India elected to UNSC as non-permanent member

[kippu]

you guys do have a lot of free time dont you!

 

[blr_p]

Well done, you just insulted everbody that contributed to this thread!

 

[broadway]

I do not consider China an aggressor nation.

I do

Why and quote some sources if you have any ?

I don't know any writers who practice prophecy.

Correction -- Proliferated, China signed the NPT in 1992.

Sounds like an arbitrary argument.

So why did Clinton sanction both us & Pakistan when we tested instead of celebrating with us ?

To appear in equilibrium

Already got our civilian nuclear reactors under the IAEA's watch without having to get us to sign the NPT or CTBT.

N P T N S G X Y Z They break a window and then setup a club called NWB (non-window breaking club)
What they want is for us to play according to their rules. For us to plead to be let into their clubs.
And when we get in, are we supposed to rejoice? They owe us a favour? I don't think so.

What ?!? This statement makes no sense unless you give some background here. When did they do this and with what motive

US and china shared a superior subordinate relationship. Or at least, the chinese kept a low profile as much as they could. China is sort of like a sheriff in far east asia under US's authority. Both have their share of problems but both try to respect their respective areas of influence. Both are looking to take advantage of each others weaknesses but they follow some codes which only they recognize and understand.

What does this mean :huh:

The world isn't big enough for more super-powers.

Agree to a certain extent, their hands aren't entirely free though.

Obviously, they has to be covert. Why give the US a case?

Let us see. Taliban might share some power, thats expected but taking over the country like in the past is unlikely.

The US will either leave or take the fight to nuclear pakistan. Both have shared interests wrt india but 9/11 showed that the policy had got too hot to handle. The militant groups are so intertwined that it is difficult to differentiate between the india and the western centric groups. India is all that matters to pakistan. It would never abandon it's policy. Or maybe US could compensate pakistan with something better.

@agupta02
The sheriff could not just invade a country without a reason. It needs a case. China is a whole different country. The americans invaded iraq under the pretext that it had WMD. But the truth is, pre-9/11, the militant groups in the region indirectly proved favourable to the US. Tribal warfare and indo-pak inter-fighting kept them away from the world scene. But after 9/11, the US went looking for answers. It connected the dots and found itty-bitty collaborations from several states in the region. It thought "who"? It chalked out a retribution that would include annihilating any major powers or dictators or militant groups that had the capacity to wage an attack on US soil.

In iraq, it went after saddam and co. It was a success. The americans probably influence the oil contracts in iraq. In a way, it made up for the trillions spent on war efforts.

In afghanistan, it went after osama and co. and is still struggling. It has ended up in proxy warfare as the soviets did. Even worse, it finds itself funding it's own enemies.

The next power in the region is iran. Or specifically, ahmadinejad and co.

 

[spacenoxx]

It does matter a great deal what the IAEA says or there would be no reason to have an IAEA .

I dont mean any disrespect but to suggest that IAEA actually holds that kind of power is a bit naive. Its like the President of India, come to think of it, even the President of the US isnt as powerful as he is on paper. Also the excuse that US invaded Iraq post 9/11 purely because of any terrorist links is strictly for the birds. Infact among the countries supporting (directly/indirectly) Islamic terrorists, Iraq is noweher near the top. 9/11 attack/WMD was just a flimsy excuse to invade and control the country.

India has not lodged any complaints with anyone about this has she ?

I personally felt ashamed/embarassed when we didnt do much about this. We always had good relations with Iraq. We had absolutely no problems with them. And we still looked the other way (sort of).

My parents lived there for 7 years during the 80s and were quite happy/comfortable there inspite of being Hindus in an Islamic country. My mother literally cried for days when the US invaded Iraq. I dont know how bad Saddam's rule was but it couldn't have been any worse than say Iran/China type dictator regimes.

So yes India did/does a fair bit of ass kissing and untill it stops doing so even on issues where one country invades another with a flimsy excuse it doesnt deserve to be part of the UNSC with VETO powers. But then none of the other UNSC members did much either, so may be it will fit right in

 

[blr_p]

I do

Fine, i already explained why i saw them as beligerrent instead. If you, like many, only see it with Indian eyes, you will miss the big picture. How many characterisations for China can they be ? With your version each of her neighbours will have one version whereas in reality there is just one because only the CCP calls the shots.

What complicates things at times is various factions jostle for influence in the CCP, so this is why we see this erratic posture and its directed at others as well and is not solely India centric. I find thinking of it in this way takes a lot of the sting out of those actions and makes it easier to look at them objectively. I think this is crucial because we do not want to overreact to the varous digs that happen and will continue to happen over time. Our response has to measured, firm when necessary and proportional. This signals strength, determination and maturity, something one does not see in the stunts that China's been playing these last few years which come across as mainly opportunistic, knocking on doors feeling the way.

I don't know any writers who practice prophecy.

So there is no basis when you say

By 2025, USA's powers will be constrained to around it's periphery.

It's nothing but pure speculation.

Sounds like an arbitrary argument.

The system is setup so that there are benefits for playing by the rules and costs otherwise. They might get away with it now and then but it all depends on whose version of the story you believe. The two points that matter are '92, signing of the NPT and 2004 when they joined the NSG. The room to manouever for them has gotten tighter.

Whether they can sell those reactors or not to Pakistan given the opposition of the US remains to be seen and its extremely difficult to call right now. Its yet another one of those China situations she foists on the world community to see the reaction. And there is a hell of a lot of disinformation & misstatements in the media about this particular episode.

To appear in equilibrium

Why ? If he wants the countries to fight and clean up after he should be eoncouraging it. Unless he never did want them to fight in the first place. That's the hole in your theory.

N P T N S G X Y Z They break a window and then setup a club called NWB (non-window breaking club)
What they want is for us to play according to their rules. For us to plead to be let into their clubs.
And when we get in, are we supposed to rejoice? They owe us a favour? I don't think so.

The alternative is reinvent the wheel and take decades to do what's already been done. This deal enables us to export our civilian nuke tech whereas in the past we had no entry. Again its not just us its directed at but everyone that won't play by the rules. Goes back to what was said about benefits & costs. We held out while we needed to get our nukes into place, they are there now largely. We have a deterrent and its credible. What benefit is there to hold out longer ? Just pride or anything more tangible.

Clearly we are the weaker party in this relationship and have to do our best to ensure it does not become an exploitative one and i think we've done pretty well on that. Anytime you read someone saying we are being used bear in mind the benefits and measure them against the costs, these types usually play up the costs disproportionately in relation to make their point. In this they do not inform but actually misinform.

US and china shared a superior subordinate relationship. Or at least, the chinese kept a low profile as much as they could. China is sort of like a sheriff in far east asia under US's authority. Both have their share of problems but both try to respect their respective areas of influence. Both are looking to take advantage of each others weaknesses but they follow some codes which only they recognize and understand.

The US & China are like a cpl of drunks leaning on each other walking down the road. If one stumbles the other will too. So when its said the two have adversarial intent towards each other its often forgotten that they have also become very dependent on each other as well. So these two are not configured to take out the other entirely mostly preferring to fight via proxies. There is no idealogical conflict here like with the Soviets, both are capitalist with the Chinese only communist in name.

Their relationship has been characeterised as a badly arranged marriage

I don't get the TOI so do you recall in what context this cartoon was done ? On what date did it appear.

It does illustrate what you said its just that i'm having difficulty seeing where that is.

What was Ajit Ninan thinking or trying to portray when he drew this ?

The world isn't big enough for more super-powers.

It held two once upon a time.

Obviously, they has to be covert. Why give the US a case?

Then its not widespread or rampant. The quantity is tiny in relation to the big picture

It would never abandon it's policy. Or maybe US could compensate pakistan with something better.

Nothing the US can offer, the sole reason for the Pak regime's existance depends on India.

The americans probably influence the oil contracts in iraq. In a way, it made up for the trillions spent on war efforts.

Really, so why did not a single American company bid when Iraq opened up the market ?

The next power in the region is iran. Or specifically, ahmadinejad and co.

US just offered the Saudi's $60 billion worth of toys because they were getting nervous

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

I dont mean any disrespect but to suggest that IAEA actually holds that kind of power is a bit naive.

If they say something is not right, the the others are forced to act, this is all i meant about their word being important. They don't go and enforce thing themselves.

Also the excuse that US invaded Iraq post 9/11 purely ecause of any terrorist links is strictly for the birds. Infact among the countries supporting (directly/indirectly) Islamic terrorists, Iraq is noweher near the top. 9/11 attack/WMD was just a flimsy excuse to invade and control the country.

All will be revealed in good time, you're on the right track you but just need to look at it in a broader way

I personally felt ashamed/embarassed when we didnt do much about this. We always had good relations with Iraq. We had absolutely no problems with them. And we still looked the other way (sort of).

I actually meant this wrt to China selling reactors to the Paks. I've since learnt that we've been actively lobbying the NSG not to go ahead with it. So yes, we have made the right noises. That story is a bit more complicated than i initially had thought.

 

[spacenoxx]

the the others are forced to act, this is all i meant about their word being important. They don't go and enforce thing themselves.

More like the others are forced to 'acknowledge'. The 'act'ing part mostly depends on 'whats in it for them' ;-)

 

[broadway]

Fine, i already explained why i saw them as beligerrent instead.

Aggression / belligerence. Does the semantics matter? If it was all about tibet, if it gifted pakistan nuke tech to keep india away from tibet, if it warned india on arunachal pradesh - did IA go in circles by arguing whether it was being aggressive or belligerent? Surely it is in an offensive posture. Else why would MMS order an increase in the troop presence near the chinese borders.

India has long known to be a nation that provided asylum to victims of persecution and genocide. China can think whatever it wants.

If you, like many, only see it with Indian eyes, you will miss the big picture. How many characterisations for China can they be ? With your version each of her neighbours will have one version whereas in reality there is just one because only the CCP calls the shots.

Chinese doctrine advices it followers to keep away from equals. Notice how it increases it's rattles each time they get their hands on some projects in our neighbourhood. Basically, it's flexing it's muscles. It wants india to accept chinese influence and understand that it won't win in case of an eventuality. It wants to win a diplomatic fight with india but at the same time, prepares itself for a military fight.

The army chief analysed it correctly when he said that incursions were a possibility with china. CCP will not go to war with an equal(almost) because that would spend itself and america would take charge of the diminished in the aftermath.

So there is no basis when you say

It's an opinion based on the increased assertiveness of china and the power struggle the US and china have got into after the financial crisis.

It's nothing but pure speculation.

Yes and no

The system is setup so that there are benefits for playing by the rules and costs otherwise. They might get away with it now and then but it all depends on whose version of the story you believe. The two points that matter are '92, signing of the NPT and 2004 when they joined the NSG. The room to manouever for them has gotten tighter.

I think its all arbitrary and in this case, its minimising any possible future possibilities. They had no choice but to ignore china's past and accept it in NSG. The "some control is better than no control" argument.

Whether they can sell those reactors or not to Pakistan given the opposition of the US remains to be seen and its extremely difficult to call right now. Its yet another one of those China situations she foists on the world community to see the reaction. And there is a hell of a lot of disinformation & misstatements in the media about this particular episode.

I don't know much about this. Isn't it the same thing we had with russia before the nuke deal? But since it's an equal to the indo-us nuke deal, could china not re-sale the uranium to pakistan which it obtained from legal means through NSG countries? Even if it was done in a clandestine manner, would NSG consider removing china? The proliferation fall-out of china is so huge that the NSG countries may tow china's line.

Why ? If he wants the countries to fight and clean up after he should be eoncouraging it. Unless he never did want them to fight in the first place. That's the hole in your theory.

Cause of MAD. India knows that china gave the nukes to pakistan. It doesn't trouble itself over "proof". US knows that india knows. And it wonders whether the retaliation strikes from a first strike on india will go to pakistan or china or both. Would russia shy away from this opportunity? Basically, the trail leads to MAD.

We have a deterrent and its credible. What benefit is there to hold out longer ? Just pride or anything more tangible.

My take on deterrence is that it will hold only as long as one of the parties doesn't start agreeing on costs(man and material). i.e., A is okay with 50 million casualties/destruction etc etc if that is the price for it to finish B. Thoughts like these from A will decide B's decision to stock pile.

What im trying to say is that pre-deterrence and post-deterrence are different but both depend on each other. B's level of lethality dictates A's thoughts. And decides whether deterrence will hold.

In the indo-pak context, india not just up against pakistan but also against china. Our stock pile should be based on china and pakistan's thoughts of agreed upon casualties. Our level of lethality should be what they would consider "unacceptable".

Many think stock pile is primarily meant to be used and confuse themselves with deterrence. But they are wrong. Stock pile is meant to show the level of lethality. Those countries who see our lethality as unacceptable will not cross the threshold till the time they reach to the level of our stockpile. Idiot nations bankrupt themselves in the process and collapse as a result.

I agree that the nuke deal was more good than bad.

There is no idealogical conflict here like with the Soviets, both are capitalist with the Chinese only communist in name.

I don't get the TOI so do you recall in what context this cartoon was done ? On what date did it appear.

I don't know. I saved a few dozen ajit ninan cartoons at random and this was inside it.

It does illustrate what you said its just that i'm having difficulty seeing where that is.

It might as well be a CT but i think it is so. All i could say on my part(which i've said before) is that they have an agreement with each other to run the world. They would rather have each other as adversaries then others or new one's. Also they seem to follow certain principles when dealing with each other.

It held two once upon a time.

Not for a spoilsport.

Then its not widespread or rampant. The quantity is tiny in relation to the big picture

Under the widely accepted assumption that the US would be exiting. So yes, it could be tiny. They could begin accelerating if they realise that the US cannot afford to leave.

Nothing the US can offer, the sole reason for the Pak regime's existance depends on India.

Yup. We are confusing ourselves when to think about pakistan, it's army and it's problems with india. I don't think its it's strive to become equals or betterment of muslims or kashmir either. I think what we have across the border is an "army of conquest" looking for a way to expand on the indian sub-continent through intimidation and force. You think the US policy makers know this?

Really, so why did not a single American company bid when Iraq opened up the market ?

How could you be sure that it didn't? There are other ways. And would they not choose other ways?

 

[blr_p]

Aggression / belligerence. Does the semantics matter?

Yes, because its got less to do with semantics than posture. An aggressor is configured to occupy and hold territory which is entirely different to rattling our chains ever so often. Do you realise the mind game going on here, each time their rattle our chain. It's incredibly cost-effective from a chinese pov and is working since '62

If it was all about tibet, if it gifted pakistan nuke tech to keep india away from tibet, if it warned india on arunachal pradesh - did IA go in circles by arguing whether it was being aggressive or belligerent?

No, they read the situation and acted accordingly knowing what they were up against each time. Do you see the distinction i'm trying to make here ?

The Chinese want us to view them as an agressor, i'm saying not to fall for it.

Surely it is in an offensive posture. Else why would MMS order an increase in the troop presence near the chinese borders.

It creates FUD, what do we do ? the least expensive credible move each time because we have a very long border to defend from two countries.

India has long known to be a nation that provided asylum to victims of persecution and genocide. China can think whatever it wants.

Yeah, thats pretty much our position here

Chinese doctrine advices it followers to keep away from equals.

Where did you get this from ? any links ?

Not that i disagree, but it implies the Chinese are not going to occupy us anytime soon.

Notice how it increases it's rattles each time they get their hands on some projects in our neighbourhood. Basically, it's flexing it's muscles. It wants india to accept chinese influence and understand that it won't win in case of an eventuality.

And our job has been all along to deny them that possibility. Only the pro's (on both sides) know that China is incapable of holding anything if they advance. The citizenry is all awed by their infrastructure and money power and thinks we will lose miserably. Now they know the citizenry controls the govt so then they get us to reduce what our govt can do in exchange. A win for them. So the best thing for China to do is to scare our citizens

It wants to win a diplomatic fight with india but at the same time, prepares itself for a military fight.

Winning diplomatically would defnitely be the goal. Sun-Tzu advocated the best victory was one without firing a single shot.

Is China succeding is the question. If I look at the way the govt behaves i do not think so, but when i see ppl's reactions here i think they have, in the sense the ppl here seem very agitated any time they rattle our chains, just wait & see when the next 'incident' happens. I know i was too, before starting to get more clued into it.

The army chief analysed it correctly when he said that incursions were a possibility with china. CCP will not go to war with an equal(almost) because that would spend itself and america would take charge of the diminished in the aftermath.

agree, not only the US but the Russians might be tempted as well.

It's an opinion based on the increased assertiveness of china and the power struggle the US and china have got into after the financial crisis.

Sure, but you mentioned a date that is only 15 years away. In which the power fo the US would diminish to just her periphery. Looking at her today and seeing this drastic a reduction without offering a reason ? No, the present financial crisis isn't enough to do it.

Owe a million, the bank owns you, owe a trillion you own the bank

There is also the additional requirement that China would have to get into hypergrowth so that it grew a lot faster than today. For every US citizen that does not buy something means one Chinese loses a job. There is too much interdependency between the two for this to happen as soon as you said it would.

I think its all arbitrary and in this case, its minimising any possible future possibilities. They had no choice but to ignore china's past and accept it in NSG. The "some control is better than no control" argument.

agree

I don't know much about this.

Neither did I until agupta pressed it.

Isn't it the same thing we had with russia before the nuke deal?

We did but Russia got constrained by the same rules as well. They made an exception once but Russia is much more dependent on revenue from selling reactors to others than China is.

But since it's an equal to the indo-us nuke deal,

Ho ho wait, NO its not equal to indo-us because the US argued we had a better record with proliferation than the Paks. But the Paks are trying to show that this is actually a double standard and China is trying to say if the US can make exceptions so can she. So it remains to be seen whether she can get away with it or not.

could china not re-sale the uranium to pakistan which it obtained from legal means through NSG countries?

Not to a non-NPT member after joining the NSG or so the theory went until the indo-us thing came along. In our case the US realised there was $$ to be made, to the tune of $150 billion over the years plus the added advantage of a country that was unlikely to be a future adversary. So Pakistan & China are milking it for as much as they can get.

Even if it was done in a clandestine manner, would NSG consider removing china? The proliferation fall-out of china is so huge that the NSG countries may tow china's line.

Well she is now entwined in the nuclear trade with the other NSG members, falling out with them will have consequences and lead to embarassment, none of which is really an obstacle if China is determined to go ahead. So there remains some serious persuading & horse-trading to do. Like $2 billion 'aid' to the Paks instead of civilian nuke deal etc.

Cause of MAD. India knows that china gave the nukes to pakistan. It doesn't trouble itself over "proof". US knows that india knows. And it wonders whether the retaliation strikes from a first strike on india will go to pakistan or china or both. Would russia shy away from this opportunity? Basically, the trail leads to MAD.

Right, so you finally conceded that peace on our neighbourhood is in the US interest

My take on deterrence is that it will hold only as long as one of the parties doesn't start agreeing on costs(man and material). i.e., A is okay with 50 million casualties/destruction etc etc if that is the price for it to finish B. Thoughts like these from A will decide B's decision to stock pile.

But the main aim of both countries deterrence is NOT to lauch. Once started both lose.

What im trying to say is that pre-deterrence and post-deterrence are different but both depend on each other. B's level of lethality dictates A's thoughts. And decides whether deterrence will hold.

No 'post' in the deterrence equation of China, India & Pakistan.

In the indo-pak context, india not just up against pakistan but also against china. Our stock pile should be based on china and pakistan's thoughts of agreed upon casualties. Our level of lethality should be what they would consider "unacceptable".

Many think stock pile is primarily meant to be used and confuse themselves with deterrence. But they are wrong. Stock pile is meant to show the level of lethality. Those countries who see our lethality as unacceptable will not cross the threshold till the time they reach to the level of our stockpile. Idiot nations bankrupt themselves in the process and collapse as a result.

Correct and thats crucial or there is no deterrence to begin with otherwise.

I don't know. I saved a few dozen ajit ninan cartoons at random and this was inside it.

It might as well be a CT but i think it is so. All i could say on my part(which i've said before) is that they have an agreement with each other to run the world. They would rather have each other as adversaries then others or new one's. Also they seem to follow certain principles when dealing with each other.

This would have been true in the 70's when both were in league to counter the soviets and that still does not include keeping India & Pakistan off each other.

If you notice, Obama, MMS & Zardari are identifiable, but who is the presumably Chinese teacher. Also Obama is holding a folder with the initials IKG, what does that mean ? :huh:

Does not look like any Chinese leader of the last two decades and the uniform looks like something from the Mao era. It's bizarre but Ninan hasn't done that for a joke, there is some meaning here which is not clear.

So yes, it could be tiny. They could begin accelerating if they realise that the US cannot afford to leave.

Obama has publicly committed to leaving so he can't backdown now.

Yup. We are confusing ourselves when to think about pakistan, it's army and it's problems with india. I don't think its it's strive to become equals or betterment of muslims or kashmir either. I think what we have across the border is an "army of conquest" looking for a way to expand on the indian sub-continent through intimidation and force. You think the US policy makers know this?

ok, so how do you turn that conquest instinct away from India ?

Make peace with them

Note i do not mention how we do it but that somehow we reach that state between the two countries.

If we do that they will turn against China and China will feel betrayed hyeah:

How could you be sure that it didn't? There are other ways. And would they not choose other ways?

Because the deals went to Chinese companies there is no American involvement in the Iraqi oil industry at all, it was a public process no skull & daggers here.

So this begs the question, if everyone knew it was "for the oil" then something is not right

 

[iamnew]

Obama supports India in UNSC .Now thats a huge change in policy.

 

[sunny27]

^^So? China will veto the above move!

 

[blr_p]

Obama supports India in UNSC .Now thats a huge change in policy.

His statement was...

In the years ahead, i look forward to.....

Is this the kind of answer that we were looking for ? Of course not but i tried not to get your hopes up.

This is known as being diplomatic without pissing off your host.

Short answer, not now, its better than before, let's leave it at that but not really a huge change in policy at all

There were much better positives on offer than this for a trip that was good but not great.

 

[Spacescreamer]

the way bamas been dancing and been coochie cooing with the pm's family, clearly they been trying overboard to show how much they adore India beyond the business aspect.

Well played Mr USA n not to forget, the Lady deserves credit too.

 

[broadway]

Do you realise the mind game going on here, each time their rattle our chain. It's incredibly cost-effective from a chinese pov and is working since '62

Im not sure. The indian media paints the chinese as aggressors at every opportunity it gets. Do the chinese shrug it off or launch a complaint through one of their daily?

No, they read the situation and acted accordingly knowing what they were up against each time. Do you see the distinction i'm trying to make here ?

The Chinese want us to view them as an agressor, i'm saying not to fall for it.

I don't think its so simple. Aksai chin is still occupied. Arunachal is still disputed according to china. A successor to dalai lama is being awaited from tawang. Long battles are counter-productive. It needs to end the long dispute. So i think it will take its chances during the announcement of the next dalai lama.

Not that i disagree, but it implies the Chinese are not going to occupy us anytime soon.

Not occupy but to keep us constrained within our own periphery.

And our job has been all along to deny them that possibility. Only the pro's (on both sides) know that China is incapable of holding anything if they advance. The citizenry is all awed by their infrastructure and money power and thinks we will lose miserably. Now they know the citizenry controls the govt so then they get us to reduce what our govt can do in exchange. A win for them. So the best thing for China to do is to scare our citizens

India's focus is changing from pakistan to china thanks to arnab goswami and co. In the past, it was all low profile. Today, they have to try to be more clandestine than ever before.

Sure, but you mentioned a date that is only 15 years away. In which the power fo the US would diminish to just her periphery. Looking at her today and seeing this drastic a reduction without offering a reason ? No, the present financial crisis isn't enough to do it.

China is willing to do things that the US would never do. And seeing as the world community is mostly silent on china's actions tells me that the do's and the don't(tha rules) are not so rigid. The conventional way to power will be elusive only as long as the US keeps china away from it. The unconventional way makes strange deals. Would the US wait for china to snatch away some of its powers or would the US willingly give away(minimize losses) before that happens?

The reasons for indo-china 62 are still unknown. It happened during our NAM days. You yourself agree that china is a capitalist under a system that ensures the single party prevails. I think in 62, the trainee acted as instructed by the boss.

Ho ho wait, NO its not equal to indo-us because the US argued we had a better record with proliferation than the Paks. But the Paks are trying to show that this is actually a double standard and China is trying to say if the US can make exceptions so can she. So it remains to be seen whether she can get away with it or not.

Right, so you finally conceded that peace on our neighbourhood is in the US interest

Yes, it is peaceful, as long as india keeps busy with pakistan. If india reacts, it could esclate into something bigger. That used to be the case until china began asking for a greater role.

India-pakistan could go nuclear. But the assumption is that india-china will be traditional.

But the main aim of both countries deterrence is NOT to lauch. Once started both lose.

Nobody is going to launch. Why?
Because both have prepared/capable for any one of the following:
1) A retaliation strike amounting to "unacceptable".
1) Mutually assured destruction or MAD

Both are examples of post-deterrence. Preparing for post-deterrence "is" deterrence.
The stockpile is never meant to be used. They are meant to deter.

No 'post' in the deterrence equation of China, India & Pakistan.

You mean to say if pakistan is a "sane" player? I think the pakistani army is sane and calculated. But even if the chinese army has control over the use of pakistani nukes, do the chinese have control on each and every non-state pakistani? Did it have control on A Q khan's ambitions? You only need "one non-state pakistani" to start something really stupid.

This would have been true in the 70's when both were in league to counter the soviets and that still does not include keeping India & Pakistan off each other.

Yesterday in the indian parliament, obama gave a long speech which was mostly praises meant to go well along with our narcissist personality. There were 2-3 lines which had substance. He mentioned that there were differences during the NAM days and that those days had passed.

NDTV doesn't need to work hard to be anti-bjp. All it has to do is give barkha dutt or teesta setalvad a prime time slot and they'll do it for them. Get it? After 47, the US didn't feel the need to instruct the pakistanis. All the US needs to do is to keep pakistan from falling.

If you notice, Obama, MMS & Zardari are identifiable, but who is the presumably Chinese teacher. Also Obama is holding a folder with the initials IKG, what does that mean ? :huh:

Does not look like any Chinese leader of the last two decades and the uniform looks like something from the Mao era. It's bizarre but Ninan hasn't done that for a joke, there is some meaning here which is not clear.

Here is my interpretation. The time is present. But Mao is kept there to say that the instructions were given in the NAM days itself, way before obama, zardari or MMS. Though, i think it was an agreement in which both benefited.

Just noticed the "IKG". I don't know.

Obama has publicly committed to leaving so he can't backdown now.

I think operations will continue along with drone strikes.

This is known as being diplomatic without pissing off your host.

The UN is america's baby. They want us to play by their rules. Yesterday, obama mentioned how iran and myanmar were "undemocratic". And that "democratic" states are obliged to intervene in "undemocratic" states. And how that "didn't" constitute meddling in domestic affairs.

That will give you an idea of what UNSC is. The reason why i think the members think alike and have shared purpose.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

This has to be the best headline to *summarize yesterdays obama speech in parliament...

Welcome to the club but pay "entry free" - Wrapped in praise, Myanmar punch

As if we do not have enough enemies already in the neighbourhood.

 

[blr_p]

the way bamas been dancing and been coochie cooing with the pm's family, clearly they been trying overboard to show how much they adore India beyond the business aspect.

It's the dancing and talking to ordinary ppl especially the young that made the impact.
They were on a killer charm offensive for sure. Those clips are going to get played on regional tv stations and its going to make a lasting impression on the ppl here.

Well played Mr USA n not to forget, the Lady deserves credit too.

Yeah, some ppl think she made a larger impact than he did

 

[Spacescreamer]

Come to think of it.. there are two big ploys in the works to hoodwink authorities.

1) Bamas doing their jig to impress the Indians.

The 'people connect' logic> Make the inroads with the local population> Media laps it up> keeps it well saturated to sustain for good amount of time> take India for a ride.

2) The Pakistani Wicketkeeper seeking asylum in UK due to 'threats' from bookies.

Run Away to UK> Claim Threats> Prepare Pitch for the 3 tainted players> Players claim threat the reason for being quiet n wrongdoings>hoodwink ICC

 

[blr_p]

Im not sure. The indian media paints the chinese as aggressors at every opportunity it gets. Do the chinese shrug it off or launch a complaint through one of their daily?

Yes and in doing so shapes the perception of many that they really are an aggressor. It keeps getting repeated on talk shows as well by senior diplomats (retired ones thought not active ones). But just try making those statements in other fora and see what the ppl that really know China think

I don't think its so simple. Aksai chin is still occupied. Arunachal is still disputed according to china. A successor to dalai lama is being awaited from tawang. Long battles are counter-productive. It needs to end the long dispute. So i think it will take its chances during the announcement of the next dalai lama.

If you want to end the border problem ensure the next Dalai Lama comes from an area controlled by the Chinese. Deal ?

Also AC is only 10% of the territory they claim, they withdrew from the remaining 90%.

India's focus is changing from pakistan to china thanks to arnab goswami and co. In the past, it was all low profile. Today, they have to try to be more clandestine than ever before.

But the point is they are still trying to be an irritation. I think its mainly because of the Dalai Lama & Tibet. They are insecure over their control of it and consider even the slightest thing an obstacle to their efforts there. Take note of their stance on Kashmir & visas. Now is it more clear.

Would the US wait for china to snatch away some of its powers or would the US willingly give away(minimize losses) before that happens?

They won't give way, they will strengthen the hands of the countries that are against China for as long as possible. This way the balance of power is retained. I don't want to speculate on when & how the US will lose power or concede power as it isn't imminent. Many things could happen in between and change the trajectory.

The reasons for indo-china 62 are still unknown. It happened during our NAM days. You yourself agree that china is a capitalist under a system that ensures the single party prevails. I think in 62, the trainee acted as instructed by the boss.

Unknown only in the sense of an official statement explaining it. We will not ever see this as it may destroy Nehru's legacy. I disagree that this information should be withheld from the people.

Otherwise the reasons are known, it caused many changes here as a direct result.

Yes, it is peaceful, as long as india keeps busy with pakistan. If india reacts, it could esclate into something bigger. India-pakistan could go nuclear.

It won't go nuclear because that would mean the end of the Pak regime

Their aim is to maintain control for as long as possible even at the expense of their own people. They are not going to do a single thing that has a good chance of threatening their hold of power in Pakistan. Their actions over the last two decades has convinced me of this.

But the assumption is that india-china will be traditional.

Doubt this will happen either as there is no tanglible win for either side. What is my proof ?

Notice how China is looking to expand their navy, we are doing the same. Now the only way both countries will even consider expanding Navy is because land borders are secure. This decade will be about how both our countries beef up their navies, they on their side and we in the indian ocean.

Nobody is going to launch. Why?
Because both have prepared/capable for any one of the following:
1) A retaliation strike amounting to "unacceptable".
1) Mutually assured destruction or MAD

Not any one just the first thing you said. MAD is when countries stockpile enough to destroy everything in the other. Neither of the countries is doing this because the number of warheads is very low because they cannot make more at the rapid rates that the US & USSR could.

Both are examples of post-deterrence. Preparing for post-deterrence "is" deterrence.
The stockpile is never meant to be used. They are meant to deter.

No, there is no such thing as post-deterrence. Because if one attacks the other then the latter did not have a credible deterrent to begin with. The idea is to make any nuclear attack unfeasible in the first place and to do it at minimum cost. You need to look up the founders of this doctrine, in our case it is General Sundarji, in the case of the Chinese it is Nie Rongzhen. These two ppl have shaped the nuclear doctrines of their respective countries.

You mean to say if pakistan is a "sane" player? I think the pakistani army is sane and calculated. But even if the chinese army has control over the use of pakistani nukes, do the chinese have control on each and every non-state pakistani? Did it have control on A Q khan's ambitions? You only need "one non-state pakistani" to start something really stupid.

Yes it had control of AQ Khan and when he was caught could easily deny reponsibility as well as accountability. To date they have not allowed anyone to interview him. Access of nukes to any 'non-state pakistani' means the end of the Pak regime so it will not happen

This is the only reason that Pakistan has managed to hold onto its nukes for so long and fully intends to continue doing so into the future. Very sane player, Pakistan is, much more than we give her credit.

NDTV doesn't need to work hard to be anti-bjp. All it has to do is give barkha dutt or teesta setalvad a prime time slot and they'll do it for them. Get it?

So, during the discussion shows, tell me why they have a BJP spokesperson also present anytime a congress of left wing representative is there ?

Of course they will give the first say to those in power and then let the opposition parties counter. I'm not going to deny the spin is liberal, if you want more conservative opinions then we need to allow FOX to enter the country. What is stopping this ? I'm all for more choice & diversity of ideas.

Here is my interpretation. The time is present. But Mao is kept there to say that the instructions were given in the NAM days itself, way before obama, zardari or MMS. Though, i think it was an agreement in which both benefited.

Just noticed the "IKG". I don't know.

Both have benedfitted from an economic perspective there is no doubt. But that does extend into other areas as simply as this cartoon depicts. This is the flaw.

I was watching an analyst speak yesterday and he said the US does not have a offical policy for containment of China. There seems to be more of an engagement policy in place, with other things on the side.

The UN is america's baby. They want us to play by their rules. Yesterday, obama mentioned how iran and myanmar were "undemocratic". And that "democratic" states are obliged to intervene in "undemocratic" states. And how that "didn't" constitute meddling in domestic affairs.

That will give you an idea of what UNSC is. The reason why i think the members think alike and have shared purpose.

They want us to support sanctions against Iran and we are not ready to do so.

Its all give & take and this is what should be expected.

This has to be the best headline to *summarize yesterdays obama speech in parliament...

Welcome to the club but pay "entry free" - Wrapped in praise, Myanmar punch

As if we do not have enough enemies already in the neighbourhood.

From the article

“It is clear that the Americans expect support in return for what they are offering and what they might,” Singh said. “It is not just about Iran. It is a fact of life that in the UN we have probably voted along with the US only a little over 20 per cent of the time. Clearly they want that changed.”

Exactly and they want to see a trend in their favour. As the people connections grow between our countries these understandings will improve. I think its matter of time.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Come to think of it.. there are two big ploys in the works to hoodwink authorities.

1) Bamas doing their jig to impress the Indians.

The 'people connect' logic> Make the inroads with the local population> Media laps it up> keeps it well saturated to sustain for good amount of time> take India for a ride.

Main idea is to make passing legislation that favours the US easier

Things like opening up the various sectors to american MNC's.

 

[Spacescreamer]

The only bright spot i can see is the fact that those pics would be picked up by media agencies of other countries as well and if nobody else, the common people world over will recognize India's importance a bit more.

 

[blr_p]

Those pics are only for domestic consumption, other countries will pick up on the nuances of what he said here. Already Japan & Germany are wondering whether the US feels the same about their chances in the UNSC. We're not the only ones in the queue

Reamains to be seen what kind of a stink China will kick up after this visit to four democratic countries that also happen to have some kind of problem with her.

All this trip was supposed to do was make ppl ties better, the deals signed would have happened whether he visited or not, but still he will tell his ppl that he brought 10 billion from us. This owrks to our advantage because he can counter when ppl say we are stealing jobs from there. This outsourcing thing is going to go away, provided of course the US economy contines to improve otherwise things will get worse.

 

[Yrus]

If India gets into the UNSC with the P5 will we have Veto?

 

[broadway]

India on 2-year probation at UNSC: Yechury

"India has been put on probation by the US for two years, as our term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council has just begun.

"Washington will determine its stand on our (claim for) permanent membership on the basis of positions India takes on issues like Myanmar and Iran. 'Toe our line, then we will decide' is the clear message to India," CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury said on the visit by President Barack Obama.

He said India should strive for permanent membership "on its own strength and not depend on anyone. We should do it on the basis of an independent foreign policy and not as a junior ally of the US".

A superior-subordinate relationship?