That aside does "lay the ground" mean playing dead, or pretend sex on the beach with no partner


That aside does "lay the ground" mean playing dead, or pretend sex on the beach with no partner
Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?TKiran wrote:DavidD, we are going to cut China to its size, we are going to liberate Tibet and Xinjiang, you are still thinking that India will confine itself to Indian borders like we always did, you have not learnt a lesson, learn how we liberated Bangladesh, in 16 days, you will be wise. Yes China would still be surviving with shrunk mass, but that's the limit of Han. Everything non Han will be liberated, you don't know the power of people, you never experienced democracy.
It will not take more than a week to occupy Lhasa and dislodge PLA, you are thinking of 1 year, that's laughable. 1,00, 000 Tibetans from India Will produce those many Tibetans in Lhasa in 1year. Lhasa is just 200 km from Tawang and 300 km from Doklam. It's thousands of km from Han China. It's China that needs to lob nuclear weapons at Lhasa if at all Han are serious to hold on to Tibet, still they will not be able to hold on to Lhasa. That's the reason why Han are sh***ing in their pants now, India can cut them to size, that's the fear, they don't have any body who can save them, if India marched to Lhasa.
Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china![]()
Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.
We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy
This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.
How large are your oil and gas reserves and how will you transport them to 5km heights when you have a naval blockade? All those shiny new toys will be a bit stranded without fuel or do you know Hu has a LiPo set for tanks and other toys?DavidD wrote:Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china![]()
Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.
We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy
This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.
BTW, what system does China produce still depend on European suppliers? Russian I'll give you that, but the number is dwindling by the day and Chinese replacements, albeit inferior, are available for the most part. With the whole-sale moving of Motor-Sich to Chongqing, soon they'll be available for every part.
This is the nastiest thing anybody have said about communist china. This clearly shows what kind of people chinese are and how much they value human lives. disgusting ...DavidD wrote: Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?
It is also ground which can be made to bleed the occupiers dry.. without invadingDavidD wrote:Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry
Yeah I know, Han don't care to hold on to Lhasa. We will give Tibet to Dalai Lama and keep our army there for eternity, till we get dry, that will never happen. We are going to play the buffer game, and the Han will watch for eternity. Actually we can play the buffer game better as Lhasa is closer to us than HanDavidD wrote:Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?TKiran wrote:DavidD, we are going to cut China to its size, we are going to liberate Tibet and Xinjiang, you are still thinking that India will confine itself to Indian borders like we always did, you have not learnt a lesson, learn how we liberated Bangladesh, in 16 days, you will be wise. Yes China would still be surviving with shrunk mass, but that's the limit of Han. Everything non Han will be liberated, you don't know the power of people, you never experienced democracy.
It will not take more than a week to occupy Lhasa and dislodge PLA, you are thinking of 1 year, that's laughable. 1,00, 000 Tibetans from India Will produce those many Tibetans in Lhasa in 1year. Lhasa is just 200 km from Tawang and 300 km from Doklam. It's thousands of km from Han China. It's China that needs to lob nuclear weapons at Lhasa if at all Han are serious to hold on to Tibet, still they will not be able to hold on to Lhasa. That's the reason why Han are sh***ing in their pants now, India can cut them to size, that's the fear, they don't have any body who can save them, if India marched to Lhasa.
I am coming back to this point because this is a topic that has interested me for ages, and there is much to write.DavidD wrote:How long do you think the few hundred MKIs, etc. will last in a war say to take Tibet? How long will a couple thousand T-90s last? Most will be gone within a year, and I'm being generous with the timeline. How will you go about replacing them? Can you count on the Russians, French, etc. to keep up the supplies? Can they keep up even if they wanted to?
Very true. It is national will or perhaps civilization will. Iran vs Iraq is a very good example - the waves of Iranian young men inspired by the Ayatollah walked and took massive casualties and blunted Iraqi superiority in weapons and tactics.shiv wrote:I am coming back to this point because this is a topic that has interested me for ages, and there is much to write.DavidD wrote:How long do you think the few hundred MKIs, etc. will last in a war say to take Tibet? How long will a couple thousand T-90s last? Most will be gone within a year, and I'm being generous with the timeline. How will you go about replacing them? Can you count on the Russians, French, etc. to keep up the supplies? Can they keep up even if they wanted to?
Going back in history the value of "equipment" like trucks, tanks and aircraft have become a factor for just over 100 years. Before that time wars were fought between armed militias/armies and the winner would typically be the force that could outlast the other in supply of armed men ready to fight along with food and other supplies. World war 1 was little more of this.
The real war where nations went and hammered and hammered and hammered each other and their civilian centers and industrial sites was world war 2. And despite the rhetoric that the ability to keep on producing more and more tanks and planes won the war (because of America) it was not that at all. Even in the last year of the European war the Germans produced something like 2500 aircraft. It was finally the loss of men and territory that got them. The same holds true for the Japanese. they did not stop at all until nukes ended the war.
Another similar war that lasted 8 years was the Iran-Iraq war. Here both sides were supplied by the west. During that war I used to drive by an arms factory in Manchester that was merrily supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq. It was just the continuous loss of human life that ended the war. Not the ability manufacture or the inability to import.
I think this is a good opportunity to understand the meaning and origins of asymmetric war. When you have one nation/entity that simply does not have the industrial might of another nation, they resort to tactics where the industrial superiority is neutralized but the fight goes on. Vietnam. the Taliban, Iraq, ISIS are all doing that. ISIS/Islam is doing that all over the world And in case anyone has not guessed - Pakistan is doing exactly that with India.
In the final analysis the "government" or the "ideology" that can withstand decades of loss of lives is likely to prevail, not necessarily democracy, dictatorship or other government system. It was not democracy that won world war 2. The Nazis folded up with their boss. It was not communism that won in Vietnam. The US opted out. So industrial might is important but definitely not the factor that helps sustain or win wars.
JMT
you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?DavidD wrote:Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china![]()
Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.
We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy
This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.
BTW, what system does China produce still depend on European suppliers? Russian I'll give you that, but the number is dwindling by the day and Chinese replacements, albeit inferior, are available for the most part. With the whole-sale moving of Motor-Sich to Chongqing, soon they'll be available for every part.
this is hilarious and just goes to show how clueless china is.
china couldn't defeat the vietnam border forces.nam wrote:China may replace all those shiny toys, but how are they replace the single son which it will loose in hundreds?
They better prepare for rampaging parents and 4 grandparents when their only son/grand son is going to be blown up in some godforsaken mountains thousands of miles from the Han-land.... send to their death by the Commies sitting in their cushy "hall of the people"
The other thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post was related to this. Ultimately - even if you produce enough planes and equipment it is the attrition of people that takes a toll. The Japanese had some of the most highly trained and motivated pilots - but as time wore on that edge was lost and although they had planes they did not have the skilled pilots for even the trainers were dead. Then the planes were good only for Kamikaze.Karan M wrote:
you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?
Hope GOI, Defense planners, and the services are preparing the armed forces for a long drawn war (beyond 4 months), with highs and lows during the period. The army, airfare and the Navy should be ready for the long haul. If war takes place and India can play ball for 3 or 4 months it will be an emphatic Indian victory, and India will become a permanent enemy of China.shiv wrote:The other thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post was related to this. Ultimately - even if you produce enough planes and equipment it is the attrition of people that takes a toll. The Japanese had some of the most highly trained and motivated pilots - but as time wore on that edge was lost and although they had planes they did not have the skilled pilots for even the trainers were dead. Then the planes were good only for Kamikaze.Karan M wrote:
you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?
With one child policy, every single Chinese boy getting killed ends the family tree and n one doubt we can keep the killing fields in Tibet busy for long long time.Manish_P wrote:It is also ground which can be made to bleed the occupiers dry.. without invadingDavidD wrote:Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry
Perhaps that is not covered in your sun wu
let them keep the face,their Ass is ours .Singha wrote:Face must be kept at all costs saar
China on Tuesday said there will be "utter chaos" if its troops entered India on the pretext that Indian border infrastructure posed a threat to Beijing.
For once I agree 400% with Gobar Crimes. They won't know if they are coming or going. Half of them will immediately go AWOL and seek asylum. The rest will get totally lost. Delhi pickpockets will grab their copies of the Thoughts ofChina on Tuesday said there will be "utter chaos" if its troops entered India
My name is Bob (actually it is Shiuh-Guang Feng).
Prem wrote:let them keep the face,their Ass is ours .Singha wrote:Face must be kept at all costs saar
I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.TKiran wrote:The military solution is similar to what we did to East Pakistan, in 16days. Just capture Lhasa, instal Dalai Lama and recognize Tibet as independent country.
Capturing Lhasa is ofcourse involves cutting supply line from Han China by hitting railway lines and roads and bridges.
It's as simple as that. China has to learn from history. We have to teach them this lesson.
So you mean to say it will be 18 day war to cut Han to their size, a'la Mahabharata, unlike 16 day war a'la East Pakistan, I will settle for whatever option you choose. But what is the talk bout 1year war DavidD is choosing? May be he is misinformed.chola wrote:I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.TKiran wrote:The military solution is similar to what we did to East Pakistan, in 16days. Just capture Lhasa, instal Dalai Lama and recognize Tibet as independent country.
Capturing Lhasa is ofcourse involves cutting supply line from Han China by hitting railway lines and roads and bridges.
It's as simple as that. China has to learn from history. We have to teach them this lesson.
I written before that we should retake everything lost in 1962 and then a bit more in defensible positions. 1962 MUST be rectified and this should be in the mind of every bharati leader we elect IMHO.TKiran wrote:So you mean to say it will be 18 day war to cut Han to their size, a'la Mahabharata, unlike 16 day war a'la East Pakistan, I will settle for whatever option you choose. But what is the talk bout 1year war DavidD is choosing? May be he is misinformed.chola wrote:
I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.