• India to host Dalai Lama in disputed territory, defying China
    15 replies, posted
[t]http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170303&t=2&i=1174768747&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPED220EJ[/t] [QUOTE][B]Indian federal government representatives will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits a sensitive border region controlled by India but claimed by China, officials said, despite a warning from Beijing that it would damage ties.[/B] GRAPHIC: India-China border tmsnrt.rs/2mhBcGD India says the Tibetan spiritual leader will make a religious trip to Arunachal Pradesh next month, and as a secular democracy it would not stop him from travelling to any part of the country.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://in.reuters.com/article/india-china-dalailama-idINKBN16A0VF[/URL]
China claims an awful lot of territories they have no government presence in, primarily because of the natural resources there. Want it? Just try and take it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51909617]China claims an awful lot of territories they have no government presence in, primarily because of the natural resources there. Want it? Just try and take it.[/QUOTE] The fucking US would be dragged into it, no nukes though thank god.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51909726]The fucking US would be dragged into it, no nukes though thank god.[/QUOTE] That's exactly why I don't think China would do it. Also, both China and India have nukes, primarily as countermeasures against each other.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51909932]That's exactly why I don't think China would do it. Also, both China and India have nukes, primarily as countermeasures against each other.[/QUOTE] We also both have a no first use policy in place, so it's not MAD deterring us either. It's more of a "he who strikes first with any form of aggression, faces economic annihilation" Both countries have been really cranking on their economic wheels hard, so they're not going to let a dick waving contest escalate and thwart all those plans.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51909932]That's exactly why I don't think China would do it. Also, both China and India have nukes, primarily as countermeasures against each other.[/QUOTE] China Literally has a fucking wierd doctrine though, No First Use (except when invaded, and may not retaliate if nukes land into their land.)
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51910025]China Literally has a fucking wierd doctrine though, No First Use (except when invaded, and may not retaliate if nukes land into their land.)[/QUOTE] Since we both have a no first use policy, that should settle the matter :P
[QUOTE=archangel125;51910079]Since we both have a no first use policy, that should settle the matter :P[/QUOTE] The US doesn't have a no-first use policy, this is a myth a lot of people seem to believe for some reason. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use[/url] [QUOTE]> United States [B]The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.[/B] The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010. The 2010 Nuclear Posture review reduces the role of U.S. nuclear weapons, stating that, "The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners." The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states: "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;51911050]The US doesn't have a no-first use policy, this is a myth a lot of people seem to believe for some reason. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use[/url][/QUOTE] No, no. I was born in India, and am Indian by background. Sorry, that's what I meant by 'we'. Hilarious that India and China both have a more progressive nuclear weapon policy than the United States, isn't it?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51911069]No, no. I was born in India, and am Indian by background. Sorry, that's what I meant by 'we'. Hilarious that India and China both have a more progressive nuclear weapon policy than the United States, isn't it?[/QUOTE] "Progressive nuclear weapon policy" is a bit of an oxymoron, no? Wouldn't the more "progressive" policy be to not have nuclear weapons in the first place?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51911226]"Progressive nuclear weapon policy" is a bit of an oxymoron, no? Wouldn't the more "progressive" policy be to not have nuclear weapons in the first place?[/QUOTE] In an ideal world, everyone would just get rid of them and not need them. However, reading that article Wizards Court posted, it makes a whole lot more sense why India wouldn't sign the NPT and continue to never sign it - Pakistan isn't no first use (i.e. they reserve the right to use nukes even if the initial attack on them [I]wasn't[/I] a nuclear device and the US pretty much says that they reserve the right to use nukes first to defend their partners and allies (among which they count Pakistan, because.....reasons. :v:). The world as we know is literally suspended by a bunch of very fallible humans and computers doing their level best not to fuck up.
I think India and China are relatively peaceful countries with respect to offensive military actions as compared to the Western counterparts, am I right? Guess "peaceful" is an oxymoron, but you get the point.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;51911265]I think India and China are relatively peaceful countries with respect to offensive military actions as compared to the Western counterparts, am I right? Guess "peaceful" is an oxymoron, but you get the point.[/QUOTE] Peaceful, but wary. India has bigger problems when it comes nuclear energy, like using it to provide power for a billion plus people and infrastructure. Which is why we're going into relatively safe thorium reactors in a big way. Both sides, India and China, lose if they were to go at war. Not only would it be utterly pointless to do so, it would be economically devastating to both countries, who are just getting back on their feet to reach pre-colonial ear levels of prosperity and growth. Nobody wants to see a war, but China needs to posture, to not show weakness in the eyes of its people and India....well it's immune to this behavior because they see right through it and are in full IDGAF mode about it, because they know the truth. It's just a song and dance. If shit was [I]really[/I] serious, China's buddies, Pakistan would be cooking up something on their side of the fence to distract India. That's how it usually works with them, a tag team.
[QUOTE=snookypookums;51911289]Peaceful, but wary. India has bigger problems when it comes nuclear energy, like using it to provide power for a billion plus people and infrastructure. Which is why we're going into relatively safe thorium reactors in a big way. Both sides, India and China, lose if they were to go at war. Not only would it be utterly pointless to do so, it would be economically devastating to both countries, who are just getting back on their feet to reach pre-colonial ear levels of prosperity and growth. Nobody wants to see a war, but China needs to posture, to not show weakness in the eyes of its people and India....well it's immune to this behavior because they see right through it and are in full IDGAF mode about it, because they know the truth. It's just a song and dance. If shit was [I]really[/I] serious, China's buddies, Pakistan would be cooking up something on their side of the fence to distract India. That's how it usually works with them, a tag team.[/QUOTE] China and India don't have to go full "total war" on each other to have a conflict. Neither side went that way last conflict they were in. Odds are, if a war were to break out, it would be limited mostly to the border and the territories under contest and not much further. There would not be PLA troops marching on New Delhi or Indian troops breaking into Beijing.
I don't like to think about India. 1st world countries shouldn't have nukes, anything less and it's just like a loaded gun taped to the ceiling in a child's room.
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;51911447]I don't like to think about India. 1st world countries shouldn't have nukes, anything less and it's just like a loaded gun taped to the ceiling in a child's room.[/QUOTE] Quite. Once the US and Russia dismantle all of theirs, the rest of the world can follow suit. India is proving more responsible with their nukes than the USA ever has. For one thing, it's never used them on human beings. If you're implying India can't be trusted with nukes, or can be trusted less than the USA, you really don't know anything about India.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.