What's new

Why India Must Avoid Hitching Itself to US Military’s Plans for China and the Indo-Pacific

airmarshal

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 28, 2010
8,518
9
10,930
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada

Why India Must Avoid Hitching Itself to US Military’s Plans for China and the Indo-Pacific
During his visit to Delhi, US defence secretary Lloyd Austin is expected to discuss the Pentagon’s multi-domain operations concept. But there are serious pitfalls to India agreeing to any cooperation in combat.
Why India Must Avoid Hitching Itself to US Military’s Plans for China and the Indo-Pacific

US Secretary of Defence Lloyd J. Austin III arrives at Yokota Air Force Base, Japan, March 15, 2021. Photo: US INDOPACOM/Flickr

Pravin Sawhney





Having signed the four basic US military foundational agreements necessary for interoperability – the last of those in October 2020 – the Narendra Modi government will now be taking India’s military relationship with the United States several notches higher. If things move at the government’s pace, India will soon be a de facto US ally without any clarity on how this will enhance the country’s defence against the combined China-Pakistan threat. Or how it would help establish geopolitical equilibrium with China.
When US secretary of defence Lloyd J. Austin III comes to India (March 19-21) after his visits to Japan and South Korea – both formal US allies in Asia – on the table for discussion will be the Pentagon’s multi domain operations (MDO) warfighting concept. That this is in the offing was indicated by the army chief, General M.M. Naravane during his February 24 address at a webinar organised by the Vivekanand International Foundation (VIF). According to Gen. Naravane, multi domain operations are the future of war for which the Indian Army is preparing.
Coming to grips with the shift in US military thinking
While the army chief’s sudden switch to MDO from network-centric operations (NCO) may have come as a surprise to many, the national security advisor, and by extension the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), had been working the ropes to get under the broader and more definitive US security umbrella. I believe that the NSA’s office was acquainted with the idea of MDO during the Ladakh crisis, when in desperation the government was looking at all options to counter China. These included seeking non-traditional (by Indian thinking) means as well. A few start-ups, familiar with some of the technologies involved, have been working with the NSA’s office on developing an Indian version of MDO. This was the reason the Modi government rushed to sign Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) last year even when it was unclear if Trump administration would return to power.
The Biden administration is determined to do more than incorporate allies and partners (like India) into its MDO warfighting concept. Even before the US Indo-Pacific commander (INDOPACOM), Admiral Philip Davidson recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Chinese military aggression towards Taiwan and India could manifest ‘in fact in the next six years’, the White House had asked the Pentagon to conduct a task force review on how to meet the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) challenge in Asia. Senior US officials, including the joint chiefs chairman, General Mark Milley, have gone public in suggesting what steps needed to be taken to stem the US military downslide.
The steps suggested by US military officers are meant to address two major issues: How to meet the PLA’s anti access and area denial (A2AD) challenge, and how to strengthen US military’s conventional deterrence by MDO.
A2AD is the US military term for what the PLA calls its counter-intervention strategy comprising its long and medium range ballistic missiles, hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles, early warning and long-range radars, integrated air and missile defence system, long range reconnaissance satellites and aircraft, cyber, electronic, and counter space capabilities. The counter-invention strategy or A2AD weapons are meant to disallow US military access to its bases, and to deny force operational freedom of action once there.
At the heart of this strategy is China’s systems destruction warfare exemplified by its awesome projective-centric (missiles) warfare and ability to destroy US networks which connect its kill chain. The latter also called the Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) loop is a three-part process consisting of understanding the situation, deciding on the course of action at the command-and-control operating centres, and ordering the appropriate shooter (missiles, guns, laser guided bombs, laser weapons, cyber weapons, jamming, counter space weapons) to destroy the targets.
The US military’s three priorities
US military officers say that the A2AD challenge is huge and requires three actions to meet it. First, the US should increase its missiles production rapidly. The Trump administration had withdrawn from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019 since it prevented the US from building conventional land-based missiles over 500km range. Since China was not part of this treaty, it could unabashedly test and operationalise ballistic missiles in large numbers unmatched by any nation.
The second action relates to the challenge of PLA’s long ranges and accurate missiles, especially when they would soon be enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) imbedded in them. These ‘intelligent’ missiles, called lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) would be able to operate independently. Able to accomplish given tasks by themselves, LAWs would not require software networking communication with the human controller. Incidentally, this network which connects the missile to the control station is its most vulnerable part. It can be destroyed by the adversary – in China’s case, by the US – thereby blinding the missile.
The answer to this problem, the US military says, is to abandon its limited and permanent Asian bases with a high density of troops in places like Japan, South Korea, and Guam. Established after the Second World War, these would be easy targets for PLA missiles. Instead, the US should seek diffused bases, at many places, where troops could be placed on a rotational basis. It is argued that dispersed and expeditionary US troops across the INDOPACOM would be a less vulnerable target and provide better conventional deterrence. Looking for such bases amongst partners in the region would be a high priority for US defence secretary Austin when he meets India’s NSA.
Would the Modi government, which has gone out of its way to seek US security, refuse an American request for rotational troops on Indian soil?
The third action the US military intends to take is to permanently position the US army-led multi domain task force (MDTF) closer to the Chinese A2AD firewall to potentially penetrate it before a major attack is mounted by the US forces arriving from rotational bases. The MDTF would comprise long-range US missiles and cyber capabilities (under the US army cyber command) meant to destroy PLA missiles.
India and the US warfighting concept
Interestingly, at the aforementioned webinar, General Naravane spoke about the need to address the PLA’s ‘grey zone capabilities short of war’ by the framework of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Department of Military Affairs under him. The ‘grey zone’ referred to the PLA’s capabilities in the virtual domains of cyber, space, and electronic (electromagnetic spectrum) warfare. According to the army chief, India’s defence cyber agency under the CDS and the army’s demonstrated swarm drone capability on Army Day on January 15 would be able to hit the A2AD bubble.
Since this is wishful thinking, will India ask the visiting US defence secretary to help raise an India-specific MDTF with capabilities procured from the US across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China? After all, the PLA has raised a smaller version of the A2AD firewall it has for Taiwan – the distance between Taiwan and mainland China is 110 miles. If India goes down this path, the presence of US military experts close to the LAC could make China review its India strategy, leading perhaps to an escalation neither wants.
Defence secretary Lloyd would likely discuss India’s involvement in the US’s MDO warfighting concept with Ajit Doval, with perhaps the CDS in attendance. The MDO involves the virtual networking of long-range fire, electronic, space and cyber warfare capabilities with the physical war domains of land, air, sea, and information operations. It would involve MDO command-and-control or operating centres where information from all listed entities/weapon systems from all domains would come at a central place for decision-making to close the kill chain faster than the enemy.
The MDO operating centres, depending upon the level of headquarters, would be huge halls with umpteen computers manned by service personnel from all arms and services sitting together to make sense of the information pouring in at the speed of light in nanoseconds. There is difference between data and information which should be understood. Raw data on situational awareness procured by thousands of miniaturised sensors (electro-optical, radars, infrared, lidar, numerous acoustic sensors) placed in physical war domains would be processed instantly by edge computing. Making sense of the raw data, edge computing would turn it into actionable information which would then be passed to the MDO operation centres. The latter, which will include senior officers from all services, will then take quick decisions on action to be taken on the information coming to them.
At present, the US’s individual services have their own version of MDO with two shortcomings: First, the services (army, air force, navy, marines and space force) need to interact with one another usually by voice calls and data transfer, which is an archaic way of communication. And second, software networks which link various systems or nodes are inflexible with industrial age architecture which can be destroyed by the PLA’s system destruction warfare, leaving commanders blind. General Milley has proposed a ‘joint warfighting concept’ – Joint MDO – whereby all services would be networked, bringing information into single MDO operating centres for all three services. Thus, instead of fighting wars as army, air force, navy, marines, and space forces, the US military would fight wars as a nation with allies and partners in INDOPACOM. The underlining idea of ‘joint warfighting concept’ would be to make data/information from all war domains available to every participant including allies and partners into their MDO operating centres.
What India needs to ask itself
However, all this leads to critical questions. Would India be a part of the bigger US MDO for INDOPACOM? Or would it seek US help in setting up its own MDO operating centres? If yes, what purpose would they serve considering the Indian military understands warfare only in physical domains with the army as the lead service. Endorsing the MDO concept would require, in the least, the Indian Army to shift away from the outdated concept of massed territorial profile of defence and offense. More importantly, are the Indian military and the NSA/CDS working on different warfighting concepts, totally removed from one another? What about the much-publicised military reforms announced by the CDS?
The problem does not end here. Worried about the PLA’s intelligent, autonomous, and thinking software networks with AI inserted into them, the US military, in 2017, had asked its Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to improve technology and warfighting concepts to match the PLA’s AI enabled intelligenised warfare. The latter is a total break from the mechanised, network centric, and MDO concepts of the past and the present. In this new warfare, which is referred to as mosaic or algorithmic warfare by DARPA, technology would not support humans, but replace them. It would become algorithmic war – one algorithm fighting with the algorithm of the opposing side. This software driven war would have intelligent networks, intelligent internet, intelligent military internet of things, and intelligent weapons. This would be a reality soon.
Once that comes about, the evolving US Joint MDO concept would need to make major changes in doctrines, concept of operations, and force structuring. The big change would be the removal of most MDO operating centres since most machines would communicate directly with machines within the US military and perhaps with the machines of allies and partners. To the numerous sceptics in India, frozen in military thinking, Intelligentised war, according to China would be a reality by 2027, much quicker against India, perhaps by 2024.
India’s limitations are real
The Indian military is far removed from intelligentised warfighting. This was evident from General Naravane’s assertion, made twice in the VIF webinar, that while the character of war changes constantly, the nature of war does not change. ‘Nature of war’ refers to defining the war, which is violence and bloodshed, and ‘character of war’ is how it would be fought, and refers to technology and war fighting concepts. With technology replacing human soldiers in combat, there would be little bloodshed and violence. This would, for the first time in global war history, change the nature of war. This should give an idea of where warfare is headed, and once India hitches on to the US military bandwagon there would be no coming back.
India lacks capability, capacity, indigenous military-industrial complex, and above all military intellect to understand the deep hole we might get into by accepting any of US secretary Lloyd’s proposals for cooperation in combat. Surely, India would not want to get into an avoidable war with China when the possibilities of crafting a smart strategy for peace in the region exist.
Pravin Sawhney is editor, FORCE news magazine. He is writing a book on artificial intelligence enabled future warfare
 

Hakikat ve Hikmet

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 14, 2015
12,976
17
33,398
Country
United States
Location
United States
Too much dependence on “machines” is a handicap itself! For once the machines break down, which increases with higher complexities, the humans will get dumb founded!!! Take into consideration the higher percentage of LGBT-type mindset that get “frozen” at the thought of violence induced bloodshed, death etc.....

The US defense doctrines are damn expensive to implement and maintain! India has to pay a lot.....

As for Pak, it’s the time to party for she knows how to play with the US mindset best.....
 

CAPRICORN-88

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 19, 2015
3,092
-5
5,981
Country
Singapore
Location
Malaysia
The US strategy is simple and nefarious.

They know that USA cannot defend fheir bases in Guam, Hawaii, etc amd so they moved their military bases into countries around China under the guise of defense pact.
In event of a war between China and USA, USA will attacked China from these bases.
USA strategists reckoned China will attacked and destroyed all these bases and that will drawn all these nations into a war with China.
So it will be a case of the penetrator using its victims to fend off the retaliation and to protect themselves.

They can no longer maintain their neutrality. :coffee:

Is USA still the same superpower of 20th Century.


:sarcastic::sarcastic::sarcastic:
 

hualushui

FULL MEMBER
Jul 3, 2019
1,778
-6
3,253
Country
China
Location
China
The US distributed killing concept can avoid the one-time destruction of US military bases by China, but it significantly increases maintenance costs and capital expenditures. I don't know if the United States can build so many small bases in a short period of time.
 

Khan vilatey

FULL MEMBER
Feb 11, 2020
1,113
2
1,093
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Why India Must Avoid Hitching Itself to US Military’s Plans for China and the Indo-Pacific
Pravin Sawhney
US Secretary of Defence Lloyd J. Austin III arrives at Yokota Air Force Base, Japan, March 15, 2021. Photo: US INDOPACOM/Flickr

US Secretary of Defence Lloyd J. Austin III arrives at Yokota Air Force Base, Japan, March 15, 2021. Photo: US INDOPACOM/Flickr
Having signed the four basic US military foundational agreements necessary for interoperability – the last of those in October 2020 – the Narendra Modi government will now be taking India’s military relationship with the United States several notches higher. If things move at the government’s pace, India will soon be a de facto US ally without any clarity on how this will enhance the country’s defence against the combined China-Pakistan threat. Or how it would help establish geopolitical equilibrium with China.

When US secretary of defence Lloyd J. Austin III comes to India (March 19-21) after his visits to Japan and South Korea – both formal US allies in Asia – on the table for discussion will be the Pentagon’s multi domain operations (MDO) warfighting concept. That this is in the offing was indicated by the army chief, General M.M. Naravane during his February 24 address at a webinar organised by the Vivekanand International Foundation (VIF). According to Gen. Naravane, multi domain operations are the future of war for which the Indian Army is preparing.

Coming to grips with the shift in US military thinking

While the army chief’s sudden switch to MDO from network-centric operations (NCO) may have come as a surprise to many, the national security advisor, and by extension the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), had been working the ropes to get under the broader and more definitive US security umbrella. I believe that the NSA’s office was acquainted with the idea of MDO during the Ladakh crisis, when in desperation the government was looking at all options to counter China. These included seeking non-traditional (by Indian thinking) means as well. A few start-ups, familiar with some of the technologies involved, have been working with the NSA’s office on developing an Indian version of MDO. This was the reason the Modi government rushed to sign Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) last year even when it was unclear if Trump administration would return to power.

More in Security :
The Biden administration is determined to do more than incorporate allies and partners (like India) into its MDO warfighting concept. Even before the US Indo-Pacific commander (INDOPACOM), Admiral Philip Davidson recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Chinese military aggression towards Taiwan and India could manifest ‘in fact in the next six years’, the White House had asked the Pentagon to conduct a task force review on how to meet the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) challenge in Asia. Senior US officials, including the joint chiefs chairman, General Mark Milley, have gone public in suggesting what steps needed to be taken to stem the US military downslide.

The steps suggested by US military officers are meant to address two major issues: How to meet the PLA’s anti access and area denial (A2AD) challenge, and how to strengthen US military’s conventional deterrence by MDO.

A2AD is the US military term for what the PLA calls its counter-intervention strategycomprising its long and medium range ballistic missiles, hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles, early warning and long-range radars, integrated air and missile defence system, long range reconnaissance satellites and aircraft, cyber, electronic, and counter space capabilities. The counter-invention strategy or A2AD weapons are meant to disallow US military access to its bases, and to deny force operational freedom of action once there.

At the heart of this strategy is China’s systems destruction warfare exemplified by its awesome projective-centric (missiles) warfare and ability to destroy US networks which connect its kill chain. The latter also called the Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) loop is a three-part process consisting of understanding the situation, deciding on the course of action at the command-and-control operating centres, and ordering the appropriate shooter (missiles, guns, laser guided bombs, laser weapons, cyber weapons, jamming, counter space weapons) to destroy the targets.

The US military’s three priorities

US military officers say that the A2AD challenge is huge and requires three actions to meet it. First, the US should increase its missiles production rapidly. The Trump administration had withdrawn from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019 since it prevented the US from building conventional land-based missiles over 500km range. Since China was not part of this treaty, it could unabashedly test and operationalise ballistic missiles in large numbers unmatched by any nation.

The second action relates to the challenge of PLA’s long ranges and accurate missiles, especially when they would soon be enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) imbedded in them. These ‘intelligent’ missiles, called lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) would be able to operate independently. Able to accomplish given tasks by themselves, LAWs would not require software networking communication with the human controller. Incidentally, this network which connects the missile to the control station is its most vulnerable part. It can be destroyed by the adversary – in China’s case, by the US – thereby blinding the missile.

The answer to this problem, the US military says, is to abandon its limited and permanent Asian bases with a high density of troops in places like Japan, South Korea, and Guam. Established after the Second World War, these would be easy targets for PLA missiles. Instead, the US should seek diffused bases, at many places, where troops could be placed on a rotational basis. It is argued that dispersed and expeditionary US troops across the INDOPACOM would be a less vulnerable target and provide better conventional deterrence. Looking for such bases amongst partners in the region would be a high priority for US defence secretary Austin when he meets India’s NSA.

Would the Modi government, which has gone out of its way to seek US security, refuse an American request for rotational troops on Indian soil?

The third action the US military intends to take is to permanently position the US army-led multi domain task force (MDTF)closer to the Chinese A2AD firewall to potentially penetrate it before a major attack is mounted by the US forces arriving from rotational bases. The MDTF would comprise long-range US missiles and cyber capabilities (under the US army cyber command) meant to destroy PLA missiles.

India and the US warfighting concept

Interestingly, at the aforementioned webinar, General Naravane spoke about the need to address the PLA’s ‘grey zone capabilities short of war’ by the framework of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Department of Military Affairs under him. The ‘grey zone’ referred to the PLA’s capabilities in the virtual domains of cyber, space, and electronic (electromagnetic spectrum) warfare. According to the army chief, India’s defence cyber agency under the CDS and the army’s demonstrated swarm drone capability on Army Day on January 15 would be able to hit the A2AD bubble.

Since this is wishful thinking, will India ask the visiting US defence secretary to help raise an India-specific MDTF with capabilities procured from the US across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China? After all, the PLA has raised a smaller version of the A2AD firewall it has for Taiwan – the distance between Taiwan and mainland China is 110 miles. If India goes down this path, the presence of US military experts close to the LAC could make China review its India strategy, leading perhaps to an escalation neither wants.

Defence secretary Lloyd would likely discuss India’s involvement in the US’s MDO warfighting concept with Ajit Doval, with perhaps the CDS in attendance. The MDO involves the virtual networking of long-range fire, electronic, space and cyber warfare capabilities with the physical war domains of land, air, sea, and information operations. It would involve MDO command-and-control or operating centres where information from all listed entities/weapon systems from all domains would come at a central place for decision-making to close the kill chain faster than the enemy.

The MDO operating centres, depending upon the level of headquarters, would be huge halls with umpteen computers manned by service personnel from all arms and services sitting together to make sense of the information pouring in at the speed of light in nanoseconds. There is difference between data and information which should be understood. Raw data on situational awareness procured by thousands of miniaturised sensors (electro-optical, radars, infrared, lidar, numerous acoustic sensors) placed in physical war domains would be processed instantly by edge computing. Making sense of the raw data, edge computing would turn it into actionable information which would then be passed to the MDO operation centres. The latter, which will include senior officers from all services, will then take quick decisions on action to be taken on the information coming to them.

At present, the US’s individual services have their own version of MDO with two shortcomings: First, the services (army, air force, navy, marines and space force) need to interact with one another usually by voice calls and data transfer, which is an archaic way of communication. And second, software networks which link various systems or nodes are inflexible with industrial age architecture which can be destroyed by the PLA’s system destruction warfare, leaving commanders blind. General Milley has proposed a ‘joint warfighting concept’ – Joint MDO – whereby all services would be networked, bringing information into single MDO operating centres for all three services. Thus, instead of fighting wars as army, air force, navy, marines, and space forces, the US military would fight wars as a nation with allies and partners in INDOPACOM. The underlining idea of ‘joint warfighting concept’ would be to make data/information from all war domains available to every participant including allies and partners into their MDO operating centres.

What India needs to ask itself

However, all this leads to critical questions. Would India be a part of the bigger US MDO for INDOPACOM? Or would it seek US help in setting up its own MDO operating centres? If yes, what purpose would they serve considering the Indian military understands warfare only in physical domains with the army as the lead service. Endorsing the MDO concept would require, in the least, the Indian Army to shift away from the outdated concept of massed territorial profile of defence and offense. More importantly, are the Indian military and the NSA/CDS working on different warfighting concepts, totally removed from one another? What about the much-publicised military reforms announced by the CDS?

The problem does not end here. Worried about the PLA’s intelligent, autonomous, and thinking software networks with AI inserted into them, the US military, in 2017, had asked its Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to improve technology and warfighting concepts to match the PLA’s AI enabled intelligenised warfare. The latter is a total break from the mechanised, network centric, and MDO concepts of the past and the present. In this new warfare, which is referred to as mosaic or algorithmic warfare by DARPA, technology would not support humans, but replace them. It would become algorithmic war – one algorithm fighting with the algorithm of the opposing side. This software driven war would have intelligent networks, intelligent internet, intelligent military internet of things, and intelligent weapons. This would be a reality soon.

Once that comes about, the evolving US Joint MDO concept would need to make major changes in doctrines, concept of operations, and force structuring. The big change would be the removal of most MDO operating centres since most machines would communicate directly with machines within the US military and perhaps with the machines of allies and partners. To the numerous sceptics in India, frozen in military thinking, Intelligentised war, according to China would be a reality by 2027, much quicker against India, perhaps by 2024.

India’s limitations are real

The Indian military is far removed from intelligentised warfighting. This was evident from General Naravane’s assertion, made twice in the VIF webinar, that while the character of war changes constantly, the nature of war does not change. ‘Nature of war’ refers to defining the war, which is violence and bloodshed, and ‘character of war’ is how it would be fought, and refers to technology and war fighting concepts. With technology replacing human soldiers in combat, there would be little bloodshed and violence. This would, for the first time in global war history, change the nature of war. This should give an idea of where warfare is headed, and once India hitches on to the US military bandwagon there would be no coming back.

India lacks capability, capacity, indigenous military-industrial complex, and above all military intellect to understand the deep hole we might get into by accepting any of US secretary Lloyd’s proposals for cooperation in combat. Surely, India would not want to get into an avoidable war with China when the possibilities of crafting a smart strategy for peace in the region exist.

Pravin Sawhney is editor, FORCE news magazine. He is writing a book on artificial intelligence enabled future warfare

What should Pakistan and China do if India allows US troops on her soil

k
 

FairAndUnbiased

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 25, 2011
8,396
-2
12,770
Country
China
Location
United States
The US distributed killing concept can avoid the one-time destruction of US military bases by China, but it significantly increases maintenance costs and capital expenditures. I don't know if the United States can build so many small bases in a short period of time.
Soviet Russia also had such a doctrine.
 

Rollno21

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 27, 2017
3,719
-36
2,538
Country
India
Location
India
The US distributed killing concept can avoid the one-time destruction of US military bases by China, but it significantly increases maintenance costs and capital expenditures. I don't know if the United States can build so many small bases in a short period of time.
Don't worry there won't be war if it threatens ccp losing power in China .
PLA is fights for CCP and not china
 

CAPRICORN-88

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 19, 2015
3,092
-5
5,981
Country
Singapore
Location
Malaysia
The US distributed killing concept can avoid the one-time destruction of US military bases by China, but it significantly increases maintenance costs and capital expenditures. I don't know if the United States can build so many small bases in a short period of time.
That is why today USA operated approx 800 military bases in foreign nations around the world while in comparison Russia maintained only 21 mainly in the former Soviet bloc. USA has a hegemonic design.
USA also has more than 200 biological laboratories oversea. What are they for?
With the COVID-19 pandemic, the world needs to know.

China has only military base in Dijouti, Africa mainly to service its naval ships on patrol off Somali. :coffee:
 

cloud4000

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 11, 2015
4,520
-5
4,383
Country
India
Location
United States
The QUAD should really be called 3+1, with India being the outlier. India will never make a NATO-like commitment, which is essentially a suicide pact. It will entertain alliances and defence pacts like it did with the Soviet Union.

It will coordinate and cooperate but it will also act independently if it has to.

CCP is highly popular in China. It's got excellent social services and creating countless jobs. Unlike the US
:rofl:

The reason CCP is highly popular in China is that it's the only game in town! It's not like people have a choice.

China has only military base in Dijouti, Africa mainly to service its naval ships on patrol off Somali.
It always starts with one base...then a second base...then a third base...and so on. China wants to be a superpower it will have bases all over the world. Because that is what empires do.
 

CAPRICORN-88

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 19, 2015
3,092
-5
5,981
Country
Singapore
Location
Malaysia
It always starts with one base...then a second base...then a third base...and so on. China wants to be a superpower it will have bases all over the world. Because that is what empires do.
:sarcastic: :sarcastic: :sarcastic:
799 more to go.
We won't be alive if if really happens and when it finally happens.

Come to think of it, PLAN has already more warships than USN today.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
34,949
401
72,808
Country
United States
Location
United States
The QUAD should really be called 3+1, with India being the outlier. India will never make a NATO-like commitment, which is essentially a suicide pact. It will entertain alliances and defence pacts like it did with the Soviet Union.

It will coordinate and cooperate but it will also act independently if it has to.



:rofl:

The reason CCP is highly popular in China is that it's the only game in town! It's not like people have a choice.



It always starts with one base...then a second base...then a third base...and so on. China wants to be a superpower it will have bases all over the world. Because that is what empires do.
India is really being dragged into this Quad more from a US messaging PoV than India’s own. It seems like everytime India goes back to the direct line to the US saying “We didn’t agree to this” and then has to make a brave face in meetings. While there is definite need to compete with China economically to avoid monopoly on world suppliers (Vietnam has stepped up, Thailand, etc) , and project a counterforce in the far east. The same detente (relatively) that existed between the USSR and China is what India should maintain too. History is testament to US interests grooming China for the USSR fight until Tianamen - I feel this is just the same if under a different guise and maybe more acceptable given India’s more stable democracy which even under current regime still has its foundations rock solid and will not allow a Tianamen.
 

Rollno21

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 27, 2017
3,719
-36
2,538
Country
India
Location
India
CCP is highly popular in China. It's got excellent social services and creating countless jobs. Unlike the US.
True ,that is required to keep the people happy and under control for CCP. When war starts things change and that's the reason ccp cannot afford a long drawn war ,there a reason China has opened it's economy and has not fought in last 40 years ,it will show it's war machinery and use propaganda to frighten it's enemies,you will not find one incident in the last 40 years when China has escalated it when the opposition stood it's ground.
CCP will not start anything if there is a threat of ccp losing power.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom