Posted on 06/27/2020 3:35:18 PM PDT by RomanSoldier19
The Indian military is amassing more men and material as a precautionary deployment along the 3,488-km-long disputed border with China.
The Indian military is amassing more men and material as a precautionary deployment along the 3,488-km-long disputed border with China.
The deployment, perhaps one of the biggest in the recent years, comes at a time when India and China are locked in a hitherto unprecedented standoff – for eight weeks now – at multiple points along their border.
Sources said that Indian Army has deployed three more divisions in eastern Ladakh region to bolster its position on the Line of Actual Control.
Apart from tanks and artillery, the Army has deployed their advanced very quick-reaction surface-to-air missile defence systems, including Akash missiles which have the capacity to take down combat aircraft and drones.
It was stated that four weeks ago an important division had started acclimatising for high-altitude warfare and two weeks later, parts of it were deployed at the 18,000-foot-high Depsang plains, a plateau located north of the Galwan valley. Similarly, reserve forces have been moved to forward locations to match up the Chinese deployments.
Asked whether it is full deployment, a senior Indian Army officer said: “It is a mirror deployment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
All the rivers into India start there.
If their economy continues to implode they are probably hoping that a war will prop up the continued rule by the communist party.
Rare earth metals , opium trade?
China wants to provoke a shooting war with India. China has superior aircraft, armaments, missiles, and troops. It will bloody India badly and seize more territory. Why? China wants to do the same to India that Russia did to Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan and Russia fought some sharp battles in Manchuria. Russian forces mauled the Japanese. The Japanese high command was duly impressed and when Hitler invaded Russia, Japan refused to open a second front. Russia was able to send divisions westward that saved Moscow in December 1941.
China hopes to bloody, humiliate and intimidate India. When China invades Taiwan, it does not even want India to think of attacking. India is no match for China.
No weapons allowed by either side in this theater. Seriously.
The stories that came out recently where there were mass deaths and casualties on both side - all that was done hand-to-hand.
It's crazy and brutal, but a true story.
18,000 feet. Someone, somewhere, found a new way to make life suck even more for grunts.
What happens if Trump recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation?
That policy of gradualism is not because Chinese rulers are long-term thinkers. Multiple dynasties have crumbled in that interval, and no ruler hedged his bets to make things easier for the next one. The problem was economic and political constraints.
Rulers who went a war too far found themselves beset by peasant rebellions as well as elite mutinies, due to the huge financial expenditures required, which caused both taxation and inflation to go through the roof. Outsized human costs were also a factor. 2200 years ago, China's Spartacus was a peasant rebel - mounting one of many draft revolts - who founded a dynasty that lasted 400 years. Peasant rebels have founded 3 dynasties lasting 1/3 of China's 2200 year history since the First Emperor's creation of a unitary Chinese state. Elite mutinies have created the basis for most of the other dynasties.
There's a portion of the Oscar-winning (for visuals) movie "Hero" that I found startling, but may illuminate the Chinese viewpoint. (Spoiler alert) The hero desists from assassinating the First Emperor, who created the first (less than 1/4 the current) unified Chinese state because the emperor says to him that peace on earth can only be achieved when someone rules "all under heaven":
Translation of "Tianxia"
There has been some criticism of the film for its American-release translation of one of the central ideas in the film: Tiānxià (天下) which literally means "Under heaven", and is a phrase to mean "the World". For its release in Belgium, two years before the U.S. release, the subtitled translation was "all under heaven". The version shown in American cinemas was localized as the two-word phrase "our land" instead, which seems to denote just the nation of China rather than the whole world. Whether Zhang Yimou intended the film to also have meaning with regard to the world and world unity was at that time difficult to say. Zhang Yimou was asked about the change at a screening in Massachusetts and said it was a problem of translation: "If you ask me if 'Our land' is a good translation, I can't tell you. All translations are handicapped. Every word has different meanings in different cultures."[14] In Cause: The Birth of Hero – a documentary on the making of Hero – Zhang mentions that he hopes the film will have some contemporary relevance, and that, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks (which took place just before the movie was filmed) the themes of universal brotherhood and "peace under heaven" may indeed be interpreted more globally, and taken to refer to peace in "the world."[15][16] The phrase was later changed in television-release versions of the film.
In reality, this proclaimed yearning for peace was basically the emperor's excuse for raising his personal prestige. He succeeded. However, he failed in the most fundamental sense - like Alexander and Muhammad, he had no issue - they were exterminated when his dynasty crumbled immediately after his death.
I’ve never subscribed to the theory that national leaders acquire land by force because of political or economic necessity. Publicly, they’ll justify these efforts that way, because the soldiers risking their lives and the loved ones they leave behind don’t want to hear that the war is being waged so their leaders can become famous for posterity. An Olympic athlete or a mountain climber can straightforwardly own up to his personal ambition because all that’s at risk is his personal investment in the task he has set for himself. A national leader cannot, for obvious reasons.
In fact, how do you distinguish between desperation and simple ambition? I don’t think you can. IMHO, Xi believes China has finally become strong enough to make these ventures the kind of bet a gambling man might take odds on. The shibboleth of our time is that war is hell, and no leader ever embarks on it except out of desperation. It’s, however, contrary to most of what we know about history. Leaders go to war for the same reason athletes compete in the Olympics - for personal fame and glory.
Kings go to war not because they need to, but because they want to. What they’re after is to make a name for themselves that will stand the test of time. By a country mile, the most famous Greek is Alexander, just as the most famous Roman is Caesar. That’s no accident. For better or for worse, conquerors will always have a special place in the history books. War is like a large scale hunt in which the guy who organized it and brought home a lot of trophies puts his name in neon lights for posterity.
Heck, even the losers become famous in ways nobody expected. Without his disastrous loss at Carrhae, just how well-known would the richest man in Rome, Crassus, be?
People who go on about Xi Jinping needing a distraction from domestic problems are ignoring everything we know about history. Chinese leaders are made in the mold of the leaders of powerful countries since probably the dawn of time - they did not sign up for their jobs to become glorified administrators/security people for accountants and financiers. They are building this wealth so they can construct an army to acquire fame for themselves. Alexander and Caesar accumulated wealth to fight wars. They didn’t fight wars to accumulate wealth. The end game was, first and foremost, eternal fame, or infamy, if they failed.
Saddam Hussein had all the money he needed. What he wanted was to be mentioned in the same breath as Saladin. Even in failure, he has placed his name in a more prominent position than any of his Arab contemporaries, with the exception of bin Laden.
* Until WWI and WWII, the Western powers were perennially in a horse race with respect to territorial competition. That may yet resume, despite a period of post-WWII decadence.
“Never get involved in a land war in Asia.”
Chinese fought against U.N. troops in the Korean Conflict. They fought like Russians, before the Russians had Studebakers equipped with Russian long-range artillery. Bravely, at great cost of life (their own, mostly).
This must be to stir Nationalism in China, why else risk war over an uninhabited mountainous area.
The Eastern World, it is explodin’....
Get out that “high elevation war paint,” it does the trick, every time.
Oh, that Indian, never mind..
India will throw their major forces against the Chinese incursion until...bang-o, the Pakis start Big Trouble in Little Kashmir. Look for that as both sides dig in for a long conflict.
This is a horrible location for a war—both China and India are trying to save face—a total mess.
![](https://i.postimg.cc/pVmQWsFh/0D8D3516-0831-4557-8622-1F3D90D22898.jpg";)
Don’t neglect that there is usually an economic rationale for most wars. In Roman times the acquisition of more territory was always needed to obtain lands to pension soldiers, secure slaves, expand markets and bring in revenues and grain. The “Caesars” of course achieved, wealth , glory, fame and incidentially also became perennial targets for assasination. Alexander’s campaigns were motivated by the desperate poverty of Macedonia and his troops and the lack of prospects within Greece even when sacking Greek cities became relatively easy. Alexander of course was a gifted military, charismatic leader who in the end overextended and ruined himself. Hitler claimed that his quest to conquer Eastern lands was essential for the economic well being of a German people. It should not be forgotten that even during the height of the fighting German colonies were established in parts of the conquered Soviet Union. Xi today in China governs a huge population that copes with the threat of famine, environmental ruin, desperately needs a political reality that enhances its export markets and favors a steady supply of grains, protein sources and energy. He needs to expand geographically and subject areas such as America , Australia and South America to have policies favorable to Chinese needs. Ultimately as you point out these imperialistic policies almost always fail.
Sincerely doubt the US will go to actual war with China regardless of what Trump does with Taiwan. War requires a country to have at least initially an overall consensus of its population favoring such action. Does anyone really think there is currently an American consensus to fight China over Taiwan? Perhaps forty to fifty years ago but very doubtful in today’s American reality. Eventually Chinese imperialism will fail for the reasons you mentioned. War brings economic exhaustion, inflation, severe sorrow and resentment. The rest of Asia will not readily consent to actual Chines dominance and their resistance will be costly.
Don’t neglect that there is usually an economic rationale for most wars. In Roman times the acquisition of more territory was always needed to obtain lands to pension soldiers, secure slaves, expand markets and bring in revenues and grain. The “Caesars” of course achieved, wealth , glory, fame and incidentially also became perennial targets for assasination. Alexander’s campaigns were motivated by the desperate poverty of Macedonia and his troops and the lack of prospects within Greece even when sacking Greek cities became relatively easy. Alexander of course was a gifted military, charismatic leader who in the end overextended and ruined himself. Hitler claimed that his quest to conquer Eastern lands was essential for the economic well being of a German people. It should not be forgotten that even during the height of the fighting German colonies were established in parts of the conquered Soviet Union. Xi today in China governs a huge population that copes with the threat of famine, environmental ruin, desperately needs a political reality that enhances its export markets and favors a steady supply of grains, protein sources and energy. He needs to expand geographically and subject areas such as America , Australia and South America to have policies favorable to Chinese needs. Ultimately as you point out these imperialistic policies almost always fail.
Sincerely doubt the US will go to actual war with China regardless of what Trump does with Taiwan. War requires a country to have at least initially an overall consensus of its population favoring such action. Does anyone really think there is currently an American consensus to fight China over Taiwan? Perhaps forty to fifty years ago but very doubtful in today’s American reality. Eventually Chinese imperialism will fail for the reasons you mentioned. War brings economic exhaustion, inflation, severe sorrow and resentment. The rest of Asia will not readily consent to actual Chines dominance and their resistance will be costly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.