Bharat Rakshak

A limited war is primarily limited by time. Costs, public support, lives of soldiers are all at a premium. The shorter the war, the less would be the loss to all that.

In such limited time, the only thing one can do, and do well is destruction. Construction and Nation-Building takes too much time and ultimately sucks one into a quagmire.

So if it has to be only destruction, then the question arises - what kind of destruction? It can be the destruction of some strategic infrastructure, or of some military/terrorist network or it can be the destruction of the stability of the present regime.

In order to keep the war limited, it is important to have spent considerable time beforehand at understanding the target. All the intelligence gathering should have taken place beforehand - which people, groups or tribes need to be targeted. The more we know beforehand, before war starts and all the targets disappear underground, the better and quicker they can be eliminated.

If one wants to undertake regime change, then one would have to cultivate an alternative power base which can take over. The stronger the alternative, the better it can hold after regime change, which means the more permanent is the desired effect. So preparation of an alternate power base has to undertaken much before the war erupts. Even as there is a constructive element to regime change, it is important that the new regime installed be strong enough from the beginning itself, so that they do not need your help much longer, and one can withdraw sooner.

It is the objective of ensuring permanence of destruction, that countries are sucked in into quagmires. Permanence is ensured through comprehensive capacity destruction of people and infrastructure, or through construction of an alternate (regime change).

Any conventional war fought today if contrasted with WW2 will look like a limited war. We are not going to have a total mobilisation of national resources for the war and the totality of the enemies capability will never be under attack at any one point of time.

JMT

Not necessary for totality - take a piece of land each time - or a strategic "small" piece for example. Like cutting off the north of Islamabad and have a small corridor that cuts off the rest of Pak from entrance to the Valley.

Destruction can be carried out in a way that prevents regeneration for decades and centuries. Simple alterations of landscapes can make it uninhabitable. But those are not up for discussion I guess.

B, what you are suggesting will be traumatic for the entire enemy population and perhaps result in elimination of his population in the specificaly targeted area.

But it will still be a limited war for us.

For them it will be a total war.

JMT

PS:- We seem to keep on running into the limits of what can be discussed on this form every time we think in terms of TSP and what to do with it and its population.

I guess we have very clear ideas of what needs to be done - which is not necessarily equal to what should supposedly be done when evaluated in terms of this or that supposed "value system". Two things limit the discussion. First in spite of the fact that whatever we discuss here in military terms are likely to be dismissed by the "real experts" as the daydreams or f**** of armchair strategists, so no point in thrashing out practical implementations and details. Second, our discussions reveal potential motivations and future thought processes in people who just may come to shape gov policy. Since we really cannot be that sure about the degree of penetration or voluntary leaning towards ideologies and mindsets that may see - say destruction of Pak as undesirable - and all sorts of excuses such as oath/loyalty/commitment etc to cover real mindsets, it is better not to discuss aims and objectives that can allow them to take preventive measures.

For example a fear that a future regime may do what I have suggested, can lead to a quickening of steps and processes that make it more difficult to prevent J&K becoming a base for forces that can threaten any such move to cut it off from Pak. More autonomy for example. Lets keep it therefore vague - gentlemen.

rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, What is the definition of limited war? How does it apply to India?

Rohit,

Excellent question - some value from wiki uncle: Limited War

A limited war is a conflict in which the belligerents participating in the war do not expend all of each of the participants available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise in a specific conflict. This may be to preserve those resources for other purposes, or because it might be more difficult for specific participants to be able to utilize all of an areas resources rather than part of them.

My subtly different definition: A limited war is a conflict fought under imposed constraints.
These constraints could either be self imposed or those imposed on the opponent(s).

Limited war typically does not mean limited cost. India perhaps has been hesitant to use
such a strategy due to the escalation fears both in cost and geo-political risk.
What may come about is, given the Indian economic expansion, and changing internal and
external realities that outlook may change.
It is also the case that India needs to redefine its tool set to implement strategy.

As always my few paisa for free!

X-Posting from Managing Chinese Threat Thread

Published on Oct 23, 2010
By Sudha Ramachandran
Indian and China hover over Nepal: Asia Times Online

Time to do some surgery on Nepal!

rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, What is the definition of limited war? How does it apply to India?

Rohit I think it is dangerous for anyone to say he is starting a limited war. Things may not pan out that way. I am guessing that a limited war is a post facto description that says "a limited war was fought"

"Limited" to my mind could mean limited to a geographic area, limited from escalation beyond the use of, say, small arms and mortar, or perhaps even a short sharp foray into some area and a rapid withdrawal. And limite in time or limited by the achievement of a particular goal.

The 1965 war was started as a "limited war" and the expansion of that war by Shastri took the Pakistanis by surprise. Kargil was started as a limited geographical war with the premise that nukes would prevent India from expanding the area of conflict like 1965. But The war was escalated in terms of weaponry and Pakistan was unwilling to use aircraft.

The artillery duels that were fought across the LOC while Pakistan pushed militants in are examples of "limited war" IMO. War by terrorist proxies is limited war. The US hitting Khadafi in Libya was limited war, The last Israel Hezbollah war was a fierce, but limited one. Vietnam was started relatively aimlessly to be a limited conflict but went out of hand. Afghanistan was rapidly overwhelmed in what was imagined would be a limited war, but it did not pan out that way.

In fact war by guerillas or proxies/terrorists is both limited and unlimited. It is limited in intensity, cost and weaponry, but ends up being "unlimited" because it is sustainable for long periods of time by the most low tech and ill equipped forces. That is what has happened in Afghanistan.

shiv wrote:OK, reproduced in full from the following 2 sources
http://www.isria.com/RESTRICTED/D/2010/ ... 10_144.php
http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsP ... 11010n.php

New Delhi, Oct 21 (IBNS) Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs”

Somehow - the above talk dovetails with some thoughts I have had.

New nuclear powers are emerging from unstable states which have huge populations of people who are barely subsisting, with governments who have little use for education, trade and development of their people - and are quite happy to hold other countries to ransom and get paid protection money in exchange. North Korea and Pakistan are the prime examples.

In this connection let me quote another para from the speech

This aspect of Indian strategic culture is common to what Kanti Bajpai described as the three streams of Indian strategic culture, namely, “Nehruvians”, neo-liberals and hyper-realists. They might differ on the best means but not on India’s strategic goals . To summarise Bajpai, all three streams agree on the centrality of the sovereign state in international relations and recognise no higher authority; see interests, power and violence as the staples of international relations that states cannot ignore; and think that power comprises both military and economic capabilities at a minimum.

If India considers the "nation state" as the highest authority it can be said that both the USA and China agree with this for themselves - i.e for their own country. They do not necessarily accept this as far as other countries are concerned. There are some fundamental requirements for a nation state to survive as an intact entity that is able to interact usefully with other nation states. A fundamental requirement is fixed and defined borders. Concepts like "immigration" "visas" and "nationality/citizenship" stem directly from the idea of a nation state with defined borders.

There 3 ways in which nations states and people can violate borders and impact upon the "sanctity of borders" that nation states require
1) People cross borders because of various reasons - economic or irredentist. This is prevented by "immigration", "border controls", "visas" and the like. In this case one or both nations do respect borders but people don't.
2) A nation disputes a border and wages military war. This often leads to "total war" between the militaries or even people of two nations. Here one or both nations do not respect the border.
3) "People's war", "guerrilla war" or "cross border terrorism". I would like to write a little bit more about this last point because it illustrates what Shivshankar Menon said

Nuclear confrontation or war between major powers is not as likely as the threat from derivatives of nuclear deterrence, namely, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which are being used to subvert the emergence of a plural, secular and democratic international order in the twenty-first century. The challenges of a globalised world cannot be handled by twentieth century military alliances or containment strategies.

What nation states have done is to create visas and immigration controls can check illegal immigration. Powerful militaries can thwart war to change borders, upholding the sanctity of the nation state. Nuclear weapons are only an additional factor in stopping nations from trying to change borders by war.

Now if you wanted to change a border what would you do? Peaceful migration, which occurred for thousands of years is now limited by "visas' and border controls. Violent change by war is limited by militaries and nuclear weapons. The only way out is to resort to low-intensity, asymmetric guerilla warfare, also known as "cross border terrorism". Incidentally on the question of "limited war" the word "guerilla" itself means "small war"

I may be stepping OT here but there is some deeply embedded issue in the Indian psyche that is at play here. India is a great country to live in. No. I am not saying that it is better than the US and Europe - especially if you start using their definitions of what is "good" and "bad". The US and Europe have been good to live in for a mere 2000 years or less. India has been a great place for humans to live in for over 5000 years. Why. The simple reason is geography and climate. Settled human populations exploded and expanded after humans changed from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled agricultural lifestyle. India is arguably the best place on earth to support an agriculture economy. For this reason there has been a net inflow of people into India for millennia. For the same reason "Indians" do not want to leave. Indian love their land and literally do not "covet" other lands. Almost any other land is more hostile and less easy to live in. Less water, less arable land, lousy climate. Mad barbarians to boot.

Now combine the diverse points made above into one picture:

Indian are happy to keep their land. They like it there and are not trying to go anywhere. Is it any surprise that Indians see the concept of the nation state that fixes the borders of India and gives Indians a "matrubhoomi" to protect is loved by India? To quote Shivshankar Menon again:

... (Indians) agree on the centrality of the sovereign state in international relations and recognise no higher authority

It is "others", the "outsiders" who always moved in towards India throughout history. Amazingly it is still happening top this day. BRF exists because of that. But again. Look what the nation state system has done. It stops others from migrating to India as easily as they used to do 2000 years ago. Or even 500 years ago. And look what nukes and the Indian military has done? They are making it costly to wage territorial war against India.

So what is left? It is "People's war", "guerrilla war" or "cross border terrorism". These are the tools being used by everyone to subvert the Indian nation.

Indians already have a fault. They do not want to go out. Where will they go? If the try to go to Tibet - heck that is a hostile place to live. No oxygen even. If we head towards the West and cross the Indus - we get mainly desert all the way from Balochistan to North Africa. Central Asia is liveable but much less attractive than India. South East Asia is a great place. Warm, lush and inviting. Just like India. And they are full. So Indians stay put in India. India's only expansion has been towards South East Asia. The other possibility of expansion is towards Africa. Equatorial Africa is as lush, warm. moist and inviting as India.

In summary:
1) Indians are not trying to expand their territory
2) Others are trying to expand into India
3) Guerilla war is the easiest and safest route to take for expansion into India given that peaceful migration and hot war are least likely to work.

Conclusion:
We are going to have to fight campaigns against guerillas for a long long time to come. Pakistan like threats will never go away. We will have to live with them. Our defence investment will have to be in areas that fight low garde wars just as we ready ourselves to thwart "Hot, total war". Total peace at our borders will never be achieved because people will always be trying to come into India. Indians as a people have very little incentive to "go out and capture" the lands bordering India.

The possibility of 200 PAKFAs and 200 MKIs battling 1000 J 10s and JF 17s is more remote than continuous low grade war. It's not impossible - but it can be made "more remote" by making sure we have those 200+200

shiv wrote:In summary:
1) Indians are not trying to expand their territory
2) Others are trying to expand into India
3) Guerilla war is the easiest and safest route to take for expansion into India given that peaceful migration and hot war are least likely to work.

Conclusion:
We are going to have to fight campaigns against guerillas for a long long time to come. Pakistan like threats will never go away. We will have to live with them. Our defence investment will have to be in areas that fight low garde wars just as we ready ourselves to thwart "Hot, total war". Total peace at our borders will never be achieved because people will always be trying to come into India. Indians as a people have very little incentive to "go out and capture" the lands bordering India.

Another well thought out post. Again I find myself agreeing with you. China would not fight a hot war with India if she can help it. But death by a thousand cuts is low cost and low risk. Just good business.

But I have a problem with your point 1. You might not want to expand India, but judging by some more vocal posts on BRF, there are Indians that thinks otherwise. A lot of talks of union with Tibet, and other sub-continent countries. And even if they are a minority, a growing India is going to be precieved by her neighbours as a hegemony by simply looking out for her national interests. So whether point 1 is true or not is a moot point. The preception is there and they will influence political decision making.

^ as India positions itself as an economic, political and military alternative China, all the pieces will fall in place. We are very close to this historic alignment of factors; perhaps another 10-15 yrs

TonyMontana wrote: But I have a problem with your point 1. You might not want to expand India, but judging by some more vocal posts on BRF, there are Indians that thinks otherwise. A lot of talks of union with Tibet, and other sub-continent countries. And even if they are a minority, a growing India is going to be precieved by her neighbours as a hegemony by simply looking out for her national interests. So whether point 1 is true or not is a moot point. The preception is there and they will influence political decision making.

Expanding into Tibet is a bad choice for India in my view. Low grade needling of China by supporting the genetic pool of Tibetans who can survive at high altitude and double up as fighters for an Indian cause so that Tibet is never totally comfortable for China is a good idea.

No matter how far you take technology humans are still biological animals and need food and air. Tibet is no good for providing either of those requirements in sufficient quantities to support large human populations. But "conquering Tibet" and "settling Tibet" seems like a great idea for an oligarchic government that has too many people who need to be given jobs to do. China started off with a 3 million man PLA. How do you keep so many men employed? Factory work is one route. Infrastructure building and occupation are other possibilities. Non Tibetan people in Tibet will have to be "occupation", predominantly by male soldiers in non family postings. Once China starts putting large numbers of families in Tibet they will raise the problems of altitude sickness and ill health. For a normal non Tibetan woman - even the single childbirth that is allowed in China will become more risky in Tibet, making Tibet an unattractive destination for family postings. Since food, fuel and medical supplies will have to be shipped in - mostly by train the logistics will be more costly and in case of conflict - the family supplies (milk powder, diapers) will become secondary to military supplies. Tibet will always be a colony of China unless China changes to make its own relationship with Tibet somewhat like the US's relationship with Hawaii. Given the paranoia and coercive doctrines of the CPC I see that as unlikely in the short term - until the CPC is confident that openness and good relation can be as rewarding, if not more rewarding than threats and belligerence.

The CPC is in the business of giving all Chinese "jobs" to do. Tibet is a "job" for the Chinese. The only question to what level India needs to ramp up the CPCs paranoia about Tibet without frittering away men and material in actually trying to occupy Tibet. China will likely build "enhanced oxygen colonies" in Tibet to house thousands of people. This is great as a "job" for national infrastructure development and "unification by colonization". Perhaps China may even create enhanced oxygen farms.

In India the government spends billions on underdeveloped regions because only the government can do that. Because of a lack of profit - no private entity will do the job that the government does in remote and thinly populated areas. This is what China is doing in Tibet. China will have to find some means of generating money from Tibet. This will likely be mining and tourism. Tourism is sensitive to political strife and India can play a role in Tibetan politics. Mining in Tibet will involve the usual factors that are intertwined with mining - namely costs of transportation, environmental damage and safety.

But I don't think there will be any Indian military attempt to occupy Tibet. Low grade political resistance and stoking the fires of opposition to the CPC's coercion is a better way forward for India. It is precisely this Indian capability that makes China behave like a larger than life military threat to India. Like any paranoid oligarchy the CPC believes that countries can be threatened into submission and compliance just like what was done to the Chinese people. What they actually can do or will do is a different matter. The more powerful India becomes the less likely thee CPC is to try military adventurism. India's role, given India's psyche should be to "show a way out" for China after making her learn that threats will not work and India will support an alternate Tibet for as long as needed.

shiv wrote: The CPC is in the business of giving all Chinese "jobs" to do. Tibet is a "job" for the Chinese. The only question to what level India needs to ramp up the CPCs paranoia about Tibet without frittering away men and material in actually trying to occupy Tibet. China will likely build "enhanced oxygen colonies" in Tibet to house thousands of people. This is great as a "job" for national infrastructure development and "unification by colonization". Perhaps China may even create enhanced oxygen farms.

