I’ve asked this before, Is it possible for the thread creator to request mods to block individual posters from posting in a thread ?

That should solve a lot of problems.

I hope I wasn’t a part of the problem. Could not see replies to my post before it got locked.

If India raises a few regiments of Brahmos for use as heavy artillery, would that be the first time this is done ?

What are the strategic aspects of having multiple regiments of super sonic cruise missiles ? w.r.t Pak & China.

Suddenly any major target (formations, temp HQ, ammunition dumps etc) is within range of an unstoppable pinpoint strike without prior warning. And this can be repeated many times.

Not sure how many india can afford, but I’d like to see a oversupply of Bhramos in the inventory.

If this is true, then why did russians give it up for cruise missiles ? Because ASBMs are not practical in a hair trigger alert scenario ??

Of course they have. But saying that US and China benefit from trade is quite different than claiming that China becoming “strong” was solely the result of “offering the blood and sweat of chinese workers to make the lives of americans better.” That was one factor, certainly, but it’s just one of a great number of reasons.

Why peg reminbi to US dollar then ? Strong, self confident economies whose goods and services can compete on their own let their currency float and let the world markets decide. But China is scared that if their exports cost more in _Dollars_, they will lose the US market. Scared enough to not care that keeping Reminbi weak costs them heavily for imports such as Oil and all raw materials. Obviously exports to US must mean a lot. The higher cost of imports is offset by the cheap chinese labour who have no right to protest or strike for higher pay. They are also not allowed to know what recourses to justice workers in other parts of the world have, lest they get ideas.

(try going to http://www.yahoo.cn and search for falun gong. You will see how scared China is of free communication between ordinary people)

Chinese growth on US consumption of cheap chinese goods is a historical fact, irrespective of whether you are ashamed of it or not. Its in fact a major, if not the foremost, event in the world economic history of late 20th and early 21st century.

I’m not going to argue what is well known. If you want to deny it, fine. Others can all read up independent sources if they are curious.

As long as China does not let its currency float and allow civil rights and media freedom, it won’t be a great power. You can argue the current arrangement is needed to make China great quickly. May be. But that means it hasn’t reached there yet.

China may in future change its growth plans to be less dependent on US and in exports overall, but I don’t think we will be allowed to discuss economics here for long..

Just in case anyone is wondering what the relevance to the thread is, my contention is that US is more scared of losing the free meal than any military threat that China can mount as of today.

In a nutshell, my contention is that _IF_ there is an all out war (for whatever reason) then india has already taken the decision to challenge pak’s stated nuke red lines. In this situation the aim of IAF will be to establish air supremacy at the earliest and bring the war to a quick successful conclusion. IAF purchases and planning have to be seen in this context – of course China being the primary cause of concern these days.

I agree chances of an all out war is minimal because, unlike many posters here believe, india has no interest and indian politicians won’t get any support from people in waging a war with pakistan when things are going well in india, and we have no interest in occupying pak cities. Even if pak did not have nukes, other than strikes on terror camps, IAF or IA won’t try to invade or hold pak territory as it is more trouble than worth it.

The only reason for war is if pak falls to jihadis, which many here believe to be a remote possibility.

All in all very positive news for peace in the sub continent :rolleyes:

I’m a long time reader of this forum, but a recent poster. I try to understand the reasons behind military planning (such as acquisitions), hence the political content of my posts rather than technical discussion of equipment. I will keep it polite and avoid personal attacks. Hope this is not entirely against the mandate of this forum.

Rimmer, please don’t start playing your games if you are really interested in keeping this thread going well. Pakistani military is not the army of the prophet. Your generals are not the defenders of islam, merely of Pakistan. We have more muslims in india and large numbers serving in our military ready to take on pakistan in case of a war. So stop trying to twist a discussion on pak army into something anti-islam. That is a typical troll tactic.

Pakistan’s foreign policy has been under military control since the beginning. Its decisions and actions are _not_ under civilian control, unlike india where hindu, christian or islamic fundamentalists in the indian army cannot even pee without our elected officials allowing them to. General Sunderji was removed for operation brasstracks, but Musharaff became president after Kargil.

So it is very much a military issue for india to understand the motivations and thoughts of the pak military establishment. There has been internal purges in Pak military recently to get rid of senior officers sympathetic to taliban. Pak nukes falling into jihadi hands is a very real possibility, which your own heads of state often discuss in public. Its not something I made up. In case that happens, guess who is first in the firing line ?

You really think rise of islamicists is not a military issue for india and the rest of the world ? Why is USA in Afghanistan and flying drones in pak territory ?

It may be a distasteful topic for a patriotic pak citizen to face, but for an indian its a reality we have to every day plan and guard against. Rise of islamicists to power is probably the only military issue for india w.r.t pakistan as the ability of pak to capture indian territory (kashmir or elsewhere) is non existent and india has no territorial ambitions on pak.

IN any case, my reply was to Vikas saying wiping out PAF is a nuclear threshold for Pak, and I wanted to argue that if its hand is forced, India won’t consider that as a red line and would instead see loss of power by current establishment to likes of taliban as the real nuclear threshold. Its difficult not to mention islamicists when that is the key to all military action in and around Pak today.

Your entire argument can be summed up as: A is bigger than B so A can and will always win against B. Unfortunately for you, the world is much, much more complicated than that. Not that it matters, as nobody here is claiming that China is a military equal of the US.

Actually outright war is quite simple, behind all the sophistry. If A is much much much bigger than B, A can _always_ win. The only thing B can do is to make it cost A more to attack B than take what B is willing to offer on a negotiating table. Giving examples of Vietnam and Iraq is like saying if the attacker gets disgusted with killing countless numbers of the other side for little benefit and withdraws, then its a military success. Its not, its a moral victory, only possible agaisnt democracies with a (belated) conscience. Imagine if Hitler had attacked Iraq or Vietnam. He would have patiently wiped out every one. Expecting enemy to get tired of killing you with your huge population is not a great military strategy.

I admire many things about China and is not trying to put it down. But China has to demonstrate at least ONE top notch weapons systems of its own before people will believe in the super secret F22 killers and Carrier Group killers. Any request for veracity is met with theories of chinese super wisdom and art of war.

Capability gap between india and china is a lot less than china and US. By the same argument, China must be ****ting their pants at the indian military might. If you find that funny, then imagine how much funnier it is to think of China scaring US.

The simple fact is, unlike USSR, China became strong by offering the blood and sweat of chinese workers to make the lives of americans better. Chinese workers get paid far less than fair market rates to provide cheap goods and services to americans, to a total of over $2 trillion. US does not want to lose that, esp in these times. I’m not commenting of the fairness of the system, if it works for both sides, good for them. But, this arrangement is a far far more potent weapon (one which is sharp on both sides) than any mythical super weapons in chinese arsenal. This is what makes US hesitate to paint a target on China in public opinion and go full thrust against them, unlike the cold war. This is why US backs off and downplays incidents when chinese try once in a while to assert themselves militarily.

On the original topic, It is my opinion that instead of helping the US govt in painting China as a friendly nation to its citizens, while _quietly_ developing military power, if China continues to brag about what a threat it is to US, then US will be forced to focus on containing China and ensuring their overwhelming superiority is retained. It would be wiser to develop real weapons and keep quiet than put out leaks about super weapons.

I do not believe this ballistic missile threat against Carrier groups will achieve anything other than give USN more budget to acquire even more lethal capabilities (missile shields and stand off weaponry) against China in case of a future disagreement over taiwan. Protection of carrier groups is not merely a defensive action is shooting down incoming stuff, but also offensive action to take out enemy capability to launch.

Does China really want US to plan which ballistic missile launch centers in China to take out, even at the start of a simple skirmish ?

Lol, what? If China (or anyone else) managed to take out a CVBG using conventional weapons, what exactly do you expect the US to do? Nuke China?

Yes. US will nuke or use massive ordnance like daisy cutters to flatten all chinese naval ports. What will China do ? Nuke US mainland and invite retaliation on all Chinese cities which are so far untouched ?

As I said earlier, two can play at this game. With the level of asymmetry between them, militarily and economically, China will have to blink a lot earlier in the game than USA. It makes sense to be silent and humble _till_ you are ready to reveal you are as strong or more than the adversary. Threatening someone far stronger than you are only makes them focus on you and make sure the gap is never bridged – one way or other.

USSR used to command equal respect from US because they had a demonstrable and verifiable capablity to match the US hit for hit all the way up the escalation ladder. All China has is the ability to hurt the US a little enough to make US think twice about the cost benefits. As long as keeping China alive is beneficial to US (trade etc) and china does not give any real reason for US to attack, China can pretend to be a great power by spreading myths of sinister and superior weapons.

If China ever attempts to go one on one against the US on a global scale in every manner possible like USSR did, it won’t last an eye blink. China can’t even make India scared beyond some sabre rattling at the borders. US is way way way beyond.

That’s the truth, fortunately for the rest of the world.