Can India liberate Tibet if it wanted to?

Originally posted by Hawkssss
oops,

Indians, let's see some links, evidence saying india can take over Tibet and why don't you challenge my points. lol

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Hawkssss]

whats all this about veggies??


There are no links which say "India can take over Tibet" or even that maybe "China can destrory India". Thats the point!! Its all bl00dy speculation!! And For that matter there's no direct info that the USAF is the best in the world and also that the PLAAF sucks real bad.

Otherwise there would be no threads of this sort! Its basically about hypothesizing, posting what one's opinion is backed up by biased sites on both sides. And oh yeah theres a lot of nationalism and patriotism to go around too. That clouds everything!!

Im disappointed at the 1 on 1 attacks this thread has created. No offence meant to China.I mentionted that in my 1st post i think.

I think lets call it quits esp. on the India-China front (im not chickening out hawkkss!! opinions still remain!!) and try and achieve some regional unity on this forum. From now on at least from my side , no China-bashing..IMHO we stand to gain much more (on this forum esp.) by supporting each other.



[edit on 27-10-2004 by Daedalus3]

For you Indian forumers, allow me to quote an English-language expression for you. "Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones." In other words, before accusing Hawk of being arrogant, why don't you look at your behaviour?

NOW, if I can rebutt some various points:

-->"Liberation contention." Tibet was NEVER independent because its "independance" circa. 1905 was never recognised by the world at large. British India tried to annex Tibet as a "buffer zone," but they failed to defeat the Qing dynasty armies. Instead the British tried to install a puppet, a Buddhist-style Taliban regime. But NOBODY, not Russia, not USA, not France and not even UK recognised this country, so it NEVER had any legitimate sovereignty. Furthermore, the USA and UK agreed during WWII to dismantle their unequal treaties, so there is no legal way for them to recognise this "independance," EVER. And the UN never, EVER recognise this either. Quite simply, the "free Tibet" movement NEVER, EVER had any legal legitimacy; even the Dalai Lama knows this.

-->Indian equipment "superiority." Even Chinese J-7s are better than LCA and MCA. Do you know why? Because they LCA and MCA are literally paper tigers, whereas J-7s EXIST FOR REAL! While India has spent nearly 30 years developping LCA, during that time China has developped, built AND deployed Su-27, J-10 and FC-1. The bad part: LCA is equal to FC-1. The worst part: LCA is only scheduled to be deployed in 2010. Quite simply, India imports virtually all of its aircraft while China builds many of them. As for armour, India squandered 20+ years "developping" the Arjun, only to scrap the programme (each Arjun apparently costs US$5 million, which is more than the Leclerc, LOL!) and import T-90s from Russia. Compare this with China, which has already built hundreds of Type 98s and thousands of other tanks. If anybody considers the Centurion an advanced British tank then they have some serious catching up to do. On the naval front, India operates 2 obsolete ex-Royal Navy carriers and paid a fortune for the Gorshkov, a less-obsolete (but still obsolete) Russian carrier. While India has bought some Krivak 4s, China builds its own stealthy FFGs; India's 3 Delhi-class DDGs vs. China's 4 Sovremenney, 2 Type 052B and 2 Type 052C DDGs. And China is purchasing the Ukraina, a Slava-class cruiser:

www.navyleague.org...

India co-developped Brahmos AShM with Russia, but China also has SA-20s and ~250km range AShM (C-803,) not to mention the P-500 (~500km range) or possibly even the P-550 Granits they will get with the Slava-class cruiser.
www.fas.org...
www.uscc.gov...

-->"Fake" Chinese economic figures. All I can say is this: If you can't believe the World Bank then who will you believe?

www.worldbank.org...

-->Indian "moral superiority." Again, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house! It has been proven that India's corruption is worse than China's. Indian democracy hasn't done a thing about this, the problem is getting worse, and authoritarian Singapore (which is a model for China) is amongst the least corrupt places in the world.

www.worldaudit.org...