Indeed. Why fight nature when you can change nature? I can see the day when Chinese people move from enhanced oxygen buildings to enhanced oxygen buses to enhanced oxygen buildings. Kinda like Singapore, where you don't have to step outside into the heat if you don't want to.

shiv wrote: In India the government spends billions on underdeveloped regions because only the government can do that. Because of a lack of profit - no private entity will do the job that the government does in remote and thinly populated areas. This is what China is doing in Tibet. China will have to find some means of generating money from Tibet. This will likely be mining and tourism. Tourism is sensitive to political strife and India can play a role in Tibetan politics. Mining in Tibet will involve the usual factors that are intertwined with mining - namely costs of transportation, environmental damage and safety.

Internal Chinese tourism is a huge business. And you can't put a $ value on strategic importance.

shiv wrote: But I don't think there will be any Indian military attempt to occupy Tibet. Low grade political resistance and stoking the fires of opposition to the CPC's coercion is a better way forward for India. It is precisely this Indian capability that makes China behave like a larger than life military threat to India. Like any paranoid oligarchy the CPC believes that countries can be threatened into submission and compliance just like what was done to the Chinese people. What they actually can do or will do is a different matter. The more powerful India becomes the less likely thee CPC is to try military adventurism. India's role, given India's psyche should be to "show a way out" for China after making her learn that threats will not work and India will support an alternate Tibet for as long as needed.

Often people over look the other side of the Chinese trick. It's not just stick. It's stick AND carrot. For things China's couldn't threaten, she tries to buy out. China is not a one trick pony. And if threats and money couldn't solve something, there is always back paddeling. Preserve the opportunity for another crack in the future.

TonyMontana wrote: Indeed. Why fight nature when you can change nature? I can see the day when Chinese people move from enhanced oxygen buildings to enhanced oxygen buses to enhanced oxygen buildings. Kinda like Singapore, where you don't have to step outside into the heat if you don't want to. ldn't solve something, there is always back paddeling. Preserve the opportunity for another crack in the future.

If fact this is one good reason why India need not invade Tibet. China is "fighting nature" even more then Western civilization. Nature is a good fighter. It is fascinating to watch China fighting nature. For some people it is an indication of China's greatness and they fear China. For others it causes a ROTFL.

But the Chinese are not doing anything new here other than China's one child policy - which is really new. Fighting nature has been done by a whole lot of civilizations. In fact India and China are now "sort of allies" in the environment fight against the West who have fought nature for a couple of centuries. Singapore is a small nation that can be ignored. What the West has done is to ensure that if you don't like the cold, you need not step into the cold at all. You remain in a heated home. And that heating initially caused deforestation, and now it needs oil.

India's big advantage in terms of climate is that nearly 100% of Indians do not even need clothes to survive for most of the year. South Indians can survive all year without clothes. You don't need animals for food. Very little grows in Tibet. Either you eat yaks or have your beef shipped in. If you shit in the open in India that shit is dry in 2 days and gets dispersed as powder in 5 days. If you shit outside in December in a frozen northern climate, that shit will come back and greet you in spring. Permafrost might be a better bet.

So China will be watched with fascination as the colonize Tibet by force. That colonization will need energy. That energy will have to be shipped in via various routes. While the good times last.

As regards this thread what this means is a look at the exact nature of "War over Tibet". I don't foresee it as a war of 200 MKIs and 200 MRCA versus 1000 J 10s and J 11s.

shiv wrote:
If fact this is one good reason why India need not invade Tibet. China is "fighting nature" even more then Western civilization. Nature is a good fighter. It is fascinating to watch China fighting nature. For some people it is an indication of China's greatness and they fear China. For others it causes a ROTFL.

Interesting view point. I'll elabrate below.

shiv wrote:
But the Chinese are not doing anything new here other than China's one child policy - which is really new. Fighting nature has been done by a whole lot of civilizations. In fact India and China are now "sort of allies" in the environment fight against the West who have fought nature for a couple of centuries. Singapore is a small nation that can be ignored. What the West has done is to ensure that if you don't like the cold, you need not step into the cold at all. You remain in a heated home. And that heating initially caused deforestation, and now it needs oil.

So what you're saying is the colonisation of Tibet can be done. China just need a good supply of Energy. If I recall correctly, Tibet has China's only source of Uraninum.

shiv wrote:
India's big advantage in terms of climate is that nearly 100% of Indians do not even need clothes to survive for most of the year. South Indians can survive all year without clothes. You don't need animals for food. Very little grows in Tibet. Either you eat yaks or have your beef shipped in. If you shit in the open in India that shit is dry in 2 days and gets dispersed as powder in 5 days. If you shit outside in December in a frozen northern climate, that shit will come back and greet you in spring. Permafrost might be a better bet.

Have you read "Guns Germs and Steel"? It pretty much boiled down to "a man's go to do, what a man's got to do." By having these good natural environment, Indians don't need to do the things that people in colder climates have to do to survive.

But people without the good luck of the Indian people have been modifying their environment forever. It is very interesting to see you laugh at China's attempts to modify her environment. Difference in thought patterns indeed.

shiv wrote:
So China will be watched with fascination as the colonize Tibet by force. That colonization will need energy. That energy will have to be shipped in via various routes. While the good times last.

As regards this thread what this means is a look at the exact nature of "War over Tibet". I don't foresee it as a war of 200 MKIs and 200 MRCA versus 1000 J 10s and J 11s.

Indeed. Agree with you again. China need to secure her energy supplies. He who controls the energy supply of the planet, controls the planet. Gives a new meaning to the term, "power company".

TonyMontana wrote: So what you're saying is the colonisation of Tibet can be done. China just need a good supply of Energy. If I recall correctly, Tibet has China's only source of Uraninum.

<snip>

[qIt is very interesting to see you laugh at China's attempts to modify her environment. Difference in thought patterns indeed.

