US arms sales to India and China-India border disputes are among the top six "sensitivities" senior Chinese officials have listed for the new Donald Trump administration, Michael Pillsbury, senior adviser to the US president, said in a conversation with TOI here [New Delhi]. The US-China relationship in the Trump era will be of critical interest to India, affecting its own grand strategy.
Pillsbury, as a China expert and now an adviser to Trump, probably has the clearest view. "Six areas of outsized importance to President Xi Jinping and the ruling elite have been revealed," Pillsbury said. The Chinese have never openly objected to India's weapons purchases from the US or anyone. The fact that they would do so now is significant. "This and the South Korean missile shield are on their list," he said.
The others are 'One China policy' and Taiwan, again in the area of weapons sales; Dalai Lama and the Tibet government in exile — China has asked that Trump not meet Dalai Lama. China is also nervous about the THAAD (terminal high altitude area defence) missile interceptors and SPY radar systems that the US has agreed to position in South Korea. Pillsbury said they would not like the US to add to these, which could neutralise China's ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capability that targets the US mainland.
"Whether President Trump supports India's claim to Arunachal Pradesh and continues US arms sales to India already requested by PM Modi, now America's largest customer of weapons, is another Chinese worry about the coming year," Pillsbury said at the recent Raisina Dialogue. But China, Pillsbury said, would ideally like Trump to agree with its denial of the UNCLOS verdict on its South China Sea claims.
The new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said in his Senate confirmation testimony that the US should even block China's access to the artificial islands. Speaking exclusively to TOI, Pillsbury said, "The Chinese are optimistic (about Trump.) They think he is a businessman who has clear economic motives to make America great again and they believe they can help."
Two advisers to Trump, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro, have written what is cited as an important article in the international affairs journal 'Foreign Policy' on Trump's Asia-Pacific policy, which they described as "peace through strength". Pillsbury said, "The piece by Gray and Navarro was officially approved by the Trump campaign. So it's quite important." Gray and Navarro say Trump will not sacrifice US economy on the altar of foreign policy by getting into trade deals like TPP, and secondly, Trump will rebuild the US military to be unchallenged.
Asked about Trump's possible policy in this region, Pillsbury said he would be "unpredictable". "He wants the Chinese in particular to believe that he is unpredictable. That is his negotiating strategy." What does he think are China's intentions? He said, "I try to explain it in my book through Chinese defectors and what each of them have said. One of the defectors told us, 'we're following your American strategy. We want to have a Monroe Doctrine in Asia — no other power can come in. We want to steal technology, you Americans did it. You fooled the British and you surpassed them. And the British made no resistance.' They particularly like that - that you can fool the ruling power."
"People don't know that Chinese economists forecast in writing that by 2020 they will pass us, for sure, by 2030 they will be double, and by 2049, the end of the marathon, they will be three times the size of the American economy. This is really staggering."
What are the top two scenarios that could play out? Pillsbury said, "One, if economic reforms succeed and China successfully turns to its internal market for consumption, buys a great deal more American exports. So it's the Make America great again scenario. The other scenario is President Xi continues to crack down on human rights, corruption and continues to increase military spending and so we do end up with a militarily powerful China in 10 or 15 years. Those are the two leading scenarios. Those are at 30% each. That still leaves 40% unknown."
Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
US arms for India on China’s Trump talk list - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
-
ranjan.rao
- BRFite
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
honestly if this turns out to be true, that may be a win win situation for india: To needle chinks, us may actually give us a better deal, if it buckles, we know we are on our own and that would be the best thing for LCA.
Needless to say agony is causing too much pain
Needless to say agony is causing too much pain
-
ranjan.rao
- BRFite
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Not to forget elevn jinping seems to have come out of a long slumber,
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
[Chinesee] Think tanks divided over Trump’s approach towards China - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
The arrival of President Donald Trump at the White House has triggered an intense debate within China’s influential think-tanks, with most concurring that that the change of guard in the United States poses serious challenges to China, but also opens out new opportunities, including likely support for the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative.
At a more fundamental level, some analysts of are of the view that that if Mr. Trump pursues the mantra of ‘American exceptionalism’, it would obstruct the betterment of Sino-U.S. ties.
“The Americans claim they are exceptional, like a city on a hill. But the world has changed and new countries have emerged. But U.S. identity has not changed. So the rise of China challenges U.S. identity,” Wang Yiwei, professor at Renmin University told The Hindu .
Listing a variety of responses to Mr. Trump’s arrival among the Chinese think-tanks, the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post quoted Ting Gong, a researcher at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) — a think tank under the Foreign Ministry — as saying that Mr. Trump was likely to be more supportive of China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative than his predecessor Barack Obama.
Yuan Zheng, a director of the U.S. Diplomacy Research Centre at the China Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), asserted that Mr. Trump showed a clear tendency towards protectionism. “The new U.S. President was likely to adopt a hardline approach in trade, demand for Beijing to play by international rules and threaten it with sanctions,” SCMP said, quoting his paraphrased remarks.
The Chinese establishment has opposed Washington’s possible turn towards protectionism. Liu Zongyi of of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies explained to The Hindu that “China believes that only by opening up, globalisation and regional economic cooperation can economic growth and social development can be secured.”
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Potus Trump have already won by setting up the agenda and will negotiate from the position of strength. Eleven can only react and not take initiative.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
i think india should prepare for a scenario without American support... directly that is ... what Pakistan is to China is what India will be to the US w r t to India and China
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
and China is just buying time .. and trump thinks he has leverage
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
DT is someone who can not be predicted like that. He has no record to make a prediction based on his record. He is no consistency in his communication. He does not follow normal rules of the game. So time for these think tank fellows to really earn their pay.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
The difference between China and US under Trump is simple - China is gaining allies, US is not. How credible it is yet to be seen but in case of any confrontation China is prepared to build a new alliance, US unfortunately has to rely on its own brute strength. What Trump has to do now is to build credible alliance - Nations that can be used as force multipliers that can hurt economically, Militarily or otherwise the Chinese block.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China's intentions
He said, "I try to explain it in my book through Chinese defectors and what each of them have said. One of the defectors told us, 'we're following your American strategy. We want to have a Monroe Doctrine in Asia — no other power can come in. We want to steal technology, you Americans did it. You fooled the British and you surpassed them. And the British made no resistance.' They particularly like that - that you can fool the ruling power."
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Donald Trump administration on collision course with Beijing over South China Sea - AP
The new US administration is heating up rhetoric over the South China Sea with a promise to challenge China's occupation of disputed islands+ . Beijing is responding cautiously, appealing for calm and direct negotiations involving claimants.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said "the US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there." His comments came just weeks after President Donald Trump's pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, caused some consternation when he told his Senate confirmation hearing that the US should deny China access to its seven man-made islands.
"So it's a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we're going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country," Spicer said. Pressed on whether that means physically preventing China from accessing the islands, he refused to answer, saying "I think as we develop further, we'll have more information on that."
China immediately responded+ , with foreign affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying saying the US is not a party to the disputes and should stay away. She again insisted that China has "indisputable sovereignty" over the South China Sea and is committed to safeguarding it. She said China preserves freedom of navigation in those waters — a concern the US has repeatedly challenged as it stepped up its military presence in the region.
The comments at the regular briefing in Beijing were followed up by the most senior Foreign Affairs spokesman on NBC News, who said "there might be a difference" of opinion over the sovereignty of these islands, "but it's not for the United States" to get involved in.
"That's not international territories, that's Chinese territories," said Lu Kang. "Countries have already come back to the original agreement that maybe for the time being we could set aside those sovereign disputes, and focus on some joint developments, and working together to maintain the peace and stability in this region." {The Chinese are trying to be clever-by-half here}
Analysts worry about escalation
The references by US officials to blocking China's access to artificial islands have caused concern among analysts about a potential for military escalation in the South China Sea.
"If the US takes actions against China's moves to protect their own sea territories, it may result in a serious military confrontation," said Sun Hao, an international relations expert at the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing.
Teng Jianqun, a scholar at the China Institute of International Studies, said he didn't believe the US would follow through on the threat of a blockade, saying "it's like announcing war. That would be ridiculous."
"Both Tillerson and Spicer seem to be trying to show China that the Trump administration will adopt a tougher approach on the South China Sea, but it's evident that they haven't yet developed a policy," said Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She said the Trump administration needed to send "clear, consistent" signals to China.
US to construct facilities in Philippines
The Philippines, the only US defense treaty ally among the six claimants in the South China Sea, said the US military will soon commence construction of facilities to accommodate troops and equipment inside Philippine army bases.
The five locations for US troops were chosen in a 2014 defense agreement and include air bases facing the South China Sea. China has criticized the US military presence in the Philippines.
Defense secretary Delfin Lorenzana said President Rodrigo Duterte, who has had a testy relationship with Washington and has mended ties with Beijing, was aware of the impending construction.
Still, Lorenzana said his country should maintain neutrality as he expressed fear of getting caught between the US and China should Washington press ahead with blocking China's access to Beijing-controlled islands.
"We might be caught in the middle if they do that. We are very wary," he said. "In the first place, they (Chinese) are already there. How can they (Americans) prevent them from going there since they (Chinese) are already there?"
He said the Philippines will deal with both the Chinese "for the benefit of our people" and also with the Americans "because we are still military allies."
Lorenzana said the Philippines was also discussing reviving military exercises with Singapore, one of Southeast Asian nations that has irked Beijing by calling for the respect of an international arbitration ruling that invalidated China's territorial claims.
Malaysia splits navy fleet, beefs up South China Sea assets
Malaysia, which is grappling with piracy, militant raids from the southern Philippines and incursions by Chinese fishermen, has decided to split its navy fleet into two with the emphasis on protecting its resources in the South China Sea.
The Eastern Fleet will be based in Kota Kinabalu, on Borneo Island, and the Western Fleet in Lumut, about 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of Kuala Lumpur.
"Security wise, the current maritime activities and development in the South China Sea and in the Sulu waters in Eastern Sabah require the government to give high level of focus and attention to ensure maritime security for the two states," said navy chief Adm. Ahmad Kamarulzaman Ahmad Badaruddin.
Like other claimants, Malaysia is balancing its relations between China and the US It recently welcomed a port call by two Chinese submarines in Kota Kinabalu.
However, a Chinese coast guard vessel anchored off Luconia Shoals within Malaysia's 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone remains an irritant for Malaysia, though officials rarely publicly raise the issue to avoid antagonizing Beijing. In the past, Malaysia has filed diplomatic protests over Chinese coast guard vessels escorting Chinese fishermen near its shore.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Heavy comparison of India with other countries
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -warheads/
China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.
The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. The test of the inert warheads was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, said two officials familiar with reports of the missile test.
The missile was fired from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in central China and flew to an impact range in the western Chinese desert.
No other details about the test could be learned. Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross suggested in a statement the test was monitored.
"The [Defense Department] routinely monitors Chinese military developments and accounts for PLA capabilities in our defense plans," Ross told the Washington Free Beacon.
The test of a missile with 10 warheads is significant because it indicates the secretive Chinese military is increasing the number of warheads in its arsenal.
Estimates of China's nuclear arsenal for decades put the number of strategic warheads at the relatively low level of around 250 warheads.
U.S. intelligence agencies in February reported that China had begun adding warheads to older DF-5 missiles, in a move that has raised concerns for strategic war planners.
Uploading Chinese missiles from single or triple warhead configurations to up to 10 warheads means the number of warheads stockpiled is orders of magnitude larger than the 250 estimate.
Currently, U.S. nuclear forces—land-based and sea-based nuclear missiles and bombers—have been configured to deter Russia's growing nuclear forces and the smaller Chinese nuclear force.
Under the 2010 U.S.-Russian arms treaty, the United States is slated to reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed warheads.
A boost in the Chinese nuclear arsenal to 800 or 1,000 warheads likely would prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal by taking weapons out of storage.
The new commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, stated during a Senate confirmation hearing in September that he is concerned about China's growing nuclear arsenal.
"I am fully aware that China continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure second-strike capability," Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Although it continues to profess a ‘no first use' doctrine, China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads and continues to develop and test hyper-glide vehicle technologies," Hyten added.
"These developments—coupled with a lack of transparency on nuclear issues such as force disposition and size—may impact regional and strategic stability and are cause for continued vigilance and concern."
The 10-warhead missile test comes amid heightened tensions with China. State-run media in recent weeks has carried reports calling for China to expand its nuclear forces. A broadcast report showed that new long-range mobile missiles could strike the entire United States.
The Chinese state television channel CCTV-4 last week broadcast nuclear threats, including graphics showing new DF-41 missiles deployed in northern China and graphics showing the missiles' strike path into the United States. The Jan. 25 broadcast included a graphic of a 10-warhead MIRV bus for the DF-41.
The Chinese Communist Party propaganda newspaper Global Times, known for its anti-U.S. stance, issued stark calls for China to build up its nuclear arsenal for use against the United States. On Jan. 24, the newspaper said China's strategic forces "must be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown."
"China must procure a level of strategic military strength that will force the U.S. to respect it," the newspaper said.
The same state-run organ criticized President Donald Trump in an article on Dec. 8 and said China should use its wealth "to build more strategic nuclear arms and accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile."
"We need to get better prepared militarily regarding the Taiwan question to ensure that those who advocate Taiwan's independence will be punished, and take precautions in case of U.S. provocations in the South China Sea," the newspaper said.
China conducted a flight test of the DF-41 in April.
Trump in December called for boosting America's aging nuclear arsenal.
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," he stated in a tweet.
Military analysts said the large number of warheads is unusual for the Chinese nuclear program.
Rick Fisher, an analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the multi-warhead missile test appears to be aimed at sending a signal to the new Trump administration.
Trump has tangled with China in opposing its military buildup on disputed South China Sea islands and on U.S. policy toward Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province and not an independent country.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the United States is prepared to block China's access to reclaimed islands he said are located in international waters and not China's sovereign maritime domain.
"This test of the 10-warhead DF-5C is China's latest nuclear intimidation exercise aimed at the new Trump administration," Fisher said.
"China's nuclear intimidation signals have included the public revelation in late December via Chinese websites of the new DF-41 ICBM in Heilongjiang province, plus articles in China's state-controlled media touting the need for China to increase its nuclear forces to intimidate Washington," Fisher added.
China's known force of around 20 D-5 missiles were deployed with large single warheads in the past, while some were upgraded with three-warhead top stages.
In September 2015 China revealed for the first time during a military parade that it had deployed a new DF-5B multi-warhead missile. Unofficial published reports suggested the DF-5B carries between six and eight warheads.
"The revelation that China has tested a new version of the DF-5 carrying ten warheads constitutes a very strong indication that China has produced a smaller warhead to equip its MIRV-capable ICBMs," Fisher said.
Some analysts speculate that the recent test of the DF-5C used the older missile as a test platform for a new warhead delivery bus that will be used on the new DF-41.
French China watcher Henri Kenhmann reported on his website East Pendulum that a Chinese missile test was to be carried out Jan. 15, based on air closure notices issued by the Chinese government for areas around Taiyuan and a missile impact range in western Xinjiang Province.
Analysis of the impact range suggests the test would include multiple test warheads.
"The point of impact is located south of the Taklamakan desert, in the former ballistic range of Minfeng," Kenhmann said, noting the Chinese had imposed an unusually large air exclusion zone of 125 miles around the impact zone.
"It should be noted that this zone of ballistic impact is abnormally large," he stated, a sign the large area would be used for multiple dummy warheads.
‘The size of this impact zone could indicate testing several MIRVs," he said.A similar Chinese test of the DF-41 in April involved two MIRVs that were fired to a much smaller impact area of 60 miles by 37 miles.
The Pentagon's latest annual report on the Chinese military said Beijing continues to upgrade its nuclear forces by enhancing silo-based missiles and adding new road-mobile missiles.
"China’s ICBM arsenal to date consists of approximately 75 to 100 ICBMs, including the silo-based CSS-4 Mod 2 (DF-5) and multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV)-equipped Mod 3 (DF-5B); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the shorter range CSS-3 (DF-4)," the report said.
The DF-5 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled missile with a range of around 8,000 miles.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -warheads/
China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.
The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. The test of the inert warheads was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, said two officials familiar with reports of the missile test.
The missile was fired from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in central China and flew to an impact range in the western Chinese desert.
No other details about the test could be learned. Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross suggested in a statement the test was monitored.
"The [Defense Department] routinely monitors Chinese military developments and accounts for PLA capabilities in our defense plans," Ross told the Washington Free Beacon.
The test of a missile with 10 warheads is significant because it indicates the secretive Chinese military is increasing the number of warheads in its arsenal.
Estimates of China's nuclear arsenal for decades put the number of strategic warheads at the relatively low level of around 250 warheads.
U.S. intelligence agencies in February reported that China had begun adding warheads to older DF-5 missiles, in a move that has raised concerns for strategic war planners.
Uploading Chinese missiles from single or triple warhead configurations to up to 10 warheads means the number of warheads stockpiled is orders of magnitude larger than the 250 estimate.
Currently, U.S. nuclear forces—land-based and sea-based nuclear missiles and bombers—have been configured to deter Russia's growing nuclear forces and the smaller Chinese nuclear force.
Under the 2010 U.S.-Russian arms treaty, the United States is slated to reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed warheads.
A boost in the Chinese nuclear arsenal to 800 or 1,000 warheads likely would prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal by taking weapons out of storage.
The new commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, stated during a Senate confirmation hearing in September that he is concerned about China's growing nuclear arsenal.
"I am fully aware that China continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure second-strike capability," Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Although it continues to profess a ‘no first use' doctrine, China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads and continues to develop and test hyper-glide vehicle technologies," Hyten added.
"These developments—coupled with a lack of transparency on nuclear issues such as force disposition and size—may impact regional and strategic stability and are cause for continued vigilance and concern."
The 10-warhead missile test comes amid heightened tensions with China. State-run media in recent weeks has carried reports calling for China to expand its nuclear forces. A broadcast report showed that new long-range mobile missiles could strike the entire United States.
The Chinese state television channel CCTV-4 last week broadcast nuclear threats, including graphics showing new DF-41 missiles deployed in northern China and graphics showing the missiles' strike path into the United States. The Jan. 25 broadcast included a graphic of a 10-warhead MIRV bus for the DF-41.
The Chinese Communist Party propaganda newspaper Global Times, known for its anti-U.S. stance, issued stark calls for China to build up its nuclear arsenal for use against the United States. On Jan. 24, the newspaper said China's strategic forces "must be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown."
"China must procure a level of strategic military strength that will force the U.S. to respect it," the newspaper said.
The same state-run organ criticized President Donald Trump in an article on Dec. 8 and said China should use its wealth "to build more strategic nuclear arms and accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile."
"We need to get better prepared militarily regarding the Taiwan question to ensure that those who advocate Taiwan's independence will be punished, and take precautions in case of U.S. provocations in the South China Sea," the newspaper said.
China conducted a flight test of the DF-41 in April.
Trump in December called for boosting America's aging nuclear arsenal.
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," he stated in a tweet.
Military analysts said the large number of warheads is unusual for the Chinese nuclear program.
Rick Fisher, an analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the multi-warhead missile test appears to be aimed at sending a signal to the new Trump administration.
Trump has tangled with China in opposing its military buildup on disputed South China Sea islands and on U.S. policy toward Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province and not an independent country.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the United States is prepared to block China's access to reclaimed islands he said are located in international waters and not China's sovereign maritime domain.
"This test of the 10-warhead DF-5C is China's latest nuclear intimidation exercise aimed at the new Trump administration," Fisher said.
"China's nuclear intimidation signals have included the public revelation in late December via Chinese websites of the new DF-41 ICBM in Heilongjiang province, plus articles in China's state-controlled media touting the need for China to increase its nuclear forces to intimidate Washington," Fisher added.
China's known force of around 20 D-5 missiles were deployed with large single warheads in the past, while some were upgraded with three-warhead top stages.
In September 2015 China revealed for the first time during a military parade that it had deployed a new DF-5B multi-warhead missile. Unofficial published reports suggested the DF-5B carries between six and eight warheads.
"The revelation that China has tested a new version of the DF-5 carrying ten warheads constitutes a very strong indication that China has produced a smaller warhead to equip its MIRV-capable ICBMs," Fisher said.
Some analysts speculate that the recent test of the DF-5C used the older missile as a test platform for a new warhead delivery bus that will be used on the new DF-41.
French China watcher Henri Kenhmann reported on his website East Pendulum that a Chinese missile test was to be carried out Jan. 15, based on air closure notices issued by the Chinese government for areas around Taiyuan and a missile impact range in western Xinjiang Province.
Analysis of the impact range suggests the test would include multiple test warheads.
"The point of impact is located south of the Taklamakan desert, in the former ballistic range of Minfeng," Kenhmann said, noting the Chinese had imposed an unusually large air exclusion zone of 125 miles around the impact zone.
"It should be noted that this zone of ballistic impact is abnormally large," he stated, a sign the large area would be used for multiple dummy warheads.
‘The size of this impact zone could indicate testing several MIRVs," he said.A similar Chinese test of the DF-41 in April involved two MIRVs that were fired to a much smaller impact area of 60 miles by 37 miles.
The Pentagon's latest annual report on the Chinese military said Beijing continues to upgrade its nuclear forces by enhancing silo-based missiles and adding new road-mobile missiles.
"China’s ICBM arsenal to date consists of approximately 75 to 100 ICBMs, including the silo-based CSS-4 Mod 2 (DF-5) and multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV)-equipped Mod 3 (DF-5B); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the shorter range CSS-3 (DF-4)," the report said.
The DF-5 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled missile with a range of around 8,000 miles.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
This is remarkable for two things. One, China is continuing with liquid-fuelled ICBMs for its most potent weapon facing the most potent enemy. Two, the Chinese have miniaturized their nukes even more.zoverian wrote:China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads
The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
zoverian wrote:China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -warheads/
China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.
The flight test of the DF-5C missile was carried out earlier this month using 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. The test of the inert warheads was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies, said two officials familiar with reports of the missile test.
The missile was fired from the Taiyuan Space Launch Center in central China and flew to an impact range in the western Chinese desert.
No other details about the test could be learned. Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross suggested in a statement the test was monitored.
"The [Defense Department] routinely monitors Chinese military developments and accounts for PLA capabilities in our defense plans," Ross told the Washington Free Beacon.
The test of a missile with 10 warheads is significant because it indicates the secretive Chinese military is increasing the number of warheads in its arsenal.
Estimates of China's nuclear arsenal for decades put the number of strategic warheads at the relatively low level of around 250 warheads.
U.S. intelligence agencies in February reported that China had begun adding warheads to older DF-5 missiles, in a move that has raised concerns for strategic war planners.
Uploading Chinese missiles from single or triple warhead configurations to up to 10 warheads means the number of warheads stockpiled is orders of magnitude larger than the 250 estimate.
Currently, U.S. nuclear forces—land-based and sea-based nuclear missiles and bombers—have been configured to deter Russia's growing nuclear forces and the smaller Chinese nuclear force.
Under the 2010 U.S.-Russian arms treaty, the United States is slated to reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed warheads.
A boost in the Chinese nuclear arsenal to 800 or 1,000 warheads likely would prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal by taking weapons out of storage.
The new commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, stated during a Senate confirmation hearing in September that he is concerned about China's growing nuclear arsenal.
