Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Defense

Pakistan Navy shows it’s muscle. PNS Babur proves its might

 

Pakistan warship damaged part of Indian vessel: IN Naval chief

New Delhi: Days after the brush off incident between their warships in the Gulf of Aden, Indian Navy on Friday said Pakistani ship PNS Babur had damaged a part of INS Godavari by moving too close to it.
Naval Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma indicated that the matter had been taken up with the international coalition of naval forces operating against piracy.
He said PNS Babur, while escorting Egyptian merchant vessel MV Suez which had been released by Somali pirates, brushed off the Indian ship after moving close as it was coming from behind.
“Our ship was going at a particular speed and the other ship approached from the rear as it must have tried to pass at a certain distance… but it didn’t happen as it turned up very close,” Verma told reporters after the incident that occurred last week.
“We operate helicopters from ships and we keep the helicopter nets down (during landings). One of our helicopter nets got damaged,” he said.
The Naval chief said INS Godavari had been sent to reassure the Indian sailors on board the MV Suez after its release from captivity of Somali pirates.
“After that this incident took place where the Pakistani Navy ship came much closer than what is considered to be prudent by anybody operating ships in the seas,” he said.
Asked if the multi-national Combined Task Force 151, under whose command the PNS Babar was operating, had been informed about the incident, Verma said, “You can be sure that everybody knows about that.”
India has already lodged a protest with Pakistan over the incident and provided photographic evidence about the dangerous manoeuvres by PNS Babur.
Explaining anti-piracy operations, Verma said warships closest to the merchant vessels under attack or passing through piracy-affected areas provide help to them.
“Irrespective of which nationality a merchant ship belongs to, you find that whichever navy ship is available close it, comes for help. Similarly, the Suez was released by the pirates and was going for the next port of call and sought some escort,” he said.
The Navy chief said when ships such as MV Suez are released after long periods of captivity, there is a deep sense of fear among the seafarers on board that while they reach the next port of call, they might be hijacked again.
He said the Navy had advised that the ship be provided with a tug and a vessel protection team which was not followed.
The Navy chief, at the same time, said the Indian warship there was escorting two other ships which had 22 Indians onboard and could not have left them to be targeted by pirates.
“When it seemed that the families of the sailors were not sure of their safety, we decided to show the flag of the Indian warship and it means a lot. So we deployed the ship so that they could see the flag,” he said.
On allegations levelled by Pakistan that the Indian warship had postured aggressively and its crew had made obscene gestures against its ship, Verma said the Indian navy conducted itself in the most professional manner during the whole incident. Responding to allegations by the families of Indian sailors that the Navy didn’t help them, Verma said, “When MV Suez was going towards Salalah, there was French ship which was 80-90 miles away, we requested them that the crew is worried about pirate attack. The French Navy sent one of its helicopters over the ship, which was even seen by the crew of Suez.”
“When navies operate, they are not worried to take credit. We perform tasks that are assigned to us,” he added.
Verma said the Indian Navy has escorted over 1,600 merchant vessels through Gulf of Aden in the last two years but only 170 of them were Indian flagships.
“Irrespective of which nationality a merchant ship belongs to, you find that whichever navy ship is available close it, comes for help,” he said.
He said in a similar incident, INS Talwar had provided help to MV Asphalt Venture, which did not have a single Indian on board, after it was released by Somali pirates.
Terming the recent face-off between the navies of India and Pakistan in the Indian Ocean as “momentary confusion”, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna played down the incident and said there was “nothing substantial” in it.
“That was only a momentary confusion. I think there was nothing substantial about it,” Krishna said.
He was replying to a query on how India was reacting to the aggressive gestures shown by Pakistan Naval Ship (PNS) Babur while it was escorting MV Suez in the Indian Ocean.
Following criticism for its slow response to ensure safety of Indian crew member on-board merchant vessel MV Suez, which was released by Somali pirates, India had dispatched a
naval warship INS Godavari to mark its presence in the operation.
Asked about the course of action taken by India to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future, Krishna said, “Well, you know we have a navy ship there which
is patrolling the area. I think this is a recurring, continuing irritant.”
He refused to comment on the on-going Foreign Secretary level talks between India and Pakistan.
“It would not be appropriate for the Ministry to make any comment when Foreign Secretary (Nirupama Rao) herself is on a very important and delicate mission,” Krishna said.