I am not laughing. I am skeptical for the long term. It will be a tougher job to colonize Tibet than it was to colonize North America. Look how much Australia has been colonized. No shortage of oxygen in Australia. See the degree of colonization of the Atacama desert in Chile. China's huge population is an indicator that at least the South East 1/3rd of China is as lovely as India, even if a bit colder. The problems of occupation/living increase as you get into Tibet and the Gobi desert.

In India humans get some free energy. In huge areas of the world energy is not free. Energy therefore becomes a commodity which gets priced on demand and supply.

Apart from the theme of Guns, Germs and Steel there is the other cynical argument that modernity itself is not sustainable and that the only sustainable life is like the hunter-gatherer Adivasis of India or the forest dwellers of Borneo. There is also the other observation that flushing toilets for all humans in the world are not environmentally sustainable or feasible. Nobody has the real answers yet - but one can watch and see what others are doing. If they do well you feel jealous and copy. If they do badly you laugh and mock.

Have you read "Guns Germs and Steel"? It pretty much boiled down to "a man's go to do, what a man's got to do." By having these good natural environment, Indians don't need to do the things that people in colder climates have to do to survive.

But people without the good luck of the Indian people have been modifying their environment forever. It is very interesting to see you laugh at China's attempts to modify her environment. Difference in thought patterns indeed.

Ummm .. baloney

Guns germs and steel also gave some examples of ecological catastrophes caused by modifying the natural environment beyond its sustainable limit. Does that give you hints of your own mortality, Tony?

There is a reason why many people here point out cultural similarities between China and India. Ridiculous if you now claim that there are "differences in thought patterns" .. do you mean the differences work on how you approach the natural environment but not in which parts of the environment are picked up as your gods?!!

Indeed. Agree with you again. China need to secure her energy supplies. He who controls the energy supply of the planet, controls the planet. Gives a new meaning to the term, "power company".

Ahhhh .. But does Buddhism stop the bombing of such energy lines? Even when no one alive is anywhere near the grid ?
I perceive interesting routes for Buddhist thought to take in future
Note that the major beneficiaries of such power will be inside powered homes roiling up the masses outside who, as a matter of fact, dont need that power to survive

Check this image of the world at night. The link below will give you a bigger (and better) image
http://thehermanlackmanbrewingcompany.c ... 0Night.jpg

This image is a fantastic indicator of where all the people are in the world.

Note that it is dark over the Sahara desert and Siberia. And Alaska and over vast stretches of Canada and Australia.In the enlarged photo you can see that Pakistan is lit up mainly along the Indus. Balochistan, Central Asia, Xinjiang and Tibet are dark. Apart from the Rajasthan desert and some central Indian forested areas (Naxal infested?) India is totally lit up. Mind you this is a country with an energy deficit.

Why are people concentrated into some areas? The answer is simple. There are areas in the world that are nearly unlivable. India, a "ratna" in the gloom, is surrounded by darkness. Is it any wonder that people have been coming, and wanting to come to India from all over?

the chinese light pattern neatly marks out the isohyet - the boundary between wet china and dry china, ie where there is food, and where there is none - and therefore the boundaries of the han civilisation. not to mention the brightly lit coast and the dark interior marking the income fault lines of the industrial age

note japan, where only 4% of land is cultivable, which is highly mountainous - brightly lit all over
also note - the norwegian coast, amazing what oil revenues can do for social good

i'm slightly surprised by the large blob around Jo'burg, didn't think it would be that significant as an economic driver of southern africa

shiv wrote: I am not laughing. I am skeptical for the long term. It will be a tougher job to colonize Tibet than it was to colonize North America. Look how much Australia has been colonized. No shortage of oxygen in Australia. See the degree of colonization of the Atacama desert in Chile. China's huge population is an indicator that at least the South East 1/3rd of China is as lovely as India, even if a bit colder. The problems of occupation/living increase as you get into Tibet and the Gobi desert.

We Chinese loves a challenge. The colonisation is well underway right now. So it will be interesting to see if we succede or not. Remember, China's colonisation is not intended to move major Chinese population in to Tibet, like the west coast of America. This colonisation is mainly used to retain control of the area. We don't need to move 100 million Chinese into tibet. We just need [Tibetan_Population] + 1.

shiv wrote: If they do well you feel jealous and copy. If they do badly you laugh and mock.

The current people that do well are modernised. So we copy.

PrasadZ wrote: Guns germs and steel also gave some examples of ecological catastrophes caused by modifying the natural environment beyond its sustainable limit. Does that give you hints of your own mortality, Tony?

I am well aware of my own mortality. But you can't throw out the baby with the bath water. You can't let the possibility of future catastrophes stop development. Or we'll all stop using oil right now. (*Said partly in jest*)

PrasadZ wrote:
There is a reason why many people here point out cultural similarities between China and India. Ridiculous if you now claim that there are "differences in thought patterns" .. do you mean the differences work on how you approach the natural environment but not in which parts of the environment are picked up as your gods?!!

We as people have many shared cultural similarities, but we are fundalmentally different as well.
IMHO, Chinese value unity, India value diversity. Indians are principled and traditional, whereas the Chinese are pragmatic and adaptable. Not saying one is better, just different.

Lalmohan wrote:the chinese light pattern neatly marks out the isohyet - the boundary between wet china and dry china, ie where there is food, and where there is none - and therefore the boundaries of the han civilisation. not to mention the brightly lit coast and the dark interior marking the income fault lines of the industrial age

It's always interesting to have posters pointing out the boundaries of the han civilisation. The boundaries of humanity was the african continent for 100,000 years. Are we all suppose to go back there? Boundaries of civilisation changes. The Han civilisation started out in a couple of villiages on the river. Maybe that's the real boundaries of the han civilisation.