"I am fully aware that China continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure second-strike capability," Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Although it continues to profess a ‘no first use' doctrine, China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads and continues to develop and test hyper-glide vehicle technologies," Hyten added.
"These developments—coupled with a lack of transparency on nuclear issues such as force disposition and size—may impact regional and strategic stability and are cause for continued vigilance and concern."
The 10-warhead missile test comes amid heightened tensions with China. State-run media in recent weeks has carried reports calling for China to expand its nuclear forces. A broadcast report showed that new long-range mobile missiles could strike the entire United States.
The Chinese state television channel CCTV-4 last week broadcast nuclear threats, including graphics showing new DF-41 missiles deployed in northern China and graphics showing the missiles' strike path into the United States. The Jan. 25 broadcast included a graphic of a 10-warhead MIRV bus for the DF-41.
The Chinese Communist Party propaganda newspaper Global Times, known for its anti-U.S. stance, issued stark calls for China to build up its nuclear arsenal for use against the United States. On Jan. 24, the newspaper said China's strategic forces "must be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown."
"China must procure a level of strategic military strength that will force the U.S. to respect it," the newspaper said.
The same state-run organ criticized President Donald Trump in an article on Dec. 8 and said China should use its wealth "to build more strategic nuclear arms and accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile."
"We need to get better prepared militarily regarding the Taiwan question to ensure that those who advocate Taiwan's independence will be punished, and take precautions in case of U.S. provocations in the South China Sea," the newspaper said.
China conducted a flight test of the DF-41 in April.
Trump in December called for boosting America's aging nuclear arsenal.
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," he stated in a tweet.
Military analysts said the large number of warheads is unusual for the Chinese nuclear program.
Rick Fisher, an analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the multi-warhead missile test appears to be aimed at sending a signal to the new Trump administration.
Trump has tangled with China in opposing its military buildup on disputed South China Sea islands and on U.S. policy toward Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province and not an independent country.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the United States is prepared to block China's access to reclaimed islands he said are located in international waters and not China's sovereign maritime domain.
"This test of the 10-warhead DF-5C is China's latest nuclear intimidation exercise aimed at the new Trump administration," Fisher said.
"China's nuclear intimidation signals have included the public revelation in late December via Chinese websites of the new DF-41 ICBM in Heilongjiang province, plus articles in China's state-controlled media touting the need for China to increase its nuclear forces to intimidate Washington," Fisher added.
China's known force of around 20 D-5 missiles were deployed with large single warheads in the past, while some were upgraded with three-warhead top stages.
In September 2015 China revealed for the first time during a military parade that it had deployed a new DF-5B multi-warhead missile. Unofficial published reports suggested the DF-5B carries between six and eight warheads.
"The revelation that China has tested a new version of the DF-5 carrying ten warheads constitutes a very strong indication that China has produced a smaller warhead to equip its MIRV-capable ICBMs," Fisher said.
Some analysts speculate that the recent test of the DF-5C used the older missile as a test platform for a new warhead delivery bus that will be used on the new DF-41.
French China watcher Henri Kenhmann reported on his website East Pendulum that a Chinese missile test was to be carried out Jan. 15, based on air closure notices issued by the Chinese government for areas around Taiyuan and a missile impact range in western Xinjiang Province.
Analysis of the impact range suggests the test would include multiple test warheads.
"The point of impact is located south of the Taklamakan desert, in the former ballistic range of Minfeng," Kenhmann said, noting the Chinese had imposed an unusually large air exclusion zone of 125 miles around the impact zone.
"It should be noted that this zone of ballistic impact is abnormally large," he stated, a sign the large area would be used for multiple dummy warheads.
‘The size of this impact zone could indicate testing several MIRVs," he said.A similar Chinese test of the DF-41 in April involved two MIRVs that were fired to a much smaller impact area of 60 miles by 37 miles.
The Pentagon's latest annual report on the Chinese military said Beijing continues to upgrade its nuclear forces by enhancing silo-based missiles and adding new road-mobile missiles.
"China’s ICBM arsenal to date consists of approximately 75 to 100 ICBMs, including the silo-based CSS-4 Mod 2 (DF-5) and multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV)-equipped Mod 3 (DF-5B); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the shorter range CSS-3 (DF-4)," the report said.
The DF-5 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled missile with a range of around 8,000 miles.
Just curious as to the size of Chinese nuclear arsenal .. about 25 Df 41 s can carry the entire arsenal ????
.. doesn't quite add up with published American figuresRe: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Please avoid racial epithets. It does BRF no service. Thanksranjan.rao wrote:honestly if this turns out to be true, that may be a win win situation for india: To needle chinks, us may actually give us a better deal, if it buckles, we know we are on our own and that would be the best thing for LCA.
Needless to say agony is causing too much pain
-
ranjan.rao
- BRFite
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Apologies Sir! Will not do that in future..can't edit it now...
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
India And China: Does The Elephant Read The Dragon Right?
https://swarajyamag.com/world/india-and ... agon-right
At the heart of India’s China problem is an Indian inability to size up the Middle Kingdom and the meaning of its spectacular rise and to devise realistic responses to meet the attendant challenges. To be fair, this is not an affliction of New Delhi alone. Successive American administrations have also remained equally puzzled about China’s long-term strategic intent. There are three views on China that dominate much of Indian public discourse: of China as a (historically) unique power; of China as an economic partner; and of China as fellow ‘norm-entrepreneur’.
China as a sui-generis power.
Many in India have implicitly assumed China to be a sui generis power – grounded in a supposedly-Asian ethos – whose behaviour is to be understood outside the matrix that is usually employed to study traditional (Western) powers. When Xi Jinping calls for a new kind of great-power relationship, he has many takers here.
This group of China aficionados believes that Beijing’s mandarins privilege the impetus of a deep-historical identity over raison d’etat – the assumption being that China is a civilizational state that would eschew the use of force and coercion in its rise to great-power status. Such idealists are comforted whenever Chinese dignitaries visiting India invoke the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ – a set of quasi-philosophical principles that were in vogue up and until Mao saw to it that India was abjectly defeated in a short and sharp confrontation in 1962.
China as an economic partner
The second view of India-China relationship can be termed econo-centric. China, in this view, emerges as a key partner in India’s economic transformation, especially when it comes to becoming a large market for Indian goods and services as well as an important source of foreign direct investment. ‘Chindia’ – a Chimerica-like portmanteau coined by a minister of the previous government – will be predicated, in equal parts, by the logic of economic interdependence and the history of civilizational ties, so goes the argument.
But idealism is not always a necessary condition in the econo-centric view. One prevalent pragmatic opinion in India is that of leveraging China for India’s infrastructure growth and connectivity needs to reduce the gap in material strength between the two countries. Once that gap is sufficiently bridged India will be in a position to deter Chinese designs, proponents of this view hold.
It is not uncommon to see this view being expressed pithily both on- and offline as “an 8 per cent GDP growth rate for the next two decades is India’s China policy.” For India to sustain this growth rate, Chinese surplus capital, directed at infrastructure development, can come handy. India’s connectivity aspirations can also be met by aligning them with Chinese mega-plans like the Belt-and-Road-Initiative.
There is indeed historical precedence to buttress this line of thinking. After all, China’s spectacular growth was supported through free-riding the economic and security architectures that the US put in place, not to mention through leveraging Western investment. Why can’t India out-China China in a similar way?
There are two problems with this argument. First, there is no common enemy that India can invoke to seek concessions, economic or otherwise, from China. The US-China rapprochement was in the shadow of the Soviet Union and is a classic example of how the two countries leveraged a strategic triangle to their own benefits.
With China-Russia animosity now buried (at least publicly) and India-Russia relationship increasingly under strain, triangular geopolitics is unlikely to work in New Delhi’s favour. Second, even assuming that Chinese economic growth slows down in the near future, the gap in material strength between the two countries is unlikely to be closed anytime soon.
