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

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Wrong answer. FDR didn't sign the Atlantic Charter with Hitler in Italian waters.

And if you think NATO was created simply because of the Atlantic Charter, you remain in lala land.

Suspended due to military take over of government.

Back in 2004 baby. Ally in the War on Terror and that ****.

Probably wouldn't win points towards the CW doing nothing about the single party Chinese beating the hell out of a democratic India.

Oh, I am sure condemnation would flow. Of course I doubt most Commonwealth me,bers would do anything to piss of China, especially the African ones.

The issue is China (single party, totalitarian state even if they are investigating capitalism)-India (democratic member of the CW).

The issue is biog country [China] at war with big country [India]. Those are the types of wars most other states stay out off.

Hindi is the most common language as a first language, from what I read. Then there are more people that know English than any of the other 22 first languages. English is recognized in the constitution 'for official purposes' like government, commerce, lingua Franca...

And that still does not mean even 30% of people in India speak English...

The offer was there. The Brits failed to pick it up because they were certain they needed no help to take out the Argentines on the Falklands. Turned out they needed some and the US was more than happy to provide the stuff to neutralise the exocets.p

Except there was no such thing at the time, and the exocet threat remained. What happened is that the French and Germans agreed to halt any weapons transfers to Argentina, so Argentina's arsenal could not be replenished during the war. Same for the US. All this counts as NATO allies sticking to one of their own.

As you pointed out, Pakistan was a member in good standing and India is not a country the CW would likely be against, rather for, except for some of their Cold War flirting with ideas of Communism and neutralism.

Don't mistake lack of involvment between Pakistan and India with an inability and unwillingness to support a sister state when push comes to shove.

Like when Turkey invaded Cyprus, right? And occupied a third of the country?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm not sure of the status of Cyprus, but it would have been a lot muddled by the dispute between two NATO members.

Cyprus was a member of the Commonwealth since 1961. And NATO is a defensive allience. It says nothing about sticking with them if a member is acting aggressively. But I guess there are times when other interests take precendent.

Is China a part of NATO?

Nope. But its a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UNSC.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Cyprus was a member of the Commonwealth since 1961. And NATO is a defensive allience. It says nothing about sticking with them if a member is acting aggressively. But I guess there are times when other interests take precendent.

Nope. But its a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UNSC.

Yes, but does Cypus care about the CW? Doubful when they were trying to join Greece (one way ticket out of the CW).

And primarily, NATO members do not combat other NATO members. That was one of the first planks of European security, but the Turks and Greeks are slow to come to the party.

No nukes was one of the premises of the thread.

And the UNSC means **** when two of the five permanent seats are held by the Empire of English.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither

No nukes was one of the premises of the thread.

No nukes is a premise about who wins a conventional war between the two states, India or China. And it is plausible because there would be no need for nukes during a limited war between China and India.

No one said that possible third parties getting involved would ignore the fact the combatants are nuclear powers.
That is getting away from the premise anyways.

And the UNSC means **** when two of the five permanent seats are held by the Empire of English.

Its funny that you think the US and UK have the same international policy goals simply because they share a language.

And since each member has the power to edn all action singly, it does not matter how many are English speaking.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


And if you think NATO was created simply because of the Atlantic Charter, you remain in lala land.

Who said simply?

Can you contest a point, or did you just google 'Atlantic Charter' and therefore have little clue yet as to it's importance?

Suspended due to military take over of government.

Back in 2004 baby. Ally in the War on Terror and that ****.

That's a Yank show. They remain suspended from the CW and attacking India at the behest of China would do little to get them back in good standing.

Probably wouldn't win points towards the CW doing nothing about the single party Chinese beating the hell out of a democratic India.

Oh, I am sure condemnation would flow. Of course I doubt most Commonwealth me,bers would do anything to piss of China, especially the African ones.

You know this because you know so much about the CW, don't you? Here's a hint, the major CW nations don't need the permission of the others to take some action, whatever that action might be.

[QUOTE]

The issue is China (single party, totalitarian state even if they are investigating capitalism)-India (democratic member of the CW).

The issue is biog country [China] at war with big country [India]. Those are the types of wars most other states stay out off.

Not when one is a member of the CW and the agressor is not.

We've fought bigger fights, at longer odds than that and won through in the past.

Hindi is the most common language as a first language, from what I read. Then there are more people that know English than any of the other 22 first languages. English is recognized in the constitution 'for official purposes' like government, commerce, lingua Franca...

And that still does not mean even 30% of people in India speak English...

About 30% speak Hindi. 10% in India is a realllly big boatload of people, especially when it is 100% of the educated.

The offer was there. The Brits failed to pick it up because they were certain they needed no help to take out the Argentines on the Falklands. Turned out they needed some and the US was more than happy to provide the stuff to neutralise the exocets.p

Except there was no such thing at the time, and the exocet threat remained. What happened is that the French and Germans agreed to halt any weapons transfers to Argentina, so Argentina's arsenal could not be replenished during the war. Same for the US. All this counts as NATO allies sticking to one of their own.

Actually, after a couple strikes, the US whipped up some black boxes and shipped them pronto to the RN in the SA.

Stopping shipments of more missiles wouldn;t help when the missiles were already there.

Of course, the SAS taking out an airbase and killing the French technicians who were servicing the system didn't hurt either.

As you pointed out, Pakistan was a member in good standing and India is not a country the CW would likely be against, rather for, except for some of their Cold War flirting with ideas of Communism and neutralism.

Like when Turkey invaded Cyprus, right? And occupied a third of the country?

What part of Cyprus not being a genuine member of the CW (they wanted to join Greece) and the CW not caring about people who don't ask for help, and the complications of other alliances that two of the largest members of the CW were subject to do you not understand?

If it makes you feel better, Canada established a more or less permanent military presence on the island to help stop people from killing each other.

You have a peculiar sense of humour.

[SlowwHand]

Is India allowed to drop cows?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


No nukes is a premise about who wins a conventional war between the two states, India or China. And it is plausible because there would be no need for nukes during a limited war between China and India.

But I don't recall 'limited' being a part of the premises.

India going down, in a non-limited war, would spark others to act.

No one said that possible third parties getting involved would ignore the fact the combatants are nuclear powers.
That is getting away from the premise anyways.

Well, Britain is more cabaple of making China glow than vise-versa, and if you think Britain would stand aside and watch India go down to the Chinese, much less the Yanks, you're nuts.

Its funny that you think the US and UK have the same international policy goals simply because they share a language.

And since each member has the power to edn all action singly, it does not matter how many are English speaking.

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.

In the face of a resurgent Russia, and China on it's present course, I see more to drive those English speaking nations with common cultures togther than apart.

The wild card is the EU. Does Britain act as the bridge between 'the Empire' and Europe, or does Europe drag Britain away from historical friends and allies?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you contest a point, or did you just google 'Atlantic Charter' and therefore have little clue yet as to it's importance?

NATO was formed to contest Soviet Hegemony over the industrial heartland of Eurasia. Since the Soviet Union already constituted one part, the other part was mainly Germany, the Benelux countries, and France. The UK might have significant industrial capabilities, but they would be secondary at best to those in the mainland.

That's a Yank show. They remain suspended from the CW and attacking India at the behest of China would do little to get them back in good standing.

They are not suspended anymore. Check it yourself.

Not when one is a member of the CW and the agressor is not.

If the CW counts so little that a major player in it can disregard the actions of other members, what makes you think the people of the Commonwealth democracies would want their governments to get knee deep involved in a land war in the middle of Asia???

We've fought bigger fights, at longer odds than that and won through in the past.

Yeah, with the help of others that proved to be more than critica, in fact, help that without the CW would have never won. If you think the CW could have beaten Nazi germany without the US and the USSR, then you need to have your head examined.

Actually, after a couple strikes, the US whipped up some black boxes and shipped them pronto to the RN in the SA.

Stopping shipments of more missiles wouldn;t help when the missiles were already there.

Do you really have any clue about what you are talking about? I doubt it. Why not get a good book on the war and educate yourself.

Of course, the SAS taking out an airbase and killing the French technicians who were servicing the system didn't hurt either.

This is rich....
Do you mean this raid?

Just a week before the landings, a raid was mounted by D Sqdn SAS on the airstrip and facilities at Pebble Island,especially to destroy the ground attack Pucaras based there.

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

Sorry to break it to you, but Pucara are ground attack prop planes designed by the Argentines. NO attacks were carried out against the Argentine homeland, were Super Etendards carrying Exocets were based.

[SlowwHand]

I think we have the makings of a Cage Match in the works here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


But I don't recall 'limited' being a part of the premises.

India going down, in a non-limited war, would spark others to act.

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.

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.

The wild card is the EU. Does Britain act as the bridge between 'the Empire' and Europe, or does Europe drag Britain away from historical friends and allies?

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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


NATO was formed to contest Soviet Hegemony over the industrial heartland of Eurasia. Since the Soviet Union already constituted one part, the other part was mainly Germany, the Benelux countries, and France. The UK might have significant industrial capabilities, but they would be secondary at best to those in the mainland.

Part of the attraction of NATO to people in WE who were tired of war was the idea that NATO members do not fight with each other. It's actually part of the charter. I **** you not.

The Yanks might have their reasons to back NATO. WE had theirs for joining it.

And it got kicked off on a cruiser off Newfoundland when FDR and Churchill agreed on some basic premises for US-British cooperation in the war and beyond.

That's a Yank show. They remain suspended from the CW and attacking India at the behest of China would do little to get them back in good standing.

They are not suspended anymore. Check it yourself.

Why do you say?

Are you thinking of their rejoining after voluntarily leaving?

Are you taking into account that they were then suspended again for a military coup?

If the CW counts so little that a major player in it can disregard the actions of other members, what makes you think the people of the Commonwealth democracies would want their governments to get knee deep involved in a land war in the middle of Asia???

Who said knee deep?

Sending aid, using aircraft, and urging the US to help is not 'knee deep', to me.

We're not talking a draft to go fight the Commies, but sending ground troops to fight commies in Asia has been done in the past by some CW states. So don't laugh, it's not as unlikely as you think.

We've fought bigger fights, at longer odds than that and won through in the past.

Yeah, with the help of others that proved to be more than critica, in fact, help that without the CW would have never won. If you think the CW could have beaten Nazi germany without the US and the USSR, then you need to have your head examined.

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.

Actually, after a couple strikes, the US whipped up some black boxes and shipped them pronto to the RN in the SA.

Stopping shipments of more missiles wouldn;t help when the missiles were already there.

Do you really have any clue about what you are talking about? I doubt it. Why not get a good book on the war and educate yourself.

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.

Of course, the SAS taking out an airbase and killing the French technicians who were servicing the system didn't hurt either.

This is rich....
Do you mean this raid?

Just a week before the landings, a raid was mounted by D Sqdn SAS on the airstrip and facilities at Pebble Island,especially to destroy the ground attack Pucaras based there.

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

Sorry to break it to you, but Pucara are ground attack prop planes designed by the Argentines. NO attacks were carried out against the Argentine homeland, were Super Etendards carrying Exocets were based.

No, I don't. I mean the raids on mainland airbases to neutralise the mirage/exocet threat.

Keep googling, maybe there is mention of it somewhere.

[SlowwHand]

I'll split the gate with you both. How's that. I'll push sales, y'all just keep pushing each other's buttons. BRB. I have work to do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Part of the attraction of NATO to people in WE who were tired of war was the idea that NATO members do not fight with each other. It's actually part of the charter. I **** you not.

The Yanks might have their reasons to back NATO. WE had theirs for joining it.

And it got kicked off on a cruiser off Newfoundland when FDR and Churchill agreed on some basic premises for US-British cooperation in the war and beyond.

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

Why do you say?

Are you thinking of their rejoining after voluntarily leaving?

Are you taking into account that they were then suspended again for a military coup?

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

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.

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....

No, I don't. I mean the raids on mainland airbases to neutralise the mirage/exocet threat.

Keep googling, maybe there is mention of it somewhere.

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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Is India allowed to drop cows?

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

[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....