A man walks inside a conference room used for meetings between military commanders of China and India, at the Indian side of the Indo-China border at Bumla, in the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, November 11, 2009. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo
International Business Times: China Threatens India With War As Border Dispute Continues
The relationship between India and China seemed to worsen Wednesday when the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that 53 people and an Indian bulldozer was in China's territory and advised India to pull them back. This followed a warning Tuesday when an editorial in the state-run China Daily said that the "countdown to a clash between the two forces has begun."
"India should withdraw its troops and equipment. Regardless of how many Indian troops have trespassed into and stayed in Chinese territory, they have gravely infringed on China's sovereignty," the ministry said, the Global Times reported.
The China Daily editorial said the clock was ticking and that it seemed like a clash would be “an inevitable conclusion” between the two prominent Asian countries if India did pull back its troops from the disputed Doklam region.
Read more ....
More News On The Border Dispute Between China And India
Diplomacy fails to defuse India, China border crisis: sources -- Reuters
India-China tension at shared border with Bhutan steps up -- RFI
India, China continue to militarily reinforce positions but no evacuation of border villages yet -- The India Times
Indian Army Asks Villagers to Vacate Areas Near Doklam Amid Border Standoff With China: Report -- India.com
In Escalating Standoff, Indian Army Orders People Near Chinese Border To Vacate Village -- Zero Hedge
53 Indian troops, one bulldozer illegally remain in Chinese territory: Chinese FM -- Global Times
China deploys 800 soldiers near Doklam area, flaunts presence of its troops -- The Asian Age
Second India-China war in 2018? Here's the war blueprint if it happens -- India Today
Is India's Military Actually Ready for War With China? -- The Diplomat
7 comments:
I have to chuckle at the angst folks are feeling about our place in the world diplomatically. It could be worse. A whole lot worse.
E.G.,
CHINA,
R
Russ,
I must say I agree with you. I've been told for years and years and years about how oooh so smart those Chinese are and about oooh they play the "long game." At this point, I'm watching them pretty much p!ss off all of their neighbors and then they sign onto sanctions against the ally, North Korea. This just doesn't seem to anyway to run a country let alone one wishing to become a superpower. In fact, their policies seem so boneheaded that I am wondering if there is something to them that I am missing.
Also, I'm told that memories are long in that part of the world. Since memories are so long, surely the Vietnamese remember how they gave America an a!s whooping in the Vietnam War and how they humiliated us. I've been told this applies to all these nations in this region.
If memories are so long, why on earth is Vietnam going to host a US aircraft carrier in 2018? While everyone knows what I think of these things, the idiots who comprise the US government have ooooh such pride in their overly expensive bath toys that can be easily sunk by even the crappiest of navies. While I realize this is a ways away and much is subject to change, US officials will view this invite as a huge honor. After all getting to show off their pride and joy to Vietnam almost validates them. why would Vietnam give them/us this honor?
For them to even consider such a thing is amazing in and of itself. The diplomatic prowess involved in achieving such a thing is awesome!! How did they do it? Is Vietnam that concerned with China that they'd take such a move as this? So much for Chinese leaders being ooooh so smart!! They've driven Vietnam and the US together!! Nice move!!
B.Poster,
Sinking an aircraft carrier is much harder than you think.
"overly expensive bath toys that can be easily sunk by even the crappiest of navies"
Unless they are Russian or Chinese bath toys
Jac and Caecus,
I apprrciate your replies. I may have overestimated how easy it is to sink a US aircraft carrier. That actually was not supposed to be the main theme of the post.
The main themes were or were meant to be 1.) Vietnam has agreed to host a US aircraft carrier in 2018. For better or worse, the US government seems to view these as the pride of US military prowess. 2.) While 2018 is a ways off and things can change, for Vietnam to agree to host a US aircraft carrier is a huge honor for America. 3.)The Vietnamese humiliated us in the Vietnam War and to now honor us is unthinkable. 4.)The tentative conclusions that follow are China's diplomacy is REALLY, REALLY crappy and SOMEONE within the US has pulled off an incredible feat. To "know" for sure would require more information. 5.) All the cool kids have told us for many years now how ooooh so smart the Chinese are. It's looking more and more like the cool kids may have been wrong about China. Perhaps they aren't as smart as we were told.
Caecus,
"Unless they are Russian or Chinese bath toys." I meant to address this but neglected to do so.
"Bath toys" was not the right metaphor to use. Aircraft carriers have the potential to be effective as "gunboat diplomacy" against countries who either don't have a navy or a very minimal one. As such, Russia seems to have wisely backed away from building more of them. I think China has one. Whether or not this is a smart allocation of resources for them depends on how they plan to deploy it. If used against countries with minimal or no navies, it has the potential to be effective.
The US has something like 10 and is building another!! Perhaps we need 1, maybe 2. The number we have now seems a collosal waste of resources. Actually, I've spelled out the main threats facing the US. You've probably seen the posts. Aircraft carriers have no utility in any of them.
While not the most dangerous threats faced by America, the most quickly acute are North Korea and Iran. Against either of these countries for aircraft csrriers to survive they'd likely need to be deployed to far from the conflict zone to be useful.
Post a Comment