Indian Navy charts new course with first doctrine

[mysterious]

Israel and India military relations almost down to nothing? I wish that was true. Israel just signed a deal for 3 Phalcons with India recently and there's more where that came from. China will have its EU arms embargo lifted in the near future and its not really a matter of NATO. About Taiwan, I hope you've read a recent analysis of Taiwan's defenses against a Chinese strike. Taiwan has five lines of defenses against a Chinese strike but they are highly vulnerable and cannot withstand the pressure of a Chinese attack. There's a limit as to how much quantity can be stopped by quality. Chinese numbers are too massive for Taiwan to entertain. China already has more than 500 ballistic missiles pointed towards Taiwan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Israel and India military relations almost down to nothing?

Israel and China - not Israel and India. I don't think it's true in both cases either.

I know of an Israeli contracter working on Arjun and another working on missile technology projects. As for the Chinese - they clearly want Israeli help on EW projects and continuing support in aviation. The Israelis are some of the best systems integraters in the world, and they are one of the few nations who have worked with all major weapons systems and types.

 

[adsH]

Israel and India military relations almost down to nothing? I wish that was true. Israel just signed a deal for 3 Phalcons with India recently and there's more where that came from. China will have its EU arms embargo lifted in the near future and its not really a matter of NATO. About Taiwan, I hope you've read a recent analysis of Taiwan's defenses against a Chinese strike. Taiwan has five lines of defenses against a Chinese strike but they are highly vulnerable and cannot withstand the pressure of a Chinese attack. There's a limit as to how much quantity can be stopped by quality. Chinese numbers are too massive for Taiwan to entertain. China already has more than 500 ballistic missiles pointed towards Taiwan.

WOW !!! Myst China has no intention of detroying the Western infrastructure that that the western world has developed they wan't to annex the island just like they did to HK they took a perfectly good flurishing micro but powerfull economy from our hands and we handed it over. we should of called it off!! HK people really like to be Bristish subjects its not as if we were brutal to them they had there leader our protection our monetary support our investment and all the freedom to come and go into our country there authorities there and there governance and all that is jeopardized by the chinese rule there now!! i don't think China could ever take over Taiwan they may have the force on the land but they would need see fareing logistics that they don't have !!! and they would not bomb the island!!!

 

[mysterious]

Yes exactly my point. If China wanted to take out Taiwan with force, it could've done that (at whatever cost) long time back but it wants the Taiwan as it is (developed and working) like it got Hong Kong thats why China is still playing diplomatically to get Taiwan and has shown major patience to this day. Hong Kong under British rule never had democracy so why cry about it now? And everyone knows what kind of democracy goes on in the UK and US so its rather useless to try and dig your own grave by discussing all that over and over again. :smokingc:

 

[gf0012-aust]

China will have its EU arms embargo lifted in the near future and its not really a matter of NATO. About Taiwan, I hope you've read a recent analysis of Taiwan's defenses against a Chinese strike. Taiwan has five lines of defenses against a Chinese strike but they are highly vulnerable and cannot withstand the pressure of a Chinese attack. There's a limit as to how much quantity can be stopped by quality. Chinese numbers are too massive for Taiwan to entertain. China already has more than 500 ballistic missiles pointed towards Taiwan.

This Taiwan-China scenario has been discussed elsewhere - so I'll cut and paste what I've written off site. The topic revolved around Chinas ability to conduct a landing and if not successfully, then to escalate to a nuclear strike.

The mainland doesn't have the capacity to airlift and/or sealift the quantum of troops required to get ashore, seize and hold. It would end up being the oriental version of Gallipoli.

The total airlift capacity of the PRC that could be used in a parachute operation of approx around 3,000 tonnes (after counting all of the An-2s in service - they make up a third of it!) This is enough for a division if the soldiers are not resupplied and only carry small arms ammunition. Assuming no attrition, it may be enough to keep a brigade in combat - and that is using the entire airlift capacity of the PRC!

