Managing Chinese Threat

[Prem]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-0 ... crets.html
China Cyberspies Outwit U.S. Stealing Military Secrets

Among defense contractors, QinetiQ North America (QQ/) is known for spy-world connections and an eye- popping product line. Its contributions to national security include secret satellites, drones, and software used by U.S. special forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Former CIA Director George Tenet was a director of the company from 2006 to 2008 and former Pentagon spy chief Stephen Cambone heads a major division. Its U.K. parent was created as a spinoff of a government weapons laboratory that inspired Q’s lab in Ian Fleming’s James Bond thrillers, a connection QinetiQ (pronounced kin-EH-tic) still touts. QinetiQ’s espionage expertise didn’t keep Chinese cyber- spies from outwitting the company. In a three-year operation, hackers linked to China’s military infiltrated QinetiQ’s computers and compromised most if not all of the company’s research. At one point, they logged into the company’s network by taking advantage of a security flaw identified months earlier and never fixed. “We found traces of the intruders in many of their divisions and across most of their product lines,” said Christopher Day, until February a senior vice president for Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)’s Terremark security division, which was hired twice by QinetiQ to investigate the break-ins. “There was virtually no place we looked where we didn’t find them.”
Cyber Pillage
QinetiQ was only one target in a broader cyber pillage. Beginning at least as early as 2007, Chinese computer spies raided the databanks of almost every major U.S. defense contractor and made off with some of the country’s most closely guarded technological secrets, according to two former Pentagon officials who asked not to be named because damage assessments of the incidents remain classified. As the White House moves to confront China over its theft of U.S. technology through hacking, policy makers are faced with the question of how much damage has already been done. During their multiyear assault on defense contractors, the spies stole several terabytes -- equal to hundreds of millions of pages --of documents and data on weapons programs, dwarfing in sheer quantity any theft of Cold War secrets. The QinetiQ hack may have compromised information vital to national security, such as the deployment and capabilities of the combat helicopter fleet. “The line forms to the left when it comes to defense contractors that have been hacked,” said James Lewis, a senior fellow in cyber security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Wa
“The damage has been significant.”
A few of the attacks have become public, including the 2007 theft from Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) of technology related to the F- 35, the most advanced U.S. fighter jet. Intelligence officials say the damage is far more extensive than the limited public accounting suggests, and that China-based hackers have acquired data on a large number of major weapons systems and many minor ones. One former intelligence official described internal Pentagon discussions over whether another Lockheed Martin fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor, could safely be deployed in combat, because several subcontractors had been hacked. In 2007-2008, the Pentagon gave secret briefings to about 30 defense companies alerting them to the aggressive spying effort and providing data to help defend against it, according to a person familiar with the process. The person did not know whether QinetiQ received the classified intelligence. Investigators eventually identified the Shanghai-based hackers that broke into QinetiQ as a crack team, nicknamed the Comment Crew by security experts, which has also hit major corporations and political figures, including the 2008 presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain. At least one other Chinese hacking team also may have been involved, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

[pentaiah]

Chaco Joseph said a while ago
Will,

I have not seen the dabate, however, you can read this to get another perspective Why 1962 will not be repeated


{see how we'll we are prepared one tiny prick by PRC
Instead of standing up just talking of legality formality dharmic
Ausuric forces. Only no
Looks like MMS is no good atleast Sonia G trained under Indura ji would be better person to give Khalid}



Analysis
Home > Analysis > Column
Why 1962 will not be repeated
Thursday, Oct 27, 2011, 10:00 IST | Agency: DNA
CLAUDE ARPI
The wise man will say, 'the past is past'; but the question remains, could the debacle be repeated?

On October 20, very few in Indlia remembered that 49 years ago, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army massively attacked India. Tawang district, Arunachal Pradesh, bore the brunt of the aggression. Since then, the names Thagla ridge and the Namkha Chu have become synonymous with defeat, humiliation and shame.

The wise man will say, ‘the past is past’; but the question remains, could the debacle be repeated?

In recent months, the Indian press has been full of reports about the amazing infrastructure development to the north of the LAC: new airports, four-way highroads, five-star hotels, and a railway line coming closer and closer.

Wanting to find out for myself, I travelled to Tawang. Though most of the border areas are still ‘restricted’ to ordinary citizens, after spending a few days in Tawang and listening to the local people, one gets a fair idea of the situation.

The answer to my question is definitively, ‘No, 1962 will not be repeated.’

During the last decades, many things have changed in India. Just after independence, the principles of the administration of the Northeast were laid down by Verrier Erwin, the guru of soft integration of tribal areas: “We should avoid imposing anything on the local people.”

It had disastrous consequences as far as infrastructure was concerned. In October 1962, when the Chinese entered Indian territory, north of Tawang, Nehru was forced to wake up from his romantic dreams.

In January 2008, during a visit to Itanagar and Tawang, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a Rs24,000 crore package for the state. Priority was given to roads (in particular, the construction of a Trans-Arunachal Highway).

With the road being enlarged between the plains of Assam and Tawang, one drives on the messiest imaginable construction site. It is the favourite topic of local jokes: some say if the Chinese dare to come again, they will break their vehicles and their noses; others curse the army’s Border Road Organisation for having started work on all the stretches simultaneously.

The fact remains that the present state of the road is not propitious for an armed conflict. There are other differences between 1962 and 2011. The then foolish leadership did not dare to use the air force, it will not be the case today; especially after a full squadron of Sukhoi-30 aircraft have been deployed at the Tezpur air base in Assam (another squadron has been brought to Chabua in Upper Assam).

Further, the IAF is planning to open six Advanced Landing Grounds, as well as several helipads in areas close to the border.

If India was attacked today, it would not remain a localised conflict like in 1962; any Chinese misadventure would trigger an ‘all-out’ conflict. The Chinese are aware of this. It has been in the public domain that two new infantry divisions (with their headquarters in Zakama, Nagaland, and Missamari, Assam) have been raised and that the government is looking for a place in the Northeast to set up the headquarters of the Mountain Strike Corps.

Walking in the bazaar in Tawang, one has a feeling of a harmonious relation between the army and the local population. This is a crucial factor that was not here 50 years ago. I was told that some villages fully supported the invading Chinese troops in 1962. This explains how the PLA was able to build a road from Bumla, the border pass, to Tawang in 18 days. One can imagine the amount of accurate intelligence required for this feat. Such a situation does not exist in Tibet where the alien PLA has to deal with a resentful local population.

Though it cannot be construed as a sign that nothing untoward could happen, today there is relative peace and bonhomie on the border. Indian tourists can get a pass from the deputy commissioner’s office for a darshan of Tibet at Bumla border post. I was told that on October 1, 300 Indian and Chinese visitors participated in a mela on the occasion of China’s Republic Day.

The general comment was that Chinese noodles are not as good as Indian parathas and sabzis.

Lastly but most importantly, the local Monpa population is among the most patriotic in India. Though the Chinese propaganda calls this area ‘Southern Tibet’, this will never be accepted by the local population. Once, there was a demonstration of the local population chanting ‘Dudh mangoge to kheer denyenge, Aruncahal mangoge to chir denyenge’ (If you ask for milk, we’ll give you kheer; if you ask for Arunachal, we’ll give you arrows).

If China wants again to ‘teach a lesson’ to India, it will be a Himalayan task, and in the process, the PLA may get a ‘bloody nose’, as they say in the army.

The author is a French-born writer and journalist

[ankitash]

x-post
Breaking news:

The army has stopped patrolling the eastern Ladakh areas beyond the site where Chinese troops have taken up positions — 19km into Indian territory — to avoid escalating the stand-off.

Army takes a step back in Ladakh

[pentaiah]

Logical
Thinking
This way we won't detect any intrusion at all
Chini Hindi Baha'i Baha'i
Hum ghat chele

[Prem]

ttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324582004578456943867189804.html
Japan's Nuclear Plans Unsettles US

Japani Getting Serious about Chinese Threat

TOKYO—Japan is preparing to start up a massive nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant over the objections of the Obama administration, which fears the move may stoke a broader race for nuclear technologies and even weapons in North Asia and the Middle East.The Rokkasho reprocessing facility, based in Japan's northern Aomori prefecture, is capable of producing nine tons of weapons-usable plutonium annually, said Japanese officials and nuclear-industry experts, enough to build as many as 2,000 bombs, although Japanese officials say their program is civilian. Japanese officials have said the plutonium would strictly be used for power generation, even as just two of Japan's 50 power reactors are running because of the safety concerns raised by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. As the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack, Japanese officials have long opposed the use of nuclear weapons. Yasufumi Fukushi, a spokesman for Rokkasho's operator, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., said that under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, idled nuclear-power plants that meet new safety measures will reopen. He also said the government is pushing ahead with Rokkasho as part of a national energy policy that seeks to recycle used nuclear fuel. But with North Korea actively testing nuclear weaponry and the region brimming with territorial tensions, U.S., South Korean and Japanese officials have expressed concerns that the plant would have a far-reaching affect on other nuclear programs.U.S. officials believe Japan's neighbors, particularly China, South Korea and Taiwan, are closely monitoring Rokkasho and its possible commissioning to gauge whether they also should seek to develop their own nuclear-fuel technologies, or in Beijing's case, expand them."As a practical matter, if it operates Rokkasho, it will force China to respond to re-establish that it, Beijing, not Tokyo, is the most dominant nuclear player in East Asia," said Henry Sokolski , who heads the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank. "Such nuclear tit-for-tats-manship could get ugly." [
"For the Obama administration…there wasn't any real need to focus on [Rokkasho]," said Gary Samore, who oversaw nuclear-proliferation issues in the White House during President Barack Obama's first term.
The December election of Mr. Abe, however, has bred new life into Japan's nuclear-power program and the prospects for the Rokkasho facility, said government and industry officials. Mr. Abe is pro-nuclear power, but his office said he wouldn't comment on Rokkasho.Tokyo's ability to both enrich uranium and reprocess spent reactor fuel has allowed it to amass roughly nine tons of weapons-usable plutonium on its soil. Activating the Rokkasho plant would produce that much each year, said officials and industry experts. Japan had a reprocessing center in central Japan, called Tokai Mura, that harvested roughly seven tons of plutonium before the plant was shut in 2007.
Tatsujiro Suzuki, vice chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, met in April in Washington with Obama administration officials, and paraphrased what he said was their message: "Allowing Japan to acquire large amounts of plutonium without clear prospects for a plutonium-use plan is a bad example for the rest of the world."Both the Japan Atomic Energy Commission and Japan Nuclear Fuel have cited October as the startup date for the facility. But the country's Nuclear Regulation Authority, which was created in response to the Fukushima disaster, has said meeting this date is "impossible" as new safety regulations won't be released until December. The construction of the Rokkasho facility is largely completed, and nuclear-industry experts believe it could reach full capacity in a number of months. Fukushi stressed that the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will closely monitor Rokkasho's operation to guard against potential diversion of the weapons-usable plutonium.The Obama administration fears that whenever Rokkasho starts operating, it will add a new dimension of friction in the region, prompting other countries to seek greater nuclear capabilities and more control over them.A new nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea, which would allow for the continued sale of U.S.-origin fuel and equipment to the Asian ally, has ben delayed.
South Korean negotiators had been seeking a new nuclear-cooperation agreement with the U.S. that would allow it to begin enriching uranium and reprocessing spent reactor fuel, arguing these technologies are crucial for Seoul to expand and secure its civilian nuclear-power program.
But Washington resisted and the two agreed last week to extend the current agreement—without those prerogatives—for another two years, while negotiations continue.South Korea believes—and has argued to the U.S.—that it should have the same capabilities as Japan, a longtime rival and former colonial occupier, current and former U.S. officials said.U.S. officials said the commissioning of Rokkasho will only increase pressure from Seoul that it be formally allowed to follow Tokyo and begin producing its own nuclear fuel."If the Koreans are left with the impression that Japan can do things that South Korea can't, then it's not a sustainable concept," said Christopher Hill, a former American ambassador to Seoul.China last week said it signed an agreement with French nuclear-power company Areva SA to construct a new facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The plant is expected to be built at the same scale as Rokkasho and capable of producing nine tons of plutonium annually.Beijing said the plant will be used only for civilian purposes. But China is estimated to have thousands of nuclear warheads in its arsenal. And nuclear experts believe any sign Japan is expanding its ability to produce weapons-usable fissile materials will likely be matched by Beijing.