And one more thing, why hasn't Indian democracy stopped the caste system? Or religious extremism (Hindus burning Sikh and Moslem temples, for example?)

-->Indian software boom. India may have some good programmers, but China has mostly caught up (witnessed by Microsoft, Oracle and others expanding their Beijing R&D centres) and India's hardware does not compare with China's. And much of India's "service industry" growth has, in fact, been characterised as "IT sweatshops."

www.wired.com...

-->India has "superior" combat experience. India was the British empire's "Foreign Legion" during the 19th and 20th (1st half at least) centuries, yet the same Indian military got routed in 1962 when trying to annex Tibet. India has also suffered defeats at the hands of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lankan groups. Compare that with the PLA's record against France (1948, helped Ho Chi Minh win a decicive victory at Dien Bien Phu); USA in Korea (stalemate despite USA being a nuclear power and PLA being poorly equipped); USSR (stalemate); USA in Vietnam; Vietnam in 1979 (major political victory albeit at high cost), 1982 and 1986. And just like the other great powers, China was able to use proxies (Pakistan, Bangladesh) to serve its interests, whereas India did not have such proxies.

--> India commands more respect that China. India may have stared out as the leader of the "Non-aligned movement," but China took that mantle away from India. In 1953 India certainly had a better economy than China, which was in ruins after the anti-Japanese and civil war. China also went through disasterous periods during the so-called "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution" campaigns. Yet China today has the 2nd largest economy in the world and its manufacturing rivals the USA and Japan; India does not. Finally, India is seen too much as trying to be like the British, the most hated imperialist; China does not and hence the 3rd world respects that.
*******
If the views of the Indians here represent the majority view in India then I feel disappointed. I would have expected more appreciation for the fact China is actively supporting India to have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

First of all I want to make it crystal clear that Aryaputhra and I are not one in the same. I will not have myself associated in any way with the nationalist/racist exchange between Hawksss and Aryaputhra. Hawksss needs to make a point of not grouping me with his other adversary as he has so far, because I am making a different point. He wants to argue that China isn't really bigger than India, and apparently he thinks that Chinese people eat tiger genitals in lieu of viagra. I am simply saying that I believe the numbers are not the primary factor in a hypothetical war between India and China, and I can back that up with research.

I have said previously that I respect your research. I am not endeavoring to disprove the numbers you have provided because I do not have reason to doubt them. We all know China is bigger. You'd have to be out of your gourd to not acknowledge that.
My arguement is based on other research. I have spent YEARS reading, considering, and discussing military subjects- it is one of the few things that really makes me tick. I believe that it is very dangerous for a military to rely too heavily on numerical or technological advantages while ignoring terrain, morale, tactics, and organization. Just a few instances where larger/better armed forces have lost for those reasons:
Bloody Ridge on Guadalcanal: A disorganized Japanese advance on the ridge makes it possible for Edson's Raiders to repel the Japanese from Henderson Field- if the superior Japanese force had executed the operation successfully the US foothold in the Pacific would have been lost.
Cannae: Heavily outnumbered by the Romans, Hannibal backs his force into a favorable position where he can not be outflanked then feigns a break in his lines. Professional as they were, the Romans fell for it and created a buldge in their lines. Now Hannibal's cavalry, also outnumbered, is dedicated to only one flank, creating a mismatch which allows them to take the Roman cavalry forces piece-meal before encircling the Roman infantry and completing the anhilation.

Additionally, it is dangerous for a nation to enter a war simply on the merits of the war. Political, social, economic, and geo-strategic concerns must be considered. How will your friends and rivals react? How will your people react? How much time and money will this cost, and how much damage could the enemy do if something goes wrong? What will your defensive capabilities be if the enemy gets a lucky shot in on you? In short you have to weight the best case scenario against the worst case scenario.
The greater the disparity between the nations involved, the greater these concerns become. Best case scenario, China can gain some market share around the world by hurting India's economy, maybe force reparations from India, and keep a hold on Tibet. Worst case scenario, China could end up in a Vietnam situation, or end up in a nuclear exchange with India.

What do you think the Indians are, supermen? Don't they need to move their stuff to the Himalayas also?

diunei, lets us now look at what you wrote. You said that the Admiral Groshkov is obsielte. Well let metell you a thing or two. Admiral Groshkov is undergoing "extensive" upgrades. Its runways will b longer and its weapons upgraded to the new century. Also it will carry more aircraft and will be able to support more missions. Now China has NOTHING like that. They bought the Vargay and they might make it to work but the problem with that is that they have NO experance with aircraft carriers and they will need Russias help with it. If they dont ask Russias help then they will have a floating runway that is beyond obsilte. I dont want to hear you people trashing each other and that is why I will not stay on ANYONES side. Both of you are great countries and friends of Russia.

If you want more on the Russian Aircraft Carriers then visit www.abovetopsecret.com...

Out,
Russian

Also I must say that the T-90S are better then the tanks China has. You people are lucky Russia didnt sell the T-90M. T-90S is the sorriest T-90 Russia has.

Out,
Russian

Personally I believe the age where tanks are the most important part of land war is over. Helicopters are replacing tanks, they are more agile, field better weapons and are more effective in some situations. And about the admiral something something (not racist but just can't remember), it is gonna be finished in 2009 while it is gonna take another two years at least for it to be in full service, thats a long time from now-7years, who knows what CHina has? maybe it even started its own carrier program.
I believe if a war between CHina and India was to happen, China would win. The pro-india side may not like this but China has simply got a better range of weaponry on developement maybe except for the carrier program. The T-98 will feature laser lense breaker which would destroy a enemy tanks computer aim or blind the crew who is aiming. The Su-30s are now being upgraded so it could carry the Supersonic antiship cruise missile "Sunburn", one of if not the most dangerous conventional anti ship missiles. Plus the missile bases in the Himalayas.

COWlan, First of all the Admiral Gorshkov will come to service 2009. That is full service. Second China has no experance with carriers so they would need to get on from Russia. They got the Varyag. If they are being helped by Russia with that then it will be seen entering service in about 2010-2013. Also please give us a link where Su-30s will be upgraded with Sunburns. I think that is kind of unbelievable. And or the laser thing in Chinese tanks also please give a link. And the last thing is that tank era is not yet finished. It is still very useful and will go on for sometime. Helicopters are still to vurneable to enemy weapons.

Out,
Russian

@ Astral City: I was impressed with your post, which unlike many of the pro-china postings here did not simply rest on "China is bigger and beat india 40 years ago".
In the face of such a competent assertion of China's military abilities I must first of all be very clear that I never said India could easily have its way with China. I have primarily been interested in shooting down those who dogmatically pound the point that China is so huge that no rival could stand. I have been just as opposed to American supremecists in the past.

** I will be editing in a response to your case later. I have to go for now**

Originally posted by The Astral City
I still say my money is safe with a bet on China.

What China lacks in air logistics support (which by the way they'd blast with EMPs) they make up for in space based eyes and centralized combined arms command.

China has clear numeric and technological superiority, Russian's numbers are quite correct according to the United State CIA factbook on global military power. Our Chinese friend was also quite correct in saying that the nickname for India's air force is the Flying Coffin. As for the navys, well I'd take China's new surface fleet and subs over India's 2 unseaworthy and rusting aircraft carriers and support ships any day.

Long analysis short, India would loose the coflict for three major reasons:

1: India's military has been built around fighting it out with the Paks, China's military has been designed from the begining to defend against invasion.

2: The western powers will not step in, there's too much to loose and almost nothing to gain. If anything the United States will side with their trade ally and back China because of the political ease of defending an attacked nation, and their massive trade and debt interests in China. India is rather expendable to the US compaired with China, regardless of what type of government the countries have. If the European Union had to pick a side (which I highly doubt they would) they have an alliance with China, and again the international community is sympathetic to the defender, so it'd be politically viable for the EU to back China. Japan would stay out of it for sure, they can't mobilize without a constitutional ammendment and that has had a very serious history of failure. Russia's got their own problems to worry about and it's not like their interests would be harmed so why should the Bear lift a finger?

3: Attacking China is suicide for India because of the current state of their nation. China also has one thing that no amount of troops can make up for, some of the world's best tactical minds. Ever read The Art Of War, Little Red Book or Manifesto For Revolution? China would play the political angle like no other too. Imagine, India is bogged down fighting China in the east, all avalible troops and supplies are needed, gee what do you think the Pakistanis are going to do about that? My guess is that Delhi and Mumbai would be radioactive craters, and the Chinese would be the one's to convince the Paks that the time to strike has come. India also can't pull the whole total war thing against China also. Remember India is a third world (read largely unindustrialized) nation and the fighting would be on their front lawn. China is almost finnished with their full scale leap over the industrial age and right into the info age. The fighting would be on the edge of their property and their large industrial centers in the east would be untouched, separated by thousands of miles.

In conclusion, China has the numbers, tech and tactical mastery to blow India away. The only thing India can compete with is sheer manpower, and with loss of air superiority, feeble supply lines throught mountainous terrain and the Paks opening a western front, I'd say they wouldn't last long.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

What I want now to point out is militarly China is superiour. Just the armour division has a good chance to the Chinese forces. Please read the whole post before commenting.



Ok the red is Tibet. Blue is where the Chinese forces are. I am sorry if that is not the most acurrete map of that stuff but thats not the point. The point is that India would have a huge advatage of territory. If India would have attacked then they would have the upper hand in land forces. China would still have the upper hand in the air. Navy we can exclude as I dont think either would use it very much. Both navys are small comparing to their countries and they would stay at home to protect the home. At the end of the battle I think China would still win with great loses that are not worth Tibet. India would also have great loses and would like to roll the time back before the war and forget about Tibet. China would wi cause their air force is better and they would be able to defeat the Indian supply lines and harse the troops. On land it would be a very bloody fight. The country with better tactics on land would win land battle. But if India won the land battle then it would still loss the war overall as the air force of China would not let them have the land.

Summary:
Land- Bloody with no country winning
Air- China cause of its numbers and more advanced aircrafts
Water- stays home

At the end of the war Tibet stays as China and India stays the same. Both countries suffer such losses that bought just want to get it over with and leave it as it was.

Out,
Russian

Russian, I am pretty well in agreement with your analysis, and I totally agree that the price to pay for the war would far outweigh anything that China or India could gain, which is probably why it will never happen.

The key to understanding the outcome, I believe, would be more in the nations psychology and politics.

China is not that well understood as a nation, but if one understands the history, predicting their behaviour is not terribly hard. China had the largest imperial period of any nation on earth, spanning thousands of years, with only one major period of fractionalization durring the Three Kingdoms period after the Han Dynasty.

This all came crashing down when the western nations and Japan introduced their spheres of influence over China durring the Age Of Imperialism. Insurgencies like the Boxer Rebelion rallied the nation but it really was not until after World War Two that China truly became her own nation again.

Even today the Chinese people remember their period of oppression, and are deeply bitter about it. This is one of two major reasons that I believe China would fight tooth and nail to kick any invading power out.

The seccond is honour, Chinese culture is still very much based upon honor and being attacked by a nation like India, whom is not considded a high military power by most, would be a dishonour and China would need to redeem themselves by making an example of the Indians as best they could.

Politically India is a much more westernized nation than China is, their main thought is the survival of their nation, probably the main reason they will never invade Tibet. But figuring India does make the mistake of attacking China, I believe reason would prevail and they would withdraw before the casualties became truly catastrophic. India also is a democracy and I highly doubt that the kind of blood soaked slugfest that a war with China would entail would last long in the venue of public oppinion (look at America and the Vietnam War.)

With this line of thinking then, the war could be a protracted and not all our affair, I think India could back down before China is able to move the bulk of their troops to the front and really pound on the Indian forces.

My final political conclusion would be that the war would never take place, neither country would be willing to begin hostilities and only China would be psychologically and Politically willing to go the distance, and again only if they were attacked.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

Sorry Russian, you are wrong on this. China has troops stationed in Tibet and in the forward positions in China-control Kashmir. Not to metion one of the largest military districts (China has five or six military districts) is based in Chengdu, which is very close to Tibet.

Where did you get the idea that we have no troops in and around Tibet. In fact, we are building railroads connecting Tibet with the rest of the country and that will give us huge logistics advantage.

www.china.org.cn...

Plus, your list forgot to mention China's 4 new 052 DDGs which are already operational and I have showed all the pictures to you. The new 054 Frigates and we have fielded many other tanks such as the 99, 98, 95, etc. Your list is very outdated and we can not possibly have 300 J10s now, my guess is around 50.

Hawksss
Indians, let's see some links, evidence saying india can take over Tibet and why don't you challenge my points. Lol

Okay so let me see, this guy has called me a veggie eater - not that I have anything against vegans, it�s a great thing. He has tried to humiliate the Indian race by calling them �weaklings�; if you try to avoid his CCP rhetoric, he refers it as �chickening out�, if we return in kind, we are called �nationalistic/rascist�. Let me just say here, I am a meat eating Christian, I cannot be described nationalistic, I have not even lived in India for more than 5 years and that too in my primary years. I do visit India every year as I do visit other parts of the world. I have lived in China (Tianjin) for three years and I know the Chinese mentality. I have many Chinese friends but the biggest thing I loathe about Chinese is their cunningness and �mightier than thou� assumption they hold towards others. Let me tell you, I for one, can read right through that glass minds. So it doesn�t surprise me when Hawksss has to get all defensive on his posts. What does surprise me is the below the belt comments he posts and expecting me to subdue to him. That said, I will leave it there if he has had enough. Not that I am �chickening out� because I am a weakling. If you want it come and get it, chinaman. I am still on!@

Now on to the analysis others have posted here.

diunei
-->"Liberation contention." Tibet was NEVER independent because its "independance" circa. 1905 was never recognised by the world at large. British India tried to annex Tibet as a "buffer zone," but they failed to defeat the Qing dynasty armies. Instead the British tried to install a puppet, a Buddhist-style Taliban regime. But NOBODY, not Russia, not USA, not France and not even UK recognised this country, so it NEVER had any legitimate sovereignty. Furthermore, the USA and UK agreed during WWII to dismantle their unequal treaties, so there is no legal way for them to recognise this "independance," EVER. And the UN never, EVER recognise this either. Quite simply, the "free Tibet" movement NEVER, EVER had any legal legitimacy; even the Dalai Lama knows this.

Buddhist style Taliban regime? Wow that�s a first. Never heard of it, lol Tibet was an autonomous region up until the commie Chinese took it by force. Tibet WAS recognised by the world as an independent country. Immediately after the communist party took power in China in 1949 it began asserting its claim that Tibet was part of Han Chinese territory and its people were crying out for "liberation" from "imperialist forces" and from the "reactionary feudal regime in Lhasa".

By October 1950 the People's Liberation Army had penetrated Tibet as far as Chamdo the capital of Kham province and headquarters of the Tibetan Army's Eastern Command. The region was routed and the Governor, Ngawang Jigme Ngabo, taken prisoner. You call this �liberation�? The Han Chinese forces were also stealthily infiltrating Tibet's north-eastern border Province, Amdo, but avoiding military clashes which would alert international interest.

That year the 15-year-old Dalai Lama, his entourage and select government officials, evacuated the capital and set up a provisional administration near the Indian border at Yatung. In July 1951 they were persuaded by Chinese Officials to return to Lhasa. On September 9, 1951, a vanguard of 3,000 Han Chinese "liberation forces" marched into the capital. Now doesn�t this strike a chord with present day Iraq?

The earliest historical sources, including the Old Tibetan Chronicle, are rather sparse in details concerning the exact origin of the Yarlung dynasty, which came to rule the Tibetan Empire. The first king, however, is said to have descended from on high by a "sky-rope," which he cut unwittingly, thus preventing his return to heaven at the end of his reign. These early reports are considered the oldest evidence of "the sacral character of the dynasty as well as its autochthony." After conquering Central Tibet and the Tibetan Plateau, the consolidated Tibet of the Yarlung Dynasty had its inital contacts with the Chinese in 608 and 609 AD, when two embassies were dispatched to pay tribute to the Chinese court and apparently also to discuss the disposition of the Aza, a nomadic people lying between Tibet and China and recently defeated by the Chinese. The paying of such tribute was a common practice among states bordering China and is not indicative of Tibetan subordination to China. In fact, Chinese references to the Tibetan btsanpo, or emperor, are glossed with the same word the Chinese used for their own emperor, or tian-zu, Son of Heaven. Under their first great emperor, Songtsen Gampo (ca. 620-649), the Tibetans developed a written language and promulgated a legal code.
In the seventh and eighth centuries, Sino-Tibetan relations were marked by frequent military exchanges, culminating in peace treaties in both 783 and 821. The latter treaty was signed by the Chinese in Chang-an in 821 and by the Tibetans in Lhasa in 822, where it was inscribed on a stone pillar--still extant--in both Tibetan and Chinese. The Tibetan version (in part) declares:

The two great countries, Tibet and China, guard the land and the frontier now in their possession. All to the east of that (frontier) is the land of Great China, and all to the west is indeed the land of Great Tibet. Thereafter both sides shall not struggle like enemies, shall not lead armies into war, and shall not invade and seize each other's territory.

And, it concludes:

Thus the sovereigns and ministers of both Tibet and China together declared and swore an oath. After the text of the treaty was accurately written, the two great rulers affixed their seals.

The text of the treaty is therefore an unequivocal acknowledgement by both Tibet and China of their mutual independence and sovereignty. The treaty clearly delimits borders, recognizing the agreed upon frontier as the bounds of their respective territories. Although this treaty in itself is not decisive in determining the validity of Tibet's present-day claim to self-determination--due to its very ancientness--it is nevertheless of immense importance in establishing the fact that the Tibetans as a people are historically distinct from the Han Chinese. Moreover, the treaty establishes that the Tibetans were not only ethnically distinct, but possessed their own territory.

Because they LCA and MCA are literally paper tigers, whereas J-7s EXIST FOR REAL! While India has spent nearly 30 years developping LCA, during that time China has developped, built AND deployed Su-27, J-10 and FC-1. The bad part: LCA is equal to FC-1. The worst part: LCA is only scheduled to be deployed in 2010. simply, India imports virtually all of its aircraft while China builds many of them

LCA /MCA is NOT paper tigers. They have flown several times. Just because there was one crash in Russia for the Tejas doesn�t mean its worthless. DRDO was trying a Russian built engine as opposed to the Kaveri Engine which gave it problems. Also, these flights are all experimental, we are bound to fail here and there. We should fail. Failure is the key off success, unlike some Han Chinese who proclaim victory in the first attempt itself. lol

Also, this flying coffin thing was a joke instituted by the Indian army. So if Indian Pilots using these MiGs are capable to take on the Mighty US as recent exercises have shown I don�t think the Chinese will stand a chance. It's all well and good to gloat in the internet, but we will show you in real life.

-->"Fake" Chinese economic figures. All I can say is this: If you can't believe the World Bank then who will you believe?

Not really. They have many a times proven to be cronies to the most corrupt politicians and investors worldwide. I will search and provide you some URLs on this. In the same token, can you believe the RAND report?

Indian democracy hasn't done a thing about this, the problem is getting worse, and authoritarian Singapore (which is a model for China) is amongst the least corrupt places in the world.

Funny you should say that. Because Singapore backs India more than China. Its new prime minister Lee Hsien Loong is pro India on all fronts. Singapore is trying its best to loosen up its autocratic system and adopt a lot of Indian democracy styles into its regime. The recent military exercises of Singapore with India and India offering parts of its territories for Singapore Military bases shows how much commitment has gone into their unique and specific relationship.

Besides, a lot of my Singaporean friends who go to Shanghai, return complaining about the locals behaviour. The usual we hear are, �Oh well, the meeting did not go well because, either one of us is Chinese�, meaning the meeting didn�t go well due to some irritating and annoying Chinese behaviour.

India has also suffered defeats at the hands of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lankan groups. Compare that with the PLA's record against France (1948, helped Ho Chi Minh win a decicive victory at Dien Bien Phu); USA in Korea (stalemate despite USA being a nuclear power and PLA being poorly equipped); USSR (stalemate); USA in Vietnam; Vietnam in 1979 (major political victory albeit at high cost), 1982 and 1986. And just like the other great powers, China was able to use proxies (Pakistan, Bangladesh) to serve its interests, whereas India did not have such proxies.

India NEVER suffered defeat in the hands of Pakistan. Where do you get your facts? Oh, I forgot, the commie database. I guess you will now post something from their database. Lol. Last time I checked India broke Pakistan to two, (Pakistan became Pakistan and Bangladesh). What war are you talking about with Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. You are talking of the pathetic cowardly maoist rebels?? Who rape, mutilate and then run away to their precious jungles?? You want to talk of guerrilla warfare tactics?

Astral City
China is not that well understood as a nation, but if one understands the history, predicting their behaviour is not terribly hard. China had the largest imperial period of any nation on earth, spanning thousands of years, with only one major period of fractionalization durring the Three Kingdoms period after the Han Dynasty.

Well, what can I say, to understand China one has to understand the Chinese mind. Call me xenophobic, but I aint going to be pc for shortfused loonies in this forum.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by aryaputhra]

to understand india, all you need to do is to look at their performance at the Olympics, 1 silver. What a shame for a one-billion people country. Well, the olympics in Beijing is just around the corner in 4 years and once again time to feel ashamed of being an indian.lol

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Hawkssss]

Alright you two, come on now be civil. We know you love your counties but you're both in rather the same boat in the real world anyways.

It's not like India and China are going to actually fight this war, this is just a nice little construct we've created to play with, it's kinda like a wargame.

India and China are actually not that hostile towards eachother, peace is much more profitable than war right now and for a while in the forseeable future. Both countries are on their way to becoming major powers and I think they'd much rather focus upon building their economies and standard of living than on a horridly crippling war right now.

Besides, you guys both have bigger problems than eachother, Pakistan and North Korea come to mind.

And as for the comments on understanding eachother; it's understanding of other cultures that has kept wars like this one on the internet and out of reality.

Remember, this war is not actually going on, and it probably never will. So relax, your national pride isn't at stake, just enjoy it and take it for what it's worth.

LOL, so come on guys, sit back down and I'll buy the next round of drinks haha.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

As for armour, India squandered 20+ years "developping" the Arjun, only to scrap the programme (each Arjun apparently costs US$5 million, which is more than the Leclerc, LOL!) and import T-90s from Russia. Compare this with China, which has already built hundreds of Type 98s and thousands of other tanks. If anybody considers the Centurion an advanced British tank then they have some serious catching up to do.