China as fellow norm-entrepreneur
The third view of China in India is as a potential partner in promoting global governance norms that will promote the unique needs of emerging economies led by the two countries. The coterie that hold this view have argued that existing multilateral institutions, whether it is the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, have been insufficiently effective in meeting the needs of emerging economies.
They also hold the view that these economies are under-represented in multilateral institutions (as measured by voting shares, for example). Seen from the prism of multilateral bargaining it makes sense for India and China to deploy their collective heft to seek reforms of these institutions – when possible – and to create new institutions that compliments the existing ones.
BRICS was the product of this line of thinking. Pragmatic Indian scholars and policy-makers, even when suspicious of China’s strategic intent towards India, have argued that BRICS is a valuable platform in that it allows the two countries to cooperate on “low-politics” issues (the über-realist John Mearsheimer’s terminology) – trade, sustainable development, and finance, for example – without hard-security irritants that would normally stalemate bilateral discussions being in the picture. This was also the line of thinking that led India to seek membership as the second-largest shareholder in the China-led multilateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
An unstated hope was that as both countries find convergence on low-politics issues, the road towards greater understanding on hard-security concerns and sensitivities would be paved. That has not come to a pass. While India has enthusiastically supported the BRICS agenda – last year’s summit in New Delhi had a record number of events around it – China has shown no discernible softening around India’s core security concerns regarding Pakistan or India’s membership in the NSG.
The view that the 21st century will be that of Asia’s has become commonplace to the point of being trite. The fructification of this long bet will be predicated in large measures by whether India and China can simultaneously and peacefully rise to great-power status. This will be invariably determined by whether India reads China – and absorbs the consequences of China’s rise into its strategic calculus – correctly and realistically.
https://swarajyamag.com/world/india-and ... agon-right
At the heart of India’s China problem is an Indian inability to size up the Middle Kingdom and the meaning of its spectacular rise and to devise realistic responses to meet the attendant challenges. To be fair, this is not an affliction of New Delhi alone. Successive American administrations have also remained equally puzzled about China’s long-term strategic intent. There are three views on China that dominate much of Indian public discourse: of China as a (historically) unique power; of China as an economic partner; and of China as fellow ‘norm-entrepreneur’.
China as a sui-generis power.
Many in India have implicitly assumed China to be a sui generis power – grounded in a supposedly-Asian ethos – whose behaviour is to be understood outside the matrix that is usually employed to study traditional (Western) powers. When Xi Jinping calls for a new kind of great-power relationship, he has many takers here.
This group of China aficionados believes that Beijing’s mandarins privilege the impetus of a deep-historical identity over raison d’etat – the assumption being that China is a civilizational state that would eschew the use of force and coercion in its rise to great-power status. Such idealists are comforted whenever Chinese dignitaries visiting India invoke the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ – a set of quasi-philosophical principles that were in vogue up and until Mao saw to it that India was abjectly defeated in a short and sharp confrontation in 1962.
China as an economic partner
The second view of India-China relationship can be termed econo-centric. China, in this view, emerges as a key partner in India’s economic transformation, especially when it comes to becoming a large market for Indian goods and services as well as an important source of foreign direct investment. ‘Chindia’ – a Chimerica-like portmanteau coined by a minister of the previous government – will be predicated, in equal parts, by the logic of economic interdependence and the history of civilizational ties, so goes the argument.
But idealism is not always a necessary condition in the econo-centric view. One prevalent pragmatic opinion in India is that of leveraging China for India’s infrastructure growth and connectivity needs to reduce the gap in material strength between the two countries. Once that gap is sufficiently bridged India will be in a position to deter Chinese designs, proponents of this view hold.
It is not uncommon to see this view being expressed pithily both on- and offline as “an 8 per cent GDP growth rate for the next two decades is India’s China policy.” For India to sustain this growth rate, Chinese surplus capital, directed at infrastructure development, can come handy. India’s connectivity aspirations can also be met by aligning them with Chinese mega-plans like the Belt-and-Road-Initiative.
There is indeed historical precedence to buttress this line of thinking. After all, China’s spectacular growth was supported through free-riding the economic and security architectures that the US put in place, not to mention through leveraging Western investment. Why can’t India out-China China in a similar way?
There are two problems with this argument. First, there is no common enemy that India can invoke to seek concessions, economic or otherwise, from China. The US-China rapprochement was in the shadow of the Soviet Union and is a classic example of how the two countries leveraged a strategic triangle to their own benefits.
With China-Russia animosity now buried (at least publicly) and India-Russia relationship increasingly under strain, triangular geopolitics is unlikely to work in New Delhi’s favour. Second, even assuming that Chinese economic growth slows down in the near future, the gap in material strength between the two countries is unlikely to be closed anytime soon.
China as fellow norm-entrepreneur
The third view of China in India is as a potential partner in promoting global governance norms that will promote the unique needs of emerging economies led by the two countries. The coterie that hold this view have argued that existing multilateral institutions, whether it is the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, have been insufficiently effective in meeting the needs of emerging economies.
They also hold the view that these economies are under-represented in multilateral institutions (as measured by voting shares, for example). Seen from the prism of multilateral bargaining it makes sense for India and China to deploy their collective heft to seek reforms of these institutions – when possible – and to create new institutions that compliments the existing ones.
BRICS was the product of this line of thinking. Pragmatic Indian scholars and policy-makers, even when suspicious of China’s strategic intent towards India, have argued that BRICS is a valuable platform in that it allows the two countries to cooperate on “low-politics” issues (the über-realist John Mearsheimer’s terminology) – trade, sustainable development, and finance, for example – without hard-security irritants that would normally stalemate bilateral discussions being in the picture. This was also the line of thinking that led India to seek membership as the second-largest shareholder in the China-led multilateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
An unstated hope was that as both countries find convergence on low-politics issues, the road towards greater understanding on hard-security concerns and sensitivities would be paved. That has not come to a pass. While India has enthusiastically supported the BRICS agenda – last year’s summit in New Delhi had a record number of events around it – China has shown no discernible softening around India’s core security concerns regarding Pakistan or India’s membership in the NSG.
The view that the 21st century will be that of Asia’s has become commonplace to the point of being trite. The fructification of this long bet will be predicated in large measures by whether India and China can simultaneously and peacefully rise to great-power status. This will be invariably determined by whether India reads China – and absorbs the consequences of China’s rise into its strategic calculus – correctly and realistically.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 955386.cms
India to host key RCEP meeting at Hyderabad in July
India to host key RCEP meeting at Hyderabad in July
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
US Defense Secretary James Mattis says no need for dramatic US military moves in South China Sea - ToI
US Defense Secretary James Mattis on Saturday played down any need for major US military moves in the South China Sea to contend with China's assertive behavior, even as he sharply criticized Beijing for "shredding the trust of nations in the region."
"At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves at all," Mattis told a news conference in Tokyo, stressing that the focus should be on diplomacy.
In his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea. The White House also vowed to defend "international territories" in the strategic waterway.
But how the United States would achieve that has been unclear, including whether it would have a military dimension.
Analysts have said Tillerson's remarks, like those from the White House, suggested the possibility of US military action, or even a naval blockade.
Such action would risk an armed confrontation with China, an increasingly formidable nuclear-armed military power. It is also the world's second-largest economy and the prime target of Trump accusations of stealing American jobs.
Mattis suggested that major military action was not being currently considered. "What we have to do is exhaust all efforts, diplomatic efforts, to try to resolve this properly, maintaining open lines of communication," Mattis said, in his most complete remarks on the issue to date.
"And certainly our military stance should be one that reinforces our diplomats in this regard. But there is no need right now at this time for military maneuvers or something like that, that would solve something that's best solved by the diplomats."
China claims most of the South China Sea, while Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei claim parts of the waters that command strategic sea lanes and have rich fishing grounds along with oil and gas deposits.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China warns US after Mattis says disputed East China Sea islands covered by treaty - Straits Times
China warned the United States on Saturday (Feb 4) not to destabilise East Asia after Donald Trump's new Defence Secretary said an island chain claimed by both Tokyo and Beijing was covered by a US-Japan military accord.