[RamaY]

Taking this post to the other thread so chinese cannot laugh at us.

[ramana]

And INC will delay it further till they get a cut from the arms purchases anyway. From jeeps under Nehruji to Italian helicopters under MMS garu.

[sanjaykumar]

Godspeed, Japanese.

[rohitvats]

^^People when I wrote a parody military scenario in Vivekji's scenario.

UPA govt and Indian Army deserves each other. Looks like Indian Army waits till the media gets the news and MMS puts his legs on the way so it's hands are tied.

I did read the point that IA doesn't patrol disputed eastern borders with China. Then what is the point of IA sitting 500 miles in India in eastern borders? Why didn't this come to forefront all these days, that too after all that 1962 fiasco? Brave IA leadership wokeup this morning and realized that it didnt patrol this border all these years?

I always thought IA would shoot anyone crossing the border first and then ask questions. In reality those 30-40 Chinese soldiers should be dead 20 days ago.

This is a sad joke on India. No wonder IA takes 20-30 years to select any weapon system. They can always claim that they don't weapons.

You know what is the sad joke here?

Gas-bag like you who consider it easy to question the integrity and patriotism of the men in uniform at a fly. And pass such ridiculous comments. I know you consider yourself as some uber-patriotic who is the fountainhead of knowledge and has opinion on every aspect of India...and considers only his opinion and POV as the most 'patriotic'.

But you know what, you remind me of that famous quote about opinions and @ssholes...and tell you what, you stink to the high heavens.

You can take this 'holier than thou' attitude and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

It is real tragedy that men in uniform have to shed their sweat and blood protecting such thankless people as you...but then, that is what sets them apart from gasbags like you...gas-bags who hide behind the anonymity of internet, wallow in all the comforts of life and yet have the guts to question those who actually do more for this country in a day than gas-bags would in a lifetime.

So, while there are people out there doing what needs to be done, you can continue passing high sounding flatulence and pretend doing great service to motherland. What a joke!!!

[RamaY]

Taking this post to the other thread so Chinese will not laugh at us

[SSridhar]

And recently started discussion on AFG between china and india (which apparently was requested/initiated by china) might be to get a pulse on what is going on india as far as AFG is concerned.

pandyan, that dialogue is simply to mislead India under the rubric of 'coordinating' a position on Afghanistan. An avaricious China wants to keep India out of Afghanistan. That would suit Pakistan too, its great ally. Co-opting India in a dialogue, taking it down the aisle, and backstabbing just at the altar is what the Chinese are planning to do. We are following the Chinese like a slaughter lamb following the local temple pujari believing in him.

[Singha]

Cheen has iran and tsp in its corner and gas pipeline from kazakhstan to the east. Unless russia plays a hand via uzbekistan or tajikistan, i expect afghanistan will again be torn apart by various miscreants led by the munna.

[brihaspati]

rohitvats and RamaY ji,
can you both sort of accept a middle-ground position that the "army" is not entirely free to do or react in the best possible strategic (which is now perhaps indistinguishable from the tactical) military/security sense to what the Chinese mount?

What role the army leadership plays in this can only remain a matter of speculation- who might have their own dilemmas like well-meaning CBI officers. We cannot and should not discuss this at this stage.
But I think we should give the lower echelons of the army the credit of having their minds in the right place altogether without much further analysis or speculation.

In 20 years time the IA will have much better support from the rashtra and from completely different mindsets altogether (I do not necessarily mean the current opposition party/parties). I do not think it is fair to blame the IA without giving them the means and opportunity to prove otherwise or lacking.

rohitvats ji, can we play a game? If I propose broad objectives on the entire northern land border, can you give me the resource/time-frame requirement to achieve them (HR/int/logistics/tech)? Let us pretend we are playing a fantasy warcraft scene - in the GDF? If you agree, please put up a post letting me know on the GDF strat-scenario thread. I can assure you that it will not be entirely a futile exercise.

[rohitvats]

^ mind your language my friend.

It is people like you who are supporting the bizzare logic given by both Military as well as political leadership.

Armed forces are not doing any greater service than the common man. The armed forces are given necessary resources, equipment and training to do what they do. They also have necessary legal protections to do what they do. The common citizens do not have all those responsibilities or rights.

The common citizen like me is paying for all the things that army asks for.

All we are asking in return is not to bring shame to the nation. The chinese came 19KM into Indian territory and sitting there for 20 days.

Shame on you to question my right to criticize the ineptitude and failure of military and political leadership.

Mind my language? That post by me is quite docile when compared to what I originally wanted to pen down.

Like I said in the previous post, all you're capable of is high sounding flatulence. And this post of your exemplifies the same.

The right to question and criticize does not mean passing gratuitous comments...and that too, when you have no idea of the situation on the ground. If you must criticize someone, please make a sensible argument for doing the same. Not make comments on the fly.

As for rest of your post about citizen and associated stuff...please don't hide you ignorance and jaundiced views behind such high sounding stuff. That makes you exactly what I said before - a gas-bag.

[RamaY]

Bji,

My criticism was for army leadership. What will I gain by criticizing a lone army jawan sitting in that god forsaken border?

My question/redicule for IA was how did they keep quite for 50+ years when ITBP is under control of MHA, especially when every LKA, JF and ABV claim that our nuke bums are keeping the China threat in mind?

I wonder what is plans IA have to fight a two front war or even one front war with china when they don't even man the border? Are their plans treat recapturing of lost Indian territory same as invasion of a distant nation?

[Singha]

Livefist.

The situation in Ladakh is grave. A platoon strength force of PLA soldiers has set up camp about 19-km inside Indian territory in the Depsang valley to the South-East of Daulat Beg Oldie, where India has one of its highest forward airfields. The position is supplied by trucks from two units across the LAC in Aksai China, a piece of Ladakh occupied by China for decades. The Indian Army has proposed a host of calibrated response options, but remains constrained by the government. India's Foreign Minister is scheduled to visit China on May 9, and will be followed later this month perhaps, by the Defence Minister. It is an unprecedented situation because this is the first time in a history of intrusions and counter-intrusions where a Chinese camp has refused to withdraw, and continues to be resupplied via a route back to its unit across the LAC.

An Army Searcher Mk.2 conducted two aerial sorties over the Chinese camp today to videograph activity. The video has been shared with the National Security Advisor, External Affairs Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office. Will be posting more on the stand-off in the days ahead.

[RamaY]

Mind my language? That post by me is quite docile when compared to what I originally wanted to pen down.

Like I said in the previous post, all you're capable of is high sounding flatulence. And this post of your exemplifies the same.

The right to question and criticize does not mean passing gratuitous comments...and that too, when you have no idea of the situation on the ground. If you must criticize someone, please make a sensible argument for doing the same. Not make comments on the fly.

As for rest of your post about citizen and associated stuff...please don't hide you ignorance and jaundiced views behind such high sounding stuff. That makes you exactly what I said before - a gas-bag.

thanks for your kindness. I wonder what you really wanted to write.. That I should be put behind bars for treason?

Why do you make a fool of yourself? Tell me how an army officer is a better patriot than an illiterate street vendor or farmer?

Go home, have a drink and sleep.

[brihaspati]

Bji,

My criticism was for army leadership. What will I gain by criticizing a lone army jawan sitting in that god forsaken border?

My question/redicule for IA was how did they keep quite for 50+ years when ITBP is under control of MHA, especially when every LKA, JF and ABV claim that our nuke bums are keeping the China threat in mind?

I wonder what is plans IA have to fight a two front war or even one front war with china when they don't even man the border? Are their plans treat recapturing of lost Indian territory same as invasion of a distant nation?

RamaY ji,

IA leadership have no opportunity to defend themselves before the nation. Neither have we placed them in a situation with concrete military objectives and resources to do so. We cannot criticize them before we give them the opportunity to fail or succeed.

No we have to get out of this current closed loop politico-media circuit. Need to think beyond, and build up. Forward policy with preparation and awareness of possible plants/weaknesses/blackmails/handles inside. This can be worked out.

[RamaY]

Agreed Bji. This is definitely not the time to criticize military and political leadership. I will wait till 2073 when all these documents become non-confidential and public knowledge.

I hope Rohitvats ji responds to your idea.

[rohitvats]

rohitvats and RamaY ji
,
can you both sort of accept a middle-ground position that the "army" is not entirely free to do or react in the best possible strategic (which is now perhaps indistinguishable from the tactical) military/security sense to what the Chinese mount?

I am quite aware of the position of the Indian Army vis-a-vis the Government and Republic of India. They do as as they are told to do. Even if it means that it is IA which ultimately pays with blood and lives for the follies of the political leadership.

What no one understands is that Services are like Bhishma-Pitamaha of Mahabharata - they are sworn to protect the nation and work under the existing political dispensation. Irrespective of the debate and finer points, our Constitution equates GOI with Republic of India and Services are duty bound to follow instructions of the GOI. And that is how it should be. Services cannot (and should not) go out of line of the GOI in select cases and revert to being politically neutral in others. That is a recipe for disaster.

Power corrupts and it would be foolish to believe that it will not corrupt the IA leadership and Services in general.

In a hypothetical scenario, an honest and dedicated GOI may well choose a path of non-confrontation for larger good of the nation. However, more often than not, the penalty for such an action not achieving its result(s) is the high price paid by Services in blood. In my opinion, even in such a case, the GOI is with-in its right to exercise such an option. Services are an arm of the nation and are sworn to protect the integrity of the nation - even at tremendous sacrifice to themselves.

What role the army leadership plays in this can only remain a matter of speculation- who might have their own dilemmas like well-meaning CBI officers. We cannot and should not discuss this at this stage.

The Service Chiefs have know their displeasure and opinions know in public over matters of national security which they think are being compromised. So that the people should know. But just because the entire spectrum of their thought in not heard in the public about something should not mean that one can pass non-sensical comments on them and question their integrity.

