Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US, China, India flex muscle over energy-critical sea lanes
Jawan    10/4/2006 11:12:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061004/pl_afp/uschinaindiamilitaryenergy_061004134103 by P. Parameswaran Wed Oct 4, 9:41 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States, China and India are moving to assert control over the sea lanes through which they receive critical energy supplies amid fears in Beijing of a US blockade of the Malacca Strait in the event of a crisis over Taiwan, experts said. The United States at present has vast control over the major so-called "choke points" on the world's sea lanes, said experts at a recent forum in Washington. Almost all of China's energy imports are obtained through sea and it is worried the United States could hold its oil supply hostage. Beijing is also concerned over its gradually weakening position in the Indian Ocean as New Delhi develops new generations of weapons systems with US support. Moreover, China's naval modernization has focused largely on preparing for possible armed conflict over Taiwan than defending its very long sea lanes, experts said. While it may be difficult for the US navy to interrupt China's sea lanes, "these appear vulnerable" in the eyes of the Chinese military, said Bernard Cole of the US National War College. He said China's energy routes were most vulnerable not on the high seas, but at transit points through several narrow straits. They include Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the 9-Degree Channel in the Northern Indian ocean, Malacca and Luzon straits in Southeast Asia, and the Taiwan Strait, a possible battleground between China and the United States. "The most likely tactic for the United States to employ would be a blockade of Chinese oil port terminals, or of these choke points," Cole said. But should the United States attempt to interrupt the sea lanes, "it would almost certainly mean directly attacking China, directly attacking other nations, interfering with the peacetime passage of third-country tankers at sea, or all of the above," he warned. Chinese strategists have expressed fear in recent reports that in the event of a crisis between Washington and Beijing over Taiwan, the United States could blockade the Malacca Strait and hold 80 percent of Chinese energy imports hostage. As evidence of such a scenario, they pointed to Washington's so called regional maritime security initiative in the Malacca Strait as a first step by the US military to "garrison the Strait" under the guise of "counter-terrorist measures." Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province awaiting reunification but any attack on the island could see a response from the United States, which is bound by law to help defend Taipei. "A focus of Chinese concern has been on the security -- or, more properly, the insecurity -- of the sea lines of communication upon which almost all of China's energy imports travel," said Daniel Blumenthal, a former senior Pentagon official eyeing China's growing military might. China's strategists, he said, were aware Beijing did not exercise naval superiority through the seas linking its ports to the major oil producers in the Middle East. They also know that China was dependent upon the United States and other major powers on ensuring the safe flow of its energy imports, he said. "If China truly does not trust the US and its allies to provide for the security of the SLOCs (sea lines of communication) and is too suspicious to join in common efforts over the long term, it must develop the military capabilities to challenge them," Blumenthal said. Some Western experts believe China is attempting to develop naval capabilities that would allow it to provide security for its oil shipments and project power into the Indian and Pacific oceans. The Pentagon has identified a so-called Chinese "string of pearls" strategy in which a network of bases along sea lanes is being set up. While pursuing this, China is suspicious the United States would use India, with its powerful navy, as a potential balancing force against it. The two democratic allies are already carrying out joint anti-terror patrols along the Malacca Strait, straddling Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. "The strategic consequences of IndiaÂ’s growing naval power are clear. Every additional barrel of oil that China imports leaves Beijing more vulnerable to a disruption of the sea lanes," said Christopher Griffin of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based think tank. "If Delhi's naval modernization effort turns the Indian Ocean into India's ocean, the risk for Beijing may grow unacceptable," he said.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Jawan    Yakeepi!! ur nuts!!   10/6/2006 12:54:36 AM

Ur one crazy chinese dude aint ya!!!! LOL

"As I said, nobody ever tried before, and not any chance India can do that.""

Nobody tried it coz it was not worth it. China was too DARN poor and was buzy with Mao's madness. India is very capable to do it in the present day than it ever was before and with Deigo Garcia, the Americans can CHOKE OFF chinese meant oil indefinitely.
Understand THIS clearly, if u can get through ur head!!! That are the realities on the INdian OCean. THe Indian Navy and the US Navy control that part!!!

"
Indian seems to have an obsolete mind."

India seems to have very progressive and future-looking mind which includes kicking some PLAN A** so beware and stick to capabilities

""
One example, in 1962 war with India, when Chinese troops marched toward Deihi, never India tried to cut Chinese supply lines - even China did have any navy in India Ocean.""

Chinese troopes never marched to Delhi. They could not and were not capable. PLA Fools took some territory and gave it back to India. I Guess ur Masters did not tell you that little detail, did they??

PLAN was nonexistent and during that time chinese got most of their oil from their masters in MOSCOW and not MIDDLE EAST.

Also for your information, THIS IS  2006 and not 1962!!!! Get that fella, chinese are too scared to come over this side. No wonder they are popping up the PAKIS as their slave state, the policy which may blow up in their face in the near future.

Indian Navy is a clear and present danager and huge deterrant to CHina. Add that with growing IN and USN ties, and u have the picture of present day. Mess around with them in INdian Ocean and Chinese supplies from ME are as good as dead.

No wonder China these days is suking up to Iranians and the Russians, Guess they see the whole picture, UNLIKE U YAKEPI, a chinese runaway to Canada.

U should feel safe man, why u so worried about CHinaland.

 
Quote    Reply

xylene       10/13/2006 9:21:04 AM
There are so many Chinese merchant ships. The USA should make a strategy of being able to sieze these ships should conflict arise. Those ships could be used as weapons , for example scuttle some ships in the Suez Canal or Malacca Strait and it puts some serious roadblocks on the sealanes.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/13/2006 11:59:46 PM
The US and its allies also use those straits, they are also to vital commerce.  The US doesn't need to fight in littoral waters, we are the masters of the blue water.  We should just knock out all of their ships in the deep water.  Wipe out all of their ships.
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    A few points to notice   10/18/2006 11:46:59 PM
For America:

Actually attacking shipping near the choke points would entail too much risk.  Sinking a few wrong ships would scare of the major shipping companies and suppliers, thus halting trade between Europe, the middle east and East Asia.  This would likely cause a global economic depression and an end to the American way of life.

Attacking ships bound to China poses it's own logistical challenges.  Since the majority of ships headed for China is not part of the Chinese merchant Navy.  Attacking or seizing these ships would constitute a violation of the laws of nations to potentially scores of different countries.  Moreover, in modern transcontinental shipping, a single tanker ship ususally hold more than just oil for efficiency purposes.  Nor does a tanker usually make only one stop.   Tankers routinely make multiple delivery stops in multiple countries with in-route adjustments based on last minute deals.  So the seizing or sinking of these ships would once again cause a huge disturbance between the economies of the Middle East and East Asia. 

The point being made here is that America is service-based economy, which CANNOT survive in it's present form without the industrial/energy/resource supply chains in East Asia, the Middle East, and Australia.  And this plan to sieze or sink transcontinental shipping will drastically disturb this supply chain without providing a clean way of cutting off energy to China and supplying that energy to American vassal states in Asia.  America can of course choose to throw good judgement to the winds, but there are very negative consequences to the U.S in doing so.


For India:

The question being is really whether it's in India's interest to cut off China's fuel supplies.  While Yakeepi's reasons for saying Indian leaders are stupid are not entirely accurate,  the actual foolishness of the Indian leadership is very apparent.   As we speak, India is cranking up their usage of petro.  Now, yearly increases in Indian petro consumption are largely wasted on systems that can be replaced by non-petrol sources.  We are talking about using petro for ELECTRICITY, HEATING, CARS...etc.   And then there's the actual refinement of petroleum.  India is not an industralized nation, and only possess a limited set of petro and natural gas refineries.  And due to circumstantial reasons, the vast majority of them (over 75%) just happens to be located within relatively easy strike range of the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery elements in China, Burma, and Pakistan.
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/oilandgasmaps/refineries.jpg">

Thus India is not only deepening their dependence on a non-renewable and SHRINKING resource.  They've also managed to cluster their petro processing facilities in easy to hit locations.  In this respect, we must realize that the Indian air defense network is very weak, India does not possess the industrial and technical capability of making their own modern SAMs let alone an integrated C4I to utilize the small number of foreign SAMs that they do have.   China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles.  In that sense, we can LITERALLY afford to lose one strike fighter or cruise missle for each Indian SAM and still easily destroy most of India's refinement capacity.

For China:

Obviously China is dependent upon Middle eastern oil, but less dependent now than even 3 years ago.  If one looks at China's oil usage in the last 5 years, one notices that growth of middle eastern oil is almost flat, thus as a total % of oil imported (it's dropped from 70% in 2000 to around 55% now).  And if one looks at our total oil imports, it's growth is slowing down drastically.  We KNOW that the world's petro supply is running out.   At this point, personal auto sales growth has gone negative due to government disincentives.  Railroads are being massively expanded, and bio-desiel put into production in the major cities. Dozens of wind power plants, dozens of nuke plants, dozens of coal-to-oil conversion plants, dozens of biofuel plants, and scores of coal plants are going up simultaneously in our country to wean us off Middle Eastern petro.  It's obvious to every sensible Chinese person that Petro consumption is a curse, not a blessing.  The goal in the latest 5 year plan is to reduce the total percentage of middle eastern imported petrol to 25% by 2012, and it's entirely doable at the rate we're going.  Petro is already being conserved for critical functions like industrial production, military and cut down for replaceable functions like personal transport.  Every year, while America and India's dependence on that poisen grows, we Chinese are getting a little bit
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    A few points to notice   10/18/2006 11:49:19 PM
For America:

Actually attacking shipping near the choke points would entail too much risk.  Sinking a few wrong ships would scare of the major shipping companies and suppliers, thus halting trade between Europe, the middle east and East Asia.  This would likely cause a global economic depression and an end to the American way of life.

Attacking ships bound to China poses it's own logistical challenges.  Since the majority of ships headed for China is not part of the Chinese merchant Navy.  Attacking or seizing these ships would constitute a violation of the laws of nations to potentially scores of different countries.  Moreover, in modern transcontinental shipping, a single tanker ship ususally hold more than just oil for efficiency purposes.  Nor does a tanker usually make only one stop.   Tankers routinely make multiple delivery stops in multiple countries with in-route adjustments based on last minute deals.  So the seizing or sinking of these ships would once again cause a huge disturbance between the economies of the Middle East and East Asia. 

The point being made here is that America is service-based economy, which CANNOT survive in it's present form without the industrial/energy/resource supply chains in East Asia, the Middle East, and Australia.  And this plan to sieze or sink transcontinental shipping will drastically disturb this supply chain without providing a clean way of cutting off energy to China and supplying that energy to American vassal states in Asia.  America can of course choose to throw good judgement to the winds, but there are very negative consequences to the U.S in doing so.


For India:

The question being is really whether it's in India's interest to cut off China's fuel supplies.  While Yakeepi's reasons for saying Indian leaders are stupid are not entirely accurate,  the actual foolishness of the Indian leadership is very apparent.   As we speak, India is cranking up their usage of petro.  Now, yearly increases in Indian petro consumption are largely wasted on systems that can be replaced by non-petrol sources.  We are talking about using petro for ELECTRICITY, HEATING, CARS...etc.   And then there's the actual refinement of petroleum.  India is not an industralized nation, and only possess a limited set of petro and natural gas refineries.  And due to circumstantial reasons, the vast majority of them (over 75%) just happens to be located within relatively easy strike range of the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery elements in China, Burma, and Pakistan.
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/oilandgasmaps/refineries.jpg">

Thus India is not only deepening their dependence on a non-renewable and SHRINKING resource.  They've also managed to cluster their petro processing facilities in easy to hit locations.  In this respect, we must realize that the Indian air defense network is very weak, India does not possess the industrial and technical capability of making their own modern SAMs let alone an integrated C4I to utilize the small number of foreign SAMs that they do have.   China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles.  In that sense, we can LITERALLY afford to lose one strike fighter or cruise missle for each Indian SAM and still easily destroy most of India's refinement capacity.

For China:

Obviously China is dependent upon Middle eastern oil, but less dependent now than even 3 years ago.  If one looks at China's oil usage in the last 5 years, one notices that growth of middle eastern oil is almost flat, thus as a total % of oil imported (it's dropped from 70% in 2000 to around 55% now).  And if one looks at our total oil imports, it's growth is slowing down drastically.  We KNOW that the world's petro supply is running out.   At this point, personal auto sales growth has gone negative due to government disincentives.  Railroads are being massively expanded, and bio-desiel put into production in the major cities. Dozens of wind power plants, dozens of nuke plants, dozens of coal-to-oil conversion plants, dozens of biofuel plants, and scores of coal plants are going up simultaneously in our country to wean us off Middle Eastern petro.  It's obvious to every sensible Chinese person that Petro consumption is a curse, not a blessing.  The goal in the latest 5 year plan is to reduce the total percentage of middle eastern imported petrol to 25% by 2012, and it's entirely doable at the rate we're going.  Petro is already being conserved for critical functions like industrial production, military and cut down for replaceable functions like personal transport.  Every year, while America and India's dependence on that poisen grows, we Chinese are getting a little bit
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    A few points to notice   10/18/2006 11:49:46 PM
For America:

Actually attacking shipping near the choke points would entail too much risk.  Sinking a few wrong ships would scare of the major shipping companies and suppliers, thus halting trade between Europe, the middle east and East Asia.  This would likely cause a global economic depression and an end to the American way of life.

Attacking ships bound to China poses it's own logistical challenges.  Since the majority of ships headed for China is not part of the Chinese merchant Navy.  Attacking or seizing these ships would constitute a violation of the laws of nations to potentially scores of different countries.  Moreover, in modern transcontinental shipping, a single tanker ship ususally hold more than just oil for efficiency purposes.  Nor does a tanker usually make only one stop.   Tankers routinely make multiple delivery stops in multiple countries with in-route adjustments based on last minute deals.  So the seizing or sinking of these ships would once again cause a huge disturbance between the economies of the Middle East and East Asia. 

The point being made here is that America is service-based economy, which CANNOT survive in it's present form without the industrial/energy/resource supply chains in East Asia, the Middle East, and Australia.  And this plan to sieze or sink transcontinental shipping will drastically disturb this supply chain without providing a clean way of cutting off energy to China and supplying that energy to American vassal states in Asia.  America can of course choose to throw good judgement to the winds, but there are very negative consequences to the U.S in doing so.


For India:

The question being is really whether it's in India's interest to cut off China's fuel supplies.  While Yakeepi's reasons for saying Indian leaders are stupid are not entirely accurate,  the actual foolishness of the Indian leadership is very apparent.   As we speak, India is cranking up their usage of petro.  Now, yearly increases in Indian petro consumption are largely wasted on systems that can be replaced by non-petrol sources.  We are talking about using petro for ELECTRICITY, HEATING, CARS...etc.   And then there's the actual refinement of petroleum.  India is not an industralized nation, and only possess a limited set of petro and natural gas refineries.  And due to circumstantial reasons, the vast majority of them (over 75%) just happens to be located within relatively easy strike range of the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery elements in China, Burma, and Pakistan.
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/oilandgasmaps/refineries.jpg">

Thus India is not only deepening their dependence on a non-renewable and SHRINKING resource.  They've also managed to cluster their petro processing facilities in easy to hit locations.  In this respect, we must realize that the Indian air defense network is very weak, India does not possess the industrial and technical capability of making their own modern SAMs let alone an integrated C4I to utilize the small number of foreign SAMs that they do have.   China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles.  In that sense, we can LITERALLY afford to lose one strike fighter or cruise missle for each Indian SAM and still easily destroy most of India's refinement capacity.

For China:

Obviously China is dependent upon Middle eastern oil, but less dependent now than even 3 years ago.  If one looks at China's oil usage in the last 5 years, one notices that growth of middle eastern oil is almost flat, thus as a total % of oil imported (it's dropped from 70% in 2000 to around 55% now).  And if one looks at our total oil imports, it's growth is slowing down drastically.  We KNOW that the world's petro supply is running out.   At this point, personal auto sales growth has gone negative due to government disincentives.  Railroads are being massively expanded, and bio-desiel put into production in the major cities. Dozens of wind power plants, dozens of nuke plants, dozens of coal-to-oil conversion plants, dozens of biofuel plants, and scores of coal plants are going up simultaneously in our country to wean us off Middle Eastern petro.  It's obvious to every sensible Chinese person that Petro consumption is a curse, not a blessing.  The goal in the latest 5 year plan is to reduce the total percentage of middle eastern imported petrol to 25% by 2012, and it's entirely doable at the rate we're going.  Petro is already being conserved for critical functions like industrial production, military and cut down for replaceable functions like personal transport.  Every year, while America and India's dependence on that poisen grows, we Chinese are getting a little bit
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/19/2006 2:14:36 AM

For America:

Actually attacking shipping near the choke points would entail too much risk.  Sinking a few wrong ships would scare of the major shipping companies and suppliers, thus halting trade between Europe, the middle east and East Asia.  This would likely cause a global economic depression and an end to the American way of life.

Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

Attacking ships bound to China poses it's own logistical challenges.  Since the majority of ships headed for China is not part of the Chinese merchant Navy.  Attacking or seizing these ships would constitute a violation of the laws of nations to potentially scores of different countries.  Moreover, in modern transcontinental shipping, a single tanker ship ususally hold more than just oil for efficiency purposes.  Nor does a tanker usually make only one stop.   Tankers routinely make multiple delivery stops in multiple countries with in-route adjustments based on last minute deals.  So the seizing or sinking of these ships would once again cause a huge disturbance between the economies of the Middle East and East Asia. 

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

The point being made here is that America is service-based economy, which CANNOT survive in it's present form without the industrial/energy/resource supply chains in East Asia, the Middle East, and Australia.  And this plan to sieze or sink transcontinental shipping will drastically disturb this supply chain without providing a clean way of cutting off energy to China and supplying that energy to American vassal states in Asia.  America can of course choose to throw good judgement to the winds, but there are very negative consequences to the U.S in doing so.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.


For India:

The question being is really whether it's in India's interest to cut off China's fuel supplies.  While Yakeepi's reasons for saying Indian leaders are stupid are not entirely accurate,  the actual foolishness of the Indian leadership is very apparent.   As we speak, India is cranking up their usage of petro.  Now, yearly increases in Indian petro consumption are largely wasted on systems that can be replaced by non-petrol sources.  We are talking about using petro for ELECTRICITY, HEATING, CARS...etc.   And then there's the actual refinement of petroleum.  India is not an industralized nation, and only possess a limited set of petro and natural gas refineries.  And due to circumstantial reasons, the vast majority of them (over 75%) just happens to be located within relatively easy strike range of the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery elements in China, Burma, and Pakistan.


Thus India is not only deepening their dependence on a non-renewable and SHRINKING resource.  They've also managed to cluster their petro processing facilities in easy to hit locations.  In this respect, we must realize that the Indian air defense network is very weak, India does not possess the industrial and technical capability of making their own modern SAMs let alone an integrated C4I to utilize the small number of foreign SAMs that they do have.   China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles.  In that sense, we can LITERALLY afford to lose one strike fighter or cruise missle for each Indian S
 
Quote    Reply

Jawan       10/19/2006 4:36:51 AM
""For India:

The question being is really whether it's in India's interest to cut off China's fuel supplies.  While Yakeepi's reasons for saying Indian leaders are stupid are not entirely accurate,  the actual foolishness of the Indian leadership is very apparent.   As we speak, India is cranking up their usage of petro.  Now, yearly increases in Indian petro consumption are largely wasted on systems that can be replaced by non-petrol sources.  We are talking about using petro for ELECTRICITY, HEATING, CARS...etc.   And then there's the actual refinement of petroleum.  India is not an industralized nation, and only possess a limited set of petro and natural gas refineries.  And due to circumstantial reasons, the vast majority of them (over 75%) just happens to be located within relatively easy strike range of the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery elements in China, Burma, and Pakistan """

Cutting CHinese and Pakistani Oil supplies is "OF COURSE" in India's interest. This can effectively finish off the capacity of Paki fighting forces and destroy its economy. This can also cripple the fighting capacity of Chinese forces by almost 50%. The "foolishness aspect". Enemies of India buy into apparent foolishness of Indian leaders very easily (for eg: Pakistan's idiocy of taking on indian leadership and indian armed forces in 47, 65, 71, and 99).

It seems the dictatorial mindset of a communist fails to grasp the meaning "DEMOCRACY", but if the CHinese leaders believe in your apparently stupid assertion of "foolishness of indian leaders" then Communist CHINA as doomed if it comes to a SHOOTIN WAR!!! Fortunately for Communist China's sake, they do not!!!

Strike range of PLAAF AND PAF will basically be blown away rather quickly before they ever come near refineries. With the obselete russian aircrafts and their copies, PLAAF will be no match for the superior IAF. As regards PAF, Paksitan claims of having an "AIRFORCE" in my mind is kind of funny itself. They run hard and fast back to their holes after a few skirmishes with IAF ( as proven in the wars of 65 and 71 when supposedly PAKI Airforce was better armed then IAF). Things are way different in 2006 though!!!! Obselete F-16s and Mirages plus the CRAPY chinese aircraft JF-17 et all, PAF will find itself in more of hole qualitatively than ever before.

Now to the most inept, stupid ,and foolhardy remark about "India not being a industrialized nation". Man, what can I say. There are whole lotta  "stupid" chinese delegations coming to Hyderabad, Banglore, Kolkata, et all to find out how can they do buisness here. These delegations must be real dumb to come to "un-industrialized country" looking for buisness oppurtunties. Some  chinese companies have been here for some time now and have found the going very very difficult. Their crappy products aint selling much here. They are finally discovering India does not need their industrial products as they thought India would. WHY?? Coz India has a huge "industrial base".

Mr. Mithradates, I think you should seriously consider updating your knowledge about INDIA real quick. Ur knowledge about India seems to ""REAL DATED""" in the 1950sss mostly. I believe, there is not going to be a shooting war between India and china in the forseeable future. Both are busy with their economies. But if there happens a shooting war in this part of the world and not a skirmish,  I believe it is going to be the end of Communist CHina. As regards Pakistan, it is already a failed state. It is going self implode in the near future.

 
Quote    Reply

Jawan       10/19/2006 6:01:01 AM
""Thus India is not only deepening their dependence on a non-renewable and SHRINKING resource.  They've also managed to cluster their petro processing facilities in easy to hit locations.  In this respect, we must realize that the Indian air defense network is very weak, India does not possess the industrial and technical capability of making their own modern SAMs let alone an integrated C4I to utilize the small number of foreign SAMs that they do have.   China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles.  In that sense, we can LITERALLY afford to lose one strike fighter or cruise missle for each Indian SAM and still easily destroy most of India's refinement capacity.""

Not only India but everyone in the world is dependent on Non-renewable and SHRINKING resource. Why do you think Bush went into Iraq. Why do u think Chinese are running all around the world looking for oil and sucking up to anyone who has oil. What makes you think the chinese have a wonder resource that is renewable and is not shrinkin?? "IMAGINATION". CHinese is a third world country which is trying to be a first world country. ITs entire economy depends on western nations buying its produce. Economic sanctions during confrontation and CHINA falls like a paper dragan that it really is.

Indian industrial capability is far superior and well organized than the propoganda your masters feed you. India was industialized well before there even existed Communist China. It is growing and growing and with the kind of "QUALITY" investments coming in India and high technology research centers opening up, the sky is the limit. On the contrary, chinese economy is going down the hill. The perpetual habit of the chinese "STEALING" technology that is not theirs is playing a part in the slower growth. Guess what happens in 10 years, china is scraping buy and trying to develope STOLEN technology as its own. THat is what China does with its military equipment. China reverse engineers its russian supplied military equipment and stolen western military equipment, makes a SHODDY copy of, and then tries to pass it off as a "MARVEL OF CHINESE ENGINEERING".

India has  a very strong capacity in making SAMs, buying SAMs, and very good practice in SHOOTING DOWN obsolete aircrafts. J7, J8, J10, J11, J12 et all will be shot down much before they ever reach any refineries

"China otoh has a relatively large number of upgraded precision strike planes, a large number of PGMs and cruise missiles "" Really.  Keep dreaming!!!!

U have little to no information about the capabilities and weapons of INdian Armed FOrces. DO not underestimate India and of course do not OVERESTIMATE the capabilities of PLA. UR way behind qualitatively, way BEHIND. The communist leaders know that. That is why they come to India to shake hands and not to fight....


 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       10/19/2006 11:37:11 PM








In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Cutting off China's oil would not damage the rest of the oil market.  The Arabs will still sell to the US and the EU.  India could still take oil.  Australia would find eager suppliers in Latin America who no longer could ship to China.  Yep, Hugo Chavez would quickly forget about his "socialist allies" in Beijing when Oz delegates show up with cash (and advanced technologies) in hand.  Chavez still sells lots and lots of oil to the US.  China's loss of oil, even by 25% to 35% would shut down the economy...back to smelting pig iron in the village forge.



India's placements are rather foolish.  They do need to start thinking strategically, but despite India's long history, "Great Gamesmanship" seems to have bypassed them.  Fortunately, in a few short years there will probably be 1-2 full sized USAF bases in India.  Count on B52 cruise missile strikes from planes based in Diego Garcia as well as 1-2 CBGs launching sorties.  The PLAN cannot fight in blue water.


Whether it comes from African or the middle east, the tankers have to cross the Indian Ocean which means Diego Garcia.  China also has extensive central asian pipelines, easy targets for Tomahawks.  The US also has extensive bio-diesel tech.  I'd say close to half of commercial truck stops sell biodiesel in the US, independent truckers swear by it.  E85 is also becoming widely available and ethanol pipelines are beginning construction alongside petro-pipelines.  And unlike petro-refineries, small ethanol refineries are popping up everywhere in Canada and the US, most run by independent operators instead of BIG STATE PLANNED PROJECTS.
Yeah, keep believing propaganda about China's weening dependence on oil, most of those planned reactors will need water to run, but China's water is horribly scarce and completely unfit for use.  There is also alot of haggling over tech transfers. 
Got any big character proganda to share with us?













 



Shipping would continue between Latin America, Europe, the US and Africa.  We would still get our goods, though they would be a bit more expensive, but that would force americans to save more (good) as well as shift manufacturing from Asia to Africa and Latin America, both of whom will be extremely happy and willing.  So there will be winners. BTW, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 33% and the US still stood.

And you should know that aside from Europe, neither Latin America nor Africa has significant industrial capacities.  Not even close to the kind of capacity present within East Asia.  And Europe, due to their economic structure, would be hard pressed to supply the even a fraction of the kind of consumer goods base that the U.S service economy needs to survive.  During the depression, the U.S still had a largely regional/enclosed economy and a much larger industrial base.  The amount of interconnectivity with other economic centers is many times the size that it was in the 30s.  One can easily see a U.S unemployment jump to unacceptable levels within weeks if not days of such a foolish action.

In a time of war it is legal to attack ships supplying your enemy on the high seas. Addtionally, I doubt china buys oil by the 1/2 or 1/4 tanker and it is easy enough to get intelligence on where a particular tanker is going.  After a one or two China bound tankers goes down or is turned around, shipping companies will not send any more tankers into a hot zone.

Do you even understand how modern supertankers work?  Within each supertanker there are separate storage tanks with individual payloads for each customer port.  A tanker ship usually hits multiple ports in multiple countries in a single trip.  Not only that, to increase efficiency, most tankers dubbs as container transport and resource freight ships during their various stops.  That
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics