Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can India liberate Tibet if it wanted to?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I told yall i aws going to open a thread on this! As I said too many US-China and US-Russia matchups have been made on this forum. I am of the opinion that India can take on China(although many might disagree). I have already posted my reasons for this on many occasions on this forum and backed some claims up with links. Heres a summary:

Chinese Su-30s and Indian ones are different.Chinese have probably got the Su-30 kAs and MKKs. while indians upgraded them wrt avionics and radar (Su-30 MKI). (Comparision of MKKs and MKIs?)Although chinese aircraft may outnumber(confirm?) indian aircraft, engagements do not depend on numbers.Chinese air bases are positioned more towards the eastern coast and central region while indian ones are packed at the chinese border.
www.scramble.nl...
www.scramble.nl...


The fact is indian pilots conduct exercises with the best airforces(US, UK, Russia,Israel etc.) in the world. Do Chinese airforce pilots conduct such exercises with other airforces?Can anybody shed some serious light on that?Indian airforce have seen combat in two wars with another highly professional airforce(pakistan).
Any data on fighter pilot skill level comparision?
I found this:
vayu-sena.tripod.com...

Plus Indians have a versatile fleet with planes from the UK and France as well while I think the chinese fleet is mostly Russian.

In terms of naval tonnage, well tonnage doesnt matter as the chinese cannot support its navy for months at end in Indianers while indians can do the same in off chinese waters. That s the difference between 'brown' and 'blue' water navies. Only chinese nuke subs are capable of self-sustenance and they dont constitute an offense in conventional terms.

Missile tech, well lets just say India can target any Chinese installation and they have enough nukes to ensure that 'nobody' comes out a victor in a nuclear war..

I would like all inputs to be level headed and not 'emotionally' driven especially from my Chicom buddies! Any claims that sound 'fictitious' or are questioned must be backed up by proof.I'll try to do the same.Remember this is just scenario development nothing else.No offence intended to anyone! Look forward to some good discussions here!




posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
A war between India and China could materialise. This is because china has been known to be very supportive of Pakistan. If India and Pakistan come into a major military conflict then Im pretty sure china will help out their friends. However India will not be alone, they have the mighty Russia and Israel on their side. Therefore I dont think a war will be fought exclusively between India and china. If it did come to this I think India have the efficiency and the power to seriously take on china and do a lot of damage. However Indias air defence may not be strong enough for the Chinese air raids (please correct me if imp wrong)
Another factor to mention is that china and India are the world's fastest growing economies, this may add to the rivalry and diplomatic issue could get military if there is any sort of dispute or whatever. These countries are now generating serious amounts of money and India already have announced they are increasing defence spending.
Bottom line, India and china seem to be pretty equal, their military might just cancel each other out, and if the matter had to be resolved I think Russia will step in to help their old friends the Indians.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by nilzzo
. If it did come to this I think India have the efficiency and the power to seriously take on china and do a lot of damage. However Indias air defence may not be strong enough for the Chinese air raids (please correct me if imp wrong)


Im not too sure about India's air defence as compared to the chinese one, but chinese air bases are further away from the common border than indian ones so their penetration depth will be limited w/o air-refueling. Does china have that capacity?India on the other hand has air-refuelers. Also the Indians are acquiring Israeli tech for AWACS which they are fiiting on russian IL-76s. Hence airborne AWACS.Thus theatre awareness will be very good. Again I don't know if the Chinese hav that capability. Anyboady got info on that?


[edit on 16-10-2004 by Daedalus3]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Military conflict between India and China are highly unlikely and even if it was to happen it would only be air conflict because sending troops across the mountainous tibet could take literally months and many will die because of the high altitude, long supply line, extreme cold and just simply no roads big enough to transport a person let alone an army. Major Chinese cities are thousands of miles away from any border with India so the planes would simply run out of fuel on the way. Both countries do not have the ability to send fleets of ships into another countries waters because they are both brown water navies. I forgot where but I once heard India only have 40 Su-30 MKIs but China will have 400 by the end of 2005. Mirages suk, I mean come on its Francais, they are lucky to know how to read the english instructions of putting the parts together let alone designing a good plane. And one more thing I have watched videos in China about anti air missile bases in the himalaya where the bases would be protected from radar because it is integrated into the mountain structure.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
the mirage is a good aircraft... if a little past it's sell-by date, but it won't be any pushover for the sukhoi's.

And remember the indian airforce is very well trained and more than a match man to man for the chinese.

I would say that a conlict between the two is unlikely... especially over tibet, but if it came to blows I would say initially India would push back the chinese, before the main bulk of the chinese army forces a stalemate.

A portion of tibet would possibly be reclaimed, however at heavy cost both millitarily and politically...

Succfess also depends on the length of time each side gets to prepare... the longer it takes the more the situation favours the chinese



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Highly unlikely, considering during ex-PM Vajpayee's last visit to China, he almost literally gave credence to China's occupation of Tibet. I also disagree with COWlan's comments of India taking a beating since they only have 40 Su-30 MKIs compared to 400 Su-30 MKKs.

The Indian pilots are very well trained albeit in failing and old aircrafts.

It has to be said, the Indians with their "redundant" deep penetration Jaguar strike aircraft twice penetrated through US defensive cover and scored direct hits on ground targets during their recent military exercise "Cope Thunder" in Alaska.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Free Tibet

I dont know if they could. Like nilzzo said allies would no doubt play a large role in any such conflict. Even if it started out as just India fighting China I would think Pakistan would take advantage of the situation and grab land from India or help China out.

That would put India in a pincer war fighting on two fronts not a ideal war be anyone view. They would nodoubt have allies come to their aide perhaps Russia or a host of other countries. This could quickly turn into a world war.

Perhaps with the right allies (Russia) they could pull it off but it would come at a great price. I really dont think Tibet would be worth the cost.

Free Tibet

[edit on 17-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Tibet has a majority ethnic Chinese populaion now, there would be no point for India to invade Tibet. Any invasion would meet massive resistance from the local (lol) population. Unfortunately Tibet is a state of China now and can never be freed.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
There is little room for a war there. The terrain is fairly forbidding, so a war over the ground itself is out of the question. India can't really invade any other part of China to force a concession because they have a brown water navy, practically impassible terrain on the border, and limited ability to target key Chinese cities/assets with the range of their airfroce.

Additionally, their allies just wont have it.
The US can't have two friends fighting (india and pakistan) so they will try to prevent any war by India or Pakistan against anyone.

Russia, as i understand it, has long been a rival to China and has even had minor military incidents against China. They wouldn't encourage China to any war, and they certainly wouldn't want to get involved if they could help it.

Israel has a Vietnam complex from Lebanon- they aren't getting involved if they dont have to.

China doesn't need anything messing with their economy. If they can make a quick grab for resources thats fine with them I'm sure, but they dont want to slow down building and exporting to fight a serious war.

India doesn't stand to gain much, but they can lose a lot politically because such a war is going to panic pakistan and tick off AT LEAST 2 members of the UN Security Council.

Long story short nobody wants this war.


Now, the ultimate goal of a powerful nation is to increase your power over other nations. You start out just wanting to provide for yourself, but pretty soon control becomes an issue or somebody will take it all away from you.

Here is the world chessgame as I see it:

The United States is in the process of building a series of south asian puppets to stand between China/Russia and the middle east and africa. Once Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Chechnya (trust me) are NATO members, Russia has lost the black sea as well. Once this is accomplished, America can intensify efforts in the arabian peninsula and northern Africa.
Meanwhile America is possibly preparing Mexico's economy for annexation (or at least for a EU style loosening of the border) and using the CIA to persue control of Venezuela and other nations in south america.

The UK is on the same page with America- working as a team. Same for Australia, although they are good citizens in their own corner of the world, which helps their own security at the same time.

France/Germany have an agenda to unify the EU under their influence, creating a larger nation and economy which can begin to act like America. West Africa is where they are most likely to expand, although if Russia doesn't turn around and America doesn't succeed in subverting additional former soviet states, they may begin annexing Eastern European nations.