The total sealift capability of Chinas mercahnt navy would not even be able to undertake operation Overlord - which was on a targetted landing spot - not an island.

as for nukes:

1) Destroys surface civilian infrastructure, thus making the cost of rebuilding a substantial negative

2) Will not guarantee the complete destruction of Taiwans military infrastructure that is underground and in nuke resistant shelters - hence leaves open the chance of retributive strike solutions (with all that they have left, and will then have no compunction in launching)

3) Will destroy any feeling of goodwill that is supposed to be the whole crux of unification, and will certainly be seen as retributive rather than a process of unification

4) The fall out will have disasterous side effects on neighbouring countries who may then elect to respond conventionally. If the wind blows the wrong way, I cannot see Japan or South Korea taking it on the chin

5) I doubt that any series of salvoes of nuke tipped SRBM's could deliver the yield required to eliminate all of the Taiwanese surface assets. Taiwan has substantial underground assets - and they are hardened.

6) Ipso facto, the use of multiple nukes, would make the attack one of deliberate intent and opens the doors for a retaliatory strike by Taiwans neighbours and principle ally. It would by association justify the use of nukes as a reponse, if not by the US, then perhaps by Taiwan itself.

7) Would destroy any hope of gaining UN resolution and support due to the nature of the attacks.

As a lesson in tactical expedience, it's not the smartest opening gambit in waging war. Anyone who thinks that the Taiwanese are a pushover is making some pretty bold assumptions.

For all their bluff and bluster, China is not even remotely capable of invading and holding Taiwan. The thing that everyone tends to ignore is that sustained warfighting is not about rockets, missiles, artillery, fancy jet fighters etc... it's won by logistics. China, definitely does not have logistical capabilities to engage in a transnational war.

 

[adsH]

Yes exactly my point. If China wanted to take out Taiwan with force, it could've done that (at whatever cost) long time back but it wants the Taiwan as it is (developed and working) like it got Hong Kong thats why China is still playing diplomatically to get Taiwan and has shown major patience to this day. Hong Kong under British rule never had democracy so why cry about it now? And everyone knows what kind of democracy goes on in the UK and US so its rather useless to try and dig your own grave by discussing all that over and over again. :smokingc:

LOL myst mate whats wrong with democracy in teh UK and US

 

[Soldier]

Yes exactly my point. If China wanted to take out Taiwan with force, it could've done that (at whatever cost) long time back but it wants the Taiwan as it is (developed and working) like it got Hong Kong thats why China is still playing diplomatically to get Taiwan and has shown major patience to this day. Hong Kong under British rule never had democracy so why cry about it now? And everyone knows what kind of democracy goes on in the UK and US so its rather useless to try and dig your own grave by discussing all that over and over again. :smokingc:

LOL myst mate whats wrong with democracy in teh UK and US

Hell Yeah, Even I would like to know what is wrong with the democracy in UK. I consider UK to be more democratic of all the democratic countries in the world with freedom of saying things against the government too by a normal civilian. I wonder what prompts Mysterious to say that Hongkong was never democratic under British rule. Perhaps this is why more then half of the population of Hongkong wanted Britain to stay....

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think Myst might have got something out of context. I've worked in Hong Kong prior to 1997, and it was clearly a democracy. It was one of the easiest places in the world to live in and had very very robust freedom of speech etc...

Up until 1997, I was thinking of living there for work.

 

[mysterious]

It was somewhat closer to a democracy (HongKong) but not truly one! Yes it has had more restrictions now since it came under Chinese control but oh well, Chinese have their own style of governance. Come on! Dont get me started on what kind of democracy prevails in the UK and the US otherwise people will then start maligning me as a hardline anti-western person or blah blah. Just give yourself a flashback in time and you'll know what kind of democracies they are! Recent example, Iraq war (please I'm tired of venting my lungs out over this again n again in every other thread, dont want to do it anymore). If UK was so democratic and its government responded to the wishes of its people, it wouldn't have wagged its tail behind the US blindly on Iraq. Now we see Blair having a crunch time day in and day out and getting critisized like hell at the House of Commons all the time (at times, looking at his face, I have the feeling as if he's going to cry and beg forgiveness of the opposition). Just my opinion. Not in the mood to have any fights here. Thnx :smokingc:

 

[adsH]

It was somewhat closer to a democracy (HongKong) but not truly one! Yes it has had more restrictions now since it came under Chinese control but oh well, Chinese have their own style of governance. Come on! Dont get me started on what kind of democracy prevails in the UK and the US otherwise people will then start maligning me as a hardline anti-western person or blah blah. Just give yourself a flashback in time and you'll know what kind of democracies they are! Recent example, Iraq war (please I'm tired of venting my lungs out over this again n again in every other thread, dont want to do it anymore). If UK was so democratic and its government responded to the wishes of its people, it wouldn't have wagged its tail behind the US blindly on Iraq. Now we see Blair having a crunch time day in and day out and getting critisized like hell at the House of Commons all the time (at times, looking at his face, I have the feeling as if he's going to cry and beg forgiveness of the opposition). Just my opinion. Not in the mood to have any fights here. Thnx :smokingc:

MYSt we had a million people march(well more then that) out in london demonstrating our freedom of speach this freedom of speech reflects our democrative values. now if the majority feel that Prime minister blair was wrong then the elections are coming up and the polls will decide. this is how democracy functions you select a party/person to repersent your self and then allow him to make decisions and trust me the amount of freedom offered here no one else is anywhere in the world the media bashes the Govt more than any countries media is allowed to bash there govt!! china is adictorial comunist nation with set prinicipals it's not a governance i would like to be living inn and they are ruining the HK economy since they took over, Hk is in recesion. there are so many Hk people that love to hold there british passports rather then there chinese ones!!!

 

[mysterious]

Just 'cuz a handful preferred holding on to British passports and not Chinese ones, doesn't give the right to a colonial power to separate one type of people from their own homeland. Britan realized long ago that it could not function as a colonial power for long as no matter how much freedom you give to the people you're ruling, they will have stronger ties with their own people than someone foreign sitting on their heads. Democracy is not 'always' the best solution to everything.

 

[adsH]

Just 'cuz a handful preferred holding on to British passports and not Chinese ones, doesn't give the right to a colonial power to separate one type of people from their own homeland. Britan realized long ago that it could not function as a colonial power for long as no matter how much freedom you give to the people you're ruling, they will have stronger ties with their own people than someone foreign sitting on their heads. Democracy is not 'always' the best solution to everything.

Ok (NO offence Ausie digger and GF) but myst look at Australia and Canada they are still part of our monarch our queen still rules as the head of state with appointed governors and the Australians and the Canadians have a sense of pride in that a pride on being apart of a history, thats what Common wealth form is (ithink) HK was never treated any differnt may thats why HK like holding onn to there pasports there aren't just a few that hold British subject Pasports. and trust me they may be Chinese from origin but they sure the hell act English !!!

 

[mysterious]

Ahem Ahem! Dont mean to offend anyone or act as a racist but Canada and Australia are both "white" countries like the UK while Hong Kong, Pakistan, India, etc are not.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ahem Ahem! Dont mean to offend anyone or act as a racist but Canada and Australia are both "white" countries like the UK while Hong Kong, Pakistan, India, etc are not.

ahem ahem: 28-4-2004

People born overseas increased Australia's population by 250,000 over the five years to 30 June 2002, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released today.

By comparison, people born in Australia increased by 868,000 over the same period. The percentage of people born overseas remained stable at 23% of the population.

After the United Kingdom (with 1.1 million people or 6% of Australia's population in 2002) the next largest country of birth groups were New Zealand (414,000 people or 2% of Australia's population), Italy (235,000 or 1.2%), Viet Nam (172,000 or 0.9%) and China (165,000 or 0.8%).

New Zealanders (90,000 people), Chinese (33,000 people), South Africans (29,000 people) and Indians (23,000 people) added the largest numbers of people to Australia's population in the five year period (after Australian-born).

People born in Iraq and South Africa were the fastest-growing groups in Australia's population over the same period (9% and 8% a year on average respectively). However, the Iraq-borns' rapid growth was partly as a result of starting from a small base (19,100 in 1997).

People born in the United Kingdom continue to make up the largest percentage of overseas-born people, but this figure has declined by 0.6% per year over the five year period.

Meanwhile, the Australian population born in Southern and Eastern Europe declined 38,000 (down 0.9% a year on average) and North-West Europe declined 37,000 (down 0.5% a year on average) with continuing decline in immigration from those regions.

Net overseas migration continues to become more important to Australia's population growth, with more than half of annual growth coming from migration (125,300 people in 2002-03) and the rest coming from natural increase, the excess of births over deaths (115,200).

While there were 11% more settlers arriving in Australia from 2001-02 to 2002-03, permanent departures also increased, by 10%. There is a continuing trend toward Australian-born people leaving permanently - this comprised around half of all permanent departures since 1998-99.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/cd7a3322c1efbee2ca256e8400000472?OpenDocument

In the state of victoria there are over a total of 151 languages are spoken in Victoria, originating from 208 countries

In all my little travels, the only place on earth where I have seen greater racial diversity is in Amsterdam - and that certainly doesn't qualify as a country.

 

[Red aRRow]

:cop :cop OK people back to the topic please. Somehow the discussion turned from Indian navy to racial makeup of societies. :? :? Need to get back on topic. If somebody wants to discuss world societies, integration, racial pie-charts etc. they are welcome to open a new topic in the Social and Political Forum. :cop :cop

 

[corsair7772]

Yea bac 2 topic.

The doctrine sounds an awful lot like a shopping list rather than a strategy.

Besides, Indian doesnt have a threat from china. If it wont enrage my fellow indian counterparts, i cud be bold enuff to say that india uses china as an excuse for technolgical an militry escalation. It only needs to defeat pakistan and doesnt need an entire AC taskforce for that.

 

[amit21mech]

Yea bac 2 topic.

The doctrine sounds an awful lot like a shopping list rather than a strategy.

Besides, Indian doesnt have a threat from china. If it wont enrage my fellow indian counterparts, i cud be bold enuff to say that india uses china as an excuse for technolgical an militry escalation. It only needs to defeat pakistan and doesnt need an entire AC taskforce for that.

If somebody kills 2 birds with single stone than thrower will not be get enraged but feel proud.

 

[adsH]

Yea bac 2 topic.

The doctrine sounds an awful lot like a shopping list rather than a strategy.

Besides, Indian doesnt have a threat from china. If it wont enrage my fellow indian counterparts, i cud be bold enuff to say that india uses china as an excuse for technolgical an militry escalation. It only needs to defeat pakistan and doesnt need an entire AC taskforce for that.

If somebody kills 2 birds with single stone than thrower will not be get enraged but feel proud.

LOL !! Amit mate depends if the second bird belongs to a Group (GANG) of birds that would come back to haunt you !!!

 

[amit21mech]

Yea bac 2 topic.

The doctrine sounds an awful lot like a shopping list rather than a strategy.

Besides, Indian doesnt have a threat from china. If it wont enrage my fellow indian counterparts, i cud be bold enuff to say that india uses china as an excuse for technolgical an militry escalation. It only needs to defeat pakistan and doesnt need an entire AC taskforce for that.

If somebody kills 2 birds with single stone than thrower will not be get enraged but feel proud.

LOL !! Amit mate depends if the second bird belongs to a Group (GANG) of birds that would come back to haunt you !!!

Once killed( defeated) no one will come to the help. And this is what cruel world of reality. However I hope birds behave themselves and India does not have to throw the stone. Now do not stretch it too much. Tu to bach jaeyga per Mod muje ban kar dega. :roll

 

[adsH]

Yea bac 2 topic.

The doctrine sounds an awful lot like a shopping list rather than a strategy.

Besides, Indian doesnt have a threat from china. If it wont enrage my fellow indian counterparts, i cud be bold enuff to say that india uses china as an excuse for technolgical an militry escalation. It only needs to defeat pakistan and doesnt need an entire AC taskforce for that.

If somebody kills 2 birds with single stone than thrower will not be get enraged but feel proud.

LOL !! Amit mate depends if the second bird belongs to a Group (GANG) of birds that would come back to haunt you !!!

Once killed( defeated) no one will come to the help. And this is what cruel world of reality. However I hope birds behave themselves and India does not have to throw the stone. Now do not stretch it too much. Tu to bach jaeyga per Mod muje ban kar dega. :roll

LOL i meant china's NAVY being the second bird !! its other Armed servies being the other Birds in there Gang lol