Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

[NRao]

Chetak ji,

1) The Quad is D E A D

2) We are in a multipolar system and the Quad has no relevancy - how does one expect the US AND India (two poles) to function under one umbrella I, frankly, do not know. If the reaction to this multipolar system was to include the Philippines and drop India, so be it. I think that is great. It has no impact on "India" (IMO)

3) On military commitment, etc, there is no other nation as involved militarily as India. None

4) Which other nation that wants to be considered as a pole has displayed 360 capability as India?


I am waiting for two events:

* What Modi has to say to the joint US Congress, and

* What the BRICS nations, in August, decide WRT a BRICS currency pegged to whatever

[g.sarkar]

https://news.abplive.com/india-at-2047/ ... ad-1607183
US, Australia, Japan Forming New Quad With Philippines. Should India Be Concerned?
Last week, in not so much of a sudden move, the US, Japan and Australia held their first round of quadrilateral defence talks with the Philippines in a more pronounced opposition against China as India kept watching.
Nayanima Basu, 06 Jun 2023
New Delhi: India kept watching last week as its Quad partners – the US, Japan and Australia – tightly held the hands of The Philippines and gave shape to a Quad 2.0 of sorts in order to stand up to China by aligning their armies together under the Indo-Pacific framework, particularly focussing on the South China Sea. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, who was on a weeklong visit to the Indo-Pacific region, clearly outlined the Joe Biden administration’s military plans in Asia while pointing out China as the main challenge.
To that effect, Austin met Japanese Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada, Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles and Carlito Galvez, the Defence Minister of The Philippines, in Singapore last week to hold the first-ever in-person meeting of this grouping.
According to Secretary Austin, the meeting was held “to discuss opportunities to expand cooperation across our four nations, including in the South China Sea”. “We are united in our shared vision for advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific,” he said.
The meeting, which took place on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last week, was also the first-ever defence ministerial-level meeting of these four countries.
India, which is part of the Quad along with the US, Australia and Japan, sees “no cause of concern” with the formation of this new group as it believes the priorities of both the groupings are “different” even though it feeds into the larger vision of “free and open Indo-Pacific”, according to diplomatic sources.
The sources said the new grouping has a more military dimension to it and will remain focussed on issues pertaining to the South China Sea where China has been increasing its military adventurism, whereas the Quad is focussed on humanitarian and disaster relief challenges.
‘Two Separate Initiatives Can Coexist’
Both Japan and The Philippines have been facing challenges with Beijing over its claim on the Senkaku Islands and the East China Sea and part of the South China Sea.
Derek Grossman, Senior Defence Analyst at the US-based RAND Corporation, said: “I don’t think the new defence arrangement is a threat to India’s position in the original Quad whatsoever. These are two separate initiatives that can easily coexist.”
He said the new Quad is “more directly aimed at countering China”.
“It will likely do so explicitly unlike the original version, and India is probably glad to be on the outside given its cautious approach toward China than the other three Quad members Australia, Japan, and US,” he added.
Addressing the Shangri-La Dialogue, Philippines’ Galvez stated that his country is “not alone” in facing China at the South-China Sea.
Jagannath Panda, Head, of Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the Institute for Security and Development Policy, Sweden, said India's strategic significance will be “unaffected” since all the major Indo-Pacific powers need New Delhi’s cooperation on geopolitics to geo-economic issues.
“The American security mandate very much believes in making closer alignments outside the alliance framework. The latest Quad — the US, Australia, Japan, and the Philippines — echoes that spirit, strengthening the US-led architecture in the Indo-Pacific,” he said.
Panda added: “Neither the latest Quad — the US, Australia, Japan, and the Philippines — will act as a balancer to the existing Quad (the US, Japan, India, and Australia), nor will it downsize the significance of it.”
He, however, said the new Quad makes India's strategic choice a “little defensive”.
......
Gautam

[SSridhar]

US, Australia, Japan Forming New Quad With Philippines. Should India Be Concerned?

Gautam, thanks for posting this.

The US is already a Defence Treaty partner with each of these nations. It is a victory for US diplomacy to get the Philippines back into its military fold after a gap of almost three decades. I would say that more than the American hard work, it was the stupidity of the arrogant Chinese who are driving everyone in the region into American laps.

That five-year period 1949-1954 has laid the foundation for most of what we see today. The Philippines has been having a nightmarish time with the Chinese 'maritime militia', the Chinese Coast Guard, and the PLAN in the last two decades but especially more so with the arrival of Emperor XJP. Duterte's peace overtures didn't work as the Chinese expect a complete surrender. Not for them the idea of 'give and take'.

Many might not see the huge relevance of the Philippines historically. In c. 1865 the US Commander Perry forced the Tokugawa Shogunate to open the Japanese ports (closed for 200 years or so for foreigners) for the American Naval forces. This event under duress set off a chain reaction in Japan and elsewhere. After the 1898 American-Spanish war, the victorious Americans got control of the Philippines though a local rebellion kept the Americans (literally) at bay for another three years. The closer presence of a mighty US Navy posed serious security issues to both the Japanese and the Chinese, though the Japanese had destroyed the Beiyang fleet of the Qing Empire at Yalu and then in Weihaiwei in 1894-95 and the Black Sea fleet of Tsarist Russia in 1904-05 and established naval supremacy in these waters. However, they were still worried about the superiority of the USN. Many historians feel that the seeds of Pearl Harbor three decades later were sown with the arrival of the USN in the Philippines.

Interestingly, during the Hawaiian Emperor Kalakaua's world tour of c. 1881, he brought out these geostrategic and security issues to the attention of the Japanese. Unfortunately, he couldn't meet the Empress of China as she died.

But, today the same Japanese and the Filippinos are welcoming the USN while the Chinese who were deeply caught in their domestic problems to pay any attention to the developments around the region then are now having a formidable military and are having their antennae up. The common thread, of course, is the 'enduring hostility' between Japan and China. Japan, especially LDP, has been working furiously to iron out wrinkles in forming a solid front against the Chinese. If it was India earlier, it is now the Philippines and South Korea that Japan is concentrating on. Luckily, they got Marcos Jr and Yoon Suk-yeol. Surprisingly, Kishida who was regarded as a softie in Abe's cabinet when it came to China is now leading the charge.

[NRao]

IF the Quad cannot have two poles, neither can the BRICS.

And, IF Japan wants to dance with the Philippines, so be it. (Aussies are very busy removing the King/Queen from their legal tender.)

After all India as the voice of the Global South actually represents the Philippines. Giving the Philippines a part of the world stage. To rightfully claim what is hers.



I am betting Mudi, while in DC, will utter "Global South" a few times. There will be utter silence or thundering applause. Both will herald India's rise as a pole and THE rep of the Global South.

I just do not think anyone can stop this "Global South" nara. Not possible. And, as a result, has made all other alphabet soups and the past irrelevant.

IMO, of course.

[Haresh]

France opposed to opening of Nato liaison office in Japan, official says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... icial-says

[NRao]

First shoe falls .........

US backs India’s leading role as net security provider in Indo-Pacific, promises cutting-edge defence technologies

India and the United States on Monday welcomed the conclusion of a new roadmap for defence industrial cooperation between the two countries which will fast-track technology cooperation and co-production in areas such as air combat and land mobility systems; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; munitions; and the undersea domain.

OK. Jokes aside, I wonder what are the Japanese and Aussies thinking, granted at this point **everything** is in the front/ahead.

Also, we must be aware that there is a diff between State and Def. Austin could be doing the bangda, Blinken must be drinking himself in disgust.

However, the Quad with India in it is dead/gone. India has a new role. How it progresses is open to args, granted. But, India does have a new role.

The initiative is expected to change the paradigm for cooperation between the US and Indian defence sectors and includes a set of specific proposals that could provide India access to cutting-edge technologies and support New Delhi’s defence modernization plans.

During his meetings with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval in New Delhi on Monday, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin exchanged perspectives on a range of regional security issues and committed to collaborating closely with India in support of their shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Austin’s two-day visit reinforced the major defence partnership and advanced cooperation in critical domains ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official state visit to Washington later this month.

Singh and Austin explored ways of building resilient supply chains with both sides agreeing to identify opportunities for co-development of new technologies and co-production of existing and new systems besides facilitating increased collaboration between defence start-up ecosystems of the two countries.

“The Secretary and Minister Singh also committed to strengthen operational collaboration across all military services, with an eye to supporting India’s leading role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific. They discussed new opportunities to strengthen information sharing and increase cooperation in the maritime domain,” the US Defence Department said in a statement.

It mentioned that Austin welcomed India’s “leadership role” in the Quad Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness Initiative (IPMDA) which will provide cutting-edge domain awareness capability to countries across the Indo-Pacific region.

The two ministers also pledged to review regulatory hurdles impeding closer industry-to-industry cooperation and to initiate negotiations on a Security of Supply Arrangement and a Reciprocal Defence Procurement agreement, which will promote long-term supply chain stability.

Welcoming the inaugural dialogues held recently focusing on Defence Artificial Intelligence and Defence Space, both countries spotlighted the growing importance of defence innovation and cooperation in emerging domains such as space, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence.

On June 21, a day before PM Modi attends the State dinner hosted by US President Joe Biden, a new initiative to advance cutting-edge technology cooperation between India and the United States titled ‘INDUS-X’ (India-US Defence Acceleration Ecosystem) will be launched by the US-India Business Council.

It is designed to complement existing government-to-government collaboration by promoting innovative partnerships between Indian and US companies, investors, start-up accelerators, and academic research institutions.


Austin’s meeting with NSA Doval focused on exchanging views about regional and global security issues of concern, including maritime security in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

“The Secretary welcomed Mr. Doval’s perspective about shared security interests and objectives, including his ideas for greater maritime collaboration,” said the US Department of Defence.

As Austin underscored the centrality of the US-India partnership to maintaining peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region, the NSA stressed cooperation in specific niche technologies in maritime, military and aerospace domains to boost capabilities.

[Cyrano]

What an orgy of acronyms. It's got mindless bureaucracy fingerprints all over it. Might go on for a while until NaMo realises this is a bandwidth sucker with questionable returns and shafts Rajnath for it and throws it into the dustbin, having served it's purpose of unsettling China and make Xi overdose on BP tablets.
Short term view onlee ie next 6-18 months.

[KL Dubey]

OK. Jokes aside, I wonder what are the Japanese and Aussies thinking, granted at this point **everything** is in the front/ahead.

They will follow suit after the US and support India. They may even try to outdo each other to support India. Neither Japan nor Australia has the strength, vision, or need to chart any other path.

However, the Quad with India in it is dead/gone. India has a new role. How it progresses is open to args, granted. But, India does have a new role.

Quad is not a military alliance. It will continue to evolve with new collaboration tasks that may or may not be "in response to China threats". One meeting cancellation does not amount to a great deal.

India is also taking on new roles. It's not a zero-sum game.

