The Tibet/Nepal Quandry....

Very true, I'm all for peace btw, so lets hope it works out that way...

does india have a hydrogen bomb.
when you answer post a link

All you need is one big modern nuke, detonated in the upper-atmosphere over a country, to spread the radiation all over the place. Detonating a bomb lower to the ground like the atmoic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is only really damaging to the nearby areas, and then in the long-term, as the radiation spreads, there is more damage as plants, animals, and people die. But if you detonate it high up in the atmosphere, the radiation spreads far and wide, and the damage is devastating, as you spread radiation over a HUGE area.

Not to mention a high yield megaton nuke detonate very high up will also produce a very wide and powerful EMP blast that will fry all the electronic equipment over that country depending on the size of it.

Originally posted by chinawhite
does india have a hydrogen bomb.
when you answer post a link

Is that similar to a thermonuclear device??!
If it is, then India claims to have detonated one in 98..
But international experts say that the yield was falling just short of a thermonuclear device..

yeah a H-bomb dangerous. i think it needs to be at least 1 megaton

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not to mention a high yield megaton nuke detonate very high up will also produce a very wide and powerful EMP blast that will fry all the electronic equipment over that country depending on the size of it.

After that comes all the other nukes, the chemical attacks and the biological attacks.(NBC sounds like just another acronymn) Jeez, war is a terrible thing

India will soon have some of the missile defence systems.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
All you need is one big modern nuke, detonated in the upper-atmosphere over a country, to spread the radiation all over the place. Detonating a bomb lower to the ground like the atmoic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is only really damaging to the nearby areas, and then in the long-term, as the radiation spreads, there is more damage as plants, animals, and people die. But if you detonate it high up in the atmosphere, the radiation spreads far and wide, and the damage is devastating, as you spread radiation over a HUGE area.

Actually an air-burst is cleaner than a ground burst simply due to the lack of material that will become irradiated and thrown into the air.
An air-burst will dissipate and the majority of the radiation will be soaked up by water vapour and dispersed by the wind

India will soon have some of the missile defence systems.

You need more than the Patriot missile to stop ICBM's unless India just wants it for incoming cruise and supersonic missiles. But according to your link they have not bought it yet.

Patriots have ABM capabilities but its range is only so much and to protect a country the size of India, you might need like 3000 batteries (that is only an assumption but Moskow is protected by 1000 S-300 batteries or so they say). With the records of Patriots against Iraqi BMs, I wouldn't trust them that much and I would just build more Nukes for MAD or deterrent purposes (mainly as a scare weapon).

The Patriot missile they yare taking about is the PAC-3 Patriot, this is a much much better missile than the PAC-1 during the Gulf war.
But still you need integrates radar along with other capable missile sites to have a hope at hitting anything.

Also 1000 S-300 Is there even that much room in Moscow for all those batteries? And I doubt the Russians have produced that many all together.

Well, I got the 1000 number from another Russian in WAFF (another forum). The Indians weren't offered the PAC-3 but they were offered the PAC-2 instead. Its not as good as PAC-3. I wonder why America withheld the PAC-3 from the Indians?

Russia must have built more than a thousand considering the chinese purchased more than this amount alone back in the late 90's

Apparently the chinese also have their hands on the s-400 as well though exact numbers are unknown

I wonder why America withheld the PAC-3 from the Indians?

Because the PAC-3 is the latest in the series and its part of our Missile Defense Shield, now we don't want that to get into the wrong hands now do we. Oh, ok they have produced more than 1000, but who here thinks there are 1000 battery systems lying around Moscow Seems like an incredible waste of money and equipment to me.

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004

Both countries have similar weapons supplied mostly by Russia,while China has larger numbers.Comparing your best to our best,equipment is roughly equal in technology.

I would broadly agree. However, the majority of modern PLA equipment are arrayed in the elite battle formations. These formations have specific set deployments that cannot be redeployed. The ones deployed/deployable against India are matched by Indian deployments. The Indian units have clear technological superiority over their PLA counterparts, have far easier a logistical chain, a more extensive C3I network, as well as integrated force-multipliers through the IAF that the Chinese cannot currently match.

Moreover, Indian Army units are trained in amongst the best institutions in the world, and all combat units -- all of them -- have the incalculable but awesome advantage of actual combat experience in both counter-terror, COIN and conventional deployments.

Both are good projects,but take a look at their Chinese equivalents (Type 98 & J-10).The Arjun and LCA are produced too late to be any good when they come out in full service.The Chinese equivalents are also cheaper.

Strongly disagree on varying counts. The Arjun is already being inducted in regimental strength as we speak. Within the next two years it will reach full production capability. The Arjun is significantly superior to the Type-98s, and even superior (and more expensive!) than the T-90s that India is also inducting. The expense of the Arjun, though it remains the best tank in any conflict India may have with its neighbors, is the major limiting factor. However, it is not designed to replace the whole armored corps, but plays a specific specialized role in the complete reorganization of the IA under the "cold start" doctrine (forward-deployed cohesive battlegroups capable of high-mobility and non-set-piece deployments). The Arjun with its formidable armor and fcs will serve as the spearhead of any IA division attack, along with the T-90s, T-72s upg giving support. In terms of cost comparison with the Chinese tanks, it is a cost-utility matchup, with a more expensive Arjun and T-90 having greater capabilities.

The LCA, as I have explained in great detail in the LCA thread, will come around when the tranche 2 J-10s come out. Per-unit cost is comparable, and any disadvantage versus the PLAAF that the initial delays have caused will be made up by induction of the 125 MRCA + deep license production (most likely Mirage-2000-9s or MiG-29SMTs.) This will also fulfill the combat squadron increase in the IAF. Also, as of now, no one can make any cost-comparisons of LCA v. J-10 because there are no credible figures for per-unit cost.

India doesn't have a nuclear deterrent.Get it into your head,because India will be hoping that China doesn't nuke their asses.If India nukes China,can anyone guess what will happen? No prizes for guessing,kids

Now I know you must be joking. India doesn't have a nuclear deterrent?? I guess induction of 1-200 Agnis of various builds, to say nothing of the Prithvis, etc. already operationalized, and the weaponization of both IA and IAF units (with all IAF planes being nuclear capable) do not count as a strategic nuclear deterrant?

No doubt China has more nukes, but unlike China, India's nuclear doctrine is for credible minimum deterrance, i.e. enough nukes + platforms to deliver them to turn China into a wasteland. It doesn't matter of China can nuke India three times over. The singular destruction of the entire nation-state of the PRC is within India's capabilities. That is why no war will go nuclear, and will be limited. THAT is nuclear deterrance.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

i agree with you that most of our modern equipment is with our elite divisions. but the other divsions are slowing upgrading there older equipment
.
quote from you.

The Indian units have clear technological superiority over their PLA counterparts, have far easier a logistical chain, a more extensive C3I network, as well as integrated force-multipliers through the IAF that the Chinese cannot currently match.

what clear technological superiority ?
i agree that you have easier logistal chain.
a more extensive network??

* A total of 53,000km underground cables were laid, connecting Beijing with 86% of China’s provinces
* 29 hardened, underground command and control bunkers across the country, connected to each other via 14,000km underground and 5,000km underwater cables
* 300 military communications lines were upgraded from underground cables to power line communications (PLC)
* A maritime communication network, including a low-frequency (LF) submarine communication station and a signal intelligence (SIGINT) centre in Hainan Island


integrated force-multipliers?? what are they?

indians are trained in one of the best institutions..did a indian say that or a westerner..

How is the arjun superior to the chinese t-98.

raj about the 1-200 whatever missiles how much nukes can india put in those missiles.

as for china going to invade nepal.. china has very good relations with nepal.
its a good country for a buffer zone

nepalese relations
www.mofa.gov.np...

China & India

Relation between India and China which had been improving in recent past is now deteriorating after India's nuclear test and Indian Defence Minister's provocative anti-China speeches. India's defeat in its war with China in 1962, still continue to haunt the Indian psyche. Some scholars abroad are of the view that India's China war was a result of its own defective 'forward defence policy', which provoked the Chinese actions.

China has a far superior military power over India. Chinese military is said to be three times bigger than India's 1.1 million and its Air Force is four times larger than India's. With its 'vast arsenal of long-range, intermediate and submarine launched nuclear missiles' it will 'still be able to dominate India at every level of escalation' (Newsweek, May 25, '98). China is considered as Asia's number one power. It is an exporter of arms and India, an importer. Indian delivery system is also considered to be not reliable. In the past, it faced enormous problems in launching its satellites in the orbit.

India has many unresolved issues with China. China still occupies a large tract of Indian land. It claims India's Arunachal Pardesh state. Moreover, India is surrounded by three hostile countries - Pakistan, China and Myanmar. According to Fernandes, Myanmar and Pakistan are close allies of China, hence a threat to India. India is facing serious armed insurgency and separatist movement in Kashmir and the north-east, which border with China. Indian possession of nuclear bomb would definitely augment Chinese engagement in South Asia.

Kashmir has remained a perennial source of tensions between Pakistan and India. India has been trying to keep external influences out of Kashmir and South Asia. After the Indian tests, Beijing and Washington have come to share commonality of views on South Asian security. This led President Clinton to propose that China should be involved in any final solution of Kashmir issue. China owns a part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, ceded by Pakistan. This will definitely engage China strategically in the South Asian affairs. Till recently, China had hardly shown any covert military interests in South Asia - except that some Indians express concern that the Chinese defence policy is moving to periphery.

The actual deployment of nuclear weapons by India may provoke China to target at it. Thus, India's nuclearisation has tremendous propensity of intensifying hostilities between India and China. In such a situation, Beijing may create problems in Indian states of north-east and Kashmir and might strike at Tibetan bases in India. Pakistan could join sides with China. In retaliation India might encourage the exiled Tibetans based in India to create insurgency in Tibet. In May 1998, an irate Tibetan youth leader already hinted at the urgency of militancy during the funeral of his colleague, while the Chinese general was still in Delhi. This could lead to a long drawn out conventional war in the region in future.


indian chinese relations 1998. 7 years later they haev improved a lot more

www.geocities.com...

more links to chinese-nepalese relations

onlypunjab.com...

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

np2.mofcom.gov.cn...

china has no military intentions on india.

projects.sipri.se...

Yes yes.. Let peace prevail..
we have other common enemies to worry about..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And imagine what a SHAME it will be for China if it is humiliated by India in a war!!..."better in so many things"...

Already humiliated here on this forum...not one post regarding the thread topic by the chicoms....
And btw the dalit bit well that was reported by indiatimes you retard not some foreign press...show me articles where the chinese media denounces its own govt. and social malpractices!!

wasted you again haven't I Hawkss
Next round...bring it on..

Daedalus3 the only person that gets humiliated in this forum is you and china humiliated india in 1962 war. face it we did who controls Askin Chin CHINA DOES.

you haven't even asnwer hawkesss post about chinas ecomony while complaining his off topic while you talk about indias so called democracy.
chinas doesn't stop people reporting they just limit the contents in the news.
go learn chinese then visit chinese websites. CHinese sites Criticize the government for the poor coal mining safty record. they reported the SARS outbreak and also all of chinas migrants and poor living conditions