 

 

Posted on: 24 Jun 2011, 10:27 PM

No Comments

Responses to “Pakistani Nuclear Forces 2011”

Responses to “Pakistani Nuclear Forces 2011”

 

Distiller Says:

 

I’d set the 2020 warhead count at at least 250. For one they also have a learning curve, and then I think they want to reach ~350 warheads asap, as that’s about the number that would be needed to hold all Indian urban centres at risk.

 

And looking at their delivery vehicle programmes, I’d say they aim at sea-launched cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, and surface-to-surface ballistic missiles. With the current free falling bombs being just a gap filler.

 

Btw, do you have any info about their capability to remake older warheads into newer smaller ones?

 

Also: Any indications that they are working in higher yield warheads?

 

Reply: Is it Pakistan’s policy to build enough warheads to hold all India urban centers at risk? What is the evidence that they’re working on a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile? I’m not aware of information about Pakistan’s capability to remake older warheads into newer smaller ones or work going on on higher yield warheads. HK

 

Pakistan has mastered all aspects of leveraging Nuclear Technology.  It is geared toward a defensive response to the massive build-up of Indian conventional forces.  The real cutting edge developments are never revealed for obvious reasons.

 

Pakistan has many enemies, including the so-called global “Super-Power,” to make such nemies think twice before launching any conventional adventure.

 

In Pakistan’s strategic thinking US-India-Israel Axis is  pivotal. Ra’ad, Ghauri, and Abdali are part of the defensive triad.

 

The recent reverse engineering of the stealth technology from Abbotabad has been a bonanza and Pakistan’s Defense Production thanks Allah for this gift.

 

In 2020, IA Pakistan will introduce new weaponary, which will keep the world guessing, in both Nuclear and Conventional fields.

 

Folk! You, ain’nt seen nothin’ yet. Stay tuned!  And, don’t let political turmoils lull you into thinking that Pakistan’s Defense Establishment does NOT have the eye on the ball.  More-so it is ever vigilant.  The new Corp Pakistan is raising is for Rapid AIR Deployment!

 

 

 

DANISH ALI AHMAD Says:

 

As far as i know, Pakistan has pre-targeted atleast 27 target inside inside india. Among them 18 are related to major military-airforce-naval and indian ordinance sites and 9 being the urban center. I dont think any country on this earth would have ~350 urban centers (unless otherwise your classification of urban center is limited to 5 km radius).

Until 2002 the major delivery system is based on modified F-16′s but succesful tests in MRBM change the delivery systems. it is now comprises on a- 40% surface to surface (srbm/mrbm). b- 25% Air dropped by F-16′s-migs. c- 20 % Air launched cruise missle- d- 5% precisely placed smuggled weapon inside urban centers. e- which is not developed and tested yet, 10% sea/submarine launch. note: all these weapons are placed and should be used tactically against the traget. examples- far east military targets are to be done by F-16 precise and confirm drop. far east non military sites be taken by surface to surface MRBM and so on.

The NASR system is designed specifically to counter the “COLD START” military strategy adopted by india. It is design to be light weight, precise and shock n awe to disrput, dismantle any cold start like action taken by indian forces.

Irony of the time is, that people and pundits, the most self acclaimed analyst call it a NUKE race but not as major as cold war. It is much more horrible scenerio then soviets vs US. They atleast had 28 minute reponse time to confirm and retaliate against the threat (being so far by each other). But India/Pakistan lies next to each other, there is no response time, not even for 30 seconds. IF a radars in Pakistan picks up a wrong signal or a fake threat, they do not have time To confirm the threat, but to retaliate in seconds. This is dooomed scenerio, and only big powers are responsible for it.

No Comments

Pakistani Nuclear Forces 2011 : Only a Guesstimate, by FAS

This article is only a guesstimate by foreign defense “pundits” Their number are no where close to reality, and a fiction of a wild imagination. Pakistanis rest assured, that it’s arsenal will not protect Pakistan, but is also a nuclear umbrella for all Islamic nations facing nuclear black mail.

Pakistani Nuclear Forces 2011*

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has doubled since 2004 and could double again in the next 10 years if the current trend continues, according to the latest Nuclear Notebook. Click on chart to download full size version.

The latest Nuclear Notebook on Pakistan’s nuclear forces is available on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists web site. Since our previous Notebook on Pakistan in 2009 there have been several important developments.

