Why NO cry nor Sanction against Indian Missiles?

[longbow]

China is NK main economic supporter. China supplies 70% of its energy and is its economic lifeline. How do you think NK could thumb nose at world for so long. Much of the nuclear talks have been centered on US/SK delivery of fuel oil. If the Chinese stopped energy exports to NK, I think NK would collapse in 6 months.

Now imagine if Chinese did that and they opened their border (after secret negotiations with SK to help fund the refugees) with NK. NK would collapse over night. China could also offer asylum for top NK generals. 2 months and NK is history. But if that happened then then China would have the US army parked on the NK side of Yalu River. That is not what they want.

Chinese like current status quo. If any one needs to talk to NK they need to go through the Chinese. And the nutjob moniker wielding Kim is exactly what Chinese like, the thousands of missiles are all facing US troops at the dmz not at the Chinese.

 

[scroobal]

So in a conventional warfare, UK, France and Russia can defeat China with reasonable chance?

Russia by geography is within range of China. If there's a war between them, it's up to what happen during the war, may the best army of the day win. Britain and France? They can always land troops in China and fight the war in China. There's no sure victory, I agree, in fact high risk of defeat because of the vast area and number of soldiers on the Chinese side (same as what Japan experienced during WW2). However, can China land troops in Britain and France? That's the difference, when we're talking about conventional projection of power over distance. (Disclaimer: I'm talking about conventional warfare, it they start lauching nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines hiding underneath some oceans against each other, then anything goes. See who's missile more accurate.) In short, China can't even choose whether or not to take on Britain or France. But Britain or France can choose whether or not to take on China (but at a high risk of defeat).

 

[Ramseth]

So in a conventional warfare, UK, France and Russia can defeat China with reasonable chance?

I'd say for Britain and France, no chance of complete victory. Maximum is cause some damage and then try to negotiate and settle. Their only advantage is they can go to China and cause some damage, whereas China can't go to Britain or France to cause damage. That was what happened 200 years ago. But today, they're unlikely to attempt that, because the risk of invasion resulting in total defeat even just over smaller cities is very real, given the strength and organisation of the modern PLA.

For example, Britain can reach and strike Argentina, but Argentina can't reach and strike Britain. Britain went there and reclaimed Falkland Islands, that's limited territory warfare. But for Britain to invade the entire Argentina, they may be able reach there but highly unlikely to win.

As for Russia, if war broke out with China, I don't know, can only say 50:50.

 

[longbow]

Not too sure about US/Pakistan relationship. Pehaps during the cold war days when India was under USSR and Pakistan is under US influence. Pakistan under Zia would not have had much support from the US given that Zia is not democratically elected

The Pakistani military (what matters when you talk about Pakistan) is very close with China. They have a couple of joint military armament project. In fact most of pakistani military is supplied by the Chinese.

Like NK, with Pakistan, China pretty much has knife at India's jugular.

Correct about China-Burma relationships. Read recently there was some border skirmish between rebels and Burmese army which resulted in thousands fleeing into China. Apparently many of these rebels were ethnic Chinese and China was none too happy about the whole affair and literally to the Burmese to stop attacking the rebels.

 

[longbow]

I seriously doubt is the Britain and France has any ability to land troops in China. Any country can drop troops onto another countries - but only to be arrested by local police. If you are talking about projecting power you are talking about bringing about a serious enough military threat to cause a change the the defensive country's military strategy.

US has ability to project power via carriers but that is why there has been so much talk about anti carrier missile the Chinese are developing.

Russia by geography is within range of China. If there's a war between them, it's up to what happen during the war, may the best army of the day win. Britain and France? They can always land troops in China and fight the war in China. There's no sure victory, I agree, in fact high risk of defeat because of the vast area and number of soldiers on the Chinese side (same as what Japan experienced during WW2). However, can China land troops in Britain and France? That's the difference, when we're talking about conventional projection of power over distance. (Disclaimer: I'm talking about conventional warfare, it they start lauching nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines hiding underneath some oceans against each other, then anything goes. See who's missiles are more accurate.) In short, China can't even choose whether or not to take on Britain or France. But Britain or France can choose whether or not to take on China (but at a high risk of defeat).

 

[scroobal]

Actually the Chinese do have blue water fleet capability. The reason why Myanmar is acting in the manner that they do is that China is the one holding the purse strings. Mynmar is central to the Chinese strategy as it offers a blue water port for its navy in the Southern hemisphere and central in the world map.

UK, FRance can no longer operate or project power like they did prior to 1950s. The war was fought in Falklands and not in Argentina albeit with the argentinians. The perspective will be different if fought in Argentina.

Military wise, China ranks no. 2 but they are so engrossed in the economy and putting in billions a day into their reserves, that posturing has taken a back seat.

I'd say for Britain and France, no chance of complete victory. Maximum is cause some damage and then try to negotiate and settle. Their only advantage is they can go to China and cause some damage, whereas China can't go to Britain or France to cause damage. That was what happened 200 years ago. But today, they're unlikely to attempt that, because the risk of invasion resulting in total defeat even just over smaller cities is very real, given the strength and organisation of the modern PLA.

For example, Britain can reach and strike Argentina, but Argentina can't reach and strike Britain. Britain went there and reclaimed Falkland Islands, that's limited territory warfare. But for Britain to invade the entire Argentina, they may be able reach there but highly unlikely to win.

As for Russia, if war broke out with China, I don't know, can only say 50:50.

 

[scroobal]

Agree.

The Pakistani military (what matters when you talk about Pakistan) is very close with China. They have a couple of joint military armament project. In fact most of pakistani military is supplied by the Chinese.

Sad to see Burma, richly endowed with natural resources going to the dogs.

Correct about China-Burma relationships. Read recently there was some border skirmish between rebels and Burmese army which resulted in thousands fleeing into China. Apparently many of these rebels were ethnic Chinese and China was none too happy about the whole affair and literally to the Burmese to stop attacking the rebels.

 

[Ramseth]

I seriously doubt is the Britain and France has any ability to land troops in China. Any country can drop troops onto another countries - but only to be arrested by local police.

LOL! You're very humorous. I've another joke at the height of the cold war era. The Soviet generals were very confident that they could land massive in the US...until they received another report, US civilians firearms ownership was above 100m. They pondered over it for hours, shaked their heads and gave up the idea. Even if they land 1m Soviet troops there at 4.a.m., all would be shot dead by US civilians by 5 a.m. before the US army cookhouse personnels woke up to make breakfast for the army.

If you are talking about projecting power you are talking about bringing about a serious enough military threat to cause a change the the defensive country's military strategy.

US has ability to project power via carriers but that is why there has been so much talk about anti carrier missile the Chinese are developing.

I think Britain and France still can do it, anywhere, if they want to. It's just that it's too expensive and there's not much reason to do it nowadays. But when forced to, they can do it, e.g. Argentina v. Britain @ Falkland Islands. Britain didn't want to attack Argentina, just wanted to reclaim Falkland Islands. They calculated it's feasibility and executed it.

China can't even reclaim Taiwan.

 

[fox_hound_33]

The issue was why N.Korea and not India. Iran, Iraq and N.Korea is quite obvious. Osirak, Iraq was taken out by the Isrealis many moons ago. Generally the world will not wait when nutjobs are playing with lethal toys. That would be primary and key reason.

Nothing to do with with the explanations you provided.

The point is the west will not tolerate anybody who is not on their side toying with nuclear weapons, nutjobs or not is irrelevant.

Speaking of nutjobs, one very important question for all. How do we know that a country is ruled by a nutjob? Because we are told so? Because we are told in the papers, Televisions and radio? But that is akin to being brain washed.

The western nations are pretty much in control of the world media. How can we judge upon a country's leader when there is a serious shortage of unbiased and independent information source?

 

[scroobal]

Forget the west, the media etc. Why do you think that N.Korea is not a nutjob and no different to any other country?

Speaking of nutjobs, one very important question for all. How do we know that a country is ruled by a nutjob? Because we are told so? Because we are told in the papers, Televisions and radio? But that is akin to being brain washed.

 

[fox_hound_33]

Forget the west, the media etc. Why do you think that N.Korea is not a nutjob and no different to any other country?

Therein lies the issue. I don't think NK is ruled by a nutjob nor i do i think it is not ruled by one. I can't arrive at an informed judgment without access to unbiased facts. If at all anything my short life has taught me then its is do ones own research from credible sources. The mass media certainly isn't one. Unfortunately there aren't many other avenues to turn to as far as Nk is concerned.

The right thing i (for that matter everyone) can do for now is not blindly believe in what the west says and question their facts and claims. The recent missile launch published in the media is an example that i had highlighted earlier.

 

[scroobal]

Ok, why do you think it is a responsi8ble country? You may wish to cite examples on how they helped their own people and the world. Anything positive will help us draw an impression.

Therein lies the issue. I don't think NK is ruled by a nutjob nor i do i think it is not ruled by one. I can't arrive at an informed judgment without access to unbiased facts. If at all anything my short life has taught me then its is do ones own research from credible sources. The mass media certainly isn't one. Unfortunately there aren't many other avenues to turn to as far as Nk is concerned.

The right thing i (for that matter everyone) can do for now is not blindly believe in what the west says and question their facts and claims. The recent missile launch published in the media is an example that i had highlighted earlier.

 

[eatshitndie]

Russia by geography is within range of China. If there's a war between them, it's up to what happen during the war, may the best army of the day win. Britain and France? They can always land troops in China and fight the war in China. There's no sure victory, I agree, in fact high risk of defeat because of the vast area and number of soldiers on the Chinese side (same as what Japan experienced during WW2). However, can China land troops in Britain and France? That's the difference, when we're talking about conventional projection of power over distance. (Disclaimer: I'm talking about conventional warfare, it they start lauching nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines hiding underneath some oceans against each other, then anything goes. See who's missiles are more accurate.) In short, China can't even choose whether or not to take on Britain or France. But Britain or France can choose whether or not to take on China (but at a high risk of defeat).

any country with a successful space program (at least launching sizable objects into orbits) can strike anywhere on earth with conventional weapons. not all ballistic missiles are equipped only with nuclear-tipped warheads. commando strikes and airborne drones can be launched from subs. sending a massive invasion fleet halfway round the world to a country with mobile shorebased intermediate ballistics missiles these days is foolish and suicidal. i don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[fox_hound_33]

Ok, why do you think it is a responsi8ble country? You may wish to cite examples on how they helped their own people and the world. Anything positive will help us draw an impression.

I never said NK is a responsible country. (Actually 'a responsible nation' is an extremely nebulous concept and is open to umpteen interpretations.)

NK is a very closed country that does not have much international interactions. So its safe to say that they have not really helped any nations. Nor i do i think it is helping its own citizens. Defectors from NK tell tales of mistreatment.

I am curious why you are asking this question. Responsible behavior of a country towards it own citizens or helping nations across the globe is non pertinent to the topic we are discussing; that is, why the west is against NK & Iran but not India. Dont tell me the west is judjing a nation based on its human rights record or helping other countries.

India, Pakistan, Israel, china etc and plenty of other nuclear armed nations have very bad human rights issue but still enjoy favorably relationships with the west..

 

[Ramseth]

any country with a successful space program (at least launching sizable objects into orbits) can strike anywhere on earth with conventional weapons. not all ballistic missiles are equipped only with nuclear-tipped warheads. commando strikes and airborne drones can be launched from subs. sending a massive invasion fleet halfway round the world to a country with mobile shorebased intermediate ballistics missiles these days is foolish and suicidal. i don't think you know what you're talking about.

I know what I'm talking about. Trouble is, I don't know what you're talking about. Britain and France have scrapped silo-based or aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons long ago. Their nuclear missiles are all in submarines hiding down there somewhere in some oceans.

As for China's ability to land troops in Britain or France, I still don't think so. It's different from rocketing a satellite into space orbit. In times of war, I doubt that the Chinese navy can sail across the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic without meeting any intercepting navy. Can they win and continue on their expedition? I doubt so too. China's naval warfare tradition and record has been horrible. Entire fleet could be destroyed by the Japanese at home waters, how to fight in foreign waters?

In any case, I really believe in the Chinese statement, there's no Chinese ambition to invade any foreign country. The whole PLA setup (including nuclear weapons) are defensive. The message is, we don't or can't attack you nevermind, but if you try and come to attack us, you sure die.

 

[eatshitndie]

invasion: normandy, iwo jima and falklands style

you have been watching too many ww2 d-day movies. how to land troops in another country? by ship? or by air? if the french or brits were to try another falklands landing today on a country with the means to destroy them before they arrive, they would be decimated. americans wouldn't land troops in a such a country today. to project forces today (in any invasion), u.s. armed forces had to engage foreign allies that are neighbors to the target area, borrow their airfields and ports, secure heliborne rescue posts, insert spec op units by subs (if near sea) or by air (if landlocked), fly early recon and intel units by military transport, ship heavy equipment to friendly neighbor(s) by merchant shipping, transport troops by commercial flights (mostly 747's).

invasion: taiwan

the modern naval battle group (the true force projection threat), which is unique to the u.s. navy in many ways, will always be first to arrive close to the target area in any major conflict... and the chinese know that. and that is why the chinese have developed capital ship killers, and the u.s. know that too. and that is why the u.s. will not foolishly fall for any chinese trap by sacrificing a battle group. they will stand off, at least out of ballistic missile range of mobile landbased platforms - a reason why too the u.s. is developing ship-based theater missile defence platforms.

 

[eatshitndie]

I know what I'm talking about. Trouble is, I don't know what you're talking about. Britain and France have scrapped silo-based or aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons long ago. Their nuclear missiles are all in submarines hiding down there somewhere in some oceans.

As for China's ability to land troops in Britain or France, I still don't think so. It's different from rocketing a satellite into space orbit. In times of war, I doubt that the Chinese navy can sail across the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic without meeting any intercepting navy. Can they win and continue on their expedition? I doubt so too. China's naval warfare tradition and record has been horrible. Entire fleet could be destroyed by the Japanese at home waters, how to fight in foreign waters?

In any case, I really believe in the Chinese statement, there's no Chinese ambition to invade any foreign country. The whole PLA setup (including nuclear weapons) are defensive. The message is, we don't or can't attack you nevermind, but if you try and come to attack us, you sure die.

you have not been reading up on current pla capabilities vis a vis their taiwan neighbor. no, the chinese will not invade europe (except with criminals and hookers), nor the europeans will invade china anymore (except for jobs). the pla navy is no longer the ching navy that was defeated by the japs in the sino-jap war a hundred years ago. i hate to debate with someone who is decades (century) behind in military knowledge. next please.

 

[Ramseth]

I have this only to add. China doesn't want to project power over distance. That's different from doesn't have the ability, and that's the tradition since thousands of years of ago, broken only once by the Mongolians when they ruled China. Even the minority Manchurians stuck to this tradition when they came to dynastic power. Not interested in invading foreign lands, other than lands considered to be Chinese. That's how Russia became so big in land area, and Mongolia remained so big in land area, Korea is still Korea (but divided North and South by WW2), Vietnam is still Vietnam, Japan is still Japan. China had never been interested to invade and conquer foreign lands, even when it was top global naval power during the Ming Dynasty.

 

[scroobal]

I am confused. I had the impression from your various posts that you knew something about N.Korea especially so as you said not to trust the media.

I am even more confused with your definition of "responsible".

Maybe this might help to narrow down the issue. N.Korea is more responsible than which countries in your opinion.

I never said NK is a responsible country. (Actually 'a responsible nation' is an extremely nebulous concept and is open to umpteen interpretations.)

..

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

I have this only to add. China doesn't want to project power over distance. That's different from doesn't have the ability, and that's the tradition since thousands of years of ago, broken only once by the Mongolians when they ruled China. Even the minority Manchurians stuck to this tradition when they came to dynastic power. Not interested in invading foreign lands, other than lands considered to be Chinese. That's how Russia became so big in land area, and Mongolia remained so big in land area, Korea is still Korea (but divided North and South by WW2), Vietnam is still Vietnam, Japan is still Japan. China had never been interested to invade and conquer foreign lands, even when it was top global naval power during the Ming Dynasty.

as usual some idiots are going to equate china not wanting to invade foreign nations as being weak.