[ramana]

US, in their fury about Pearl Harbor, destroyed Imperial Japan, the natural check and balance on China, which went Communist after WWII.

The US dilemma comes from that action.
A balancer cannot destroy one of the forces at play as that socks in the balancer as a contender.
Time weakens the contender.
We saw this with Imperial Rome too.

[chetak]

US, in their fury about Pearl Harbor, destroyed Imperial Japan, the natural check and balance on China, which went Communist after WWII.

The US dilemma comes from that action.
A balancer cannot destroy one of the forces at play as that socks in the balancer as a contender.
Time weakens the contender.
We saw this with Imperial Rome too.

The japs were looking for an "India" like colony or a bunch of smaller colonies to extract resources from

The britshit "jewel in the crown" was a source of envy, jealousy and barely disguised resentment in countries like germany and japan and other european powers

The amerikis did the right thing in making strenuous efforts to deny imperial japan access to such resources but the price that they wound up paying was horrendous

The jap attack on pearl was triggered by the amerikis themselves by their actions, after the the amrikis had pushed the japs right up against the wall and the japs had little option but to react like a cornered rat

They supported the INA and attacked India not because they had any love for India or her people but because they coveted the vast resources and wanted to grab them for themselves.

After what the japs had done to the cheenis, no one should be under any false illusions about what the japs had planned to do with India and her people.

[Cyrano]

What's quite remarkable is the total mindset change the Japanese have re-engineered in their society and how they managed to channel their people into making phenomenal efforts to become pacific, rebuild, and become highly productive to once again become a dominant player, this time with its production and innovation. What Japan achieved from 1950s until the 2000s is quite amazing for an island country of its population size, without losing its cultural uniqueness.

India had a very different trajectory, is it mainly due to its huge and highly diverse population therefore just keeping the country together itself required immense effort leaving little space for anything else.. ?

[SSridhar]

What Japan achieved from 1950s until the 2000s is quite amazing for an island country of its population size, without losing its cultural uniqueness.

Cyrano, what Japan achieved after the Meiji restoration was even more breathtaking. In fact, the Japanese made use of USN Commander Perry's ultimatum to Japan in c. 1853 to open its ports for US ships. Eventually, trade followed the flag. Once they signed the trade treaty with the US, the other Western nations followed. The Japanese absorbed newer technologies. They never looked back. But, their security fears of China, Russia and the US never left them. By the first decade of the twentieth century, they had defeated both China and Russia decisively. Korea was in their hands (which they always wanted as a buffer between themselves & China), Taiwan was conceded to them by a vanquished China, China granted MFN status to Japan, Ryukyu was accepted as belonging to Japan (though it had been 'captured' almost two hundred years earlier without China ever knowing about that). US still remained to be defeated.

Within thirty years after all these, Japan hit the US decisively. Just like China has been planning to do now. That is Realism, IR.

[chetak]

What's quite remarkable is the total mindset change the Japanese have re-engineered in their society and how they managed to channel their people into making phenomenal efforts to become pacific, rebuild, and become highly productive to once again become a dominant player, this time with its production and innovation. What Japan achieved from 1950s until the 2000s is quite amazing for an island country of its population size, without losing its cultural uniqueness.

India had a very different trajectory, is it mainly due to its huge and highly diverse population therefore just keeping the country together itself required immense effort leaving little space for anything else.. ?

Cyrano ji,

The amriki occupation of japan immediately after the war was a spectacular success in politically castrating japan. The impact is still clearly observable even today. Many japs have lost the sense of nationhood as a result.


India's fault lines were deliberately created, slyly deepened, wantonly stoked, and then cleverly exploited by the BIF led by the britshits and the amrikis, (stoking separatism in TN and also in the NE were part of this devious plan). No need to go into the details, all of which have already been debated to death. This is why India veered in her trajectory and if she had stayed her logical course, she would have become a dominant force much earlier, possibly averting the 1962 fiasco, and also the rest of the mindless attacks on her by the pukis

The japs were lured into attacking pearl and the strategic chessboard to precipitate this was in play for some years before the actual attack

On the jap side:

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto smashed the American fleet at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, yet the man who first conceived of the Pacific war -- Japan's surprise attack, the seizure of the Philippines & Guam, & the American island-hopping campaign -- was a British naval correspondent, Hector C. Bywater. He wrote a series of brilliant books & articles in the 1920s & 1930s that prophetically outlined naval strategies that would read like a blueprint for the Pacific Theater during World War II. Bywater's ideas created an uproar & then were quickly forgotten. But Yamamoto adopted Bywater's ideas as his own.

also,

Admiral Yamamoto did believe that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States. Moreover, he seemed later to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had been a blunder strategically, morally, and politically, even though he was the person who originated the idea of a surprise attack on the military installation. It is recorded that while all his staff members were celebrating, "Yamamoto alone" spent the day after Pearl Harbor "sunk in apparent depression".[3] Although almost 2,500 Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor and surrounding areas in Honolulu, he was only upset by the bungling of the Foreign Ministry which led to the attack happening while the countries were still at peace, thus, along with other factors, making the incident an unprovoked surprise attack that enraged American public opinion.

the major mistakes made by the japs were that

1) The amriki battleships that were sunk were all sunk in the shallow waters of pearl harbor (about 45 odd feet depth), most were fairly easily and quickly salvaged, refloated, refitted either in pearl or towed to other ship repair yards, refitted there and pressed into service again

2) the biggest mistake was in not attacking and destroying the fuel storage tanks, the ports naval infrastructure and ship repair facilities which were all left untouched. These by themselves would have been worth at least a dozen or more of battleships when weighed in the light of the coming war in the pacific

3) The launching, by the japs of only two of the three planned waves of attacks. Adm Yamamoto later regretted this fact publicly. The third wave would have possibly damaged more of these already sunk battleships and rendering them beyond repair or even salvage

All but USS Arizona were later raised. Six battleships were returned to service and went on to fight in the war.

[vimal]

All East Asians are loyal to their roots. Indian leadership was coconut variety and to this day remains outside a few places like BJP

[NRao]

I do not think anyone, including the members, was ever comfortable with the construct of the Quad. The US wanted to "lead", India wanted equality, and Japan/Australia was there for small things - IMO they did not matter and really do not even today.

So, to say the Quad did not have a military component is an understatement. In reality, both the US and India could not agree on what form " military " would take; thus "it is not a military alliance" was an easy way out.

I think this new Quad is a compromise. Both India and the US now have a bathtub to play their games and occasionally say "Hi" to each other.

US DoD: Secretary Austin Concludes India Visit

June 5, 2023.

The Secretary and Minister Singh also committed to strengthen operational collaboration across all military services, with an eye to supporting India's leading role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific.

India and the US have split the group but will work together. The realignment could not happen without the blessings of India.

This new model is a zero-sum model.

____________________

The legit question is: What is "Indo-Pacific" in this new model? All of "Indo" and up to where in the "Pacific"?

[ramana]

chetak, You are not getting my point that US neutered Japan such that China has an unfettered rise as East Asia had regional balance.
Now they want to turn the clock back and it is not happening,

[Pratyush]

Chetak, your reading of Japnese mistakes of the WW2 are not correct. As Japan would have lost the war regardless of what they did at Perl Harbour.

Hell, even if Japanese won Coral sea, Midway and the Solomon Island campaign. They still would have lost conventionally to the full weight of US Navy by 1945. With home islands staying defiant. If US nuclear bombs did not end the war. Then mass starvation of home islands along with destruction of Japanese army in Manchuria would, by 1946.

Ramana,

PRC would have come into being regardless of what the US did to Japan. Because Mao was clever and let KMT do bulk of the fighting against the Japanese. Weakening the reserves and causing a great deal of disaffection against the KMT.

Post war with US thinking about peace. CCP had unristricted support from the USSR. Through land routs. KMT not having that option was weakened over time and had to evacuate to Taiwan.

WRT, the "rise" of PRC. That was assured once the US industry decided to invest in the country and deceived itself by saying that PRC will democratise due to US investments.

Under such circumstances, Japan, even if, it was not emasculated by USA would have struggled to deal with PRC. Such is the power difference between the two nations. Japanese can at best act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for it self. Along with a base for US forces for offensive operations against the PRC.

AUKUS, exists primarily as a result of US arriving at a conclusion that India will never permit quad to turn into a full fledged military alliance.

The missing piece is the Japanese nuclear submarine.

Perhaps a compact nuclear reactor of 12 mw output can be added on the current Taigei-class submarine design to arrive at a Japanese SSN with a minimum effort.

[chetak]

Chetak, your reading of Japnese mistakes of the WW2 are not correct. As Japan would have lost the war regardless of what they did at Perl Harbour.

Hell, even if Japanese won Coral sea, Midway and the Solomon Island campaign. They still would have lost conventionally to the full weight of US Navy by 1945. With home islands staying defiant. If US nuclear bombs did not end the war. Then mass starvation of home islands along with destruction of Japanese army in Manchuria would, by 1946.

Ramana,

PRC would have come into being regardless of what the US did to Japan. Because Mao was clever and let KMT do bulk of the fighting against the Japanese. Weakening the reserves and causing a great deal of disaffection against the KMT.

Post war with US thinking about peace. CCP had unristricted support from the USSR. Through land routs. KMT not having that option was weakened over time and had to evacuate to Taiwan.

WRT, the "rise" of PRC. That was assured once the US industry decided to invest in the country and deceived itself by saying that PRC will democratise due to US investments.

Under such circumstances, Japan, even if, it was not emasculated by USA would have struggled to deal with PRC. Such is the power difference between the two nations. Japanese can at best act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for it self. Along with a base for US forces for offensive operations against the PRC.

AUKUS, exists primarily as a result of US arriving at a conclusion that India will never permit quad to turn into a full fledged military alliance.

The missing piece is the Japanese nuclear submarine.

Perhaps a compact nuclear reactor of 12 mw output can be added on the current Taigei-class submarine design to arrive at a Japanese SSN with a minimum effort.

Pratyush ji,

The japs were well on their way to making their own nuclear device during WWII, which they would have used without compunction or second thought

They had access to rich sources of uranium and also were able to process and purify the uranium ore.

There are very strong indications that the japs may have also tested such a device as well but the west conspired to suppress and bury all such evidence and the japs played along, given the position they were in at the end of the war.

this is the way of all the superpowers, to assert and propagate their so called primacy.

The japs destroyed much of their own work and facilities to prevent it from falling into russki hands and the russkis were more than keen to grab it. The manhattan project was merely one of the ways to the bomb. The japs were diligently working on producing their own version of the bomb, and the germans were also in the same game. The russkis ended up producing their own version of the bomb after the end of the war.

Japans technical prowess easily rivalled those of the so called great european powers and that is seen in the sheer quality of the warships and military aircraft that they produced during WWII and especially during the many years leading up to the war

Today they are only a few screwdriver turns away from fully nuclearizing and weaponizing, and also they have the readily available delivery systems from their own space program which they will easily adapt in a very short time to carry (multiple) warheads





https://youtu.be/NGx0ty0rpdM?t=44




Ever wonder how a small state like noko with nut case dictators in charge was able to nuclearize and now they have become an international menace using their rogue nuke program.

The uranium mines that the japs developed and also the huge industrial facilities to purify the uranium to weapons grade, back in the day, were all in what is today known as noko. The massive source of electricity needed to keep these facilities was also developed and built by the japs.

The noko nutjobs simply took it all over, and with cheeni help, they were able to do what they are doing today

So, don't be so sure about who would or wouldn't have won WWII.

The hypocrisy of the japs in lecturing India about her nuclear program is not only laughable but also immoral given their own murky history in this domain.

[sanman]

AUKUS, exists primarily as a result of US arriving at a conclusion that India will never permit quad to turn into a full fledged military alliance.

The missing piece is the Japanese nuclear submarine.

Perhaps a compact nuclear reactor of 12 mw output can be added on the current Taigei-class submarine design to arrive at a Japanese SSN with a minimum effort.

Japanese nuclear submarine would only be able to happen under US auspices, through arrangement like AUKUS, which Japan would presumably join (JAUKUS?)

I imagine that Japanese nuclear submarine would need to happen in response to North Korean nuclear submarine.
But could a North Korean nuclear submarine happen in the first place?

[Pratyush]

Chetak,

This thread is not going in the OT territory.

But still.

Any degree of realistic reading of the industrial strengths between alies and axis makes it clear that Axis would not have won the war.

The fact that these clowns went to war was a result detached from reality thought process.

Factual examination of Japanese circumstances of Japan show the following.

1) That Japanese were quite advanced in terms of nuclear weapons research is not supported due to a lack of indigenous uranium deposits.

2) They were importing uranium from Germany since before the beginning of the WW2.

3) They had reached a conclusion that nuclear weapons could not be achieved during the war. That in turn lead to a reduced focus on such research.

4) The reports of Japanese nuclear weapons test was contradicted by the people who were behind the nuclear research itself.

The cold hard fact is that the axis combined could not have won the war regardless of what they did.

The UK alone was producing more combat aircrafts than Germany. This was true for nearly all the years of the war.

Attacking USSR ended the game on land. They were producing 2000+ T34 tanks per month. While the entire German production of tigers was under 2000. The numbers of Panther was about 6000.

Once the US entered the war, it was over. No matter what the Axis did.

Thoughts about any other outcome is just alternative history.

[chetak]

Chetak, your reading of Japnese mistakes of the WW2 are not correct. As Japan would have lost the war regardless of what they did at Perl Harbour.

Hell, even if Japanese won Coral sea, Midway and the Solomon Island campaign. They still would have lost conventionally to the full weight of US Navy by 1945. With home islands staying defiant. If US nuclear bombs did not end the war. Then mass starvation of home islands along with destruction of Japanese army in Manchuria would, by 1946.

Ramana,

PRC would have come into being regardless of what the US did to Japan. Because Mao was clever and let KMT do bulk of the fighting against the Japanese. Weakening the reserves and causing a great deal of disaffection against the KMT.

Post war with US thinking about peace. CCP had unristricted support from the USSR. Through land routs. KMT not having that option was weakened over time and had to evacuate to Taiwan.

WRT, the "rise" of PRC. That was assured once the US industry decided to invest in the country and deceived itself by saying that PRC will democratise due to US investments.

Under such circumstances, Japan, even if, it was not emasculated by USA would have struggled to deal with PRC. Such is the power difference between the two nations. Japanese can at best act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for it self. Along with a base for US forces for offensive operations against the PRC.

AUKUS, exists primarily as a result of US arriving at a conclusion that India will never permit quad to turn into a full fledged military alliance.

The missing piece is the Japanese nuclear submarine.

Perhaps a compact nuclear reactor of 12 mw output can be added on the current Taigei-class submarine design to arrive at a Japanese SSN with a minimum effort.

Pratyush ji


If the japs won coral sea, the battle of midway and the solomon island campaigns, they would have got exactly what they were hoping to get -- a delay in the amriki efforts to subdue them.

The japs wanted time to acquire "colonies" to get their raw materials from and had they managed to do that, the war would have prolonged indefinitely.

The japs supported the INA because they had their beady eyes firmly focussed on India only because of the resource rich land mass and the truly vast potential for conscripted labour and conscripted soldiers.

Do not forget their addiction to "comfort women" and the way their culture treated these unfortunates.

the battle of midway was a very crucial turning point for both countries. After the battle, the US emerged as the sole superpower and it also signalled the end of the road for the japs and their ambitions and it was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened. The amrikis had no real stomach to fight the japs, island by island, all the way to tokyo. There was then and even today a cultural differentiation in the two countries in the way things are perceived and looked at.

Things are slowly emerging out of the mists of time and the old shadowy world of propaganda and information manipulation that was done to specifically suit one point of view or the other.

As usual, history is always written by the victors to best suit themselves, except in the case of India, where the losers wrote the history, because of the many gaddars we bred, nourished and tolerated, nay celebrated. Those gaddar names still adorn streets and public squares in almost every town, city and village in India and that is how the BIF established themselves in our cultural space and ended up creating their own poisonous ecosystems to push their agendas.

It is a toss up as to what would have happened if the japs had won the coral sea, the solomon island campaigns, as well as, the battle of midway.

Would they have been able to bring their bomb into play or would the US have backed away from immediate confrontation, hoping to use other means to work around the threat posed by the japs. The allies would have had to forcibly move naval and other military resources from their atlantic campaigns. and they would not have been willing to do that so easily.

In the atlantic, the war was all "white" and in the pacific, not so much "white", so the priorities were already set in stone. The manhattan project is best seen in this light.

[chetak]

Chetak,

This thread is not going in the OT territory.

But still.

Any degree of realistic reading of the industrial strengths between alies and axis makes it clear that Axis would not have won the war.

The fact that these clowns went to war was a result detached from reality thought process.

Factual examination of Japanese circumstances of Japan show the following.

1) That Japanese were quite advanced in terms of nuclear weapons research is not supported due to a lack of indigenous uranium deposits.

2) They were importing uranium from Germany since before the beginning of the WW2.

3) They had reached a conclusion that nuclear weapons could not be achieved during the war. That in turn lead to a reduced focus on such research.

4) The reports of Japanese nuclear weapons test was contradicted by the people who were behind the nuclear research itself.

The cold hard fact is that the axis combined could not have won the war regardless of what they did.

The UK alone was producing more combat aircrafts than Germany. This was true for nearly all the years of the war.

Attacking USSR ended the game on land. They were producing 2000+ T34 tanks per month. While the entire German production of tigers was under 2000. The numbers of Panther was about 6000.

Once the US entered the war, it was over. No matter what the Axis did.

Thoughts about any other outcome is just alternative history.

Pratyush ji

There is much reading material referenced with unimpeachably credible sources that you may have not seen.

may well be worth one's while to seek out and check them out

when ifs and buts are brought in, as you have in conjectures like "if Japanese won Coral sea, Midway and the Solomon Island campaign", then the world of speculation kicks in and alternative history(your words) come into play

BTW, Midway has been described as the battle that made the modern world. This is the effect that this singular event had on the shaping of the WWII and the world thereafter and its importance cannot be understated in any meaningful understanding of history

Since it happened so long ago, a great many people tend not to see the geopolitical and global repercussions of this crucial Naval battle that played out far beyond its remit and the consequential strategic undulations that resonate even today.

[Pratyush]

Chetak,

Please try to see how many ships of different classes were commissioned by the US. Between January 1942 and August 1945. The period of war for the US.

FInd out how many ships the imperial Japanese Navy produced during the 1937 and 1945. As that is the time the Japanese had spent fighting in China and against the USA.

The USA produced more in each in every catagory.

Before Perl Harbour, Yamamoto was reported to have said that we can rampage for 6 months and then the US will overwhelm Japan.

WRT, Knowing about the war. I have been reading about the war since late 80s.

My journey has had the following phases.

1) Started with the history of various campaigns.

2) Once that was over, I started with the history of industrial production during the war.

3) Then I moved on the more esoteric aspects of the war. ( Radar, Counter Radar, Computing, Encryption, Decryption, Smart weapons, Materials Research, , etc)

4) A study of personalities during the conflict.


I don't claim to know everything about the war.

But I know enough to know who was where and had exactly what at the end of the war.

[chetak]

Chetak,

Please try to see how many ships of different classes were commissioned by the US. Between January 1942 and August 1945. The period of war for the US.

FInd out how many ships the imperial Japanese Navy produced during the 1937 and 1945. As that is the time the Japanese had spent fighting in China and against the USA.

The USA produced more in each in every catagory.

Before Perl Harbour, Yamamoto was reported to have said that we can rampage for 6 months and then the US will overwhelm Japan.

WRT, Knowing about the war. I have been reading about the war since late 80s.

My journey has had the following phases.

1) Started with the history of various campaigns.

2) Once that was over, I started with the history of industrial production during the war.

3) Then I moved on the more esoteric aspects of the war. ( Radar, Counter Radar, Computing, Encryption, Decryption, Smart weapons, Materials Research, , etc)

4) A study of personalities during the conflict.


I don't claim to know everything about the war.

But I know enough to know who was where and had exactly what at the end of the war.

Pratyush ji,

I already know about all these statistics, personalities and technology. There is nothing new here

It is the geopolitics and strategic implications that are of importance today.

we are presently living the consequences of their actions from times so long ago.

Moving on....

[Pratyush]

WRT, the outcome of Midway, knowing what I know about the industrial strengths of the two nations. It was immaterial in terms of what it accomplished.

Regardless of what political leaders of the time said in the exaltation of victory.

I will try to explain to you why that was.

1) The US had planned to build 36 Essex class ships. They cancelled 12 of them.

2) They wanted to build 6 midway class ships. They cancelled 3 of them.

3) They had 6 Iowas on order. They cancelled the last 2.

4) they had 6 Alaska class ships on order. They cancelled 4 of them.

5) They planned to make 10 Oregon class ships. They cancelled 6 of them.

5) They planned to make 12 De Moins class ships. They cancelled 9 of them.

I cannot begin list all the Destroyers, Destroyer escorts, Submarines and other minor combatants. That is how formidable the US ship building efforts were.

US cancelled more ships at the end of the war. Then were commissioned by the IJN during the entire 37 to 45 period.

How can you take it seriously that Imperial Japan had any chance.

[chetak]

WRT, the outcome of Midway, knowing what I know about the industrial strengths of the two nations. It was immaterial in terms of what it accomplished.

Regardless of what political leaders of the time said in the exaltation of victory.

I will try to explain to you why that was.

1) The US had planned to build 36 Essex class ships. They cancelled 12 of them.