Based on our own estimates, official statements, and fissile material production estimates produced by the International Panel of Fissile Materials, we conclude that Pakistan’s current nuclear weapons stockpile of 90-110 warheads might increase to 150-200 within the next decade. This would bring the Pakistani stockpile within range of the British stockpile, the smallest of the original five nuclear weapon states, but still far from that of France (despite some recent news reports to the contrary).

This development is precipitated by the anticipated introduction of several new nuclear delivery systems over the next years, including cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles. The capabilities of these new systems will significantly change the composition and nature of Pakistan’s nuclear posture.

India is following this development closely and is also modernizing its nuclear arsenal and fissile material production capability. The growing size, diversity, and capabilities of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear postures challenge their pledge to only acquire a minimum deterrent. Bilateral arms control talks and international pressure are urgently needed to halt what is already the world’s fastest growing nuclear arms race.

No Comments

India cannot become a global power via arms buildup

 

Edited and translated People’s Daily Online
India’s military has used China’s rising comprehensive strength as a cover for its non-stop military buildup in the recent years. India has sought to be a “military power” through active military buildup and budget increases in an attempt to continue to cement its leading position in South Asia and around the Indian Ocean, and develop from a regional power to an influential “global power”.
India has already become the world’s largest arms importing country. India will spend 30 billion U.S. dollars purchasing advanced arms by 2012, including 126 advanced fighters for its air force, Russian-made aircraft carriers and ship-borne weapons for the navy, and main battle tanks and anti-tank missiles for its land force.
India has so far refused to sign the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” and its strategic missile capacity has markedly improved. India has developed “Agni” strategic missiles that have three ranges of 700 kilometers, 2,500 kilometers and 3,500 kilometers and can cover all of its neighboring regions. India also started building its 25th nuclear power reactor in July 2011 and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. plans to put the new nuclear power reactor into commercial operations by June 2016.
India decided at the end of 2010 to spend up to 5 billion U.S. dollars buying four long-range patrol aircraft and four amphibious warships, and purchase 250 to 300 fifth-generation jet fighters from Russia. India’s second independently developed stealth frigate “INS Satpura” commenced service on Aug. 20, 2011, marking a substantial improvement in the combat capacity of India’s navy. The third stealth frigate “INS Sahyadri” is expected to be put into service in 2012 and will be equipped with domestically made and imported weapon systems and sensors. The development and service of Shivalik-class frigates have marked that India has been among a few countries that can build stealth frigates.
In addition, the navy of India is also planning to cope with future emergencies by building two aircraft carrier battle groups and equipping itself with several stealth battleships, submarines and long-range reconnaissance planes. Currently, India has mastered the technology of producing high-quality ship-body steel and therefore do not depend on foreign resources as much as before.
The navy of India already possesses an aircraft named “Virat” bought from the United Kingdom, and is rebuilding and upgrading another named “Vikramaditya”, which will be completed and launched in December of 2012. In August of 2011, the Defense Minister of India A.K. Anthony said that, in addition to the six submarines being built, the navy of India would purchase another six “seventy-five plan” submarines to strengthen the battle effectiveness of its submarine force. Recently, Russia said that it would deliver the Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarine named “Cheetah” to India at the end of 2012. According to the contract, India will rent the submarine for 10 years.
Now, India is still a big regional power and its political influence and military strength are limited in the world. Taking the so-called “China Threat” as an excuse, India is expanding its military strength, but it is still uncertain that whether India will realize its dream of being a leading power, because India’s weak economy is severely unmatched with the image of a leading military power.
In addition, international communities and India’s surrounding countries are all suspecting and even being on guard against this kind of unbalanced development mode. Considering it in the viewpoint of geopolitical strategy and regional security, international communities do not want to see a severe military imbalance in South Asia. International communities generally believe that a relatively balanced military situation in the South Asia and the normalization of the India-Pakistan relations are helpful for the stability and development of the Asia-Pacific Region.

 

India cannot become a global power via arms buildupBy Hu Zhiyong (Jiefang Daily)16:18, September 19, 2011   Edited and translated People’s Daily Online
India’s military has used China’s rising comprehensive strength as a cover for its non-stop military buildup in the recent years. India has sought to be a “military power” through active military buildup and budget increases in an attempt to continue to cement its leading position in South Asia and around the Indian Ocean, and develop from a regional power to an influential “global power”.