Russia is just trying to get back up. America never stopped fighting the cold war- we've been cutting their balls off as best we can this whole time- especially during the last 4 years. Russia's first priority if they can get back into the game has to be influence in eastern Europe followed by subversion of the future US puppet in Iran in order to gain access to the Indian ocean and to the middle east.

China is doing great. They have very little history of expansionism and they dont need it because they are huge. If anything, they might get into the business of making honest UN efforts to stabilize failed states and then attempt to import construction materials from there. They might think about getting the right to build military bases in Pakistan in order to check India and the US in southern asia. Any expansion means largescale war- very unlikely.

India is in a tough position. The obvious first step in their expansion would probably be their last, because a war with Pakistan means nuclear war. India seems doomed to tread water until they can develop a missile defense. If America continues to attempt dominance of south asian nations, India may find themselves on the wrong side of America and desperately needing to forge an alliance with Russia, which would be mutually beneficial and thus very likely. Again, only if America keeps tightening its grip on Afghanistan/Iran.

Japan will eventually be back in the game. I am no expert, but I have read that many in America's pentagon doubt that Japan is sincerely sorry about WWII. The logical move is to forge an alliance with China, even if it took the next 200 years to work it out, but I couldn't really be shocked if Japan decided to "bring order" to the pacific and maybe even go for Australia if they really felt pressed for land/resources.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Very interesting breakdown and take on the global chess game Vagabond
Good post



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The United States is in the process of building a series of south asian puppets to stand between China/Russia and the middle east and africa. Once Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Chechnya (trust me) are NATO members, Russia has lost the black sea as well.


I couldn't possibly see any situation where Chechnya would join NATO. How exactly would Russia relinquish a part of its territory voluntarily ?
Never believe anyone who says trust me



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Yeah maybe the Vagabond should write a book or something!
Also India ain't no puppet! The nuke test carried out at Pokhran in 98 were in direct violation of the arm-twisting the US was carying out through backchannels. In fact the whol operation was conduct ed so as to mimic a routine military exercise via overhead spy sats. The US was completely unaware.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
First of all, I probably will write a book some day, and although nobody will buy it, I will be recognized as a prophet about 2 generations later.

I agree that India is nobody's puppet, however I believe that international pressure is still very important to them. India has a growing economy and a growing place in the world- most things a nation could seek are eventually within their reach. They can become untouchable to the rival on their border, they can have a prosperous economy, they could even grow to rival China in terms of political power in that region. Why would they risk all of this by fighting a war? They have reasons to fight, but they have greater reasons to keep the respect and favor of the world.


As for Chechnya, I will start with this disclaimer: I am not one of those arrogant Americans who believes Russia has no power left. I simply believe that Russia faces a Vietnam-like situation, with extra challenges, which will require tremendous willpower to resolve.

The Chechen rebels/terrorists are an effective guerilla force and they operate from neighboring nations. The only way to win such a war is to apply overwhelming force without relenting or giving safe haven. You have to be willing to go turn a city inside out to find the enemy, chase them over an international border, whatever it takes. The difference is that crossing the border into Georgia (much less going to Turkey) means skirmishing with NATO, so Russia probably can't totally win the war.
All Chechnya REALLY has to do (actually Chechnya doesn't have to do it- International Terrorism will do it) is keep attacking in Russia and sabotaging any Russian industry or resource gathering in the region for 20-30 years. When Russia's government knows Chechnya only as a worthless province that produces terrorists, they will want to get rid of it.

Maybe I'm the only guy here who has heard of Palestine, Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia, but let me assure you that Islamic Terrorists can fight for 20 years standing on their head, and eventually the international community always wants to get involved in stabilizing the region. Time is on Chechnya's side as long as Russia doesn't very quietly unleash a biological weapon to ethnically cleanse the region.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
That was a great post, and if you book comes out anytime soon I will buy it.

As for the Russians extending there attacks outside of Chechnya I think they will do it, with the recent events they would attack Georgia to anhiliate the Terrorists, its not if its when they will do it.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I have always been annoyed by members who make up their mind and proceed to dogmatically hammer on their talking points. With that in mind, I decided to update my knowledge on Georgia this afternoon, and my opinion on the matter has changed somewhat now. I would be very interested in hearing input from ATS members living in the region to hear their take on the situation.

Long story short, Russia can perhaps percipitate war in Georgia without necessarily bringing NATO into the picture because Georgia's South Ossetia is being oppressed by the Georgian government and wishes to unify with North Ossetia (part of Russia). Furthermore, this union was already granted under the Soviet Union, but Georgian nationalists kept it from being implimented at that time. (North Ossetia has claimed independence but is in Russian hands and does not seem to be the scene of fighting except when it spills over from Chechnya, as it did in the Belsan school crisis recently.).

The Georgian province of South Ossetia is independent in all but name. It was supposed to be unified with North Ossetia (part of Russia) before the fall of the Soviet Union, but Georgian nationalists thwarted this and cracked down on Ossetians. In 1991 Georgia and S. Ossetia went to war, and afterwards there was a peacedeal in which the Russians contributed peacekeepering troops.

Last July there was a flare-up in which Georgia captured Russian military hardware and Russia as well as several other unrecognized states within Georgia threatened to intervene against Georgia.


Also, perhaps more to the point than much of the above, Wikipedia suggests that many polls show a popular vision for a Chechen republic -WITHIN- Russia, not independent of Russia. If this is the case it is far more likely that Russia can eventually quell the fighting by upgrading military capabilities and comitting sufficient numbers to an effective strategy.



Last but certainly not least- certainly most embarrassing to me, I have realized that I had over-estimated the size of Chechnya. The actual bounds of Chechnya limit the strategic relevance of the area and reduce the probability that NATO will go out on a limb for it.

My thoughts are somewhat scattered and I appologize for the length and poor organization of this post- this is what happens when I'm trying to digest new knowledge into a good theory.


Final answer: I think Russia may very well go into North Ossetia and Abkhazia- Abkhazia may actually be the more important province. America does best to allow and even support this- they have to prove that they really believe in a global war on terror, even when it isn't "good for them". It is also best to let Russia solve the Ossetia problem before it becomes NATOs problem- thats just more money and headache for America otherwise right?

The world chessgame isn't too much affected by this change to my views, although I have learned that Russia isn't in such dire strategic straits as i might have imagined.

A little bit of ignorance denied.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Back to the topic, in the last war between China and India (border dispute, 1962), China won. I think now the difference of powers is much bigger now, so no chance. Just count nukes, troops and these....

But both countries' leaders said "China and India will be friends forever" and would never fight a war again...



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I really wish you would take the time to cite sources, but since you failed to, I'll do it for you. Be advised that these sources will not do much for your case, which has almost no foundation in facts.


I will start by pointing out that as of 1962, India had only been independent for 15 years. India has 40 years of impressive growth since that time, including the development of nuclear weapons. India's performance in 1962 is in no way indicative of their readiness in 2004 and beyond.

You claim that the gap between the powers has grown, however India's means to provide for its defense have grown considerably, as has India's understanding of military affairs. Although there are numerical differences, India has aircraft on par with those the Chinese are most proud of, and trains against US pilots who are exceptionally well trained.

India has gained nuclear weapons as China has and again you are way off the reservation to suggest that we count them- India doesn't NEED the ability to wipe China off the map. They have the ability to ruin China's economy and military strength and that is enough.


The examination of the 1962 Border dispute reveals that even then India was certainly not incapable of mounting a defense in such terrain, but failed to do so because of inexperienced officers and naive politicians.

If you will read a little in my second source, you will find that even 1 brigade (although both should have been assigned there) would have been enough for a spirited defense of Bomdilla. Instead, only half of the brigade assigned to Bomdilla was kept their to face the Chinese. Had the Indians concentrated their forces and defended strategic rather than political points of importance, they could very likely have prolonged that conflict and inflicted higher losses on the Chinese, perhaps even forcing China to a point where peace was preferable to escalation.

en.wikipedia.org...


Indian resistance had been determined but feeble. The Indian deployment was spread over a large area. Logistics were difficult to maintain, since the road network was poor. Many Indian units required airlift for resupply. In addition, many deployments were at altitudes over 14,000 feet, which required special high-altitude equipment and conditioning. The Indian "jawans" (soldiers) were also not well supplied or trained for mountain combat.


sinoindianwar.50megs.com...


The '62 war highlighted several critical failures in India's warmaking abilities... Intel told that the Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin, yet the Government, apart from a few angry condemnations, chose to ignore the strategic significance of it for almost a decade... Even upon discovery of this transgression, India's protests were weak-kneed. Later, in the middle of 1962, Indian leaders suddenly woke up to the presence of Chinese soldiers on the Thagla Ridge.
In the adoption of a forward policy, against the clamoring of sound tacticians, India deployed on ground chosen for its political significance, rather than tactical defensibility. The leadership's untenable demands on the Army were the root cause of the '62 debacle.

The war also highlighted the fact that the army was acutely under-equipped, out-dated, and ill-trained to deal with sustained conflict in the Himalaya... Though Indian kill ratios were vary favorable, the damage caused by non-acclimatization of troops... is very evident.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
First of all I would like to say that a war between China and India will be a air war only unless their navies are upgraded. Well India might have a chance at a naval war with the new upcoming aircraft carrier and their Delhi destroyers. China also might go for it with its new subs and the Sovremeny Russian Destroyers. But those navies are really small comparing to the large countries India and China are.

China= New Subs and Russian Destroyes
India= Russian Aircraft Carrier and Delhi Destroyers

Now i would like to go to another topic. Vagabond started to talk about how USA will take the world. Well I think he is wrong and I will state my theroy on what I read and facts.

USA world domination will not go any further. It will actually decrease soon in the next 20 years. Reasons are....

1. Japan wants world demonation and right now it demonated by USA. If it breaks away from USA demonation then USA looses demonation in Asia.
2. To get world demonation Japan is starting to think about building nuclear weapons.
3. South Korea doesnt like USA being its protector so they want to go nuclear to so North lorea cant threaten them. South korea knows that USA puts its self infront of all.
4. South the loss of domination of South Korea USA will lose the whole Asia.
5. The only dominaton USA will have in Asia is a tiny Singapore and Tawain that is trying to do what USA deosnt want them to do.(Seperate Nation from China)
6. Singapore and Tawian dont like each other very much. The PM os Tawain call Singapores President a filthy scum just resetly.
7. Russia is now putting bases in former USSR republics.
8. Georgia is like Cuba but its land locked so now that Russia has bases around Georgia USA will not be able to help Georgia very much.
9. Geogria has backed themselfs into a corner where Russia has stripped them of some of their land(break away republics)
10. New upcoming Ukrainian president wants to move closer to having much better relations with Russia and not trying to join NATO.
11. Ukraine has leased Russia its biggest ports for Russian Black Sea fleet.
12. Belarus is trying to merge with Russia.
13. France has now become a Russian friend and even recently the first time in the worlds history Russia has docked a nuclear submarine in France.
14. Frances hates USA.
15. The whole Europe is not to happy with USA exept UK.


The reasons above it why i think USA will not dominate the world anymore then it is right now. It might even go down on how much it dominates.

Also if John Kerry is President the USA domination will last only a small time. So if you Americans want a good life for some more time vote for Bush as he will kep USA on top.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Now i would like to go to another topic. Vagabond started to talk about how USA will take the world.


Negative on that. The USA will not take the world, but like most powerful nations it will continue to jockey for position in what I call "the global chess game". It was never my intention to start another "US RULES!" thread- you will normally find me trashing people who post that crap.



Well I think he is wrong and I will state my theroy on what I read and facts.

USA world domination will not go any further. It will actually decrease soon in the next 20 years. Reasons are....


I believe you and I will begin to agree with eachother on a great many things. I agree that the era of bi-lateral/unilaterally dominated geopolitics is over and that nations traditionally subject to the will of a large neighbor or America will begin to act on their own. My illustration was of the ways that certain nations may begin to act out on their own- and yes i included America because America will do their best to continue as a power.



1. Japan wants world demonation and right now it demonated by USA. If it breaks away from USA demonation then USA looses demonation in Asia.
2. To get world demonation Japan is starting to think about building nuclear weapons.

Funny I think I mentioned that Japan would gain influence. I personally believe that Japan will eventually persue an alliance with China, but in the short term it is somewhat possible that Japan would expand into weaker/failing nations in the pacific.



3. South Korea doesnt like USA being its protector so they want to go nuclear to so North lorea cant threaten them. South korea knows that USA puts its self infront of all.
4. South the loss of domination of South Korea USA will lose the whole Asia.

First of all, America does not dominate Pacific Asia by any stretch of the imagination. If anyone could be said to dominate Asia, especially the mainland, it would be China.
America has only a limited economic stake and a newly developed nuclear concern in Korea. South Korea is by no means a strategic anchor of the region. The peninsula is strategically unimportant, except in the event that America wished to wage a limited conventional war on China (just like the original Korean War). The loss of South Korea will increase America's need for a global missile shield.
Japan is far more important to America's hold on Asia because of it's controlling position over the Chinese Coast. Although it will grow in strategic importance as the Chinese navy grows, it will be an acceptable loss when Japan steps away from America simply because America and China have no intention of going to war with eachother at this point. Furthermore, America can still command the seas off of its west coast from Hawaii, the Aleutians, 13 aircraft carriers, and potential puppets in the pacific such as the Phillipines.
Last but not least, you are overemphasizing Pacific Asia and ignoring Southern Asia. America has begun to shift it's attention to this region and has anchored its position with Afghanistan, which is a favorable terrain for defense. It is to be expected that Iran will join this chain of American puppets, and Iraq will be kept their as well. In the future America may consider attemtping to take Syria as well, although the world will not tollerate this indefinately. Turkey may very well threaten intervention at some point if America continues to play games in that region.

Back to South Korea- South Korea will likely start to back away from America but must be careful not to find itself dominated and exploited by the North. I think the South realizes that only a democratic and capitalist integration of North and South can be beneficial to them. For this reason South Korea will need a new ally. India may be a good ally for South Korea when they leave America's side. India has a history as the leader of nations who wish to remain Non-Alligned in such conflicts. Japan is unlikely for historical reasons but otherwise a sound choice. Russia is not the best choice for a nation like South Korea but it would work so long as Russia maintained rivalry with China.



5. The only dominaton USA will have in Asia is a tiny Singapore and Tawain that is trying to do what USA deosnt want them to do.(Seperate Nation from China)
6. Singapore and Tawian dont like each other very much. The PM os Tawain call Singapores President a filthy scum just resetly.

You're forgetting the Phillipines. Their president let our troops in against the constitution... thats just a hint that perhaps this nation is heavily under our influence.



7. Russia is now putting bases in former USSR republics.
8. Georgia is like Cuba but its land locked so now that Russia has bases around Georgia USA will not be able to help Georgia very much.
9. Geogria has backed themselfs into a corner where Russia has stripped them of some of their land(break away republics)


Perhaps you didn't read my last post. When challenged I took it upon myself to deny ignorance and do additional research- this was enough to change my opinion- I do not believe NATO will WANT to help Georgia. Again however you are skewing the facts; NATO could operate from Turkey to aid Georgia.
And Yes, we've all noticed that Russia is regressing. They theoretically could attempt an invasion of Europe, however even if they could take Europe they do not have the resources to consolidate their grip and exploit those nations. They would only overextend themselves and quite possibly provoke attacks from China or America on their Eastern or Southern border.
I must maintain that Russia, while capable of defending its own interests and perhaps limiting American efforts in southern asia, will not be contending for any kind of hegemony over a much greater region until it can make reforms in its economy and military. They would also profit greatly from forming alliances which limit the advance of America's thinly vieled imperialism (Iran, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa)



10. New upcoming Ukrainian president wants to move closer to having much better relations with Russia and not trying to join NATO.
11. Ukraine has leased Russia its biggest ports for Russian Black Sea fleet.
12. Belarus is trying to merge with Russia.




13. France has now become a Russian friend and even recently the first time in the worlds history Russia has docked a nuclear submarine in France.
14. Frances hates USA.
15. The whole Europe is not to happy with USA exept UK.