2) They wanted to build 6 midway class ships. They cancelled 3 of them.

3) They had 6 Iowas on order. They cancelled the last 2.

4) they had 6 Alaska class ships on order. They cancelled 4 of them.

5) They planned to make 10 Oregon class ships. They cancelled 6 of them.

5) They planned to make 12 De Moins class ships. They cancelled 9 of them.

I cannot begin list all the Destroyers, Destroyer escorts, Submarines and other minor combatants. That is how formidable the US ship building efforts were.

US cancelled more ships at the end of the war. Then were commissioned by the IJN during the entire 37 to 45 period.

How can you take it seriously that Imperial Japan had any chance.

Pratyush ji,

please understand that:


People, platforms, and technology have all been replaced but the geopolitical implications of their actions (specifically the battle of midway) is like a living thing even today, and it is mutating, metamorphosing, and metastasizing depending on the changing powerplays between primary protagonists.

we are talking at cross purposes.

just move on.

[ramana]

As usual, members show off what they know despite it not being germane to the topic.
ELMO

[g.sarkar]

US, Australia, Japan Forming New Quad With Philippines. Should India Be Concerned?

Gautam, thanks for posting this.
The US is already a Defence Treaty partner with each of these nations. It is a victory for US diplomacy to get the Philippines back into its military fold after a gap of almost three decades. I would say that more than the American hard work, it was the stupidity of the arrogant Chinese who are driving everyone in the region into American laps.
That five-year period 1949-1954 has laid the foundation for most of what we see today. The Philippines has been having a nightmarish time with the Chinese 'maritime militia', the Chinese Coast Guard, and the PLAN in the last two decades but especially more so with the arrival of Emperor XJP. Duterte's peace overtures didn't work as the Chinese expect a complete surrender. Not for them the idea of 'give and take'.

SSridharji,
You are welcome. We must remember that the Philippines has had an old relationship with the US, and is the oldest ally in Asia. While it is a small country (compared to India and China), it has about 3 million immigrants living here. In every company that I worked for in the US, each had a sizeable population of Pilipino workers. I am sure that is common in every state. In the past they have always followed the US lead in foreign affairs, that may have changed. But, by and large the Philippine citizens that I have met, support the US.
Gautam

[ricky_v]

https://asiatimes.com/2023/06/did-shang ... -new-quad/

After months of intense anticipation, defense chiefs from the US, the Philippines, Australia and Japan held their first-ever quadrilateral talks on the sidelines of the Shangri-La forum, with Beijing’s maritime assertiveness in mind.

Atop their agenda was proposed quadrilateral joint patrols in the South China Sea for later this year, which if held would mark a major milestone for America’s evolving “integrated deterrence” strategy to contain China’s rise in the region.

Earlier this year, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Kritenbrink, during a regional tour in Asia, played down suggestions of a new Quad grouping, including by Philippine Senator Francis Tolentino, who has pushed for “own version of Quad” to check China’s ambitions in adjacent waters.

“I guess regarding what you called, a new Quad, I would say, ‘no.’ We’re not looking to establish a new quad,” Kritenbrink said in an online press briefing during his Manila visit last month.

“We’re not looking to establish any new formal mechanisms in the Indo-Pacific at this point,” the senior US diplomat said, adding how his country is “happy to assist with the ongoing modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines including in the maritime domain.”

Nevertheless, Kritenbrink left the door open for “opportunities in the future for such close allies as the United States, Philippines and Japan to look at ways that maybe we could expand our cooperation” amid growing discussions over a trilateral Japan-Philippine-US (JAPHUS) security grouping.


Now, the US is overseeing the emergence of a new quadrilateral grouping, especially with the Philippines’ emergence as a new star ally in Asia under a more Western-friendly regime.

During the Shangri-La Dialogue, Philippine Defense Chief Carlito Galvez took an uncompromising position on the South China Sea disputes, signaling Manila’s hardening line against China’s assertiveness over its claimed features and islands.

“We view the 2016 arbitration award as not only setting the reason and right in the South China Sea, but also as an inspiration for how matters should be considered by states facing similar challenging circumstances,” Galvez said before his Indo-Pacific counterparts.

“President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has strongly emphasized his directive to safeguard every square inch of our territory from any foreign power… The UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and the 2016 arbitration are and will continue to be the twin anchors of our policies and actions in the West Philippine Sea and the broader South China Sea,” he added while emphasizing his country’s commitment to enhance maritime security cooperation with like-minded powers.

[Pratyush]

The return of Phillipines to the US fold was predicted ever since they won the court case against the PRC and PRC chose to ignore the ICJ.

Duterte could not or would not take the right decision. Marcos Jr did.

India should not be bothered by such issues. Quad is important because it brings together 4 of the largest powers in the region together.

Not because it's intended to be a military alliance.

[SSridhar]

In fact, the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty between the US & Philippines was never rescinded.

The recent extension of the defence agreement allowed the US access to 4 more crucial bases in Luzon (close to Taiwan) & Palawan (close to Spratlys)

India should not be bothered by such issues.

Especially so if we feel that the QUAD is moribund. OTOH, it is worthwhile to note two things. One, the Philippino Defence Secretary visited India just before reaching the Shangri La Dialogue where the new arrangement was announced. Two, India's non-reaction to the new arrangement should be taken positively as a welcome.

The India-Philippines strategic relationship has grown significantly since Duterte's time.

[NRao]

The current setup is perfect for everyone.

This new arrangement had to be in the works for a year or more. And, I am betting it is one that was hammered out by the US and India.