The Senkaku islands, known in China as the Diaoyus, sit in rich fishing grounds and are at the centre of a festering row between Tokyo and Beijing, which claims they have been part of Chinese territory for centuries.
"The Diaoyu Island and its adjacent islets have been an inherent part of Chinese territory since ancient times, which is a unchangeable historical fact," Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, according to the official news agency Xinhua.
We urge the US side to take a responsible attitude, stop making wrong remarks... and avoid making the issue more complicated and bringing instability to the regional situation".
Speaking in Tokyo at the tail end of a visit to East Asia, new US Defence Secretary James Mattis said the islands were subject to a long-standing treaty between Washington and Tokyo.
"I made clear that our long-standing policy on the Senkaku Islands stands - the US will continue to recognise Japanese administration of the islands," Mattis said.
"And as such Article 5 of the US-Japan Security Treaty applies."
Article 5 commits the United States to defend Japan or territories it administers against any attack.
Lu said the US-Japan treaty was a product of the Cold War, and should not affect China's territorial sovereignty, Xinhua reported.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
‘Chinese military will not be permitted at Hambantota port’ - PTI
Chinese military activity will not be allowed at the Hambantota port considering concerns from India, Sri Lankan ambassador here [Beijing] said today, playing down protests by hundreds of opposition supporters over handing of 80 per cent stakes of the strategic port to a Chinese firm.
Apparently referring to Pakistan handing over Gwadar port to Chinese, Ambassador Karunasena Kodituwakku told the media on the sidelines of Sri Lankan Independence Day reception here that: “I do not know about other countries but Sri Lanka has very categorically informed the (Chinese) investor that it will not be allowed to be used for any military purposes“.
Playing down protests by locals and labour unions over handing of 80 per cent stakes of the Hambantota port to a Chinese firm, the envoy said that considering India’s concerns, no military activity will be allowed at the port.
The Maithripala Sirisena government which earlier opposed the Chinese investments procured by pro-China predecessor, Mahinda Rajapaksa faced public protests over handing over 15,000 acres of land for a Chinese industrial park in Hambantota as well as the port.
Ironically Rajapaksa who procured about $ 7 billion for Hambantota and other projects opposed the handing over of the port and land to Chinese.
Admitting concerns expressed by China over the protests, the Ambassador said: “Despite the opposition from a small group, the government will go ahead”.
The Sri Lankan government said the port was being handed over with 80 per cent stake for a Chinese firm on 99 year lease as it has no commercial viability and duty bound to pay back the huge Chinese loans.{This looks like another Chinese tactic. Build a facility which has no commercial viability through loans at a high interest rate, bankrupt the foreign government and then take over the facility for its own purposes.I do not believe that China would not use it for military purposes. RAW & IN have to keep a very close eye on Hambanatota. Hambanatota is one of the 18 ports for PLAN for refuelling, R&R, ammunition dumps and repair purposes that was revealed a few years back.}
The Ambassador said Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe would attend the high-profile One Belt One Road (Silk Road) summit called by Chinese President Xi Jinping in May.
Chinese officials said 20 world leaders confirmed their attendance but did not provide details.
Wickramasinghe’s presence at the Silk Road summit as China regards Sri Lanka as an important base for its 21st Maritime Silk Road in the Indian ocean over which India has expressed strong reservations.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Railways aims for new heights with train to Tawang at 10,000 feet - Naresh Mitral, ToI
We talk a lot but achieve little.
We talk a lot but achieve little.
Aiming to take railway services in the region to new heights, the Northeast Frontier Railway (NFR) has planned to bring trains to Arunachal Pradesh's Tawang.
Tawang is located at a height of 10,000 feet on the border with China. Survey work for the project will start next year.NFR general manager (construction), H K Jaggi, said three strategic lines connecting Bhalukpung to Tawang, Murkongselek (Assam) to Pasighat in Arunachal and Silapathar (Assam) to Bane in Arunachal were in the pipeline.
The estimated cost of the project is Rs 50,000 crore to Rs 70,000 crore. Jaggi said the Bhalukpung-Tawang line would be the most challenging as it would pass through terrain with altitudes ranging from 500 feet to 9,000 feet. "It may not follow the same route as the existing road. For example, the highest point on the way to Tawang is Sela (13,700 feet). The survey will find out ways of building tracks by avoiding high-altitude zones," he said.
Naharlagun, 10km from Itanagar, was the first in Arunachal to get rail connectivity in 2014. Junior rail minister Rajen Gohain said the Budget had sanctioned a survey to check feasibility of connectivity for river island Majuli. He said a 100km line would connect Majuli's Kamalabari and Garmur with Dhakukhana via Jorhat to Gogamukh.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Chinese troops conduct drills with advanced ballistic missile - PTI
China's newly-formed Rocket Force has held an exercise with advanced DF-16 medium-range ballistic missile with a range of over 1,000km that could threaten a number countries+ , including India, Japan and the US.
Significantly the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which is secretive about its weapons systems, has released a video of the recent exercise of its troops employing the advanced DF-16 medium-range ballistic missile.
China's Rocket Force is a special contingent to handle range of missiles in its military's arsenal.
Several launch vehicles carrying the ballistic missiles were seen in the footage released to show the training of Rocket Force missile brigade soldiers around the Spring Festival holiday.
The participating units handled a number of scenarios, including chemical/biological contamination, countering satellite reconnaissance and electronic jamming, state-run China Daily reported on Monday.
The crews practiced in multiple manoeuvres, such as rapid loading, redeployment and launch sequence, though the video showed no missile actually being launched.
Two types of DF-16 appeared in the exercise. The video represents the third time the DF-16 has been shown to the public.
The missile made its debut at a military parade in Beijing in September 2015.
In July, a television news programme showed General Fan Changlong, a vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission, inspecting a DF-16 unit of the Southern Theatre Command.
Though the PLA has never disclosed its ballistic missiles' specifications, experts said the DF-16 poses a challenge to foreign military installations along the first island chain, which is what the Chinese military calls the series of islands that stretch from Japan in the north to Taiwan and the Philippines to the south, the Daily report said.
Since the election of Donald Trump as US President+ , China has been striking aggressive postures against Taiwan after he spoke to Taiwanese President Tsai-Ing-wen.
While criticising his moves, China has sent its first aircraft carrier to Taiwan straits+ , as well as the first island chain in the Pacific and stepped up naval drills in the disputed South China Sea.
Washington Free Beacon, a news website in the United States that specialises in military affairs, reported on January 31 that China conducted the first flight of the DF-5C intercontinental ballistic missile in January.
China has also deployed its long range missile close to the Russian border which the Russian media said is aimed at US.
Reports in the official media said China is stepping up preparedness for a possible military conflict with the US+ as Trump signalled to follow more hardline policy to counter China's claims on the disputed South China Sea, official media reports here said.
A commentary in the official website of People's Liberation Army's (PLA) said on January 20 the day Trump assumed presidency that the chances of war have become "more real" amid a more complex security situation in Asia Pacific.
Xu Guangyu, a retired major general and now a strategy researcher, said that DF-16 has a strike range of more than 1,000 kms, filling the gap that previously existed with the absence of a medium-range ballistic missile in the PLA's arsenal.
He said the missile also is able to reach Okinawa, a Japanese island about 400km from China's Diaoyu Islands.
Shi Hong, executive editor of Shipborne Weapons, said the DF-16 has a strike accuracy as good as that of a cruise missile, Shi said.
It is also able to manoeuvre in its final stage to penetrate enemy defensive firepower, he said.
Other PLA Rocket Force brigades also mobilised their DF-11, DF-15 and DF-21C ballistic missiles during training around Spring Festival, according to PLA media outlets.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Japan supports but won’t join US ‘freedom of navigation’ patrols in South China Sea
https://www.rt.com/news/376410-japan-us ... uth-china/
https://www.rt.com/news/376410-japan-us ... uth-china/
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China pumping huge amount of money into Nepal causing discomfort to India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 008982.cms
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Reminds me of Ravana with 10 heads - All we need to do is find their "Naval" weakness!kit wrote:zoverian wrote:China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -warheads/
China flight tested a new variant of a long-range missile with 10 warheads in what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's strategic nuclear posture.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
IndraD wrote:China pumping huge amount of money into Nepal causing discomfort to India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 008982.cms
Precisely why China carries along as it does. Everything that happens simply causes discomfort to India. There are no red lines. No positions that are ever to be defended it advanced. Everything can be negotiated for the right price. That's our mentality.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
+1brvarsh wrote:Reminds me of Ravana with 10 heads - All we need to do is find their "Naval" weakness!kit wrote:
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
US moves UN for Masood Azhar's ban; China again puts a 'hold' - PTI
A significant bid by the US in the UN for designating Pathankot attack mastermind Masood Azhar as a global terrorist has been stymied by China which has again opposed the ban against the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief.
The American proposal came barely weeks after India's efforts to get Azhar banned by the UN were blocked by China in December last.
According to senior government sources, the US, supported by the UK and France, moved a proposal at the UN's Sanctions Committee 1267 in the second-half of last month to proscribe Azhar.
The proposal, which was finalised after "consultations" between Washington and New Delhi, said JeM is a designated terror outfit and so its leaders cannot go scot-free, sources said.
"However, China opposed the US move by putting a hold on the proposal," a source said, adding the Chinese action came just before the expiry of the 10-day deadline for any proposal to be adopted or blocked or to be put on hold.
The "hold" remains for six months and can be further extended by three months. During this period, it can be anytime converted into a "block", thereby, ending the life of the proposal.
UN Sanction Committee's listing would have forced imposition of asset freeze and travel ban on Azhar by countries including Pakistan.
China has been constantly opposing efforts to get Azhar banned by the UN, which has proscribed his outfit JeM in 2001. The Chinese opposition is also seen by many here as an action taken at the behest of its "all-weather ally" Pakistan.
After the attack on the IAF base at Pathankot in January last year, India in February wrote to the UN calling for immediate action to list Azhar under the Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee. The efforts faced stiff opposition by China, which twice put a "technical hold" before finally blocking the Indian proposal in December.
Reacting sharply to Chinese action, India had said that "We note with concern China's decision to block the proposal to list Masood Azhar", asserting that its proposal, submitted to the 15-member 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council, had received the strong backing of all other members of the Committee.
External Affairs Spokesperson Vikas Swarup had also said, "As a consequence of this decision, the UN Security Council has again been prevented from acting against the leader of a listed terrorist organisation. We had expected China would have been more understanding of the danger posed to all by terrorism and would join India and others in fighting the common challenge of terrorism."
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
India's Cold Start doctrine can't ensure easy win against Pak: Chinese media - PTI
Indian Army's "Cold Start" doctrine to seize control of Pakistani territory might be intimidating but will not lead to a "landslide" victory against nuclear-armed Pakistan, state-run Chinese media has said.
"Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed countries. Even if the Cold Start strategy sounds intimidating and there is indeed a gap between the two powers' military might, it does not mean that New Delhi can easily win a landslide victory against Islamabad," an article in the state-run Global Times said today.
"The truth is, Pakistan has considerable strength to safeguard its sovereignty and its nuclear weapons should not be ignored," it said.
The daily said that given the uncertainties of US' future policy toward South Asia, the India-Pakistan peace process, which is already frozen, is now in a "critically fragile state".
"Against this backdrop, any remark that might threaten the delicate peace between the two nations from the Indian military authority will undoubtedly trigger a strong reaction in Pakistan," it said.
"Since the 1998 nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, it is quite common to hear such war of words like the latest one. In the meantime, tensions between the two can also be eased once in a while," it said.
The daily said that despite the fact that New Delhi is "hostile" against Islamabad, initiating a war against Pakistan is not a welcoming idea among Indian people.
"That being said, such verbal warfare can hardly escalate into armed confrontation," it said.
It also said that US President Donald Trump may follow a "balanced policy" between India and Pakistan unlike his predecessor Barack Obama who adopted a "comprehensive pro-India policy".
"Trump's South Asia policy may be different from that of Obama, who adopted a comprehensive pro-India policy in his final years in office," the daily said.
"Trump called Pakistani Prime Minister first after winning the election, which may be a crucial signal - he would take a more balanced strategy between New Delhi and Islamabad. If so, it is possible to see a slight recovery in the India-Pakistan relations," it said.
About the India-Pakistan peace process, it said Prime Minister Narendra Modi once sought to restart the peace talks with Pakistan and warm up New Delhi's relationship with Islamabad by inviting his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif to attend his inauguration ceremony, which was an "unprecedented" act.
"The bilateral relations were relaxed at that time. Yet, due to a number of other factors, such as India accusing Islamabad of terror attacks in Kashmir and New Delhi's bid to add Pakistan-based organisation Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Masood Azhar, chief of Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohammed, to the UN Security Council's terror list, India-Pakistan ties worsened," it said.
"The odds of a thaw in India-Pakistan relations are very small under such a circumstance. But once their war of words escalates to the point of armed combat, both sides will surely adopt measures to reduce the tension," {India's past actions have created this impression in Chinese minds and I don't blame them for that. One or two surgical strikes would not change that impression. There must be disproportionate and punitive bombardment every time Pakistan misbehaves and that must be consistent. Such 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible display of retaliation' would send the right signal especially to China. Forget about Pakistan, we want China to get that message that messing up with India would entail cost. Today, the Chinese dismiss us nonchalantly and that has to change. Pakistan gives us that opportunity to influence Chinese thinking.} it said.
-
ranjan.rao
- BRFite
- Posts: 520
- Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
The day this happens I will sponsor beer for you.SSridhar wrote: {India's past actions have created this impression in Chinese minds and I don't blame them for that. One or two surgical strikes would not change that impression. There must be disproportionate and punitive bombardment every time Pakistan misbehaves and that must be consistent. Such 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible display of retaliation' would send the right signal especially to China. Forget about Pakistan, we want China to get that message that messing up with India would entail cost. Today, the Chinese dismiss us nonchalantly and that has to change. Pakistan gives us that opportunity to influence Chinese thinking.} it said.
I was in singapore a week after 26/11, some singaporeans were so worried about our security as they were about to visit bharatvarsha and wondering why we havent done anything to these yet...i still have that question in my mind
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
India in talks with China over repeated blocks in designating Masood Azhar - PTI
Nothing will change China's stance in the Masood Azhar case. China has come to the conclusion that India, US, Japan are ganging up against it and it wants to 'teach India a lesson', this time diplomatically. It will maintain its position in NSG, UNSC expansion issue, 1267 case and anything else and exclude India. It also needs Pakistan now very badly in order to make the CPEC a grand success as it will be a precursor to the more ambitious OBOR. China's dire economic situation demands the success of OBOR. It feels that it is now facing a great military threat from this alliance and India is the weakest link among the three. The opinion about India's Cold Start against Pakistan clearly shows that China is militarily getting more and more integrated with Pakistan. China already has territorial disputes with India and it wants to enmesh them with Pakistan's in the Western sector. A while ago, when India raised objection to CPEC passing through the Indian land of Gilgit-Baltistan, it audaciously claimed that it is also a party to the Kashmir dispute. China suspects India's resolve just as Ayub Khan did in 1965. It feels a few diplomatic blows at right places and India will capitulate. Its strategies vis-a-vis India flow from its long-standing dismissive opinion about India.With China opposing U.S.’ proposal in the U.N. for designating Pathankot attack mastermind and Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, India on Tuesday said it has taken up the matter with Beijing.
“We have been informed of this development and the matter has been taken up with the Chinese government,” External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said.
He was asked about India’s reaction to U.S. pushing for a ban on Azhar in the U.N. and China yet again blocking it.