It's sort of an inside secret, but a lot of Americans have hated Europe since the late 70s. Those who follow military/strategic concerns resented their "let America handle it" attitude towards their own defense.
This DOES have economic implications for America, but this can be negated by continuing to subvert oil-bearing nations and by increasing influence in South America.
As long as America can keep up with the European economy they'd probably prefer to just stop pretending they were friends.
I know this may come across as typical American arrogance, but it is a fact that our allies provide little more than "moral support" or a political pretext for actions. America isn't gaining anything material from them that they couldn't acquire by raping the defenseless.





The reasons above it why i think USA will not dominate the world anymore then it is right now. It might even go down on how much it dominates.

Also if John Kerry is President the USA domination will last only a small time. So if you Americans want a good life for some more time vote for Bush as he will kep USA on top.


The USA will probably have a very large stake in this world for the next 50 to 100 years. After that things are much less certain. During that time, America will at least attempt to increase it's military presence in South Asian puppet states and to take resources both from there and from South America. When the bubble breaks, America will be where Russia has been in recent years, but short of militarily enforced foreign regulation, America will continue to be a strong force in her immediate area, which means bad things for Cuba and Mexico.

China will grow to be far and away the dominant economy in the world. Economic sanctions will be meaningless without cooperation from China and a Chinese embargo could be the ruin of a nation. I believe China will work more within the UN and other world organizations rather than by military force which will reduce their need for a geographic spread, however it is without doubt that their military technology will begin to catch up to America's, even in terms of "black projects".

Japan will militarize to guard against China, may expand into the pacific, will begin to defy America politically, and will likely struggle for a greater level of diplomatic relations (alliances) in their region until eventually succeeding- providing that they continue to be at the forefront technologically so that they have something to offer.

Russia will present some challenges to US expansionism in the near term, but will be chiefly concerned with regaining its former strength for at least a couple of decades. Eventually Russia will have to find close friends of her own size and strength. It is likely that Russia will find this frienship first in the EU and later in China. India is a possibility, but only if Russia is on the outs with China and India maintains a strong economy.

India will likely see it's economic growth stall at some point simply because they have to play second-fiddle to China. This can be avoided first and foremost by creating a stronger navy than China and by fool-proof THAAD which completely protects them from Pakistan in nuclear terms. They will need to find friends who wish not to be aligned in this global struggle in order to prosper in trade. South Korea is a good candidate. Japan and Australia are potential partners to a lesser extent. Other nations seeking to grow outside the influence of the world powers such as Brazil may also join such an association. If India became a strong enough rival to China they may think about invading South East Asia, but I don't see any concrete reasons to believe this would really happen or even be remotely possible. India probably wont grow that strong.

The European Union will seek to surpass rivals economically. They need to expand significantly- finding a way to get Russia onto the Euro would certainly do the trick. This would give them economic leverage that could rival even China, however I am not certain just how cooperative Russia would be, especially with the trend being seen in Russia these days.

This may very well stabilize into a sort of world oligarchy. There may be 4-7 large spheres of influence dominated by key nations or alliances which can work within the UN. If I had to guess, I'd say we'll spend the next 100-200 years watching these large spheres of influence grow and stabilize, which will include the fall of a nation or two: Russia and America being prime candidates for that fate if they aren't careful. After this, depending on who you ask, either the aliens will show up to introduce themselves or the anti-christ will show up to put christians in ovens. Maybe the later will happen under the guise of the first
. You'll have to ask the religious people about that.


Short answer: no the USA wont take over the world. They're just the only ones making a military effort to do so, which is why reading my projection of the future may seem a little America-centered.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Indian navy, aircraft carriers are certianly better than the chinese ones.

Indian AF would surely be able to take on the chinese.

The large chinese army can be held off by india's well trained one.

If pakistan knows its role and keeps quiet, if the war is non nuclear , India will win.

But why should india liberate tibet anyway. it should capture manasarovar, kailash, etc and forget about the rest of tibet and drive out tibetian refugees and that lama guy.Functioality outweighs emotion anyday...





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join