<SNIP>

In 20 years time the IA will have much better support from the rashtra and from completely different mindsets altogether (I do not necessarily mean the current opposition party/parties). I do not think it is fair to blame the IA without giving them the means and opportunity to prove otherwise or lacking.

It is not even about the means...it is about the political direction. That is what governs the situation on the ground. And how the Services react. IA has already given enough options to the political leadership - which in its own wisdom has not implemented the same.

rohitvats ji, can we play a game? If I propose broad objectives on the entire northern land border, can you give me the resource/time-frame requirement to achieve them (HR/int/logistics/tech)? Let us pretend we are playing a fantasy warcraft scene - in the GDF? If you agree, please put up a post letting me know on the GDF strat-scenario thread. I can assure you that it will not be entirely a futile exercise.

Sir, I will be more than happy to do this.

Please give me a couple of days time. I will pen a detailed series of posts on the above points.

[Prem Kumar]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-0 ... crets.html
China Cyberspies Outwit U.S. Stealing Military Secrets

One more article shedding a great deal of light on Chinese industrial espionage. There is a report embedded within this article with very specific details on specific Chinese hacking units, their location and their modus operandi. Must read:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mandiant ... hts-2013-2

[brihaspati]

Thanks Rohitvats ji!
RamaY ji,
you can and should shoot at will at the political leadership. The primary reason is because they are more expendable from the nation point of view than the army. The nation does not invest in the political leadership - they(politicos) invest in themselves, and in due time biz-criminal-foreign interests invest in them. Army is an investment of the nation.

So we have to think of changing the political side of things first. Without deconstructing them the required change of direction from appeasement industry to a leaner and meaner GOI will not happen. Hence its is crucial to expose the political leadership.

[anupmisra]

What is preventing us from setting up a platoon-strength camp 10 km inside Tibet?

I dont know. Guts? Public lashback? Polititical fall out? Pick one.

[muraliravi]

What is preventing us from setting up a platoon-strength camp 10 km inside Tibet?

I dont know. Guts? Public lashback? Polititical fall out? Pick one.

None of what you mentioned, what is holding us back is a chinese army that is patrolling tibets borders earnestly. Rest all is BS.

[Singha]

1962 redux.

army is not ready for a fight so the govt has no option but to (a) seek to minimize the loss through talks or (b) get into a fight we will badly lose.

writing is on wall folks. think of artillery, even more vital in the mountains. IA never invested much in grad(paltry few units) and is buying pinaka like people buy cars (ie one every 10 years). less said about tube artillery the better. neither do we have any much control over QC on shells and consumables.
there is no "light tank" nor any "strike corps" except on paper. there is no gunship helis inducted that can fight at those heights barring the initial few Rudra.

its over before it even started.

all the areas east & north of the manali-leh road is lost or will be lost over the next few years and this road will be the LAC when our kids reach high school

[Christopher Sidor]

The chickens have come home to roost. We have neglected our armed forces and our para military forces. While the need is of having a 1.5 million IA and 60-70 squadron strength IAF, we are way short of the number. The ITBP should ideally be 7-9 lakh strong, but that is not the case. The IA needs to be mobile, capable of getting deployed and operational within 36 hours to any part of the McMohan Line.

Let us take the case of Infrastructure. More than 10 years have passed since the Kargil war. But still we do not have an all weather road connectivity to Ladakh to Chandigarh, forget a road from Kargil to Chandigarh via Himachal. In the north east the situation is even worse.

And the political parties are all playing politics as usual. BJP is more interested in putting blame onto Congress. Look at how they are more interested in taking the issue to the president, instead of tabling a resolution demanding the vacating of Indian territories by any and all the means. As far as Congress is concerned the less said the better.

[RamaY]

rohitvats and RamaY ji
,
can you both sort of accept a middle-ground position that the "army" is not entirely free to do or react in the best possible strategic (which is now perhaps indistinguishable from the tactical) military/security sense to what the Chinese mount?

I am quite aware of the position of the Indian Army vis-a-vis the Government and Republic of India. They do as as they are told to do. Even if it means that it is IA which ultimately pays with blood and lives for the follies of the political leadership.

What no one understands is that Services are like Bhishma-Pitamaha of Mahabharata - they are sworn to protect the nation and work under the existing political dispensation. Irrespective of the debate and finer points, our Constitution equates GOI with Republic of India and Services are duty bound to follow instructions of the GOI. And that is how it should be. Services cannot (and should not) go out of line of the GOI in select cases and revert to being politically neutral in others. That is a recipe for disaster.

Power corrupts and it would be foolish to believe that it will not corrupt the IA leadership and Services in general.

In a hypothetical scenario, an honest and dedicated GOI may well choose a path of non-confrontation for larger good of the nation. However, more often than not, the penalty for such an action not achieving its result(s) is the high price paid by Services in blood. In my opinion, even in such a case, the GOI is with-in its right to exercise such an option. Services are an arm of the nation and are sworn to protect the integrity of the nation - even at tremendous sacrifice to themselves.

What role the army leadership plays in this can only remain a matter of speculation- who might have their own dilemmas like well-meaning CBI officers. We cannot and should not discuss this at this stage.

The Service Chiefs have know their displeasure and opinions know in public over matters of national security which they think are being compromised. So that the people should know. But just because the entire spectrum of their thought in not heard in the public about something should not mean that one can pass non-sensical comments on them and question their integrity.

<SNIP>

In 20 years time the IA will have much better support from the rashtra and from completely different mindsets altogether (I do not necessarily mean the current opposition party/parties). I do not think it is fair to blame the IA without giving them the means and opportunity to prove otherwise or lacking.

It is not even about the means...it is about the political direction. That is what governs the situation on the ground. And how the Services react. IA has already given enough options to the political leadership - which in its own wisdom has not implemented the same.

rohitvats ji, can we play a game? If I propose broad objectives on the entire northern land border, can you give me the resource/time-frame requirement to achieve them (HR/int/logistics/tech)? Let us pretend we are playing a fantasy warcraft scene - in the GDF? If you agree, please put up a post letting me know on the GDF strat-scenario thread. I can assure you that it will not be entirely a futile exercise.

Sir, I will be more than happy to do this.

Please give me a couple of days time. I will pen a detailed series of posts on the above points.

The comparison with Bhishma is very interesting. I hope it is not made to "support" the inaction and failures of Indian Armed Forces.

Bhishma's greatness is ONLY of personal nature. He made a oath to make his father happy and stood by it. Interestingly none of his oaths (Bhishma Pratijna) had to do with "protecting or serving" the rulers of Kaurava kingdom. His Pratijna was limited to not marrying and having children so no one from his blood line will claim the Kaurava kingdom.

However there is nothing great of Bhishma when his personal choice interacted with the interests of the state/nation. Let us see how/what his actions impacted in the social/national interests realm.

- When he went out to get suitable brides for his step-brothers (Vichitravirya and Chitrangada) he resorted to more or less "Rakshasa" vivaha method. He fought with other kings, supposedly destroyed Kashi kingdom and got the brides by force. One of the brides had to be sent back for she refused to marry his brothers. There is no valor, dharma in this episode except for display of arrogance and brute force.

- By standing as a silent spectator to Duryodhana's plans and Dhritarashtra's silent support to them to kill Pandavas, Bhishma demonstrated his loyalty to only the person currently on the throne and not any potential and future princes.

- When he preferred Dhritarashtra, a blind, selfish and greedy king to Pandavas (please note Duryodhana was never the king, he was just a prince till his death) who are equally belong to the same family. If Bhishma's loyalty was to the nation or even the Kaurava throne he should have preferred Pandavas (who are same as Dhritarashtra as far as Bhishma's oath is concerned). By supporting Dhritarashtra Bhishma proved that his loyalty is not towards the kingdom but whoever is on the throne.

- This loyalty of Bhishma to the ruler made him a silent spectator to disrobing of Draupadi. This incident proves that Bhishma's loyalty goes beyond basic moral and ethical values as well.

- An interesting question one should ponder is, is Bhishma's loyalty to Hastina throne non-negotiable? What if someone were to defeat Hastina army (including Bhishma) and claim the kingdom and throne? Would Bhishma (if alive) continue to serve Hastina's throne?

- The MB war is the final test to Bhishma's failure in protecting the national or kaurava-clan interests. This war wiped almost of all of Kaurava clan, destroyed entire Bharata varsha and resulted in great social suffering.

So whose interests Bhishma served? Is he the right model to follow for Indian Armed forces, especially having the hindsight of consequences of Bhishma-model? It is also important to note that Bhishma did never have the respect of multiple kingdoms of Bharatavarsha. He received respect only for his personal klinness (similar current PM who claims to klinness while sitting on a pile of congress-sh1t), his father's boon for him of Icchaamarana and his military prowess.

Bhishma model is a failure-case scenario for any national institution. It would be a suicidal national disaster for the armed forces of the nation to take inspiration from this model.

[Prem]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/3/429627 ... lu-strains

Chinese researchers branded 'appallingly irresponsible' over creation of new lethal flu strains

Researchers at the China National Avian Influenza Reference Laboratory have come under fire for creating new deadly and highly contagious strains of the influenza virus. According to The Independent, Professor Hualan Chen and her team deliberately mixed the 2009 strain of H5N1 bird-flu virus — which is incredibly lethal but is not easily transmitted between people — with a 2009 strain of H1N1 flu virus, which is known to be very infectious. The tests have been branded "appallingly irresponsible" by a former UK government chief scientist over worries that the new strains could escape laboratory environments and cause a global pandemic.Five H5N1 and H1N1 hybrids passed via airborne transmission between laboratory guinea pigs
Chen has already created 127 viral hybrids in an attempt to emulate what happens when animals are coinfected with two different strains of the influenza virus. Early studies have shown that H5N1 bird-flu viruses can be adapted for transmission between humans, with five H5N1 and H1N1 hybrids passing via airborne transmission between laboratory guinea pigs. The effects on humans are unknown, but scientists believe it is very likely that some — if not all — of the hybrids could be transmitted between humans. While virologist Professor Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in Paris believes that Chen's work is "a fabulous piece of virology," he warns that the research will be of little use for the development of vaccines or tracking of new flu viruses.
Last year, the US government joined scientists worldwide by temporarily suspending research on H5N1 pathogens. However, it announced that research will resume this year under tighter regulations as it continues its efforts to develop a vaccine "to prepare for a possible pandemic." Chinese scientists are also currently tracking the source of a new strain of H7N9 bird flu that's killed 27 people in the country, narrowing it down to chicken sold in the markets of Zhejiang, China. While the transmission rate is low, experts have warned that mutations could adapt the strain's behavior and pose more of a risk to humans — but it isn't likely to be the last outbreak we'll see out of the country.

[pentaiah]

ramana ji out of deference

[Virupaksha]

pentaiah,

I have reported your post for trolling.

[RajeshA]

pentaiah ji,

sarcasm is okay, but bringing up charges against some few possibly black sheep ex servicemen here, is I feel unwarranted. Please rethink the need for such a post!

[ramana]

Pentiah, Again please stay on topic. Already two posts are reported. Do you want to leave?