TonyMontana wrote:

shiv wrote: I am not laughing. I am skeptical for the long term. It will be a tougher job to colonize Tibet than it was to colonize North America. Look how much Australia has been colonized. No shortage of oxygen in Australia. See the degree of colonization of the Atacama desert in Chile. China's huge population is an indicator that at least the South East 1/3rd of China is as lovely as India, even if a bit colder. The problems of occupation/living increase as you get into Tibet and the Gobi desert.

We Chinese loves a challenge. The colonisation is well underway right now. So it will be interesting to see if we succede or not. Remember, China's colonisation is not intended to move major Chinese population in to Tibet, like the west coast of America. This colonisation is mainly used to retain control of the area. We don't need to move 100 million Chinese into tibet. We just need [Tibetan_Population] + 1.

TonyMontana in Red Menace thread wrote:

Hari Seldon wrote: Wow. Very, very heartening. Jai bhaarath.

The problem is holding control over these area. By the nature of the Maoist, they will shy away from any direct comfrontation. Would the 60,000 extra security forces stay in the area? What happenes when they leave? More importantly. Where did the Maoists go?

Dharmic Tibetan : Maoist Han :: Maoist Naxal : Dharmic Indian

TonyMontana wrote: We as people have many shared cultural similarities, but we are fundalmentally different as well.
IMHO, Chinese value unity, India value diversity. Indians are principled and traditional, whereas the Chinese are pragmatic and adaptable. Not saying one is better, just different.

When did the Chinese started to value "unity" - surely not before and immediately after the first "emperor"? If they were so unity minded surely he did not have to mount such warfare and his end would not also be followed by such centrifugal forces? Time and again China has erupted into disunity. I would rather see it as an artificially held society - that needs continuous and increasing repression to hold on against the centrifugal forces.

What this implies is that Chinese regimes have to constantly be engaged in a war against its own people to maintain the pretension of "unity" - another kind of example of waging war not for geopolitical gains but survival. This is the angle that Indian leadership so far have not used against Chinese regimes.

TonyMontana wrote: This colonisation is mainly used to retain control of the area.

You mean it is not yet under control and may slip out if not "retained"?

I guess no such problem exists for those areas that are traditional Han areas within the boundaries of the Han civilization. So the big challenge that the Chinese like to try is unification by occupation. That is what everyone else is saying. Han Chinese are trying to occupy and retain Tibet but are calling this "unification" of China. No disagreement here.

But then Tibet is an "occupied land". It is hardly China as is claimed. You have yourself said:

We don't need to move 100 million Chinese into tibet.

The people who are being moved into Tibat are "Chinese". Not Tibetans. That means the Chinese are coming from somewhere. That "somewhere" is from within the boundaries of the Han civilization to Tibet which is outside the boundaries of the Han civilization. Tibet is Chinese occupied land. Not China. No dispute with that is there?

brihaspati wrote: What this implies is that Chinese regimes have to constantly be engaged in a war against its own people to maintain the pretension of "unity" - another kind of example of waging war not for geopolitical gains but survival. This is the angle that Indian leadership so far have not used against Chinese regimes.

I wouldn't call it war. Maybe coersion. But that's how we rolled for the last couple of thousand years. Who are you to judge?

shiv wrote: You mean it is not yet under control and may slip out if not "retained"?

Better safe then sorry. No shame in being prepared.

shiv wrote: I guess no such problem exists for those areas that are traditional Han areas within the boundaries of the Han civilization. So the big challenge that the Chinese like to try is unification by occupation. That is what everyone else is saying. Han Chinese are trying to occupy and retain Tibet but are calling this "unification" of China. No disagreement here.
But then Tibet is an "occupied land". It is hardly China as is claimed. You have yourself said:
The people who are being moved into Tibat are "Chinese". Not Tibetans. That means the Chinese are coming from somewhere. That "somewhere" is from within the boundaries of the Han civilization to Tibet which is outside the boundaries of the Han civilization. Tibet is Chinese occupied land. Not China. No dispute with that is there?

Boundaries are a fluid concept. Xinjiang, directly translated, means "new territory". Tibet, in chinese, means "western territory". In, oh I don't know, say 200 years, when Tibet is 92% Han Chinese living in enhanced oxygen cities, who are you to say that it is not China? How about 400 years? Like I said, if you go back far enough, the Han only has a few river villiages. Where do you draw the line?

TonyMontana wrote
I wouldn't call it war. Maybe coersion. But that's how we rolled for the last couple of thousand years. Who are you to judge?

Ah, well - we are used to much greater freedoms in questioning and doubting and "judging". Should I go into what the Chinese regimes have been doing for thousands of years and still continues to do and compare whether we can make hyperfine distinctions between coercion and war (isnt war a form of coercion!) as practised in that form? But will be OT though.

No problem, will find a thread to bring that record up! cheers!

TonyMontana wrote: Boundaries are a fluid concept. Xinjiang, directly translated, means "new territory". Tibet, in chinese, means "western territory". In, oh I don't know, say 200 years, when Tibet is 92% Han Chinese living in enhanced oxygen cities, who are you to say that it is not China? How about 400 years? Like I said, if you go back far enough, the Han only has a few river villiages. Where do you draw the line?