Tanks clearly ain't your thing. The Vijayanta is not, repeat NOT a Centurion. Even if it were, the Centurion, at its time, was the best Main Battle Tank on earth. Its time equates to T54/55 and T64. Neither of which come close. Since 1945 Britain has led the world in Tank design, why do you think M1/M1A1 wears Chobham armour?
Those obviously clueless tank operators the Israelis still field (seriously upgraded) Centurions. How did Egyptian T-series tanks do against Israeli M48 Pattons (which lets face it weren't that good anyway) and AMX13s (which were even smaller)?
The South African Oliphant is likewise a seriously upgraded Centurion.

Originally posted by Hawkssss
to understand india, all you need to do is to look at their performance at the Olympics, 1 silver. What a shame for a one-billion people country. Well, the olympics in Beijing is just around the corner in 4 years and once again time to feel ashamed of being an indian.lol

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Hawkssss]

This is without a doubt the single most pathetic post I have ever seen, anywhere.

By this rationale Australia with its 50,000 men will be able to fight China to a standstill simply because we focus on sport and medals? What?

Perhaps the Indians have some other priorities, such as poverty alleviation, closing the gap between rich and poor, education. There is such a thing as too much sport, believe me, on this topic I have much more experience.

Hehe gues the chicoms didnt read my "peace post". I read somethign up here^^ about the fact that India is democratic and does not follow an expasionist policy and so would not invade tibet. Also the any discussion about the chinese navy being involved is well unrealistic because they'd have to come around from the east and the US would know about it. It would be a tip-off for the Indians.

Another thing, chinese air-superiority over the theatre is highly debateable. Lets visualise that properly. Lets talk aircraft deployable, ranges, AWACS etc.And yes China cannot afford to divert forces on the east coast as the US will DEFINITELY take advantage.On the other hand Pakistan will not be so adventurous. Also Russia if taking any sides will take an Indian perspective on things (IMHO).
Lets play some strategic chess shall we?

Originally posted by Hawkssss
Sorry Russian, you are wrong on this. China has troops stationed in Tibet and in the forward positions in China-control Kashmir. Not to metion one of the largest military districts (China has five or six military districts) is based in Chengdu, which is very close to Tibet.

Where did you get the idea that we have no troops in and around Tibet. In fact, we are building railroads connecting Tibet with the rest of the country and that will give us huge logistics advantage.

www.china.org.cn...

.

I saw your link. It says the railroads have just been laid. India on the other hand has had railroads in its eastern sector for a long time(thanks to the british). Also those rails would be primary targets for the floggers.Im interested in finding out what AWACS and SAM assets the chinese have in that region.

Also Chengdu would be a primary strike zone for us. Maybe some AF exercises with the IAF(Israeli) that we've had would help us make an Osiraq out of Chengdu
(bet the chicoms would be googling for 'osiraq' after reading this!!)
Thats what im talking about. Hitting where it matters.



[edit on 28-10-2004 by Daedalus3]

Another thing, chinese air-superiority over the theatre is highly debateable. Lets visualise that properly. Lets talk aircraft deployable, ranges, AWACS etc.And yes China cannot afford to divert forces on the east coast as the US will DEFINITELY take advantage.On the other hand Pakistan will not be so adventurous. Also Russia if taking any sides will take an Indian perspective on things (IMHO).
Lets play some strategic chess shall we?

or singapore, taiwan or japan and south korea for the matter will not agree to ANY chinese aggression. hehehe - so, who'll come to their rescue - the beijing chicom olympics team? lol pakistan?? oh, let's not forget their commie buddies in North korea? maybe the iranian terrorists organizations or if that fails the i know... wait... the maoist rebels! HAHAHA who is this guy kidding.

hey look! we have the latest copies, real pirated..you want? you want?? eat yur "flied lice and have a nice fright" when we kick your chicom butt. all is not won on the internet boards you know.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by aryaputhra]

Originally posted by The Astral City
Alright you two, come on now be civil. We know you love your counties but you're both in rather the same boat in the real world anyways.
~Astral

"Im from Yorkshire....You?"

"War of the Roses innit?"



...(If your still lost about what im saying then its the typo in the quote: 'counties')

sorry couldn't resist