well india say the samething in fact both says they are partner etc but behind each others back is full of mistrust.China saysalot of things, only fools believe them.
well india say the samething in fact both says they are partner etc but behind each others back is full of mistrust.China saysalot of things, only fools believe them.
Exactly. But this started with a very dumb indian PM, who believed whatever china said, and a shrewd Mao, to backstab.well india say the samething in fact both says they are partner etc but behind each others back is full of mistrust.
Look at it another way they already had such type of threat from NAto and Russia.Now another party in dispute with them is having the same capability.Their detterrence equations may changeThose who know missile, already know that A4 can reach them, A5 is game changer with MIRV and anti BMD RV along with range. PRC is smart enough to know the A5 range and its deterance value when inducted in numbers, it ishuge headack for the, which also nulify their non nuclear military force.
You are a funny chap.Dear Chinese members, going by the reaction of PRC (news agencies and DFI members), I can come to the following conclusions:
- Yes, PRC achieved this feat 20 years ago, but India did not because she chose not to. India has been launching satellites for decades now, so she always had the technological capability to make such missiles. Even today, India did not test an ICBM, not because she cannot make one, but she has chosen not to.
- Even though being ahead of India in this missile race, why are Chinese missiles less accurate than the Indian ones? Surely, if India's achievements are 'simple,' your's are then forgettable.
- Why is PRC over-blowing this Agni-5 launch and scaremongering by indicating it can hit Europe? It can barely touch the easternmost fringes of Europe, that is the regions along the Ural river, the boundary of Asia and Europe, but that's it. It cannot even reach Moscow. Moreover, for a missile to reach Europe, it has to be much larger than it is now - note the Russian Topol-M, which has a range of 11000 km, and is 1.9 m in diameter and 22.7 m in length. Moreover, I doubt if India has the same level of nuke-miniaturization as the Russians. Even if Agni-5 were to be converted into an ICBM (right now, it is just an LRBM or IRBM), what would it carry? A 5 kT warhead? So stop this scaremongering and branding the Agni-5 as threatening Europe. It was designed to cover entire PRC, not because India wants to nuke PRC, but because India wants to deter PRC from trying silly border flirtations.
Thats exactly the reason China-India and USSR-USA have fought so many wars since acquiring nukes...oh, wait.And i laugh at your understanding of role of nukes. It has never deterred any wars or border flirtations.
No you are wrong broNukes has never stopped wars.
If you dont know the difference between deterrence of nuclear wars and deterrence in general, I suggest you do abit reading first.
This was the original statement:
It was designed to cover entire PRC, not because India wants to nuke PRC, but because India wants to deter PRC from trying silly border flirtations.
Nukes has never stopped wars.
I really do hope there is another way to interpret this statement. It seems pretty straightforward to me.And i laugh at your understanding of role of nukes. It has never deterred any wars or border flirtations.
You are a funny chap.
I suggest you read abit more about the indian missile development. Choose not to? Darn you are a naive chap.
A missile program is not a candy shop. It is based on years of work. You dont choose to abondon it.
No idea where you get the part about missile accuracy from. There is no way you can know the accuracy of chinese nukes. anyone claims that, need to get their brains checked.
And i laugh at your understanding of role of nukes. It has never deterred any wars or border flirtations.
Did your nukes ever stop the wars with Pakistan? What a naive chap you are.
I gather they don't teach you about the Cuban Missile Crisis in your schools, right?If you dont know the difference between deterrence of nuclear wars and deterrence in general, I suggest you do abit reading first.
This was the original statement:
It was designed to cover entire PRC, not because India wants to nuke PRC, but because India wants to deter PRC from trying silly border flirtations.
Nukes has never stopped wars.
Hmm... Kargil war right?Why dont you teach India or Pakistan that. Maybe the Kargil conflict would never happend. /sarcasme ends.
Kargil was a different issue. Pakistan thought they will manage to hold on to the captured territory and their nukes will prevent an Indian retaliation. That didn't quite happen, because India called Pakistan's bluff. However, Indian nukes caused US to pressurize Pakistan to withdraw, instead of escalating.Why dont you teach India or Pakistan that. Maybe the Kargil conflict would never happened. /sarcasme ends.
Pakistan never owned up to having sent regular forces across the LOC in the first place, they said it were Mujaheddin thinking they would get away with it, when India called their bluff and made it clear that retaliation would be against Pakistan only then did the deescalate.You do realise the orginal point was that nukes deter border intrusions? Now you are saying the hostilities ceased when nuclear options were kept on the table? Like they didnt know this when the war started that each side possesed nukes?
Keep digging.
At least read what you post, this is first para.
Do you know what the international opposition was all about?During the initial stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces,[14][15][16] led by General Ashraf Rashid.[17] The Indian Army, later on supported by the Indian Air Force, recaptured a majority of the positions on the Indian side of the LOC infiltrated by the Pakistani troops and militants. With international diplomatic opposition, the Pakistani forces withdrew from the remaining Indian positions along the LOC.
Nuclear deterrence, I get.If you dont know the difference between deterrence of nuclear wars and deterrence in general, I suggest you do abit reading first.
This was the original statement:
It was designed to cover entire PRC, not because India wants to nuke PRC, but because India wants to deter PRC from trying silly border flirtations.
Nukes has never stopped wars.
No, actually tell that to Vietnam, a poorer, weaker nuke-nude country that kicked your sorry backsidesTell that to Pakistan.
Df-5's were deployed against India?? In Tibet?? Since the 80's??If China wants to use nukes , they will do so already.
You still dont get it, do you. The Df-5s were deployed in the 80s. Yours will be deployed in two years time. Go figure.
Wrong!! You got it in reverse, Pakistan initiated that conflict using their Chinese gifted nukes and rockets as insurance, once the peaks began to fall and the body count rose, they threatened to nuke India.Why dont you teach India or Pakistan that. Maybe the Kargil conflict would never happened.