Off topic. My reply at the link below:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 35#p968535

come come Tony, no need to get touchy. would it be better if I said boundaries of the Ch'in and Sung civilisations or Tang? I am pointing out geographical boundaries of the cultivated lands which are the bedrock of the ancient Chinese civilisation - and my observation (on China) is hardly original, its from Stratfor from 2008
the other light pattern observations are my own

shiv wrote:I may be stepping OT here but there is some deeply embedded issue in the Indian psyche that is at play here. India is a great country to live in. No. I am not saying that it is better than the US and Europe - especially if you start using their definitions of what is "good" and "bad". The US and Europe have been good to live in for a mere 2000 years or less. India has been a great place for humans to live in for over 5000 years. Why. The simple reason is geography and climate. Settled human populations exploded and expanded after humans changed from a nomadic lifestyle to a settled agricultural lifestyle. India is arguably the best place on earth to support an agriculture economy. For this reason there has been a net inflow of people into India for millennia. For the same reason "Indians" do not want to leave. Indian love their land and literally do not "covet" other lands. Almost any other land is more hostile and less easy to live in. Less water, less arable land, lousy climate. Mad barbarians to boot.

Also OT, but Europe used to be *much* warmer - there was a time when southern England was a fine place to plant vineyards...this is why there was spare labour to produce magnificent and astronomically sophisticated monuments like stonehenge, and other neolithic monuments all the way down to Malta.

Even in later, colder times Europe as a whole has had a real energy surplus - water, wind, wood and draught animals. W. Europe faced a catastrophic half-millenia from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and barbarian invasions, but those material conditions and the survival, however imperiled, of the Greco-Roman traditions of materialism and rationalism meant that those resources would be harnessed. Well before the first ships sailed in to the Atlantic to colonise, Europe was building fine mechanical clocks, printing presses and cannons, paid for by people like English merchant-entrepreneurs whose woolens and linens were outselling others in rich markets like Egypt, Syria and Anatolia.

Arguing just the opposite here!

X-Posting from Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Summary

We have talked about the dangers that India faces from China, and how our neighborhood is vulnerable to China's advances.

Throughout the various posts, the proposal has been that we consolidate the Indian Subcontinent peacefully, in a somewhat similar way as Europe, but go much further in establishing a true political union.

Due to a unification of India with Bangladesh, for example, there will be a lot more Muslims living in India, and this increase in Muslim population needs to be managed to ensure that the Indian ship stays afloat and keeps its course. Many challenges would arise in dealing with Indic-Muslim Relations. A new understanding would have to be reached between the Indics and the Muslims. We should systematically support liberal and reform-minded Muslims. Perhaps the Bangladeshi merger with India can even be beneficial and useful in reforming the thought process of the Indian Muslims.

An integration of the Indian Subcontinent would help India overcome the Chinese challenge but would also bring benefits to other countries of the subcontinent. Due to this integration process, India would have the most Muslims in the world, which would have negative but also positive consequences to it.

Such an enterprise is not only an imperative considering the situation in Asia, but it is also doable. In order for the enterprise to succeed except for Pakistan, India would need to take all others along. There is a perception of security when in a group.

India can opt for a federal structure, already known and tested by us. In order to solve the political problems arising due to migration between the regions, especially from Bangladesh, as well as to solve the current problem of illegal immigration, India can opt for separate Electoral Zones. Through the Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent there is a possibility to unravel India's enemy to the West - Pakistan, without resorting to war and without needing to accept radical Muslims into the Indian fold. Also we need not wait for an eternity as we can speed the developments there.

We should not lose time in preparing ourselves and our neighborhood to meet the challenge posed by China.

In the process, India would have become bigger and stronger.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent
Table of Contents:

1. The Chinese Threat
2. Indic-Muslim Relations
3. Evolution of Muslim Psyche
4. Systematic Support for Liberal & Reform-Minded Muslims
5. What's in it for Bangladesh and others?
6. Being the biggest Muslim country in the World?
7. Implementation Issues
8. Take all along
9. Federal Structure and Multiple Electoral Zones
10. Solving Pakistan
11. Making the Case

^^
Rajesh you could consolidate all this into a pdf-ed e-book with very little extra effort.

shiv saar,

Thanks for the suggestion. Will do it soon!

Cross posting my own post because it is relevant here:

TonyMontana wrote: Do you want to know the real tragedy? I, as a Chinese, must defend against any threat against China. And I dare say that's the view of most Chinese. India's rise and/or her reactions to the CCP's action are contrary to Chinese interests. So it is my duty to work against India. Like the earlier example of German/French soldiers in the trenchs. We could've been the bestest friends. But alas, we stare at each other across no man's land. And when the order comes, we have to do our best to try to stick a bayonet in your gut. As you will to us. So where does that leave us? A vicious cycle of young men dying for the mistake of old men.

But that's the human story isn't it?

In fact wars are technically between leaders of nations, but the outcome of wars are dependent on the extent to which either leader/government can depend on his generals and soldiers to consider it their "duty" to fight a war.

This is where the US got it wrong in Vietnam and is still struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan people it was a more compelling duty to fight the Americans despite losses, poverty and destruction of the economy. For the US destruction of the economy acts as a brake to warfighting.

This is what prompted me to start the thread on "War for geopolitical gains". Powerful nations (Pakistan is also powerful) sometimes try to wage short sharp wars for quick gains, gambling that their economy will not be affected greatly while the military victory will have lasting benefit. Just like the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan tried this with India several times and failed and that failure ultimately reflected in the economy of Pakistan. China did it to India and succeeded at a time when China was still in turmoil but under a powerful leader.

The problem about war is that if calculations go awry the economy starts getting affected. And when the economy gets affected the people get affected. That is the real test of leadership. If the war can be kept going by inspiring the people that this is a just war that requires every citizen to do his duty. This puts the leadership under dual pressure, with the war on one side and the domestic fallout of the war at home. As long as the entire population is convinced that a just war is being fought the war can go on. But if the population are unconvinced about the need for war, it can go the wrong way for the leadership.

That means that no national leadership should start war lightly. In terms of India and China it means that China must assuredly punish India if India starts a war and India must assuredly punish China if China starts war. The leadership of each nation, who are a the position to start wars even for small gains should understand in no uncertain terms that war will mean punishment of the nation and economy causing the leadership real stress.

Peace can be maintained if this understanding is reached on both sides. But if one nation starts acting like it is ready to start war it can mean one of several things:
1) The national leadership is posturing because the leadership sees a threat from the other side.
2) The leadership of one side believes an adversary is weak and can be taken advantage of militarily.
3) The leadership of one nation believes that it can browbeat and intimidate the other nation's leadership.

In all cases the response is a credible military build up. So there will be peace between India and China as long as each side's appreciates the other's ability to do damage. In the long term history will continue. There will be great relations between India and China. As long as the political leadership to not "misunderstimate" the other side's ability to make trouble.

The following post by brihaspati is a fantastic and thought provoking one. But I believe the discussion around its theme was off topic in the tread where is was made - in response to an equally off topic discussion sparked by me.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 07#p974707

brihaspati wrote: Since 62, we have not had any known large scale encounter with the PLA , so the general public has no way of knowing whether things have effectively changed from 62 with respect to the PLA. India has proved its defensive capability militarily with respect to Pak, but has proved offensive capabilities with a clear political goal only once in '71 - by a leader who was later assassinated. It was this same leader, under whom weaponization of nuclear research was accelerated, and we need to remember that the leader was later assassinated. Since then, no Indian political leadership at power has shown any indication of actively planning for redrawing of the political map in the neighbourhood - and the only one who came sort of close after the first asssinated - was also assassinated.

To establish real military capability in the public eye, actual victories in large scale conflicts were needed, and from time to time - to prove consistency. In the absence of both political evidence as well as military evidence, it is reasonable to expect the civilian to become doubtful. He can be pitied for his supposed lack of confidence, but cannot be mocked at for cowardice or fear for his lack of knowledge of the exquisite preparations for all exigencies that might have been secretly put in place by a government and its military wing.

If one steps beyond the India centric details that brihaspati has written about, it is easy to see how perceptions of "confidence" and "war fighting ability" might arise in any nation.

The take-away message from feelings of civilian doubt is that war is a political necessity that can be utilized for improving one's own internal political standing. Successfully waging an external war can be a confidence builder for a nation. Several wars over several decades can be "utilised" as a political crutch provided the cost of the war/s can somehow be borne, written off,or made up from some source of funding.

Interestingly China did exactly that in 1962. One short campaign and China has left a lasting impression of self-doubt on Indians and has equally given the Chinese great confidence in their military prowess. Imagine the political capital the CPC gained from this?

Pakistan did this in 1965. The military-poliiical leadership exploited "enmity" with India to provoke war which went badly wrong for Pakistan. Of course the arms had come from the US (and China). The deaths were from the peasantry/proletariat. The elite leadership who provoked the war lied about the origins and outcome and made political capital that has lasted for decades.

The two examples above show that victory or defeat can both be converted into internal political gain. What is funny (actually not funny) is that in both cases the country on whom war was waged was India. In both cases the war gave the leaders of the provoking nations great political mileage by "building public confidence" and winning them political support. The 1965 war provoked by Pakistan is still remembered by misty eyed Pakisturds and a great time of unity and national resolve despite the fact that it was a bad and botched plan from beginning to end

If you study other nations as well - including the US (and hundreds of states through history) you find hat waging war is a useful geopolitical tool. One must provoke conflict for a specific purpose. India has generally avoided that. This may be a mistake. India needs to have a specific eye open for opportunities in which short wars can be fought. Maybe a skirmish with the Chinese and a raid into Pakistan or something on those lines. It's not as if the Indian armed forces are not fighting. They are arguably among the most battle ready forces anywhere in the world and far more battle hardened than anything the Chinese have on offer.

But the point I am making is that we need to keep an eye open for opportunities to start a war and just provoke conflict and then blame it on the other party. That is, of course a tried and tested modus operandi.

shiv wrote:One short campaign and China has left a lasting impression of self-doubt on Indians

Not that the Indian political leadership learned any lessons, judging by the current lackadaisical attitude. Look at artillery, semiconductor fabrication, nuclear testing etc.

Pranav,

This may be OT for the thread.

The semiconductor fabrication will have to be taken up by the Pvt sector. In order to gain a worthwhile share in the white goods segment of the market. Unless they do, India will never acquire the capability. As the military market is too small to build capability and invest in the Silicon Fabs.

The Pvt sector must be unleashed completely.

Rest of your post, WRT arty, no major disagreements. They ought to creat three consortiums, one each for SPH (Heavy),SPH (Light),Towed. Let the industry groups decide what they wish to do, fund the groups and get them to deliver the results. DRDO and the OFB act as nodal and coordianting agences for the project. No reason the results cannot be accomplished in the next 5 years if a start is made now. But the start will never be made.

JMT

India should exercise more power on Indian Ocesan

India has a vital stake in Indian Ocean region: Nirupama Rao
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article902138.ece