However, he did not elaborate when and where the issue was taken up with China.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China defends blocking US's proposal to impose UN ban on Masood Azhar - PTI
It simply puts a 'hold' rather than debate the issue.
Its past behaviour on this issue has been the following:
China is giving the impression that the '1267 Committee' is not convinced of Masood Azhar's terrorism charges while in fact it is the *ONLY* country to stand against inclusion of his name in the list.China on Wednesday defended its decision to block the US's proposal in the UN for designating Pathankot attack mastermind and JeM chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, saying the "conditions" have not yet been met for Beijing to back the move.
Replying to a spate of questions on China putting a technical hold for the third time on attempts to list Azhar as a global terrorist, foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a media briefing here that Beijing resorted to this move to allow the "relevant parties" to reach a consensus.
"Last year 1,267 committee of the UN Security Council discussed the issue regarding listing Masood (Azhar) in the sanctions list. There were different views with no consensus reached," Lu said.
"As for the submission once again by relevant countries to list him in the sanctions list, I would say the conditions are not yet met for the Committee to reach a decision," he said.
"China has put the request on technical hold, to allow the relevant parties more time to consult with each other. This is also in line with rules of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the rules of the discussion of the committee," he said.
About the significance of US pushing for the ban against the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief this time unlike the last year when India pressed for his listing as terrorist, Lu said, "I would like to point out that the committee has its own set of discussion rules."
"So, whoever submitted the request we believe all the members of the committee will act in line with regulations of the Security Council and its affiliations," he said.
To a question whether it will have an impact on China-India relations, he said Beijing and New Delhi "have exchanged views" on the issue.
"We don't hope it will have a negative impact on our relationship," he said.
On criticism that China is continuously blocking the move at the behest of Pakistan, Lu said, "China's action in the Security Council and its affiliations are in line with the regulations and procedures."
"We put out technical hold after we had several rounds of consultations with India. We hope relevant parties have enough time to consult with each other to make sure that the decision made by the committee will be based on consensus representing the broad international community," he said.
China has put a "hold" on the US-initiated proposal, which comes barely weeks after India's bid to get Azhar banned by the UN were scuttled by Beijing last December. This has prompted India to take up the matter with the Chinese government.
It simply puts a 'hold' rather than debate the issue.
Its past behaviour on this issue has been the following:
- In July 2011, after the 'hold', it summarily refused to re-visit that issue when India engaged China on the same
- Then it said that “there is no single definition of terrorism” and hence China cannot take a clear stand on it.
- At other times it cites "insufficient information" (June 2015)
- After the April 1, 2016 'technical hold', China said, “China opposes all forms of terrorism, supports the UN playing a central and coordinating role in global counter-terrorism cooperation, and plays an active part in this area. China deals with the listing matter of the 1267 Committee on the basis of facts and in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and relevant rules of procedure. China remains in contact with all relevant parties on this matter.” An absolutely bland reply.
- The Chinese Embassy in Delhi, reacting to Manohar Parrikar''s comments said, “China is against all forms of terrorism. We have put a technical hold, not a veto. It is not an issue between China and India. We would prefer that you talk to Pakistan.”
- Defending its last minute October 1, 2016 'technical hold', China said, "technical hold’ by saying there were “different views” on India’s application and that Beijing’s move will allow more time for the “relevant parties” to have consultations.'
- Reacting to our UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin's accusation of double-standard by China after China put a 'hold' once again on December 30, 2016, China said “With regard to the listing matter of the security council 1267 committee, the so-called double standards adopted by China on this relevant issue is not true. We take action based on solid evidence that is the standard upheld by us. We have taken a responsible and constructive part in relevant discussion in a professional and objective way. Relevant attitude and action of China comply with the resolution of the UNSC and rules of procedure of the committee. China takes a very objective and just and professional attitude on that. Up to now, the Committee is yet to come to an agreement on this issue and we would like stay in communication and coordination with all relevant parties, including India, on this. It is regrettable that an agreement is yet to be made. Relevant actions taken by China in the committee is to safeguard the authority and effectiveness of the committee. It is out of the responsible attitude China will continue to stay in communication with all relevant parties including India in accordance with the security council resolution and rules of the procedures of the committee. I also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism. We have the same purpose and share the same goal on the issue of counter-terrorism {This is rubbing salt into the wound. Indian diplomats must give back in kind when suitable occasions arise. Arise, they will} and we hope to enhance cooperation and communication with the Indian side to uphold peace and security of the region.”
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
SSridhar Ji :SSridhar wrote:China defends blocking US's proposal to impose UN ban on Masood Azhar - PTI
I also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism. We have the same purpose and share the same goal on the issue of counter-terrorism {This is rubbing salt into the wound. Indian diplomats must give back in kind when suitable occasions arise. Arise, they will} and we hope to enhance cooperation and communication with the Indian side to uphold peace and security of the region.”
I also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism.
Indeed Sir Ji. Cwapistani armed, resident, supported and trained Terrorists are conspicious by there acts along with the Uyghur Terrorists in Xinjiang. These are the same Cwapistani Terrorists perpetrating Terrorism in India. However it seem that China is better able to limit the damage-havoc caused by the Cwapistani Supported Uyghur Terrorists.
As such India should suggest to China to have a joint Strategy to Eliminate Terrorism emanating from Cwapistan.
Cheers
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
maybe India should sponsor some pakistani "organisation" to carry out attacks on chinesePeregrine wrote:SSridhar Ji :SSridhar wrote:China defends blocking US's proposal to impose UN ban on Masood Azhar - PTI
I also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism. We have the same purpose and share the same goal on the issue of counter-terrorism {This is rubbing salt into the wound. Indian diplomats must give back in kind when suitable occasions arise. Arise, they will} and we hope to enhance cooperation and communication with the Indian side to uphold peace and security of the region.”
I also want to stress that both China and India are victims of terrorism.
Indeed Sir Ji. Cwapistani armed, resident, supported and trained Terrorists are conspicious by there acts along with the Uyghur Terrorists in Xinjiang. These are the same Cwapistani Terrorists perpetrating Terrorism in India. However it seem that China is better able to limit the damage-havoc caused by the Cwapistani Supported Uyghur Terrorists.
As such India should suggest to China to have a joint Strategy to Eliminate Terrorism emanating from Cwapistan.
Cheers
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China's vigorous, consistent and defiant stand on this 1267 issue should have come as a huge surprise to Masood Azhar himself !! He should be wondering as to what he has done that merits such a support from China defying the whole world !!!
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
actually the chinese seems to have thought it throughSSridhar wrote:China's vigorous, consistent and defiant stand on this 1267 issue should have come as a huge surprise to Masood Azhar himself !! He should be wondering as to what he has done that merits such a support from China defying the whole world !!!
1. they can oppose america .. equal to it
2. Succour to Jihadi groups .. with proquo deals
3. use religious extremism as a tool .. much like the US does / did
masood is now the advertising campaign for the beginning of china sponsored religious extremism
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
China may have enabled a war which may escalate into a bigger one.SSridhar wrote:
China is giving the impression that the '1267 Committee' is not convinced of Masood Azhar's terrorism charges while in fact it is the *ONLY* country to stand against inclusion of his name in the list.
It simply puts a 'hold' rather than debate the issue.
Its past behaviour on this issue has been the following:
- In July 2011, after the 'hold', it summarily refused to re-visit that issue when India engaged China on the same
- Then it said that “there is no single definition of terrorism” and hence China cannot take a clear stand on it.
- At other times it cites "insufficient information" (June 2015)
- After the April 1, 2016 'technical hold', China said, “China opposes all forms of terrorism, supports the UN playing a central and coordinating role in global counter-terrorism cooperation, and plays an active part in this area. China deals with the listing matter of the 1267 Committee on the basis of facts and in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and relevant rules of procedure. China remains in contact with all relevant parties on this matter.”
China may itself be at war beacuse of their own actions
UN because of its own laws may have enabled a war which can become a world war.
Nobody knows the consequence of these actions yet.