It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

india,russia n china military alliance

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Also, has anyone thought of the fact that China has a strategic partnership with Pakistan. They have been trying to reduce tensions with India over this issue and still maintain their partnership with Pakistan. Is this possible in anyones view? Would it get in the way of any kind of alliance with India?




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pdo3
Aren't these the same countries opposing (our ally) Israel, and nuclear sanctions Iran?

[edit on 15-2-2006 by pdo3]


Man, you're really out of touch! Read your Newspapers more regularly. Your knowledge of current affairs is pathetic. Where India's relations with Israel is concerned, you're way off the mark. There's a solid defence relationship between them. I don't wanna go into the details here. And please check whether India voted for or against Iran.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2smart2curious
With US being the only superpower in the world.What are the prospects of a new military alliance between India, Russia n China,n can they take on the US


Thats a dumb question! Take on the US where and for what? You haven't specified the war aim, the objectives, the geopolitical scenario and so on. Is it a limited war or an all out affair? There will be no winners in an all out scenario due to massive nuclear exchanges. And remember, it will be extremely difficult to have a limited war. A war between four of these strongest nations will always graduate to a nuclear exchange whenever a side seems to be losing. And there will be no country influential enough which could pressurise them to stop the conflagration.
And then, in a limited or all out scenario, allies will always be drawn in and therefore such a war can never be restricted to the US, India, Russia and China.
Someone also mentioned that air power is enough to win a war. Give me a break! All components - land, air and sea - need to be working in complete harmony and coordination to achieve the aim. Plonking bombs over an area will not suffice. You need to hold ground after this. And this can only be done by ground forces.
Anyway, I aint here to give a lecture on tactics and doctrines!
This scenario being played out is extremely remote. So have a beer and relax.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by 2smart2curious
With US being the only superpower in the world.What are the prospects of a new military alliance between India, Russia n China,n can they take on the US


Thats a dumb question! Take on the US where and for what? You haven't specified the war aim, the objectives, the geopolitical scenario and so on. Is it a limited war or an all out affair? There will be no winners in an all out scenario due to massive nuclear exchanges. And remember, it will be extremely difficult to have a limited war. A war between four of these strongest nations will always graduate to a nuclear exchange whenever a side seems to be losing. And there will be no country influential enough which could pressurise them to stop the conflagration.
And then, in a limited or all out scenario, allies will always be drawn in and therefore such a war can never be restricted to the US, India, Russia and China.
Someone also mentioned that air power is enough to win a war. Give me a break! All components - land, air and sea - need to be working in complete harmony and coordination to achieve the aim. Plonking bombs over an area will not suffice. You need to hold ground after this. And this can only be done by ground forces.
Anyway, I aint here to give a lecture on tactics and doctrines!
This scenario being played out is extremely remote. So have a beer and relax.


well i wud like 2 counter that,(it isnt a dumb question!!!).
the alliance need not be only for war purposes but for gr8r security, economic stability, etc.
like india n china are definetly goin to be economic superpowers in the 5-10 years.
so present day war doesnt only mean militarily but also economically.
such an alliance can lead :
1.higher energy stability especially for india and china
2.instead of competing against each other in almost everythin we can take on the world.
3.russia has gr8 tech but no finance, an alliance of this type can further such reseach(russia has the best space tech dewspite its financial constraints)
4.regardin china pakistan alliance,plz!! that is just a one sided transaction with china being the giver of tech n knowhow for almost evrything from weapons to underwear.
pakistan is only important to china bcos it is afraid of indias advance in the region n this they can check indias progress
once alliance comes thru(assume) then pakistan will be discarded
5.the production of brahmos missile shows that if we collectively pool in our brains we can beat US n Europe



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Ok. The booze is on me! If yu meant an economic alliance too, then this whole argument changes.
You're right. In 15 to 20 years time, the West will have no chance against this trio. Thats for sure. By then the US will be hard put to even compete with China, let alone the combined might of India, Russia and China. Britain is a sunset power and will be of little or no consequence by then. Europe (The Union) is all confused and lacks strategic and political direction.
So cheers. The time for Western domination is over!!



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2smart2curious
well i wud like 2 counter that,(it isnt a dumb question!!!).
the alliance need not be only for war purposes but for gr8r security, economic stability, etc.
like india n china are definetly goin to be economic superpowers in the 5-10 years.


China and India will be competing with each other when they become " superpowers" not forming alliances. They both can't be the master of Asia.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
India and China as of now look to grow "together" and not in opposition..

Btw.. this scenario cannot happen as of now because India and the US are kind of undergoing this democratic nation bonding process..


[edit on 20-2-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Ok. The booze is on me! If yu meant an economic alliance too, then this whole argument changes.
You're right. In 15 to 20 years time, the West will have no chance against this trio. Thats for sure. By then the US will be hard put to even compete with China, let alone the combined might of India, Russia and China. Britain is a sunset power and will be of little or no consequence by then. Europe (The Union) is all confused and lacks strategic and political direction.
So cheers. The time for Western domination is over!!


ooh, I didn't realize we had real life prophets on this board now. Do you read palms too???

Your illusions are based on the US staying at its current military level...does it ever?
By that time we will be able to conventionally strike any nation in the world in under an hour...from our own soil.
The west will remain on the top of the hill for a foreseeable future, meaning around 20 years...and you cant even begin to speculate farther then that cause theres just to many variables.


[edit on 20-2-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420


Unsolved, what myself and ludaChris are advocating is that technological superiority is a far more important variable in calculating a nations strength.


Nazi Germany was technologically superior to the allies and look what happened to them


Yeah but look how many countries it took to bring Germany down,not to mention the massive amount of troops lost.

Seriously if a little country like Germany can almost take over the world then technology does make a big difference.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by thecry]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I have to admit that every time I read a post by Murcielago, I hear it in Stewies voice inside my head...damn you man!!!!
I'm not so sure that the West will stay dominant for so long, at least as the only dominant power. The next twenty years are going to be pretty interesting, and don't forget the huge variable of a another left wing administration. Nothing wrong with Democrats (I happen to be a fan of Joe Leiberman and really hate some Republican ideals such as kissing the arses of insurance companies and the squashing of labor unions and the like) but anyone will have to admit that a left wing admin woulod seriously weaken us as a military and intelligence force in the world.
Clinton did so much damage to our military and intelligence apparatus that we may never recover. Not to mention selling secrets to China in exchange for campaign contributions. I'm not a Republican but to me thats a traitorus act if ever there was one.
And remember that history does tend to run in cycles. The current cycle of Western Dominance was brought upon by the vanquishing of the Muslim invaders in the early Medeival ages. Who's to say the pendulum of the world won't swing back towards the East?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
India and China as of now look to grow "together" and not in opposition..

Btw.. this scenario cannot happen as of now because India and the US are kind of undergoing this democratic nation bonding process..


[edit on 20-2-2006 by Daedalus3]


if u happen 2 read the papers in india ,u will find out that the deals(economic as well as nuclear) are crap and dont amount to much.
regardin the nuclear deal i dont think that'll happen as there is a lot of opposition to that n there is no national consensus.
as for the economic deals, its not much of a big deal.
just wot do u mean by"democratic bonding"



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW
I have to admit that every time I read a post by Murcielago, I hear it in Stewies voice inside my head...damn you man!!!!
I'm not so sure that the West will stay dominant for so long, at least as the only dominant power. The next twenty years are going to be pretty interesting, and don't forget the huge variable of a another left wing administration. Nothing wrong with Democrats (I happen to be a fan of Joe Leiberman and really hate some Republican ideals such as kissing the arses of insurance companies and the squashing of labor unions and the like) but anyone will have to admit that a left wing admin woulod seriously weaken us as a military and intelligence force in the world.
Clinton did so much damage to our military and intelligence apparatus that we may never recover. Not to mention selling secrets to China in exchange for campaign contributions. I'm not a Republican but to me thats a traitorus act if ever there was one.
And remember that history does tend to run in cycles. The current cycle of Western Dominance was brought upon by the vanquishing of the Muslim invaders in the early Medeival ages. Who's to say the pendulum of the world won't swing back towards the East?


i totally agree with specagentdw
its kinda like cycle,countries like india,china were the most dominant force miltarily n culturally 2000 years ago n then around 200 ago they were worse then most of the worst african states today n countries like britain which 2000 years ago consisted of seminaked cavemen became dominant forces n now their power too is subsiding.

Interms of almost everything these 2 countries are catching up with the west especially india (given its economic n leadership constraints)
it has come a long way these 50 years from a country barely able to feed its own population to the coubtry which is among the few in the world to have a highly advanced sppace programme,nuclear tecnology, missiles(all this without any help n under severe economic and technological sanctions from the west)

once development of fast breeder reactors is over india will gain dominance in nuclear field also as it has 75% of worlds thorium resources.

n about china , its rapid success inn almost evrythin needs no explanation.
they can make almost everythin.(even the american flag used in the states willl have made in china written on it)



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Unfortunately, we couldn't beat any one of those nations one on one right now, let alone all three.

First day of fighting the media would start their death ticker so they can make sure to celebrate, I mean mourn the 2000th American death.

Then in the second week of fighting, Kerry, Boxer and Kennedy would hold a press conference to tell everyone that they changed their minds on declaring war because they don't believe we're fighting the right nations. Ofcourse this press conference will be conducted in a bomb shelter to avoid the Chinese bombs that would be exploding outside.

The third week would be horrible for troop morale as the media starts airing 24 hour loops of American atrocities. One of our guys knees some Russian in the groin. Oh the humiliation. Ofcourse while this is going on they'll completely run out of time to report on any trivial enemy atrocities like targeting schools and hospitals, raping nuns, playing "Beat it" from speakers mounted on aircraft flying over the troops 24 hrs a day for 2 straight weeks....etc

The fourth week we'd see Kerry and co. withdrawing military funding because this is the wrong war at the wrong time.

The fifth week the country would come to a hault because the useful idiots will clog the streets with protests because they were told Bush started it to rule the world, forgetting that the Chinese aren't a good source for info, especially when currently at war with them! Luckily enough for us, because of the war, the dope they were promised never shows up and they all disperse.

The war ends in the sixth week with a truce do to even with all the internal problems, a pissed off US Marine Corps still manages to kick ass. Terms of the truce: for them, they get San Fransico. For us, they get George Clooney and Micheal Moore.

Two weeks later hostilities resume because they try to give Clooney and Moore back. Suckers.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Look, India Russia and China won't attack US, it is more of an economic pact than anything. Even if your ridiculous scenario of Indian Russian and Chinese joint invasion on US do happen, it will get a lot more complicated than that.

First Japan will probably side with US fighting China, Taiwan will join but both Japan and Taiwan are unlikely to be able to take on China alone. Middle East will join the melee against US, Israel will be the guard. France, Germany and the rest of the EU will be unlikely to join the war, UK is an unknown factor.

Then probably Cuba and Vietnam will also help out the Chinese.....

Damn it's a mess, but like i said this scenario won't happen.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Sure, Cuba and Vietnam side against America....and fight us with banannas and bamboo sticks...
seriously now.
It's simply fun to work our brains over this issue, not to mention it shows which of us have the mentality to become government anylysts and which of us will spend the rest of our lives living in a trailer watching American Idol and crying over conspiracies that even Penn and Teller realize are bullsh-t.

Okay...just thought I'd get that off my chest...I just get annoyed with morons who have to drag leftist or rightist propaganda into threads meant for strategic analysis or the JFK murder or UFO's or what have you...Not saying anyone here did, just thought I'd say it.

But it's obvious if you truly pay attention to current events that the current US administration beleives this to be a viable threat.
Bush has recently dangled the carrot of an economic alliance of sorts with India including cooperation with its non secret nuclear programs.
This gives Putin's resurgent Russia the choice of staying allied with the US or moving more towards its new ally China, plus it puts a major check on the influence of the CHICOMM's in the region.
Pretty smart from a strategic standpoint.

Now please....for all of our sakes...no political bullsh--!!!!! Just amateur CIA level analysis...it's fun and it relaxes by giving those of us who are nerds and poli-sci junkies the gift of talking to someone on our intellectual level.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Vietnam can provide supplies and a navy outpost for the Chinese to take on the US Southeast Asian navy positioned in the Phillpines. Cuba is also rumored to have nukes, not to mention furthermore its highly significant geographic strategic value being the American's "backyard". American underestimation of developing countries Korea and Vietnam was hugely contributions to the consequences of their defeat, it's foolish to make the same mistake again if i am a Yankee.

Taiwan and Japan are "deadly" rivals to China?? LOL this must be the best joke ever. Taiwan wouldn't last a week if China is to attack with full force of AF and missiles. There's no way Japan could win a war against China under the current circumstances. But it would probably last a few months or so.



[edit on 4-3-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
EarthUnificationFrontier...
Ironic that you say the US underestimated, and yet, you are underestimating both Taiwan and Japan?

Let me ask you a question: in the history between China and Japan, when taking into account the number of wars and conflicts they have been in against each other, who has the better win ratio?




seekerof



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
America never underestimated Korea and Vietnam. The U.S. military was kind of in shambles right after WWII because the government cut the funding a good deal and it didn't have enough recuperation time. The military had just finished fighting two big wars in Europe and in the Pacific. Instead of continuing lots of funding and giving good recovery time, the military's funding was cut, then they had to go in Korea. Despite this, the Chinese and Koreans still poured thousands more soldiers against the Americans then America had there. The one Marine division gunned down ten Chinese divisions, it is said.

As for Vietnam, the U.S. could have won that very easily. Vietnam was technically a joke. What messed up the U.S. was that President Johnson would not allow the military to bomb Northern Vietnam, which would have shut down their supply line from the Soviets. It was a bit difficult to fight the North Vietnamese when they were fully supplied by the Soviets without any problems, and they were not attacked. They'd attack the American troops, then go back and recover, then attack again.

When President Johnson left office and President Nixon came in, he opened up Northern Vietnam to bombing, the U.S. military bombed the capital, shut down the entire city, shut down the Soviet supply lines, and all of a sudden, the North Vietnamese government wanted to negotiate. Had Johnson done this from the start, then a good chunk of the Vietnam War (and a good deal of the deaths, both Vietnamese and American) could've been avoided.

Because of this, the President is no longer allowed to be involved in exactly what targets and so forth are bombed by the military. The military is told what to get done, and then it briefs the President. This was done so that no liberal President could order the military to go into a fight with its hands tied behind it's back. Because Johnson was essentially responsible for so many deaths because of what he did, he suffered a mental breakdown. He knew what he'd done.

The U.S. never "underestimated" the Koreans or the Vietnamese; they had to fight both of those wars with their hands tied behind their backs. This was why when Gulf War 1 came around, the U.S. went in and obliterated the Iraqi military's capabilities, and they did the same in the current war.

And I wouldn't underestimate Taiwan. On the contrary, I think people are greatly overestimating China's economic and military capabilities right now.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
EarthUnificationFrontier...
Ironic that you say the US underestimated, and yet, you are underestimating both Taiwan and Japan?

Let me ask you a question: in the history between China and Japan, when taking into account the number of wars and conflicts they have been in against each other, who has the better win ratio?




seekerof



Even the Taiwanese Defence administration admitted that they will only last a week if China lunch a full out attack, and their strategy is trying to hold china long enough untill the US comes to help.

and u mentioned that japan has more win to china in the past

well yes, japan had totally raped china in WWII, but that's before its communist party came to power, and beside china was having a civil war at the time. ( the japanese was acutally fighting the nationlist at the time - what is now the Taiwanese force )

And dont forget that the communist china has pushed the entire US led UN force out of N korea during the korean war, ended tie between china and UN, with 3 hundred thousand UN troops killed.




I don't no about india, but for russia......man.......that's another strong force....





[edit on 10-3-2006 by warset]



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
India and China getting together is an absolute no-no. Both the countries look at each other as enimies. But is they were to join forces along qith Russia the US is screwed.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join