[muraliravi]

http://newsinsight.net/CrisisinLadakh.aspx#page=page-1

New Delhi: What defines a great power, what makes China a strange and brutal one, and how must India deal with its incursion in Ladakh? Not the way of Manmohan Singh and his joke United Progressive Alliance government, whose clownish foreign minister, Salman Khursheed, compares India to Mohammed Ali the boxer. This looks like the buildup to the tragedy of 1962 all over again, the year the country lost its first war with China, thanks to the colossal blunders of Jawaharlal Nehru.

............

All of this and more makes China a bizarre and horrid great power, and the Indian response to the Ladakh incursion must take this into full account. China is not Pakistan that India can seek the good offices of an outside power to bring to its senses. China does not tolerate mediation in its disputes with its neighbours because of its Middle Kingdom mindset that visualizes other states as tributaries or vassals. For the Ladakh crisis, therefore, India has to deal bluntly and squarely with China, and it won’t assist to be circumlocutory and unserious. Diplomacy will not resolve the matter. Salman Khursheed’s tom-tommed 9 May visit to Beijing is in jeopardy from the Chinese side. What is there any way to negotiate except an unconditional Chinese withdrawal? India, instead, must pay special attention to the military options and embrace its consequences in its entirety.

The first option is to evict the incursive Chinese soldiers, the second is to cut off their logistic support, and the third is to do copycat incursions in Chinese territory. In all cases, whether with promptness or delay, there will be a Chinese response, which the Indian Army is supremely confident of containing. Contrary to the media commentaries, the army is absolutely certain of being able to repulse the Chinese, and the military as a whole is prepared for a war on all fronts. The officer corps is more than eager to avenge 1962. The trouble comes from the political leadership. Manmohan Singh is not prepared for military risks. The government has set about reining in media coverage of the incursion and the aim appears to avoid proaction and hope that the Chinese go away, which they won’t. The prime minister may be procrastinating so that his successor inherits the crisis. Knowing China, it will not stop at eastern Ladakh, and every hour of delay becomes too late to expel the intruders.

In November of last year, to the deep chagrin of the dynastic Congress party, Manmohan Singh compared himself to Jawaharlal Nehru. That comparison will come to haunt him. Nehru died a broken man after the 1962 Chinese aggression. Such a fate stares Manmohan Singh in the face, and for his pusillanimity, the nation pays.

The army has already warned the cabinet that we will have to fight it out. The more they delay the more IA soldier's lives will be lost and more blood will spill. China is just as irresponsible a power as it can get. The UAV systems of the IA have already detected efforts to convert small parts of the dirt road from the large camp in china to these temporary posts into metalled roads. I for one just don't believe that HT article one bit. The army is showing restraint but not backing off from their positions. The GOI is being stupid in trying to exhaust diplomatic options before any offensive. They may in the end agree to stop building structures near the border and negotiate a withdrawal. The army has apparently voiced its opinion against such a plan. In the end if negotiations fail, army will win the game for us, but a severe cost which could have been avoided if the offensive was launched 2 weeks ago. With some much radar light on this issue, GOI cannot push this under the carpet.

A word of advice for RamaY. You do whine and really sometimes a lot. this is a crucial thread and incisiveness military knowledge of tactical options and troop positioning is what is needed here. I believe that someone like RohitVats has a lot to offer on that front and he has provided BR with a lot to learn in the past. We would hate to lose a poster like him.

[Yayavar]

RamaY-ji, lessons from MB, Panchatantra and fables can be drawn but please keep to the subject here. The Indian defence forces act when ordered to. To wish for another setup will only land you in the coup-land that lies to India's west. So can we keep to the topic on this thread please?

[RamaY]

Muraliraviji,
I am sorry but that advise is not called for.

I did not comment on technical aspects of military affairs, which is Rohitvatsji's forte. My criticism in the realm of military's role as a national institution, their equations with nation and civilian leadership etc.,

I have high regards for Rohitvats and my criticism is of the posts and ideas and never the person. I sincerely hope his love for Bharat is much more than his irritation towards me.

Vivji - I never suggested that Military should do a coup or it has to come out of civilian control. Please see the post I made in Indian Interests thread.

[ShauryaT]

India tested, found wanting

It was an initiative, incidentally, the then army chief took disregarding procedure and not consulting the MEA or anyone else in government, whence its success. It unnerved the Chinese who sued for peace.

In contrast, the present army chief, General Bikram Singh who, by repeatedly parroting the government assertion over the past year that China poses no threat and all’s well on that front, in fact, pre-empted any action that Headquarters Northern Army or Leh-based 14 Corps could have instantly taken to vacate the presence of the Chinese troops, and imposed costs on PLA for this little adventure. But subordinate commanders taking their cue from the chief did nothing. The Prime Minister then compounded the trouble by reiterating the MEA-CSG line that this is but a “localised” incident.

Nineteen days into this affair, General Bikram reportedly briefed the Cabinet Committee on Security about prospective actions, such as severing supply links, etc. Except, has he planned on what he’ll do when PLA helicopters or logistics truck convoys turn up to replenish the food and water stocks? Shoot down the ’çopters and destroy the trucks. Fine. Then, is the army prepared for a bigger fight? 14 Corps can mount a divisional-level action easily, but will require immediate airlifting of another division as reserve. Moreover, half a brigade’s worth of army units should forthwith descend on the PLA-occupied site, raze their camp, and physically push the PLA soldiers back on to their side, and no nonsense about it. If this is not done, a permanent realignment of LAC is on the cards in this strategically important tri-junction area.

Much worse, instead of showing self-respect and brio, and making the new Chinese premier Li Keqiang’s proposed Delhi visit in end-May conditional on immediate PLA pullback, Khurshid is planning to fly to Beijing to ensure Li keeps his date in Delhi and to ask the Chinese to withdraw, pretty please! It is as if China is the aggrieved party and needs placation.

Appeasement never pays; it only emboldens belligerent states to become more demanding. China has proved this time and again, but it is doubtful the CSG-MEA and the Indian government even know what the national interest is, or where it lies

[svinayak]

Of Course it is a test for the political leadership in India
It is mainly focused on making the Indian political leadership seen as a bluff


This is in retaliation to what India did by going nuclear in 1998 and building up its deterrence capability. But in the PRC view the current Indian political leadership is not showing similar posture and calling it bluff. Either Indian leadership show what is it or move away for a new leadership.

[ramana]

Interesting comments on BK s oped by half wits who have no credentials.

[ShauryaT]

Analysing the Chinese Intrusion - Prakash Katoch

During Operation ‘Vijay’ in 1999, China quietly developed a road in eastern Aksai Chin towards DBO, significance of which was apparently glossed over. In 2012, China called upon Japan and South Korea to establish astronomical observatories in Aksai Chin.Google imagery of 2006 shows an extraordinary large scale (1:500) terrain model extensively duplicating eastern Aksai Chin built close to Yinchuan (capital of Ningxia Autonomous Region). The 3,000 × 2,300 feet model is being used for tank war-games – in preparation of a future battle in East Sikkim.

Quite contrary to what is being thought as a ‘localised action’, this Chinese intrusion is a well thought out strategy by China sowing the seeds for establishing a link between Gilgit-Baltistan with Aksai Chin. It is reiterated that Chinese consolidation in this area will threaten Siachen and any further expansion has the potential to turn the flanks of Indian occupation of Siachen Glacier on the same analogy as Chinese are claiming the Doklam Plateau in Bhutan, Chinese occupation of which will turn the flanks of Indian defences at Tri Junction in Sikkim. Should our policy makers fail to get over their pacifist illusion of China, the consequences will be severe. It should be quite clear that this intrusion cannot be resolved through dialogue alone. Not only should conditions be created to appropriately reply to the physical and psychological challenge posed by China, Beijing should be clearly told that what we do in our territory by way of improving infrastructure (Chinese infrastructure is already many times better than ours) or positioning of troops is none of their business. The bluff of Chinese preconditions must be called which is actually aimed at putting India at the back foot. Letting the Chinese consolidate in DBO negates resolutions passed in Parliament that J&K is integral part of India and we will not cede any territory.

We must draw lessons from earlier Sino-Indian standoffs that have made the Chinese turn their tails. Let a challenge be posed to China by establishing an Indian Army post behind the DBO intrusion,which in any event is our own territory and throw the mental gauntlet back at them(or in another sector ahead of our existing positions if escalation is not desired here). If the conflict does escalate, Chinese vulnerabilities can be exploited. On the diplomatic front, the Foreign Minister could shelve his visit to China citing unprecedented hostility by China through this deep intrusion and the Chinese should also be informed that the situation is not conducive for having purposeful talks during the proposed May 2013 visit of Chinese Prime MinisterLi Keqiang. Action needs to be taken at multiple levels. Unless we act resolutely now, more intrusions in Indian Territory are likely to follow.

[ShauryaT]

India-China Stand Off:Emerging Lessons - Gurmeet Kanwal

While the government invariably advises caution, it is extremely difficult for commanders of troops to advocate a soft line to their subordinates. There is an inherent contradiction in sending soldiers to patrol what they are told and believe are Indian areas and simultaneously telling them that they must not under any circumstances fire on the intruding Chinese soldiers. This is the reason why it is important to demarcate the LAC without prejudice to each other’s territorial claims. Once that is done, GPS technology can be exploited to accurately navigate up to the agreed and well-defined LAC on the ground and even unintentional transgressions can be avoided. The present stand-off clearly shows how intractable the challenge is and how loaded the situation can become. Hence, the topmost priority of Indian diplomatic engagement with the Chinese should be to clearly demarcate the LAC.

The LAC in Ladakh is manned during peace time by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police that is a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) police force. The army often sends troops to maintain its forward defences and conducts periodic operational alerts to practice fighting a defensive battle should the need arise. The army has little knowledge of the ITBP’s patrolling plans and other movements as this border management force reports to the MHA through its own channels. This arrangement is not conducive to fostering a professional relationship between the two forces and for reacting to border violations of the kind that has occurred in the DBO sector.

Disputed borders should be managed by the army even during peace time so that duality of command is avoided. The principle of ‘single point control’ must be followed if the borders are to be effectively managed. Divided responsibilities never result in effective control. Maintaining unity of command is a fundamental principle of war. Hence, it is imperative that the ITBP battalions deployed on the Ladakh border be placed under the army’s operational control for better border management.

A key prerequisite for effective border management is the employment of national technical means for all weather surveillance and reconnaissance. These include satellite, aerial and electronic surveillance to detect and warn about suspicious movements and construction activities through photographic reconnaissance by day and night, the employment of UAVs for real-time intelligence and the use of electronic eavesdropping. India has not invested adequately in these modern methods and continues to rely on ‘eyes and ears’. This manpower intensive approach must change immediately.

Finally, as long as the territorial dispute is not resolved, China remains India’s foremost military threat. The Ministry of External Affairs must make all out efforts to seek an early resolution of the dispute and not be lulled by Deng Xiaoping’s gratuitous advice to former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that it is a dispute left over from history and should be left to future generations to resolve. This strategy may suit China, but it certainly does not suit India.