India was uncomfortable with the Quad because there was (and is) a component of the Quad that is anti-Russia. Now the new Quad can do as they please (China + Russia) and India can do as she pleases (China).

So, other than the US DoD readout (which I posted earlier), here are IMO some other data points why this amicable split occurred:

* After the US left Afghanistan in a hurry, the Saudis signed some sort of a pact/agreement with Russia. It was military related
* The 5th Fleet base in Qatar is "shaky"
* India, UAE, Israel, and the US have formed a new Quad in that region
* Cleo Pascal, in the past few months, on "Unscripted China" on a show titled something like "Will India take Tibet" stated that a few Indian strategists have started thinking in terms of taking parts of Tibet (she mentioned 2/3 of Tibet)
* I think Modi's visit to Papua New Guinea was part of this deal. While the new Quad deals with the SCS, India deals with all those tiny islands
* and finally, the UK is seriously reconsidering Diego Garcia. The UK is claiming it is an economic decision (which it is not - the US will pay for any economic deficiencies). But, bottom line: the US MAY have to vacate DG


My impression is that the Indian capability to provide security needs improvement, for which India will need technical help. From whom, is the question? While the US Dept of Def would be delighted to help out, I do not think the Dept of State would be. And, the two have competing goals.

[hgupta]

US will never vacate DG unless forced out.

[Pratyush]

Use DG as a stick with which to beat the USA and UK at every international forum. About the need to preserve rules based international order and other Blah and Blah from the USA.

[SSridhar]

RBIO is also something that Modi, Jaishankar & Rajnath Singh have been very vocal about but that is directed against China as of now. We do not need to rake up unnecessary issues like we used to do in the early days of our Independence. We have learned the Statecraft trade now and have been demonstrating that amply in the last ten years, especially since Feb 2022. We will therefore use the tools in our hands at appropriate times.

[chetak]

The return of Phillipines to the US fold was predicted ever since they won the court case against the PRC and PRC chose to ignore the ICJ.

Duterte could not or would not take the right decision. Marcos Jr did.

India should not be bothered by such issues. Quad is important because it brings together 4 of the largest powers in the region together.

Not because it's intended to be a military alliance.

The US has been significantly involved in the philippines, one way or another, since 1899.

Recent readjustments should not surprise anyone.

It is merely to be seen as part of a longstanding and also ongoing process, the ebbs and flows in their relationship

[Cain Marko]

My impression is that the Indian capability to provide security needs improvement, for which India will need technical help. From whom, is the question? While the US Dept of Def would be delighted to help out, I do not think the Dept of State would be. And, the two have competing goals.

Capability is the issue. Esp. Wrt China, esp. At sea. India might consider a China specific naval development às part of it's act East policy. Being China specific, mega orders to the US should work out well for both sides. Maybe a couple of CV ideally with f35 or even f18s, and b1b lease. Sea guardian in numbers. Done on friendship pricing and payment plans. After all, India's GDP growth projections should easily allow for this kind of expansion.
It is also a way to pay off foggy bottom types hell bent on "reforming"India. And reducing making into India's affairs. Buy more time until a more self reliant nation emerges.

[NRao]

US will never vacate DG unless forced out.

There are two dimensions to this.

1) If one were to follow articles in the news, it appears that he British are under immense pressure to leave their "last African colony".

My impression is to save face - colony is a bad word - the British are claiming that they need to save money, therefore ............

2) What exactly do the Americans need DG for?

Africa is not an issue, that can be controlled from other places.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc are slipping away.

And, the pull of the SCS + Taiwan is just too great.

Which is why, I think, they have handed over the IOR to India (which promptly sent two carrier groups to excercise in the region).

But, I feel it will take a while to wrap up.

A lot more to unpack.

[Pratyush]

Cain,

Instead of buying off the shelf equipment from the US. What India needs to do going forward is to leverage the capacity of the US and Western MIC.

One way we could do so, could be to release a development contract for India specific requirements to global vendors.

The vendor should enter into a JV with an Indian entity. Build a 50-50 JV.

Devlop the system for Indian requirements and then offer it to global South as well.

That will make the path to 100% self sufficiency easy.

[sanman]

My impression is that the Indian capability to provide security needs improvement, for which India will need technical help. From whom, is the question? While the US Dept of Def would be delighted to help out, I do not think the Dept of State would be. And, the two have competing goals.

Capability is the issue. Esp. Wrt China, esp. At sea. India might consider a China specific naval development às part of it's act East policy. Being China specific, mega orders to the US should work out well for both sides. Maybe a couple of CV ideally with f35 or even f18s, and b1b lease. Sea guardian in numbers. Done on friendship pricing and payment plans. After all, India's GDP growth projections should easily allow for this kind of expansion.
It is also a way to pay off foggy bottom types hell bent on "reforming"India. And reducing making into India's affairs. Buy more time until a more self reliant nation emerges.

What is a "China specific naval development"? You mean lease out some territory to US, like one of the Andamans?
Where does that put our ability to apply leverage on China? It also puts US in the driver's seat on our China policy.

Cain,

Instead of buying off the shelf equipment from the US. What India needs to do going forward is to leverage the capacity of the US and Western MIC.

One way we could do so, could be to release a development contract for India specific requirements to global vendors.

The vendor should enter into a JV with an Indian entity. Build a 50-50 JV.

Devlop the system for Indian requirements and then offer it to global South as well.

That will make the path to 100% self sufficiency easy.

US arms regulations don't allow just anything to be exported. Anything of a military nature needs approval from Washington.