China vs India War: Who Wins? (No Nukes)

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by notyoueither


They may certainly fling them by catapult, provided the holy beast is equipped with a parachute.

Finally! Thank you. A situation like this, Google is worthless.

[Colonâ„¢]

This thread could have been fun.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Like not being under Soviet dominance? That is a good reason.

You think the war weary cared more about governments than avoiding more war? Detering the Soviets was a good reason too. Tired of war is the key idea, and why it is specifiacally forbidden among member states.

The Greeks and Turks were being... Greeks and Turks, and nobody was going to whip out the lash during the height of the Cold War. Not NATO members, and not the CW, especially when Cyprus was leaving the CW by joining Greece.

According to Wiki, they were back in in 2004. I can see why, since Musharaff became all respectable and such.

I doubt it. Wiki? Link?

We fought before there was any help from either, but the help from both was not only welcome, but long sought after.

The phrase 'never surrender' has some real meaning here and in some other parts.

If Germany had no decided it was tiem for its racial war in the East, but had instead decided to knock off GB before going east, that "never surrender" would have been far more coslty, and it is questionable whether it would have held.

Besides, stubborness and not surrendering were traits common in WW2. THe Soviets did not crack even under far FAR greater pressure than the UK ever had against it. The Germans did not surrender until the Soviets had taken Berlin, even when they faced an air campaign far more devastating than anyting the UK faced, and with armies of millions on their borders. Ditto for Japan, which had to be nuked TWICE before they gave up.

Its nice that the English have made "not surrendering" a motto, but as far as WW2 goes, its not like they faced any more than many of the other significant combatants.

We faced down the Nazis when the rest of you couldn't be bothered. Of course the plan was to get help.

Actually, the worst case plan was that the Home Fleet would move to Halifax, what of it wasn't sunk in the Channel would move to Halifax, that is.

The idea would have been to support the rest of the Empire while the rest of the world came to it's senses.

Sometimes 'never surrender' means 'never surrender', even when you're the only ones left with any stand up and fight in them.

You may say that the war wouldn't have been won were it not for the Soviets and the Yanks, and you would be right. However, it also would have been lost had Britain and the CW knuckled under.

Hehe. Get off your stack, GePap. Kuci will be along to ask if you are a Scientist or a low level civil servant before long.

Sad you need a HS student to do your intellectual fighting for you....

Actually, I'm warning you off flames. This has been a nice discussion, but if you want to go to ad hominems, you'll find I am a might less pleasant than Kuci.

Bring up your points, please, but stuff your psuedo intellectual posing, please? I'd like to keep it interesting.

Why google when I linked for you a page so comprehensive it lists how every single British and Argentine plane lost was lost, or catalogues every single significant battle of the war, in great detail. The site has 0 on any raid against the mainland.

You make a claim, you find some evidence for it. Cause right now, you have none whatsoever.

I don't know that it exists on the web? And I'm not going to go looking for a link to something that I'm probably not supposed to know?

Let's suffice to say that sinkings to exocets stopped.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
This thread could have been fun.

It is fun, you silly k'nigit!

[SlowwHand]

you'll find I am a might less pleasant than Kuci.

Oh thats a claim to fame. What isn't?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You think the war weary cared more about governments than avoiding more war? Detering the Soviets was a good reason too. Tired of war is the key idea, and why it is specifiacally forbidden among member states.

And you think the Soviets, who suffered more than anyone, were no "war weary"? NATO was a defensive allience against a clear outside threat.

I doubt it. Wiki? Link?

I think you competent enough on a computer to find Wikipedia and their entry into the commonwealth by yourself.

Sometimes 'never surrender' means 'never surrender', even when you're the only ones left with any stand up and fight in them.

Yeah, like when the Japanese faced the US, UK, and its allies all alone, without any allies.

I don't know that it exists on the web? And I'm not going to go looking for a link to something that I'm probably not supposed to know?

Let's suffice to say that sinkings to exocets stopped.

Exocet sinkings stopped with the end of exocent raids. Two British ships were lost to exocets, and one damaged by one. These attacks happened throughout the entire length of the war. Exocets never stopped being a threat to the British fleet during the entire war.

As for links, go to the two I have prioved already. They are VERY estensive, and more than show no SAS raid as you described ever took place.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
This thread could have been fun.

Your free to post anything you want about the OP.
No one stoping you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


No one but you seems to think that the war would be anything but a limited one. You are the only one thropwing around the notion of India "going down." That is because the rest of us know that no state with nukes would allow itself to "go down" without using them, and ignoring that China and India have nukes is silly.

Fine, then let me rephrase, the Empire of English would not allow India to lose a major war with China where 'lose' means occupation of a major portion of the country.

I doubt Russia would either.

It's a pet theory I'm kicking around.

The various English speaking countries differ on many points, but the major ones tend to stick together when things get tense.

That has been true only since 1917, and the reason for that is that the US and UK both had similar reasons to not want either German or Soviet domination of Western Eurasia.

The "English speaking countries" have certainly no stuck together in countless little wars they have fought. I did not see NZ or UK rushing to send men to Vietnam, for example, and the US did not do much to maintain England's empire. THe US was pretty pissed at the UK for Suez, and did nothing to stop the slide of British power in the ME. All it did was move in and fill the void for its own purposes.

Like I said, it's a theory, and 1917 was about when London and Washington started talking nice to each other again.

And Churchill signed away the British Empire. It was one of the condtions of the Atlantic Charter. Of course the US was not going to prop up something it wanted to see an end to. And of course Churchill didn't like it, even after the deal was done. It still got done.

The theory isn't that all act the same way, marching in lock step, all the time. It is that when push comes to shove they will, and that they will all promote similar policies abroad due to similar cultures at home.

Portugal has been more of a historic friend to England that the US...

After all, English history is over a thousand years long. Empire is a theme only of the last 250. The US was certainly not a British ally until 1917.

Churchill, and subsequent British leaders, weren't dealing with a five hundred year old situation. They were and are dealing with a world where a former child of the British Empire is now the most powerful nation on Earth.

Thanks, Portugal, but times have moved on.

American presidents are not dealing with a world full of hostiles. There are several countries around the world that share a great deal of culture, right down to the basis of laws. You think the Yanks in Washington don't find the connections with the old Empire useful? Find me a war the Yanks have fought since 1945 where there weren't boots from the CW on the ground lending help, and more importantly governments lending legitimacy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fine, then let me rephrase, the Empire of English would not allow India to lose a major war with China where 'lose' means occupation of a major portion of the country.

I doubt Russia would either.

China would not have the resources ot occupy any major portion of India, nor anything to gain by it.

Like I said, it's a theory, and 1917 was about when London and Washington started talking nice to each other again.

And Churchill signed away the British Empire. It was one of the condtions of the Atlantic Charter. Of course the US was not going to prop up something it wanted to see an end to. And of course Churchill didn't like it, even after the deal was done. It still got done.

I doubt that when Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter he had any intention of giving away the British Empire. That Britain lost its empire had more to do with the fact Britian could no longer afford it, thought Britian was more gracious and realisitc about its fall from power than France.

The theory isn't that all act the same way, marching in lock step, all the time. It is that when push comes to shove they will, and that they will all promote similar policies abroad due to similar cultures at home.

That can be said to be based on common democratic principles more than language. Of course, push hjardly comes to shove.

Churchill, and subsequent British leaders, weren't dealing with a five hundred year old situation. They were and are dealing with a world where a former child of the British Empire is now the most powerful nation on Earth.

The US gained its place because the other major powers blew themselves up. Its easy to be number one when everyone else beat themselves silly over the head. The US was certainly the richest state in the world, but it does not become the most powerful until WW2.

American presidents are not dealing with a world full of hostiles. There are several countries around the world that share a great deal of culture, right down to the basis of laws. You think the Yanks in Washington don't find the connections with the old Empire useful? Find me a war the Yanks have fought since 1945 where there weren't boots from the CW on the ground lending help, and more importantly governments lending legitimacy.

If boots were on the ground, it was from members of the CW acting independently for their own interests (Aussies in Vietnam and Iraq, UK in Iraq) , or because it was UN sanctioned action (like Korea and Kuwait). In all those cases the US had more help anyways: multiple nations took part in Korea, SKorea sent troops to Vietnam, and multiple states sent troops to the Original gulf war, and to the Iraq invasion.

Certainly there are those in Washington and London that imagine some special US-UK link, and ditto those in Sydney and the US that imagine some special US-Australia link, and these thoughts are shaped by your thinking that shared culture leads to shared international aims. The question is whether this will still be true as US power continue to decline relative to all other states in the system.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

And you think the Soviets, who suffered more than anyone, were no "war weary"? NATO was a defensive allience against a clear outside threat.

You may continue to say no, but that won't change the case that a major part of the formation of NATO for some of the members was an agreement to desist from attacks among NATO members.

I doubt it. Wiki? Link?

I think you competent enough on a computer to find Wikipedia and their entry into the commonwealth by yourself.

I'm competent enough to know that Pakistan left the CW, then rejoined, then had membership suspended due to a military coup.

You see, democratic government is a condition of membership.

Sometimes 'never surrender' means 'never surrender', even when you're the only ones left with any stand up and fight in them.

Yeah, like when the Japanese faced the US, UK, and its allies all alone, without any allies.

The Japanese fought on against long odds. Who said they didn't?

Exocet sinkings stopped with the end of exocent raids. Two British ships were lost to exocets, and one damaged by one. These attacks happened throughout the entire length of the war. Exocets never stopped being a threat to the British fleet during the entire war.

As for links, go to the two I have prioved already. They are VERY estensive, and more than show no SAS raid as you described ever took place.

Find me a ship hit by air launched exocet after May 25.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

When did the battle end?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Find me a ship hit by air launched exocet after May 25.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

When did the battle end?

Name me a single air launch of an exocet after May 25....

Woops.
And I am still waiting for you to porve your little SAS raid claim...

Oh, and the bottom of your link:

HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.

So you claim that the US makes some mumbo jumbo "black box" against Exocets, but what, it only works against air launched ones?

[notyoueither]

Yes, land based.

I said that an air base was attacked and French technicians were killed so they could not service the system.

Can you think why that might not be widely published?

I admit I am going on hearsay from severely drunk British commandos I had the great fun of drinking with.

If it is published anywhere, I would be surprised.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by GePap


Your free to post anything you want about the OP.
No one stoping you.

Yes, but the funness would get submerged by all the unfunness.

[notyoueither]

Here's a clue as to the tangled affair of the French and the Falklands War, GePap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

French involvement
French president François Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft, identical to the ones it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. France provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it sold to Argentina. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands Crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies". [3]

As France had recently sold Super Etendard aircraft and Exocet missiles to the Argentine Navy, when war broke out there was still a French team in Argentina helping to fit out the Exocets and aircraft for Argentine use. Argentina claims that the team left for France soon after the April 2 invasion, but according to Dr. James S. Corum the French team apparently continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war, in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy.

In 2005, a book written by President Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, gave a different account of French co-operation, quoting him as saying: "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman! With her four nuclear submarines in the South Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." [4]

It is not clear how the Argentines were able to launch all of their available missiles.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by GePap

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sas.htm

From an English site with plenty of infor on the Falklands war.

Here is their list of ALL SAS operations during the war. NOte the complete abscence of any mention of any raid against the Argentine homeland....

There was a raid on the Argentine homeland, but IIRC it wasn't SAS. It was lauched from southern Chile.

In fact it may well have been scrapped

In any case, an operation from Chile on the Argentine mainland was planned involving helicopters, but I cannot for the life of me remember if it was carried out or what it involved. I'll do some googling to see if I can help.