seek any opportunities for language-learning. At the sing-time before dinners, a bilingual phrase in Mandarin and Uygur is added to their daily appetizer. Soldiers repeatedly read it out in Mandarin and Uygur before their dinner. Commander of the 5th Ethnic Company Huang Chen said that an ethnic-characteristic meal is added to the company's daily menu, including Uygur rice and Kazakh mutton, to meet the company's diverse needs. The 8th Company even built a special facility outside its canteen to make naan, a kind a Uygur crusty pancake made from flour, sesame and milk. Uygur cook Issac says he makes naan twice a week and 50 pieces each time.

Despite the "aal ij well" tone of the article it shows fractures in the PLA that can be exploited.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17081
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 07 Jan 2012 09:07

Airavat wrote:Chinese experience of handling mixed ethnicities army units

But it's not easy to manage ethnic companies, which also have some Han soldiers, especially when it comes to language, as most of ethnic minority groups, coming from remote mountainous areas, have little knowledge of the Mandarin. Kuang Caidong is Commander of the 8th Ethnic Company, which is made up of soldiers from the Han, Uygur, Hui, Khalkha, and Kazakh ethnic groups. Kuang got embarrassed on the first day that he came to the company, when many soldiers did not respond to his orders. :mrgreen: Later he learned from a Uygur soldier who can speak Chinese that the Chinese pronunciations of soldiers' names are much different from that of the original ethnic languages.

Mao Rui, a political instructor of the 5th Ethnic Company, said they have various measures for language learning. They train the bilingual soldiers so that they can teach the others. Soldiers also divide into different groups based on their Mandarin skills and learn from each other. Soldiers are also required to write regular learning summaries in Chinese.

The 8th Ethnic Company soldiers seek any opportunities for language-learning. At the sing-time before dinners, a bilingual phrase in Mandarin and Uygur is added to their daily appetizer. Soldiers repeatedly read it out in Mandarin and Uygur before their dinner. Commander of the 5th Ethnic Company Huang Chen said that an ethnic-characteristic meal is added to the company's daily menu, including Uygur rice and Kazakh mutton, to meet the company's diverse needs. The 8th Company even built a special facility outside its canteen to make naan, a kind a Uygur crusty pancake made from flour, sesame and milk. Uygur cook Issac says he makes naan twice a week and 50 pieces each time.

Despite the "aal ij well" tone of the article it shows fractures in the PLA that can be exploited.


Guess, like PakiLand, China needs to be broken up too. For their own good. Nothing to do with us. :mrgreen:

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajrang » 07 Jan 2012 13:27

wanderer wrote:
what is your opinion of india retaliating by following a similar course with Tibet? Start issuing or denying visas and calling it a disputed territory? Or is this too bold a course for our present timid leadership to follow?


Other bold actions that come to mind would include selling a wide range of military equipment including Agni missiles and nuclear weapons technology to Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan etc. I wonder if things would have been different if we had a tough leader like Mrs. Gandhi.

By the way your initial comment " Show them (China) some spine and they will take a step back" did not work during 1962. Nehru tried to show some spine but got worsted. India's military relative weakness was probably one reason for that. However, your suggestion worked in 1967 during the confrontation with China in Sikkim. Mrs. Gandhi was the PM then!

Not introducing new artillery since the 1980s is baffling especially since India has bought a very wide range of military equipment including the recent nuclear submarine from other countries.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby SagarAg » 07 Jan 2012 16:23

Is this China Military watch thread :mrgreen:
Please try to stay on the topic...last two pages discusses are Indian/me/you/politicians are weak ? :rotfl:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2012 18:15

SagarAg wrote:Is this China Military watch thread :mrgreen:
Please try to stay on the topic...last two pages discusses are Indian/me/you/politicians are weak ? :rotfl:

You know it's more interesting when the Chinese are posting pretty pictures and links real or psed and doing rah rah China but the "India is weak" comments come most often on this thread. Letting them pass does not stop them. Challenging them only diverts the topic. This thread is a red flag that attracts people who want to tell others how India is weak or appears weak. The earlier pages of the thread are also full of diversions that follow this theme.

Why India is weak and Indians perceived as cowardly surely deserves an entire thread, if not a forum.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1883
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby eklavya » 07 Jan 2012 18:29

Boreas wrote:A general Ques - should India continue including Arunachal Pradesh officers/personnals is such delegations?

What are we aimming to gain? That someday chinese will forgot there stand and start freely giving them visas!

They have a clear stand as per there believes, we have our stand as per our believes, we hold regular talks to solve our border disputes. Any possible solution to border problems will probably come from there. What is the sense in creating diplomatic red faces every now and then... with NULL political/diplomatic gains?


*Comment not related to j&K people/officers.


The idea is to remind the Chinese that the people of Arunachal Pradesh voluntarily serve in the Indian armed forces to protect their country, of which Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part.

member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_19648 » 07 Jan 2012 18:55

The idea is if China really wants peace and these confidence building measures, they have to accept that Arunachal is an integral part of India. (Give visa to people of AP as the rest of the country, thus legitimize it). You see these CBMs are all BS, its all about the heat not flaring up into a conflict, that's it. Ans why should there be a red faced, some XYZ country doesn't think Indians to be a part of India, so there can be no dialogue. Let them have the disbelief, really shows how helpless they really are, talking or not talking to them is India's choice.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2012 19:04

Ivanev wrote:The idea is if China really wants peace and these confidence building measures, they have to accept that Arunachal is an integral part of India. (Give visa to people of AP as the rest of the country, thus legitimize it). You see these CBMs are all BS, its all about the heat not flaring up into a conflict, that's it. Ans why should there be a red faced, some XYZ country doesn't think Indians to be a part of India, so there can be no dialogue. Let them have the disbelief, really shows how helpless they really are, talking or not talking to them is India's choice.


True and India too is shoving one up Chinese backside (for 60 years) saying "Hey we have 150,000 Tibetans in our country whom you do not dare declare as non Chinese without admitting the g*ndmasti you guys are doing in Tibet."

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1883
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby eklavya » 07 Jan 2012 19:26

Prithwiraj wrote:neither country has any reason to go for a full blown war for obvious reasons like derailing the economic boom and growth. Its like playing into the hand of west... killing two birds with no bullet... our media project China as a competitor as they are perennially into a quasi cricket mode.. trying to find the next Pakistan... we as a country has lost the leverage if any at all of conducting retaliatory military strike against Pakistan due to nuclear threat.. as far as China's aggression is concerned.. current govt. is ok with cancelling trips and pushing the news to media.. ... they follow the philosophy of "if it ain't broke.. don't fix it..."


If China believes that Arunachal is illegally occupied by India, then that is surely a reason to go to war, unless China feels too weak / cowardly.

I think the reason China doesn't go to war is because it is weak/cowardly, and would loose very badly, and that would be the end for the CPC. Imagine, after winning 2 trillion Olympic gold mdeals and with FX reserves of 5 gazillion, the PLA loses a war to a bunch of Indians (with fighter pilots from Arunachal Pradesh, and the odd Tibetan here 'n there) with 30y old artillery ...

The current Indian government is so strong that it is even drilling for oil in waters claimed by China i.e. the South China Sea. On the other hand the Chinese Government is weak and has to swallow the insult.

So my Indian brother, hold your head high and don't fear the Chinese. The worst they can do to you is sell you very badly manufactured children's toys.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rohitvats » 07 Jan 2012 19:28

^^^Hakim sahib, not only that, we have a 10K strong highly trained guerilla force ready to light fire on dragon's musharraf all ready and eager to go!!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2012 19:33

rohitvats wrote:^^^Hakim sahib, not only that, we have a 10K strong highly trained guerilla force ready to light fire on dragon's musharraf all ready and eager to go!!!


How can you say that? What if all visas to China are stapled now? <shiver shiver > :rotfl:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17074
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2012 19:42

username changed from wanderer to vchopra.

wanderer wrote: Since unlike you, not only have i been brought up India but spent some time abroad, allow me to educate you on how we indians are unfortunately percieved.
:lol:

Prithwiraj wrote:Your frustration is not uncommon.. sadly BRF is not what it used to be and has become extremely polarizing with limited individuals having abundance respect and apparent influence and rest of the junta are matter of laugh, joke and bullying... but this is not the right thread to discuss that

it's true BRF is not what it used to be. the new and improved BRF is far too accommodating of clueless arrogant know-it-alls than it used to be in the good old days.

__________________
this is a thread on china's military and should be used for that purpose only, at best Indian 'military' factors wrt china might be drawn into the discussion.
anything else is OT and will attract warnings.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17074
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Rahul M » 07 Jan 2012 19:52

shiv ji, could you lay off the leading on piskological attempts a bit, esp when responding to OT stuff ? I know it is frustrating but it unnecessarily increases our workload.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2012 19:56

Rahul M wrote:shiv ji, could you lay off the leading on piskological attempts a bit, esp when responding to OT stuff ? I know it is frustrating but it unnecessarily increases our workload.


OK boss. I need to keep more than my fly zipped.

member_22277
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_22277 » 07 Jan 2012 22:46

Rahul M wrote:username changed from wanderer to vchopra.

wanderer wrote: Since unlike you, not only have i been brought up India but spent some time abroad, allow me to educate you on how we indians are unfortunately percieved.
:lol:

Prithwiraj wrote:Your frustration is not uncommon.. sadly BRF is not what it used to be and has become extremely polarizing with limited individuals having abundance respect and apparent influence and rest of the junta are matter of laugh, joke and bullying... but this is not the right thread to discuss that

it's true BRF is not what it used to be. the new and improved BRF is far too accommodating of clueless arrogant know-it-alls than it used to be in the good old days.

__________________
this is a thread on china's military and should be used for that purpose only, at best Indian 'military' factors wrt china might be drawn into the discussion.
anything else is OT and will attract warnings.



lololol, another comedian. Assuming i am a know it all, because I choose to ask a question. It may have been asked repeatedly asked, but I am a new member, and cannot attest to past topics. I asked a simple question. Moderate both ways and do not play politics on the board Mr. Rahul. Oh I am sorry since you are a moderator, so your above common laws?
Last edited by Rahul M on 07 Jan 2012 22:49, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: 3rd warning. banned for a month.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajrang » 08 Jan 2012 00:35

shiv wrote:
Ivanev wrote:The idea is if China really wants peace and these confidence building measures, they have to accept that Arunachal is an integral part of India. (Give visa to people of AP as the rest of the country, thus legitimize it). You see these CBMs are all BS, its all about the heat not flaring up into a conflict, that's it. Ans why should there be a red faced, some XYZ country doesn't think Indians to be a part of India, so there can be no dialogue. Let them have the disbelief, really shows how helpless they really are, talking or not talking to them is India's choice.


True and India too is shoving one up Chinese backside (for 60 years) saying "Hey we have 150,000 Tibetans in our country whom you do not dare declare as non Chinese without admitting the g*ndmasti you guys are doing in Tibet."


Perhaps India should start including some of these Tibetan exiles serving in the Indian army into future army delegations visiting China?

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajrang » 08 Jan 2012 00:36

Alert for Chinese terror threat to Dalai Lama

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 404553.cms

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby SagarAg » 08 Jan 2012 04:24

India does a U-turn, to send small military team to China

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-does-a-U-turn-to-send-small-military-team-to-China/articleshow/11406178.cms

According to me its a very welcome and mature step on part of India. :mrgreen:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests