China's Fast Growing Naval Might

[Indx TechStyle]

Middle path? India slept with the Russians in the Cold War even while the USSR were purging their Baltic and Eastern European colonies! There's no such thing as middle path in international relations.

India even had friction from that bloc in some fronts. There is no absolute alliance in case of countries who are large and wish to remain autonomous.

Sino-Soviet relations didn't go well in long run.

Perhaps Nehru has a lot to blame for what's India now.

Indeed he's the reason for India's lot of problems. India should have re-annexed Pakistan, Bangladesh and all so called South Asian countries in formative years of independence and should have adopted ecosystem based economy instead of state control.


But even without non-aligned movement, I got no reason to believe that there would have been little difference in India's policy towards international alliances. I mean why?
Getting assigned to any bloc would have been seen as slavery again.

A naive sense of self-righteousness that even if China was already eating India's territory he would still be friendly with China since India's way is the middle way.

He was a mole installed by Brits who is responsible for existence of Pakistan till date and Indian admission to commonwealth. His successor Shashtri after getting betrayed in 60s drafted a policy that lead to Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship in 1969 & liberation of Bangladesh in 1971.

This was what would never have come to India if an alliance with west was attempted.

The only thing that India does not proclaim the middle way is when it cones to Pskistan. But Pakistam is puny and inconsequential...

Pakistan isn't to India what China & Russia might be to USA.
It's more like Iraq or NoKo. A terror sponsor proxy state that was used to contain India in South Asia by USA, UK and China. India & Pakistan aren't rivals.

There is nothing called middle path in this because there is nothing more you can ever gain from supporting Pak over India. The only aim to support this country is to irritate India.

Dude what have you been smoking? You fear NATO more than China? What the f#@$!

NATO will not invade India even if NATO exists for a million years! You do not even share a border with any NATO country!

That's what you get when you keep on listening, reading and watching Russian propaganda.

Make no mistake, China is the most voracious new power around. It does not respect its neighbors, it does not even respect its own people. China is greedy and if you give your finger it will take your whole arm!

China is most aggressive country around right now. But what makes you think that NATO wouldn't invade India in million years. If China wouldn't have existed or hostile to US, NATO would have turned hostile to India too. There is nothing called love in international relations.

It will directly turn hostile to India for sure in long term if Indo-US relations don't go anywhere and indirectly US will always try to sabotage India (after taking down China) like it did to UK & Japan to remain primary geopolitical force.

Actually if you're only open minded, especially with history the US was very close to India from WW2 and after WW2. Truman up yo Kennedy administrations kept on courting India. But Nehru the righteous want his middle road.... which when push comes to shove however turned towards the USSR (because Pakistan already attached itself to US).

If you are talking about lip service, it was always there back too.
The demand from USA was same, the "basic" pacts they have been demanding right now that compromise India's strategic autonomy & fight wars for America (Soviet Union & China in immediate neighborhood).

India would have long ago benefited economically from closer relations with America, much like what's happening now. But the middle road always seems to lead to odd places.

No it wouldn't. There are plenty of US allies who haven't gone anywhere. There is a non-aligned country that has emerged as a notable one in past 3-4 decades.

What US would have done? For sure would have defanged India, finish its nuclear program and build supply chains of its own weapons.

An alliance has nothing to do with your development but state of stability and peace. When your country is stable and away from pressure to fight, it can focus its policies and resources to work (and off course economic policy too should be sound as well).
All great powers from US to China, avoid direct wars with other great powers for the very reason. India's geography back then didn't allow India to be that bold. It would have ended up devastated by terrorist groups and red armies. Because even back then, they wanted India for granted to fight their wars in exchange of nothing but again sanctions.


I'm repeating, your assertions won't make any differences here. The day US recognizes India as a nuclear power, there will be a great shift in India's America policy. The day when US treats India as an economic ally than partner and stop putting it in watchlists, tariffing its products and not try to inhibit its economic rise, little friction would have been left between India & US.

The day US stops engagement with Pakistan, India will decide its block. The day they agree to a mutual security alliance that doesn't risk India's own decision making process, agrees to sell IPRs India wishes to buy, there would be no differences.

Rather than lip service of "we are now allies", if there is any real thing, India will respond for sure.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

but in all the other aspects of this complex fight, the US is the only viable partner with which we can work.

Problem goes here. US isn't or acting like a partner. It just wants China's neighbours especially India to mess up with China while there is zero shift in its own anti-India policies.

 

[asianobserve]

India even had friction from that bloc in some fronts. There is no absolute alliance in case of countries who are large and wish to remain autonomous.

Sino-Soviet relations didn't go well in long run.

Indeed he's the reason for India's lot of problems. India should have re-annexed Pakistan, Bangladesh and all so called South Asian countries in formative years of independence and should have adopted ecosystem based economy instead of state control.


But even without non-aligned movement, I got no reason to believe that there would have been little difference in India's policy towards international alliances. I mean why?
Getting assigned to any bloc would have been seen as slavery again.

He was a mole installed by Brits who is responsible for existence of Pakistan till date and Indian admission to commonwealth. His successor Shashtri after getting betrayed in 60s drafted a policy that lead to Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship in 1969 & liberation of Bangladesh in 1971.

This was what would never have come to India if an alliance with west was attempted.

Pakistan isn't to India what China & Russia might be to USA.
It's more like Iraq or NoKo. A terror sponsor proxy state that was used to contain India in South Asia by USA, UK and China. India & Pakistan aren't rivals.

There is nothing called middle path in this because there is nothing more you can ever gain from supporting Pak over India. The only aim to support this country is to irritate India.


China is most aggressive country around right now. But what makes you think that NATO wouldn't invade India in million years. If China wouldn't have existed or hostile to US, NATO would have turned hostile to India too. There is nothing called love in international relations.

It will directly turn hostile to India for sure in long term if Indo-US relations don't go anywhere and indirectly US will always try to sabotage India (after taking down China) like it did to UK & Japan to remain primary geopolitical force.

If you are talking about lip service, it was always there back too.
The demand from USA was same, the "basic" pacts they have been demanding right now that compromise India's strategic autonomy & fight wars for America (Soviet Union & China in immediate neighborhood).

No it wouldn't. There are plenty of US allies who haven't gone anywhere. There is a non-aligned country that has emerged as a notable one in past 3-4 decades.

What US would have done? For sure would have defanged India, finish its nuclear program and build supply chains of its own weapons.

An alliance has nothing to do with your development but state of stability and peace. When your country is stable and away from pressure to fight, it can focus its policies and resources to work (and off course economic policy too should be sound as well).
All great powers from US to China, avoid direct wars with other great powers for the very reason. India's geography back then didn't allow India to be that bold. It would have ended up devastated by terrorist groups and red armies. Because even back then, they wanted India for granted to fight their wars in exchange of nothing but again sanctions.


I'm repeating, your assertions won't make any differences here. The day US recognizes India as a nuclear power, there will be a great shift in India's America policy. The day when US treats India as an economic ally than partner and stop putting it in watchlists, tariffing its products and not try to inhibit its economic rise, little friction would have been left between India & US.

The day US stops engagement with Pakistan, India will decide its block. The day they agree to a mutual security alliance that doesn't risk India's own decision making process, agrees to sell IPRs India wishes to buy, there would be no differences.

Rather than lip service of "we are now allies", if there is any real thing, India will respond for sure.

I don't understand defanged when there is no teeth to behin with. I mean look at Germany, Japan, Sinhapore, Austrslia, NZ, Korea, UK, Spain, these are countries thst got wealthy, innovative powerful within the US alliance. If you ask me, would I prefer India to Germany? Thete's no argument there? India to Japan? Agsin, no argument.

But we have been unlucky to have been ruled by a very corrupt leader in the 60s till 80s whose corrupt ways stil enslave us until now. We gould have been the cenyer of SEA but now we're barely growling. Added to ot China's Manchurisn puppet Duterte. But i'm still hopeful. Sfter the rain is the rainbow amd then the sun, eventually.

 

[vampyrbladez]

I don't understand defanged when there is no teeth to behin with. I mean look at Germany, Japan, Sinhapore, Austrslia, NZ, Korea, UK, Spain, these are countries thst got wealthy, innovative powerful within the US alliance. If you ask me, would I prefer India to Germany? Thete's no argument there? India to Japan? Agsin, no argument.

But we have been unlucky to have been ruled by a very corrupt leader in the 60s till 80s whose corrupt ways stil enslave us until now. We gould have been the cenyer of SEA but now we're barely growling. Added to ot China's Manchurisn puppet Duterte. But i'm still hopeful. Sfter the rain is the rainbow amd then the sun, eventually.

Give us a port and some trade deals and we'll give you these babies.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I don't understand defanged when there is no teeth to behin with.

There were very much of spines, teeth and wings even with those so called allies that were eventually clipped sabotage. Be it intended demise of British empire so that USA can remain primary geopolitical force in western world or stagnation of Japan. India was back then still a large country with significant firepower.

Japan recovered itself with restructuring in 60s (and was very much of an independent country except military rights snatched by USA) and started to build an ecosystem and supply chain of themselves around the world like US had in EU. From East, Southern to Southeast Asia, they even approached Mexico before US stopped them (and later on lost decade finished the game).

France was an eyesore, adhered more to EU, cooperated with West & USSR (& disagreements with both at same time) and would have been a superpower as big as US or USSR given its advancements if was equally big in size. It was for USA in Europe what India is in Asia.

I mean look at Germany, Japan, Sinhapore, Austrslia, NZ, Korea, UK, Spain, these are countries thst got wealthy, innovative powerful within the US alliance. If you ask me, would I prefer India to Germany? Thete's no argument there? India to Japan? Agsin, no argument.

But we have been unlucky to have been ruled by a very corrupt leader in the 60s till 80s whose corrupt ways stil enslave us until now. We gould have been the cenyer of SEA but now we're barely growling. Added to ot China's Manchurisn puppet Duterte. But i'm still hopeful. Sfter the rain is the rainbow amd then the sun, eventually.

This is the most baseless, ignorant and unadulterated part of bullsh!t that you have been uttering for long time.

UK being already industrialized (still agreeing to some extent UK being no. 1 b*tch of America), Germany built up its own capitalist & financial assets with manufacturing later on, Singapore being a transition in world's busiest trade routes, the migrants to Australia being already rich or even half of allies being already rich countries should be attributed to USA without asking for any explanation. Those countries deserve no credit.

But for failure of Latinos, Filipinos and Pakistanis should be attributed to their corrupt politicians only. Uncle sam is the angel of humanity.


Seriously, just EXPLAIN the damn thing how US could have changed India economically as you are claiming? Any country's fate depends upon its current state and future policies. What US does is to take down all other large countries to maintain itself by proxies or abiding agreements. Be it demilatrization of Japan, supporting PRC against Soviets or Pakistan against India.

India didn't have any natural resources, was balkanized and cut off from central Asia, was highly diverse with religious conflicts and had no seed wealth. Only thing could one agree that a bit better things would have been there if India wasn't sanctioned repeatedly and not stopped from annexing west Pakistan (what wasn't possible even with US alliance either).

Unless there is any clear stance and willingness to leave the room for India what India wants, there should be no alliance.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

There were very much of spines, teeth and wings even with those so called allies that were eventually clipped sabotage. Be it intended demise of British empire so that USA can remain primary geopolitical force in western world or stagnation of Japan. India was back then still a large country with significant firepower.

Japan recovered itself with restructuring in 60s (and was very much of an independent country except military rights snatched by USA) and started to build an ecosystem and supply chain of themselves around the world like US had in EU. From East, Southern to Southeast Asia, they even approached Mexico before US stopped them (and later on lost decade finished the game).

France was an eyesore, adhered more to EU, cooperated with West & USSR (& disagreements with both at same time) and would have been a superpower as big as US or USSR given its advancements if was equally big in size. It was for USA in Europe what India is in Asia.

This is the most baseless, ignorant and unadulterated part of bullsh!t that you have been uttering for long time.

UK being already industrialized (still agreeing to some extent UK being no. 1 b*tch of America), Germany built up its own capitalist & financial assets with manufacturing later on, Singapore being a transition in world's busiest trade routes, the migrants to Australia being already rich or even half of allies being already rich countries should be attributed to USA without asking for any explanation. Those countries deserve no credit.

But for failure of Latinos, Filipinos and Pakistanis should be attributed to their corrupt politicians only. Uncle sam is the angel of humanity.


Seriously, just EXPLAIN the damn thing how US could have changed India economically as you are claiming? Any country's fate depends upon its current state and future policies. What US does is to take down all other large countries to maintain itself by proxies or abiding agreements. Be it demilatrization of Japan, supporting PRC against Soviets or Pakistan against India.

India didn't have any natural resources, was balkanized and cut off from central Asia, was highly diverse with religious conflicts and had no seed wealth. Only thing could one agree that a bit better things would have been there if India wasn't sanctioned repeatedly and not stopped from annexing west Pakistan (what wasn't possible even with US alliance either).

Unless there is any clear stance and willingness to leave the room for India what India wants, there should be no alliance.

Americans do everything for there interest only a dumb man would think they do anything for helping someone they were supported Pakistan military rulled Pakistan against biggest democracy asked Chinese to attack us.

But biggest hypocrisy of Americans is they funded 600 million to a terrorist group because of the cancer which they created they destroyed whole Middle east million people killed.

Thousands of people of our died in this shit.

American arming a terrorist group showed to what level they can go low. They never cared about people living in Taliban law. They got interested when 9/11 happened they gave everything to pakis to bomb indians kill us.

In power driven world for everything there is a interest.

any ideology is better than taliban. They destroyed a simple communist Afghanistan and throw them into fire forever. They were a atheist state in communist rule.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I'm not going to respond to @asianobserve anymore. Bullsh!t is enough!!

He can suck on his Yankee masters to make Philippines a Utopia and see what's the situation of their allies and even Uncle itself in second half of this century.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

The current state of affairs between US and China is entirely due to Trump and his nationalist policies. Once Trump exits the office after completing his second term, it is 99.99% certain that US will have a president The Cartel will approve. And then, we will be back to normal programming. That is, money will continue to flow from US to China. China will continue to steal US technology and so on.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

The current state of affairs between US and China is entirely due to Trump and his nationalist policies. Once Trump exits the office after completing his second term, it is 99.99% certain that US will have a president The Cartel will approve. And then, we will be back to normal programming. That is, money will continue to flow from US to China. China will continue to steal US technology and so on.

I think the deep state is in alignment with Trumps strategy towards China. They blocked all other Trump initiatives, like improving relations with Russia and withdrawing from the middle East. But the anti China policy is going smoothly and is even getting support from many democrats. The Americans created a Frankenstein superpower, and like how they turned against their own creation the Taliban, they have turned against China. The American people also overwhelmingly support this policy, and it would be very politically difficult to reverse these decisions.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

I think the deep state is in alignment with Trumps strategy towards China. They blocked all other Trump initiatives, like improving relations with Russia and withdrawing from the middle East. But the anti China policy is going smoothly and is even getting support from many democrats. The Americans created a Frankenstein superpower, and like how they turned against their own creation the Taliban, they have turned against China. The American people also overwhelmingly support this policy, and it would be very politically difficult to reverse these decisions.

May there be butter and sugar in your mouth. I would really love to see a close military alliance between India and USA in addition to our close business ties.

Note to jingoes: I am not proposing a master-poodle relationship.

 

[asianobserve]

Give us a port and some trade deals and we'll give you these babies.

With our traitor Chinese puppet President in power at the moment, i doubt a deal is possible. But next administration might be another story.

You do not need an exclusive port in the Philippines. You can negotiate for flexible basing in several ports much like our current arrangment with the US for air bases.

Regarding trade, do you eat a lot of bananas?

 

[nongaddarliberal]

With our traitor Chinese puppet President in power at the moment, i doubt a deal is possible. But next administration might be another story.

You do not need an exclusive port in the Philippines. You can negotiate for flexible basing in several ports much like our current arrangment with the US for air bases.

Regarding trade, do you eat a lot of bananas?

Ive wondered whats behind the philippine military's lack of modernization. Philippines GDP is 356 Billion USD. If you guys spend 2% of GDP on defence, that would result in a 7.12 billion dollar military budget. You can build a fairly modern military with good deterrence value with that amount of money. But that isn't the situation. Why?

 

[nongaddarliberal]

May there be butter and sugar in your mouth. I would really love to see a close military alliance between India and USA in addition to our close business ties.

Note to jingoes: I am not proposing a master-poodle relationship.

I think this thread has pointlessly debated too much on India US partnership. Let's move on to talking about the Chinese navy.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

Ive wondered whats behind the philippine military's lack of modernization. Philippines GDP is 356 Billion USD. If you guys spend 2% of GDP on defence, that would result in a 7.12 billion dollar military budget. You can build a fairly modern military with good deterrence value with that amount of money. But that isn't the situation. Why?

Look at Israel. It has only 5-million people. Yet, they are a military force to reckon with.

 

[ladder]

With our traitor Chinese puppet President in power at the moment, i doubt a deal is possible. But next administration might be another story.

You do not need an exclusive port in the Philippines. You can negotiate for flexible basing in several ports much like our current arrangment with the US for air bases.

Regarding trade, do you eat a lot of bananas?

We are most probably the largest producer of bananas.

 

[asianobserve]

There were very much of spines, teeth and wings even with those so called allies that were eventually clipped sabotage. Be it intended demise of British empire so that USA can remain primary geopolitical force in western world or stagnation of Japan. India was back then still a large country with significant firepower.

Japan recovered itself with restructuring in 60s (and was very much of an independent country except military rights snatched by USA) and started to build an ecosystem and supply chain of themselves around the world like US had in EU. From East, Southern to Southeast Asia, they even approached Mexico before US stopped them (and later on lost decade finished the game).

France was an eyesore, adhered more to EU, cooperated with West & USSR (& disagreements with both at same time) and would have been a superpower as big as US or USSR given its advancements if was equally big in size. It was for USA in Europe what India is in Asia.

This is the most baseless, ignorant and unadulterated part of bullsh!t that you have been uttering for long time.

UK being already industrialized (still agreeing to some extent UK being no. 1 b*tch of America), Germany built up its own capitalist & financial assets with manufacturing later on, Singapore being a transition in world's busiest trade routes, the migrants to Australia being already rich or even half of allies being already rich countries should be attributed to USA without asking for any explanation. Those countries deserve no credit.

But for failure of Latinos, Filipinos and Pakistanis should be attributed to their corrupt politicians only. Uncle sam is the angel of humanity.


Seriously, just EXPLAIN the damn thing how US could have changed India economically as you are claiming? Any country's fate depends upon its current state and future policies. What US does is to take down all other large countries to maintain itself by proxies or abiding agreements. Be it demilatrization of Japan, supporting PRC against Soviets or Pakistan against India.

India didn't have any natural resources, was balkanized and cut off from central Asia, was highly diverse with religious conflicts and had no seed wealth. Only thing could one agree that a bit better things would have been there if India wasn't sanctioned repeatedly and not stopped from annexing west Pakistan (what wasn't possible even with US alliance either).

Unless there is any clear stance and willingness to leave the room for India what India wants, there should be no alliance.

The US and UK provided India with a lot of weapons in WW2. And immediately after WW2 India could have positioned itself closer to the US so that it can take advantage of the relatioms from both security and economic perspective. But then again the smug Nehru thinks that he is better and can bring Nirvana to India with his be friends with everyone (and thus with no one).

Regarding Japan's recovery, while it was the US that devastated it in WW2, the US and allies dodn't have a choice, but it was the Americzns thst kickstarted Japanese' post war economic miracle. And how or where did this economic miravle come from? From war, the Korean war. You see, military advancements often come with civilian benefits.

France after WW2 was so close to USA because it was surviving due to Martial Plan and the USA was its main military benefactor from the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. The French military was using using tanks, howitzets rifles, bullets airvrsfts, even aircraft carriers, uniforms. And during the French Indochina war America was paying for 80% of French daily war cost (the Americzns were so blinded by the Communist threat thst it did not realize that Ho Chi Minh merely wanted indrpendence, not Communism).

France only started biting the hands that feeds it when America strongly objective to French, British and Israeli invasion of the Suez canal. From that time on De Gaulle wanted his own way. Ironically, the French would always run back to America whenever the going gets tough.

You are asking me how earlier closer relations with US could have imprived Indian economy? Just look at how you have improved your economy recently? When did it start? From the time you founded the NAM or from the time India started sleeping with the Soviets? Indian economy started growing up when you started embracing liberslization and open trade with the West. Isn't it that your biggest client right now is America?

 

[asianobserve]

We are most probably the largest producer of bananas.

So ok, you out banana'd us....

 

[Assassin 2.0]

Vietnam is thinking to buy akash systems too.
India +Vietnam can bug Chinese a little.
Plus in long term ties with Vietnam will benefit Us.

 

[ladder]

So ok, you out banana'd us....

But local consumption is so high that, hardly we export anything.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

The US and UK provided India with a lot of weapons in WW2. And immediately after WW2 India could have positioned itself closer to the US so that it can take advantage of the relatioms from both security and economic perspective. But then again the smug Nehru thinks that he is better and can bring Nirvana to India with his be friends with everyone (and thus with no one).

Regarding Japan's recovery, while it was the US that devastated it in WW2, the US and allies dodn't have a choice, but it was the Americzns thst kickstarted Japanese' post war economic miracle. And how or where did this economic miravle come from? From war, the Korean war. You see, military advancements often come with civilian benefits.

France after WW2 was so close to USA because it was surviving due to Martial Plan and the USA was its main military benefactor from the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. The French military was using using tanks, howitzets rifles, bullets airvrsfts, even aircraft carriers, uniforms. And during the French Indochina war America was paying for 80% of French daily war cost (the Americzns were so blinded by the Communist threat thst it did not realize that Ho Chi Minh merely wanted indrpendence, not Communism).

France only started biting the hands that feeds it when America strongly objective to French, British and Israeli invasion of the Suez canal. From that time on De Gaulle wanted his own way. Ironically, the French would always run back to America whenever the going gets tough.

You are asking me how earlier closer relations with US could have imprived Indian economy? Just look at how you have improved your economy recently? When did it start? From the time you founded the NAM or from the time India started sleeping with the Soviets? Indian economy started growing up when you started embracing liberslization and open trade with the West. Isn't it that your biggest client right now is America?

India have consumption based economy our exports are way way lesser. Because of sanctions in past probably.
We produce we consume.
Technically Chinese are also our 2nd biggest trade partners.
India gained much much more weapons from USSR and we used them for our gains. As i explained earlier india had a pathetic relationship with both US and UK both sended ships to attack india armed Pakistan with Patton tanks and much more gave F-16 in aid and nearly allowed Chinese to give nukes to pakis..
India - US relationship which we are creating is just because of our own interests and how we can milk them nothing else.