India has already become the world’s largest arms importing country. India will spend 30 billion U.S. dollars purchasing advanced arms by 2012, including 126 advanced fighters for its air force, Russian-made aircraft carriers and ship-borne weapons for the navy, and main battle tanks and anti-tank missiles for its land force. 
India has so far refused to sign the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” and its strategic missile capacity has markedly improved. India has developed “Agni” strategic missiles that have three ranges of 700 kilometers, 2,500 kilometers and 3,500 kilometers and can cover all of its neighboring regions. India also started building its 25th nuclear power reactor in July 2011 and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. plans to put the new nuclear power reactor into commercial operations by June 2016. 

India decided at the end of 2010 to spend up to 5 billion U.S. dollars buying four long-range patrol aircraft and four amphibious warships, and purchase 250 to 300 fifth-generation jet fighters from Russia. India’s second independently developed stealth frigate “INS Satpura” commenced service on Aug. 20, 2011, marking a substantial improvement in the combat capacity of India’s navy. The third stealth frigate “INS Sahyadri” is expected to be put into service in 2012 and will be equipped with domestically made and imported weapon systems and sensors. The development and service of Shivalik-class frigates have marked that India has been among a few countries that can build stealth frigates. 
In addition, the navy of India is also planning to cope with future emergencies by building two aircraft carrier battle groups and equipping itself with several stealth battleships, submarines and long-range reconnaissance planes. Currently, India has mastered the technology of producing high-quality ship-body steel and therefore do not depend on foreign resources as much as before.
The navy of India already possesses an aircraft named “Virat” bought from the United Kingdom, and is rebuilding and upgrading another named “Vikramaditya”, which will be completed and launched in December of 2012. In August of 2011, the Defense Minister of India A.K. Anthony said that, in addition to the six submarines being built, the navy of India would purchase another six “seventy-five plan” submarines to strengthen the battle effectiveness of its submarine force. Recently, Russia said that it would deliver the Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarine named “Cheetah” to India at the end of 2012. According to the contract, India will rent the submarine for 10 years. 
Now, India is still a big regional power and its political influence and military strength are limited in the world. Taking the so-called “China Threat” as an excuse, India is expanding its military strength, but it is still uncertain that whether India will realize its dream of being a leading power, because India’s weak economy is severely unmatched with the image of a leading military power. 
In addition, international communities and India’s surrounding countries are all suspecting and even being on guard against this kind of unbalanced development mode. Considering it in the viewpoint of geopolitical strategy and regional security, international communities do not want to see a severe military imbalance in South Asia. International communities generally believe that a relatively balanced military situation in the South Asia and the normalization of the India-Pakistan relations are helpful for the stability and development of the Asia-Pacific Region.

 

16:18, September 19, 2011

No Comments

India’s Stealth War Planning Against China

 

This report originated from India. It reflects the thinking of Indian defense establishment think tank IDSA.  It describes how India is practicing war-games scenarios against China as an adversary.  Although, in a comical way Indians are self-serving in considering India, a nation mired in abject poverty, as an  “Asian Giant.”
China and India at War: Study Contemplates Conflict Between Asian Giants*
 
