What's new

China demands ‘its share’ of Arunachal Pradesh

Taking Fanboyism to a whole new level:hang2: :china:

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

When have we asked for your help? lol last time u sent a carrier and Russia our real strategic partner sent a nuclear submarine and u went home pissing yr pants lol

Tombrady is a false flag troll.
 
You don't need to ask. When we say it's time it's time. We already control the Indian ocean. Like I said, it's not up to you Indians to decide. We make the rules, not you.


lol why dont you first win the war in Afghanistan before helping us?

---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 AM ----------

Taking Fanboyism to a whole new level:hang2: :china:

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------



Tombrady is a false flag troll.




I know :rofl:hes one of the better ones we have had on here
 
lol why dont you first win the war in Afghanistan before helping us?

Who said we didn't win? That war was won the day it began. We are occupying Afghanistan right now, not fighting a war. Know the difference.
 
More cannon fodder

The Indian approach is flawed. Throwing 100,000 more troops at China's mechanized military is foolish. The Chinese military machine will bomb those 100,000 Indians and move on.

India's fundamental problem is that it has no answer for China's advanced modern weaponry. 100,000 troops do not constitute an asymmetric response. The Indians need to provide the outline of a plan that would give them a fighting chance.

For example, China developed Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (i.e. ASBMs) to sink American aircraft carriers. Furthermore, China has tightly integrated its air defenses against fourth-generation fighters. Also, China has thousands of ballistic missiles to destroy Japanese air bases that may host U.S. F-22 fighters. That's called an asymmetric response and a reasonable war plan.

The Indians lack a comprehensive technological and methodical plan to respond to China's overwhelming military power.

----------

After establishing air superiority, it will require only a few days of "Chinese Rolling Thunder" to eliminate 100,000 Indian troops on the ground.

China's H-6K "God of War" Bomber

hoDTF.jpg

H-6K bomber

lh4hX.jpg

H-6M Bombs Away!

3o79B.jpg

Chinese Rolling Thunder!

[Note: Thank you to A.Man for the first picture and Deino for the second caption.]

Mr Bot from Mars,

Could you please explain how an Armoured division be used in mountainous terrain.


I wish Chinese general think like you.It would be easier to butcher Chinese if they send tanks of mountain or try to take peaks by force.
 
@Martian2

sorry sir..spare us from pics.Should i post pics of aircrafts:rolleyes:?
 
The Chinese basically want the tawang district , not other areas of Arunachal . That is the only place in Arunachal where the tibetan buddhists live in majority . claiming a much larger area is just a tactic to pressurize India to part with Tawang .This is to basically pacify the Tibetans .

Many Chinese analysts and think tank senior Scholars have said it in the past .


China doesn't want entire Arunachal, just Tawang - YouTube

'Indo-China partnership is good news for world' - Rediff.com India News

Professor Wang, who is on a lecture tour of Kerala [ Images ], Tamil Nadu and New Delhi, puts forward two minimum demands to solve the critical border issue.

"If India gives Tawang to China and recognises Aksai Chin (which is already in Chinese possession after getting it from Pakistan) as Chinese territory, then India will gain 83,000 square km of territory in return for 41,000 sq km!"
 
Lord Kalki might be born in Tibet :) so they scared
 
China demands

DHARAMSHALA, January 29: An exclusive report by a British daily has revealed that the latest round of border talks between India and China, held mid-January, ended in a deadlock after Beijing insisted it would settle for nothing less that “its share” of Arunachal Pradesh.

The 15th round of Sino-Indian special representative talks held in New Delhi had concluded on January 17 with the two Asia giants claiming to have made 'substantial progress' during the two-day meeting.

However, the dailymail.co.uk in a report dated January 28, said that behind the façade of bonhomie, lied bitter, unsolved contentions.

Citing “highly placed” sources privy to the discussions between the two special interlocutors - National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and his Chinese counterpart, state councillor Dai Bingguoa – the daily reported things went off track after Beijing insisted that India should first discuss the eastern boundary in Arunachal Pradesh.

“The hosts were surprised when Dai, couching his query in diplomatic niceties, asked Menon how much territory New Delhi would part with,” the daily quoted sources as saying.

Menon, who has formerly served as envoy to Beijing, reportedly argued that under article 3 of the guiding principles of the Sino-Indian boundary discussions, both sides should make meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question, so as to arrive at a package settlement to the boundary question. The keywords in the mentioned principle being “a package settlement” referring to boundary settlements in all the three sectors – eastern, western, and middle border regions.

India and China occupied Tibet share a 3488 km long disputed border which was the cause of a short but bloody war in 1962.

While China claims the whole of the eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory, India wants back a large area of land from the northern Aksai Chin area that China occupied after the war.

China’s insistence on taking “its share” of Arunachal Pradesh is also seen as a deviation from a previously agreed principle in 2005, when both sides had decided not to disturb settled population.

“But Beijing simply stuck to its guns and told India to first put on the table its proposal for the division of Arunachal Pradesh, specifying the proportion of territory swap,” the report cited sources as saying.

The 15th round of special border talks was scheduled in November last but had to be cancelled after China demanded India scrap an international religious gathering where the Tibetan spiritual leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama was to give a valedictory speech.

Bolded part speaks about the nature of the Chinese . Even if they want just Tawang district , it is against settled and signed principles .Nuff Said ! :coffee:
 
military option is only option against china.No need to go for talks.keep building military and park missiles in AP
 
military option is only option against china.No need to go for talks.keep building military and park missiles in AP

Our missiles are much bigger than yours.

----------

China has a minimum of 1,924 thermonuclear warheads. Here's why.

Let's see whether my minimum estimate of 1,924 Chinese thermonuclear warheads makes sense.

1. From the DF-31As alone, there should be 144 ICBM thermonuclear warheads.

AzKcQ.jpg

China showed us 12 DF-31A TELs at the 2009 Chinese military parade.

We know China launches satellites on 15 to 20 Long March/DF-31A rockets each year. Britain`s International Institute of Strategic Studies' claim that China is adding a brigade or 12 DF-31As to its arsenal each year looks reasonable. Since China manufactures 15 to 20 Long March rockets each year, China can easily produce 12 DF-31A missiles each year.

2. From the DF-5s, there are another 20 ICBMs with 4 to 5 megatons each. Richard Fisher has reported on the deployment of a DF-5B with 5 or 6 MIRVs. We do not know whether the DF-5B is a new missile or a retrofitted and upgraded DF-5.

Since we're trying to make a reasonable minimum estimate, we will just assume the DF-5Bs are upgrades of the existing DF-5s. The sum of 20 upgraded DF-5s is 100 warheads.

5CQhK.jpg

DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and has been in service since 1981.

The Pentagon claims China built 20 DF-5s and then just stopped. Essentially, the Pentagon is claiming China never built a single additional DF-5 for 30 years from 1981 to 2011. Who believes that China has been an angel and did not build another DF-5 for thirty years?!

3. There is at least a dozen DF-31, which can reach Alaska, Hawaii, or the northwestern United States. This is another 12 ICBM warheads. Since the DF-31As are reportedly MIRVed, we will assume the DF-31s are also MIRVed with 3 warheads each. The total is 36 DF-31 warheads.

umpUn.jpg

Here, we see nine DF-31s; which were first seen at China's 1999 military parade.

The Pentagon claims China only built 12 DF-31s by 1999 and just stopped. Let me get this straight. China spent billions of dollars to develop its most advanced solid-fueled ICBM by 1999 and only built 12?! Are you going to believe the Pentagon propaganda?

An U.S. general testified in front of Congress that China was at least 10 years away from building a conventional ASAT missile in 2007. That very afternoon, China successfully destroyed a weather satellite with an ASAT weapon. So much for military intelligence at the Pentagon.

4. According to Jane's Defence, the "Chinese are believed to have started the design and development of the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41) in 1986." It's been over 15 years. China has shown us an operational and deployed DF-31A. There is no reason to believe that the DF-41 has not been fully developed and become operational. It's just a longer and slightly wider missile.

The DF-41 could easily vault China into eventual parity with the United States in the total number of warheads. Ten DF-41s result in 100 150-kiloton warheads. One hundred DF-41s would increase China's nuclear arsenal by 1,000 ICBM warheads.

xpy9U.jpg

Since 1986, according to Jane's Defence, China has been developing the DF-41 ICBM (which is capable of carrying 10 MIRVs).

According to GlobalSecurity, "it is anticipated that the DF-41 will be delivered to the 2d Artillery around the year 2010." In other words, the DF-41 has probably already been deployed.

Why should we believe GlobalSecurity? Let's use our common sense. The DF-41 has been in development for over 15 years. It can't stay in development for perpetuity. Given China's previous mastery of the DF-31 and DF-31A, fifteen years should be plenty of time to build a longer-range DF-41.

5. No one knows how many ICBMs China is hiding in its 5,000km Underground Great Wall. I think a sensible person would not claim that China spent ten years building the Underground Great Wall to only place an ICBM every 100km. Similarly, most reasonable people would not claim that China is hiding one ICBM every 1km.

As a rough estimate, a reasonable person would most likely assume that China is hiding one ICBM every 10km. 5,000km / 10km per hidden ICBM = 500 ICBMs hidden in China's Underground Great Wall. Assuming each ICBM is MIRVed with three warheads, I estimate China is hiding 1,500 ICBM warheads in its Underground Great Wall.

u2ybT.jpg

China spent ten years building its "'Underground Great Wall' that stretches for more than 5,000km in the Hebei region of northern China."

The Pentagon currently assigns ZERO ICBMs to China's Underground Great Wall. As best as I can understand, their logic is "well, we can't see it...so we're going to say there are no ICBMs there." Seriously, what kind of military assessment is that? It's just as bad as the Pentagon's ASAT assessment.

The 5,000km underground complex was specifically built for a Chinese thermonuclear counterstrike.

I estimate there are probably 500 ICBMs hidden in the 5,000km facility in Hebei, China. I want to mention that China doesn't need 500 launch silos. A missile can be fired from a silo and another missile can be reloaded in its place. Let's assume China plans to reload five missiles for each silo. This means China would only need 100 silos over a 5,000km distance.

I can assure you the claim of only 20 Chinese ICBM silos is ludicrous. The length of a DF-21 IRBM is 11m. The length of a DF-31 ICBM is 13m. If a silo is dug a little deeper and wider, it can accommodate an ICBM; instead of an IRBM.

In the following video, which encompasses only a few mountains, I counted at least 30 silos. We know from a Chinese-state television CCTV broadcast on March 24, 2008 that China has built a 5,000km (or 3,000-mile) missile complex under a mountain range. If a few mountains contain 30 silos, imagine how many silos are hidden along 5,000km.


6. China has four Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Each Type 094 SSBN carries 12 JL-2 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles). Since the Julang-2 is based on DF-31 technology, we will follow Jane Defence's report that the JL-2 is MIRVed with 3 or 4 warheads. Using our standard 3 MIRVs for a DF-31A or JL-2 missile, we arrive at 144 warheads (e.g. 4 Type 094 SSBNs x 12 JL-2s per SSBN x 3 MIRVs per JL-2).

Therefore, China's four Type 094 SSBNs carry a total of 144 JL-2 warheads that can strike portions of the United States.

RFyjn.jpg

Here, we see two Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Two more SSBNs for a total of four Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs seem perfectly reasonable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@martian....with all these super duper galactic capabilities why is china just demanding...are they afraid to come and take what is theirs ?
 
@martian....with all these super duper galactic capabilities why is china just demanding...are they afraid to come and take what is theirs ?

It is basic military strategy to confront one opponent at a time. Taiwan takes priority over undeveloped South Tibet.

Taiwan has a GDP of over $500 billion U.S. dollars. You Indians have mismanaged South Tibet during your occupation. I will guess South Tibet has a GDP of $5 million U.S. dollars.

South Tibet can wait.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom