South China Sea: Role of India

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
What you guys talking about? PLAAN does not even have experience of operating any Aircraft Carrier.

You can rush serial production which will output numbers but you can not earn naval experience of some machinery in a month or so. It takes years even in known waters.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Then what is meaning of this sentence?

While we can deploy two carriers in SCS you cant do the same as you have to watch your arse in the pacific.
China cant deploy assets in SCS because Indian carriers? You are not serious, right?

Btw you know that SCS are within the range of land based flankers and missiles, right?
sorry, left that incomplete. Let me clarify, while we wll be able to deploy 2 carriers in SCS if we have to, you cant do the same in the Indian Ocean as you have to watch your arse in the Pacific against the USN.

Hope that clarifies.
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
sorry, left that incomplete. Let me clarify, while we wll be able to deploy 2 carriers in SCS if we have to, you cant do the same in the Indian Ocean as you have to watch your arse in the Pacific against the USN.

Hope that clarifies.
China dont need carriers to defend against USN. That will be suicidal. Chinese carriers are not meant for SCS. It is about power projection.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
China dont need carriers to defend against USN. That will be suicidal. Chinese carriers are not meant for SCS. It is about power projection.
So you are making the carriers for what exactly? Museums?
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Care to explain why? Or is this one of those I believe it is gonna rain tomorrow kind statements?
I strongly believe that there will be a revolution in China where the common man will demand more rights. I think that would be a catalyst.

When I say PLAN will be weaker I do not mean in terms of being weak in power. I mean weak in the willingness to wage war. They will have to think long and hard before that rock the boat. They will have people answerable to.

Face it, you or me, do not want war. What we want is progress and progress is possible only in peace times. With constant war mongering, there will be no progress. The population can get restive if there is no progress. In my opinion, progress does not mean becoming rich. Progress means there will be better quality of life overall.
 

Avenger

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
185
Likes
9
it is your only hope,right?

I strongly believe that there will be a revolution in China where the common man will demand more rights. I think that would be a catalyst.

When I say PLAN will be weaker I do not mean in terms of being weak in power. I mean weak in the willingness to wage war. They will have to think long and hard before that rock the boat. They will have people answerable to.

Face it, you or me, do not want war. What we want is progress and progress is possible only in peace times. With constant war mongering, there will be no progress. The population can get restive if there is no progress. In my opinion, progress does not mean becoming rich. Progress means there will be better quality of life overall.
 

Avenger

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
185
Likes
9
I dont think India is a superpower.
PS. 60,000 tons carrier? if is true, you guys have to import a lots of steel,electronics, engines ....

Am I. Who said India has to pick up a fight with China. Super powers dont fight directly. They do it by proxies. That is how it will be between India and China as both countries rise. China will get there first, but India will follow. Till then we will form alliances to keep China in check.

India is already building one carrier and two more will be built. The second and third in all probability will be in the 60,000 Tons category with catapults. Add to that Gorshkov which means four carriers. Nothing stops India from announcing more carriers as its operational situation demands.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
I dont think India is a superpower.
PS. 60,000 tons carrier? if is true, you guys have to import a lots of steel,electronics, engines ....
One way or the other we will have carriers. how what who does not matter.
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
I strongly believe that there will be a revolution in China where the common man will demand more rights. I think that would be a catalyst.

When I say PLAN will be weaker I do not mean in terms of being weak in power. I mean weak in the willingness to wage war. They will have to think long and hard before that rock the boat. They will have people answerable to.

Face it, you or me, do not want war. What we want is progress and progress is possible only in peace times. With constant war mongering, there will be no progress. The population can get restive if there is no progress. In my opinion, progress does not mean becoming rich. Progress means there will be better quality of life overall.
They have to think long and hard now too. When was the last time PLAN waged a war?

They are called Chinese Navy now. No longer peoples liberation army Navy.

The US never lacked the willingness to go to war. And they are by all definition a democratic country answering to the people.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
This thread has totally derailed and turned into an India vs China pissing contest... and I have nothing to contribute toward that discussion

However in regards to the actual topic at hand... China's increasing belligerence in the South China Sea is extremely disconcerting and should not be allowed to escalate. This move toward territorial expansion is undoubtedly motivated by natural resources, and understandably so. The rise of a global power has always coincided with control over natural resources. However territorial expansion based on intimidation cannot be allowed.

As per the chart China's claim looks downright ludicrous because it encompasses the immediate surroundings of other countries.

Allowing China to intimidate smaller SE Asian states will prove to be bad for the global economy. SE Asia seems to be on the verge of a renaissance given the recent developments in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and now Burma. A hostile takeover by China would pretty much bring that to a halt.

SE Asia has to be allowed to mature and develop without interruption, and in order to succeed the global community has to launch a combined effort to protect the vulnerable states. This job cannot and should not be relegated to the US Navy alone because it will only make matters worse. All regional players with competent navies like Japan, S Korea, Australia and India have to be included in a formidable cohesive task force that would thwart the chances of a military conflict.

Now mind you, my outlook isn't motivated by biased malice toward China. I am an admirer of modern China and have no doubt that it will go on to become a major power that will shape the global future. However one has to be cognizant of the past in order to secure the future. If we have learned anything from history it is that domination of natural resource through military expansion by one singular superpower eventually culminates in disaster (and I say this as an American myself). SE Asia is a well of opportunity for everyone and frankly China will come out on top in the event of fair competition because of the many advantages such as geographical proximity, production of cheaper goods catered toward burgeoning markets and lower costs of services in areas like oil and gas exploration. Point being Sinopec has a much better chance of coming out the winner by playing fair instead of resorting to belligerence and intimidation. In fact the latter will hurt China a lot more in the future.

Lastly, initiating an arms race in SE Asia through sales of military hardware would be counterproductive. It would be far more productive for a country like India to dedicate it's naval resources for a combined task force to deter hostility and leave the rest to aggressive trade and commerce and people to people contact.
 
Last edited:

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
This thread has totally derailed and turned into an India vs China pissing contest... and I have nothing to contribute toward that discussion

However in regards to the actual topic at hand... China's increasing belligerence in the South China Sea is extremely disconcerting and should not be allowed to escalate. This move toward territorial expansion is undoubtedly motivated by natural resources, and understandably so. The rise of a global power has always coincided with control over natural resources. However territorial expansion based on intimidation cannot be allowed.

As per the chart China's claim looks downright ludicrous because it encompasses the immediate surroundings of other countries.

Allowing China to intimidate smaller SE Asian states will prove to be bad for the global economy. SE Asia seems to be on the verge of a renaissance given the recent developments in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and now Burma. A hostile takeover by China would pretty much bring that to a halt.

SE Asia has to be allowed to mature and develop without interruption, and in order to succeed the global community has to launch a combined effort to protect the vulnerable states. This job cannot and should not be relegated to the US Navy alone because it will only make matters worse. All regional players with competent navies like Japan, S Korea, Australia and India have to be included in a cohesive task force.

Now mind you, my outlook isn't motivated by biased malice toward China. I am an admirer of modern China and have no doubt that it will go on to become a major power that will shape the global future. However one has to be cognizant of the past in order to secure the future. If we have learned anything from history it is that domination of natural resource through military expansion by one singular superpower eventually culminates in disaster (and I say this as an American myself). SE Asia is a well of opportunity for everyone and frankly China will come out on top in the event of fair competition because of the many advantages such as geographical proximity, production of cheaper goods catered toward burgeoning markets and lower costs of services in areas like oil and gas exploration. Point being Sinopec has a much better chance of coming out the winner by playing fair instead of resorting to belligerence and intimidation. In fact the latter will hurt China a lot more in the future.

Lastly, initiating an arms race in SE Asia through sales of military hardware would be counterproductive. It would be far more productive for a country like India to dedicate it's naval resources for a combined task force to deter hostility and leave the rest to aggressive trade and commerce and people to people contact.
I have no idea what you mean by Chinas increasing belligerence. Chinas stance has been quite clear since the 70s. Just because you havnt noticed the conflict dosnt means it hasnt been there all long. If China wanted, she could have forced the issue a long time ago.

THe only difference is some people are bring the dispute to the international arena now. The stakes are higher now.

No idea what you mean by protecting the vulnerable states. They were never threatened. I have not heard any chinese planes to invade them. Nor any plans to disrupt the traffic in SCS.

The disputes is about access to resources. China has stated that she is willing to negotiate bilateral with others.

Last, the dispute is among several nations. It seems you have already taken a side despite your claim that you are not motivated by biased malice towards China.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
They have to think long and hard now too. When was the last time PLAN waged a war?

They are called Chinese Navy now. No longer peoples liberation army Navy.

The US never lacked the willingness to go to war. And they are by all definition a democratic country answering to the people.
USA is able to do what the heck it wants because it controls the worlds only reserve currency. It prints it out of thin air. It can buy things, it can build massive armies and conquer far off territories. once conquered, it can pay local chieftains $$$$ and control things. China wishes to emulate the US. That will fail miserably. America is a corporate oligocracy.

Isn't SCS posturing act of war. Is 1962 capture of Aksai Chin not a act of war? etc etc.
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
You complete misunderstood my post. I suggest you read it again. And read the post I replied to as well.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Ohh so now chicoms are worried about our tax player's money??
No, no outsider worries about your taxpayer's money, but your gov should think like a cool head instead of an internet fanboy.

There is no opposition within India to what we are adventuring in SCS.
How many americans supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and how many opposed it in 2008?


Its worth every ruppee we spend.

This is a free democracy where government's every decision is up for public scrutiny unlike communist state trashing individual freedom.

Sent via Tapatalk from a galaxy far far away
Oh, yes, I forgot India is the biggiest democratic country. But unfortunately that doesn't guarantee your success in the world.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
This thread has totally derailed and turned into an India vs China pissing contest... and I have nothing to contribute toward that discussion

However in regards to the actual topic at hand... China's increasing belligerence in the South China Sea is extremely disconcerting and should not be allowed to escalate. This move toward territorial expansion is undoubtedly motivated by natural resources, and understandably so. The rise of a global power has always coincided with control over natural resources. However territorial expansion based on intimidation cannot be allowed.

As per the chart China's claim looks downright ludicrous because it encompasses the immediate surroundings of other countries.

Allowing China to intimidate smaller SE Asian states will prove to be bad for the global economy. SE Asia seems to be on the verge of a renaissance given the recent developments in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and now Burma. A hostile takeover by China would pretty much bring that to a halt.

SE Asia has to be allowed to mature and develop without interruption, and in order to succeed the global community has to launch a combined effort to protect the vulnerable states. This job cannot and should not be relegated to the US Navy alone because it will only make matters worse. All regional players with competent navies like Japan, S Korea, Australia and India have to be included in a formidable cohesive task force that would thwart the chances of a military conflict.

Now mind you, my outlook isn't motivated by biased malice toward China. I am an admirer of modern China and have no doubt that it will go on to become a major power that will shape the global future. However one has to be cognizant of the past in order to secure the future. If we have learned anything from history it is that domination of natural resource through military expansion by one singular superpower eventually culminates in disaster (and I say this as an American myself). SE Asia is a well of opportunity for everyone and frankly China will come out on top in the event of fair competition because of the many advantages such as geographical proximity, production of cheaper goods catered toward burgeoning markets and lower costs of services in areas like oil and gas exploration. Point being Sinopec has a much better chance of coming out the winner by playing fair instead of resorting to belligerence and intimidation. In fact the latter will hurt China a lot more in the future.

Lastly, initiating an arms race in SE Asia through sales of military hardware would be counterproductive. It would be far more productive for a country like India to dedicate it's naval resources for a combined task force to deter hostility and leave the rest to aggressive trade and commerce and people to people contact.
Finanally, we got someone who can think with a clear mind.

Although, I just doubt the prospect of the format you proposed--simply 1. China is the biggiest client of most of the members involved; 2. they have a bigger chance to fight against each other rather than fighting China, such as South Korea and Japan.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
[SUB][/SUB]
I strongly believe that there will be a revolution in China where the common man will demand more rights. I think that would be a catalyst.
I don't see that possible "catalyst" would affect China's long-term foreign policy. Yes, this may lead china to another weak period. But after recovering, China will still come back.

When I say PLAN will be weaker I do not mean in terms of being weak in power. I mean weak in the willingness to wage war. They will have to think long and hard before that rock the boat. They will have people answerable to.
That will be even worse when Chinese get their "freedom" as more than 80% of Chinese have been complaining that CCP did not do enough in South China Sea since 1980.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
With a three possibly five carrier force navy, we will do it. Read what I have written in OP. look to develop strategic ties with all the countries in the region and also form a concrete security framework which will most cotta only come up and it sure is a way to tackle the Chinese.
Maybe, but you can do whatever you plan to do only after you HAVE your 3 or 5 carrier forces.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Then what is meaning of this sentence?

While we can deploy two carriers in SCS you cant do the same as you have to watch your arse in the pacific.
China cant deploy assets in SCS because Indian carriers? You are not serious, right?

Btw you know that SCS are within the range of land based flankers and missiles, right?
It's your problem that you don't understand English
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Maybe, but you can do whatever you plan to do only after you HAVE your 3 or 5 carrier forces.
And you can talk about 5 Indian Carrier =1,5 Chinese when you actually have one carrier.

Bloody trolls.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top