There are plenty of reasons why China and India won’t go to war. The two Asian giants hope to reach $100 billion in annual bilateral trade by 2015. Peace and stability are watchwords for both nations’ rise on the world stage. Yet tensions between the neighbors seem inescapable: they face each other across a heavily militarized nearly 4,000km-long border and are increasingly competing against each other in a scramble for natural resources around the world. Indian fears over Chinese projects along the Indian Ocean rim were matched recently by Beijing’s ire over growing Indian interests in the South China Sea, a body of water China controversially claims as its exclusive territorial sphere of influence. Despite the sense of optimism and ambition that drives these two states, which comprise between them nearly a third of humanity, the legacy of the brief 1962 Sino-Indian war (a humiliating blow for India) still smolders nearly five decades later.
And it’s alive on the pages of a new policy report issued by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, an independent think tank that is affiliated with India’s Ministry of Defense. “A Consideration of Sino-Indian Conflict” is hardly a hawkish tract — it advocates “war avoidance” — but, by spelling out a few concrete scenarios of how conflict may look between the two countries, it reveals the palpable lack of trust on the part of strategists both in New Delhi and Beijing. The report applauds long-term Indian efforts underway to beef up defenses along the Chinese border, but warns that Beijing may still take action:
In future, India could be subject to China’s hegemonic attention. Since India would be better prepared by then, China may instead wish to set India back now by a preventive war. This means current day preparedness is as essential as preparation for the future. A [defeat] now will have as severe political costs, internally and externally, as it had back in 1962; for, as then, India is yet again contemplating a global role.
While a lot of recent media attention has focused on the likelihood of Sino-Indian clashes at sea, the IDSA report keeps its scope trained along the traditional, glacial Himalayan land boundary, referred to in wonkish parlance as the LAC, the Line of Actual Control. Since the 1962 war, China and India have yet to formally resolve longstanding disputes over vast stretches of territory along this line. Those disputes have resurfaced noticeably in recent years, with China making unprecedented noises, much to the alarm of New Delhi, over its historical claims to the entirety of the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh — what the Chinese deem “Southern Tibet.” The Chinese even rebuked Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for having the audacity of visiting the Indian state during local elections in 2009.
Not surprisingly, it’s in this remote corner of the world that many suspect a war could kick off, particularly around the historic Tibetan monastery town of Tawang. India has reinforced its position in Arunachal with more boots on the ground, new missile defenses and some of the Indian air force’s best strike craft, new Russian-made Su-30 fighters. After decades of focusing its army west against perennial threat Pakistan, India is tacitly realigning its military east to face the long-term challenge of China.
The report speculates that China could make a targeted territorial grab, “for example, a bid to take Tawang.” Further west along the LAC, another flashpoint lies in Kashmir. China controls a piece of largely uninhabited territory known as Aksai Chin that it captured during the 1962 war. Indian press frequently publish alarmist stories about Chinese incursions from Aksai Chin and elsewhere, playing up the scale of Chinese investment in strategic infrastructure on its side of the border in stark contrast to the seeming lethargy of Indian planners. Part of what fuels the anxiety in New Delhi, as the report notes, is the threat of coordinated action between China and Pakistan — an alliance built largely out of years of mutual antipathy toward India. In one mooted scenario, Pakistan, either with its own forces or terrorist, insurgent proxies, would “make diversionary moves” across the blood-stained Siachen glacier or Kargil, site of the last Indo-Pakistani war in 1999, while a Chinese offensive strikes further east along the border.
Of course, such table-top board game maneuvers have little purchase in present geo-politics. Direct, provocative action suits no player in the region, particularly when there’s the specter of American power — a curious absence in the IDSA report — hovering on the sidelines.
Intriguingly, the report seems to dismiss the notion that China and India would clash in what others would consider obvious hotspots for rivalry; it says the landlocked Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan would likely be treated as a neutral “Switzerland”, while Nepal, a country of 40 million that entertains both Beijing and New Delhi’s patronage, is more or less assured that neither of its big neighbors would risk violating its sovereignty in the event of war.
Moreover, the IDSA seems to rule out either side encouraging or deploying proxies in more clandestine struggles against the other. The restive border regions on both sides of the LAC are home to resentful minority populations and more than a few insurgent factions. India and China — unlike Pakistan — have little precedent in abetting militant groups and strategists on both sides would be wary of fanning flames of rebellion that no one can put out.
Yet what seems to stoke Sino-Indian military tensions — and grim prophecies of conflict — are precisely these feelings of vulnerability. The uncertainties posed by both countries’ astonishing economic growth, the lack of clear communication and trust between Beijing and New Delhi and the strong nationalism underlying both Indian and Chinese public opinion could unsettle the uneasy status quo that now exists. Managing all this is a task for wooly-heads in New Delhi and Beijing. But don’t be surprised if more reports like this one come out, drawing lines on the battlefield.

 

China and India at War: Study Contemplates Conflict Between Asian GiantsPosted by Ishaan Tharoor Friday, October 28, 2011 at 2:25 am

There are plenty of reasons why China and India won’t go to war. The two Asian giants hope to reach $100 billion in annual bilateral trade by 2015. Peace and stability are watchwords for both nations’ rise on the world stage. Yet tensions between the neighbors seem inescapable: they face each other across a heavily militarized nearly 4,000km-long border and are increasingly competing against each other in a scramble for natural resources around the world. Indian fears over Chinese projects along the Indian Ocean rim were matched recently by Beijing’s ire over growing Indian interests in the South China Sea, a body of water China controversially claims as its exclusive territorial sphere of influence. Despite the sense of optimism and ambition that drives these two states, which comprise between them nearly a third of humanity, the legacy of the brief 1962 Sino-Indian war (a humiliating blow for India) still smolders nearly five decades later.
And it’s alive on the pages of a new policy report issued by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, an independent think tank that is affiliated with India’s Ministry of Defense. “A Consideration of Sino-Indian Conflict” is hardly a hawkish tract — it advocates “war avoidance” — but, by spelling out a few concrete scenarios of how conflict may look between the two countries, it reveals the palpable lack of trust on the part of strategists both in New Delhi and Beijing. The report applauds long-term Indian efforts underway to beef up defenses along the Chinese border, but warns that Beijing may still take action:
In future, India could be subject to China’s hegemonic attention. Since India would be better prepared by then, China may instead wish to set India back now by a preventive war. This means current day preparedness is as essential as preparation for the future. A [defeat] now will have as severe political costs, internally and externally, as it had back in 1962; for, as then, India is yet again contemplating a global role.
While a lot of recent media attention has focused on the likelihood of Sino-Indian clashes at sea, the IDSA report keeps its scope trained along the traditional, glacial Himalayan land boundary, referred to in wonkish parlance as the LAC, the Line of Actual Control. Since the 1962 war, China and India have yet to formally resolve longstanding disputes over vast stretches of territory along this line. Those disputes have resurfaced noticeably in recent years, with China making unprecedented noises, much to the alarm of New Delhi, over its historical claims to the entirety of the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh — what the Chinese deem “Southern Tibet.” The Chinese even rebuked Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for having the audacity of visiting the Indian state during local elections in 2009.
Not surprisingly, it’s in this remote corner of the world that many suspect a war could kick off, particularly around the historic Tibetan monastery town of Tawang. India has reinforced its position in Arunachal with more boots on the ground, new missile defenses and some of the Indian air force’s best strike craft, new Russian-made Su-30 fighters. After decades of focusing its army west against perennial threat Pakistan, India is tacitly realigning its military east to face the long-term challenge of China.
The report speculates that China could make a targeted territorial grab, “for example, a bid to take Tawang.” Further west along the LAC, another flashpoint lies in Kashmir. China controls a piece of largely uninhabited territory known as Aksai Chin that it captured during the 1962 war. Indian press frequently publish alarmist stories about Chinese incursions from Aksai Chin and elsewhere, playing up the scale of Chinese investment in strategic infrastructure on its side of the border in stark contrast to the seeming lethargy of Indian planners. Part of what fuels the anxiety in New Delhi, as the report notes, is the threat of coordinated action between China and Pakistan — an alliance built largely out of years of mutual antipathy toward India. In one mooted scenario, Pakistan, either with its own forces or terrorist, insurgent proxies, would “make diversionary moves” across the blood-stained Siachen glacier or Kargil, site of the last Indo-Pakistani war in 1999, while a Chinese offensive strikes further east along the border.Of course, such table-top board game maneuvers have little purchase in present geo-politics. Direct, provocative action suits no player in the region, particularly when there’s the specter of American power — a curious absence in the IDSA report — hovering on the sidelines. 
Intriguingly, the report seems to dismiss the notion that China and India would clash in what others would consider obvious hotspots for rivalry; it says the landlocked Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan would likely be treated as a neutral “Switzerland”, while Nepal, a country of 40 million that entertains both Beijing and New Delhi’s patronage, is more or less assured that neither of its big neighbors would risk violating its sovereignty in the event of war.
Moreover, the IDSA seems to rule out either side encouraging or deploying proxies in more clandestine struggles against the other. The restive border regions on both sides of the LAC are home to resentful minority populations and more than a few insurgent factions. India and China — unlike Pakistan — have little precedent in abetting militant groups and strategists on both sides would be wary of fanning flames of rebellion that no one can put out.
Yet what seems to stoke Sino-Indian military tensions — and grim prophecies of conflict — are precisely these feelings of vulnerability. The uncertainties posed by both countries’ astonishing economic growth, the lack of clear communication and trust between Beijing and New Delhi and the strong nationalism underlying both Indian and Chinese public opinion could unsettle the uneasy status quo that now exists. Managing all this is a task for wooly-heads in New Delhi and Beijing. But don’t be surprised if more reports like this one come out, drawing lines on the battlefield.

 October 28, 2011

No Comments