Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

None of the USAF trainers my sister has encountered have much respect for the Saudi air force.

 

 

But AMRAAM dont care who pushes the launch button. Anyways, Im surprised no one has developed software to allow something like an S-400 to control fighters in battle.

Air to air combat is significantly more complicated than launching BVRs at the enemy. In the last few conflicts that saw widespread use of BVRs (the Iran-Iraq war and 1982 Bekka valley), there was a tremendous amount of coordination between AWACs, ground controlled radar stations, etc. I have serious doubts that such coordination exists within the Saudi military.

 

The Iranians on the other hand displayed some pretty serious skill and managed to thrash the Iraqis time and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Low oil prices are the silver lining, if you could call it that. My question is how many Su-30's can the Iranians get their hands on. Iran's immediate neighbors have have already spent lavishly on their air forces.

Except their neighbors (minus Israel and Pakistan) are quite incompetent with their fancy equipment.

 

I'm surprised that the Iranians are opting for the Su30 and not the 35.

 

 

Su-30 is a two-seater (Allows them to start phasing out Tomcats) and if they get the Su-30MKK, it's got all of the Su-35 upgrades in it already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None of the USAF trainers my sister has encountered have much respect for the Saudi air force.

 

 

But AMRAAM dont care who pushes the launch button. Anyways, Im surprised no one has developed software to allow something like an S-400 to control fighters in battle.

Air to air combat is significantly more complicated than launching BVRs at the enemy. In the last few conflicts that saw widespread use of BVRs (the Iran-Iraq war and 1982 Bekka valley), there was a tremendous amount of coordination between AWACs, ground controlled radar stations, etc. I have serious doubts that such coordination exists within the Saudi military.

 

The Iranians on the other hand displayed some pretty serious skill and managed to thrash the Iraqis time and again.

 

 

In 1980 or so, this skill would have been degraded by now. The most serious lack is that of AWACS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

There's a pretty big strategic situation revolving around Iran.

 

Russia on one hand, China and Pakistan on another, India on a third hand, and the US on the final hand. Japan is shaping up to play a part in India's hand.

 

 

NEW DELHI: India's commercial contract with Iran for development of Chabahar port has come not a moment too soon for the government. Notwithstanding its presence at Pakistan's Gwadar, where it has developed and acquired operational control of the port , China has also looked to invest in the development of Chabahar port.

Only last month, a Chinese consortium visited the Chabahar free trade zone and expressed interest in developing the port and also building an industrial town there. The head of the Chinese consortium which visited Chabahar was quoted as having said that Chinese companies were eager to invest in the strategically located port.

This followed the visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Iran in January this year when the two countries mentioned in their joint statement development of ports as one of the areas where they could have tangible cooperation.

The intergovernmental MoU signed by Union minister Nitin Gadkari last year for developing Chabahar was also seen as India's response to the interest shown in the Iranian port by China Harbour Engineering Company which runs the Gwadar port in Pakistan.

India had to move quickly in the past few months not just to sign the contract between IPGPL (India Ports Global Private Limited) and Iranian firm Arya Banader but also a confirmation statement between EXIM Bank and Central Bank of Iran confirming availability of credit up to Rs 3,000 crore for the import of steel rails and implementation of India's Chabahar port commitment.

India to invest heavily in Iran, mega projects to cost Rs 1 lakh crore
According to Indian officials, the contract envisages India's investment and participation in the first phase of Chabahar port which involves development of two terminals and five berths with multi-cargo capacity. The contract also comes with specific timelines for its implementation.

India's desperation to seal the contract, in fact, also stemmed from Iran's own conduct in the past few months with Tehran seemingly playing both ends for a while. Even after India had signed the MoU for developing Chabahar last year, Iran's ambassador to India Gholamreza Ansari had warned that India needed to look at benefiting from business opportunities in Iran , once the international sanctions on Tehran were lifted, and not waste time in "cheap negotiations".

The Sistan and Baluchestan governor, Ali Osat Hashemi, hosted another Chinese delegation at Chabahar in October 2015 and announced that Iran would be glad to work with Beijing and provide it with lucrative business opportunities as it had always stood by Iran. He had said he would discuss investment possibilities in Chabahar with both China and Pakistan.
Any sizeable presence of the Chinese in Chabahar will be resented by India even as Beijing's presence grows elsewhere in Iran.

Unlike India, Iran has welcomed China's Maritime Silk Road initiative and, compared to its annual trade volume of $9 billion with India, Iran's trade with China stands at $52 billion. According to many in the government, Chabahar is also important for India to break free from its strategic encirclement by China , which not only controls the Gwadar port but has also restored its presence in Colombo and Hambantota in Sri Lanka.

It is with Japan that India would like to work with for connectivity in India's neighbourhood and New Delhi will closely look at the outcome of PM Shinzo Abe's visit to Tehran a few months from now. While there is no official confirmation yet, Japan is said to be contemplating developing the port and an industrial complex in the free trade zone.

Chabahar port initiative taken by Vajpayee ji. The consequent government should have taken forward. By now this project would have completed. But UPA MFs were busy in looting this country. In this me... Read More
krushna.db

When asked about the likely involvement of Japan in Chabahar , foreign ministry joint secretary handling Iran, Gopal Baglay, said there could be synergies in promoting regional connectivity. but added that it would depend on how comfortable Iran was with it.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-had-to-stave-China-off-to-sign-Chabahar-agreement-with-Iran/articleshow/52423308.cms

 

 

HERAT PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Afghanistan on Saturday to inaugurate a $290 million hydroelectric dam with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the latest Indian investment which highlights strengthening ties between the two countries.

The 42 megawatt Salma dam in western Herat province, bordering Iran, is the second major Indian project after a new parliament complex built under New Delhi’s robust development partnership with Afghanistan.

Modi and Ghani jointly pressed the button on a remote-controlled console, sending torrents of water gushing down the dam as celebrations erupted with balloons released in the colors of the Indian flag.

“I want to give the good news to my people that ‘Afghanistan-India Friendship Dam’ is the prologue to construction of a series of dams that we have undertaken so that our provinces have access to electricity, water, food and work,” Ghani said at the ceremony.

Construction on Salma dam, which will boost Afghanistan’s power capacity and help irrigate thousands of hectares of farm land in a parched landscape, had been stalled by decades of conflict.

“Afghans and Indians dreamt of this project in the 1970s,” Modi said.

“Today the brave Afghan people are sending a message that the forces of destruction, death, denial and domination shall not prevail. It is a historic moment of emotion and pride in the relations between Afghanistan and India.”

India, the fifth largest bilateral donor in Afghanistan, has been a key supporter of Kabul’s government and has poured more than $2 billion into the country since the Taliban was toppled from power in 2001.

New Delhi’s active engagement has led analysts to point to the threat of a “proxy war” in Afghanistan between India and its nuclear-armed arch-rival Pakistan.

Pakistan — the historic backer of the Taliban — has long been accused of supporting the insurgents in Afghanistan, especially with attacks on Indian targets in the country.

In December, Modi inaugurated Afghanistan’s new parliament complex in Kabul, built by India at an estimated cost of $90 million.

A few days after his visit militants launched a 25-hour gun and bomb siege near the Indian consulate in Afghanistan’s Mazar-i-Sharif city.

And in March, Taliban militants fired a barrage of rockets at the parliament complex.

“Destroying is easy and building is difficult. Contrary to those whose main art is destroying and sending messages of destruction, we have taken the difficult responsibility of building prosperity,” Ghani said in a veiled reference to the Taliban.

“We resolutely believe that … prosperity triumphs over destruction. Hope is right and hopelessness is wrong; seeking peace is right and seeking war is wrong.”

Diplomatic relations between New Delhi and Kabul have grown despite a series of attacks on Indian installations in Afghanistan.

The two countries recently signed a three-way transit agreement with Iran to develop its southern port of Chabahar, as Modi visited Tehran last month.

The deal, bypassing Pakistan to connect Iran, India, and Afghanistan to central Asia, would boost economic growth in the region, Modi said at the time.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/04/world/modi-inaugurates-290-million-indian-built-dam-afghanistan/#.V3Z3zPl97cs

 

 

How realistic is the idea to create the Eurasian Partnership that President Vladimir Putin put forward at the World Economic Forum? Should Russia come to the conflict region at all? Pravda.Ru asked these questions to Director of the Center for Strategic Studies "Russia - East-West," Vladimir Sotnikov.

"Russia has already established close economic and political partnership with China. Now it's time to think about the region on the southern borders of the CIS. It goes about such countries as Pakistan, India, Iran and possibly Afghanistan.

India and China maintain normal diplomatic relations. The countries exchange visits, including at the highest level. Yet, the potential for conflict still persists since the time of the border war in 1962, when the Chinese, according to India, conquered 22,000 square kilometers of the Indian territory. This question still remains open, but it does not stop the countries from developing their relations.

"Another pair is India and Pakistan. There is also a territorial dispute between them - the problem of Kashmir. The roots of this conflict go even deeper - to 1947, and there is no solution for the conflict in sight. The potential for the conflict of this confrontation remains very high.
"I would like to emphasize that China India and Pakistan are nuclear powers."

"India, China and Pakistan are three nuclear powers. India and China retain economic, political and geopolitical rivalries. India has an uneasy relationship with Pakistan, while Pakistan has established a very good relationship with China."

"True, the Pakistanis refer to China as their brotherly nation and an "all-weather friend."

"And China, of course, takes advantage of it for the sake of its geostrategic interests. It goes about in particular, the transit potential of Pakistan."

"The Chinese were actively involved in financing the construction of the deepwater port of Gwadar. The first stage of its construction is near completion. The works were conducted by Chinese state-owned and private companies. In fact, the Chinese have been following the strategy to gain access to warm seas. With the Pakistani port of Gwadar, China becomes a major player in the Indian Ocean.

"In response, India aims to develop cooperation with Iran. There is a long-standing project of an oil and gas pipeline from Iran to India. At the same time, India is building a Gwadar-like port in Iran - Chabahar. It just so happens that there are two competing structures being created. Gwadar and Chabahar are located in two different countries in the historic Baluchistan - the territory, similar to Kurdistan, that is divided between several countries, but populated by one nation - the Baluchis.

"This is where Russia should think about a very important geopolitical, geostrategic international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). We have already gained quite a rich experience of cooperation with Central Asian states and China in the first place. Noteworthy, India and Pakistan are to become full members of the organization soon.

"Russia should also bear in mind the fact that Central Asia and South Asia attract our, so to speak, Western partners - the United States in the first place. Obama, for example, has recently decided to increase the US military contingent in Afghanistan. The US seeks to retain some kind of stable leverage in the region. All this suggests that, in my opinion, American experts have a very narrow approach to the region - they look at it through the prism of specific projects that need to be implemented. Yet, the idea of the Eurasian Partnership embraces many other goals. This is the primary objective for the activity of the SCO and the troika of Russia-China-India.

 

http://www.pravdareport.com/world/asia/01-07-2016/134891-eurasian_partnership-0/

 

 

Pakistan’s policy makers have underplayed the significance of Iran’s Chabahar Port and its connection with India, Afghanistan, and Central Asia over the years. There is time to re-think and revisit the significance of the Gwadar Port in view of the pact signed by India and Iran on 23 May and its ramifications for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Iran on 22-23 May. The visit has its vital significance as it was the first visit undertaken by a high-level Indian leader in the past 15 years. He signed a pact with Iran to promote Chabahar Port and its connectivity in the region.

Chabahar port is located in Sistan-Balochistan Province on Iran’s south-eastern coast, about 100 km from Gwadar. The port has great strategic significance for India, which will get sea-land access route to Afghanistan Central Asia, Russia, and Europe bypassing Pakistan. This will also end Afghan’s maritime dependence on Pakistan for transit trade, giving a strategic loss to Pakistan.

The US$ 500 million pact between India and Iran, signed at Tehran on 23 May, to develop the strategically located Chabahar port, along with the one with Afghanistan on road and rail network, will counter the China and Pakistan alliance in South West Asia, a BMI Research said that was published in Indian media.

Pakistan’s leaders are still confused over the India-Iran nexus to destabilise Balochistan. The India-Iran pact is a wakeup call for them. Modi termed the India-Iran pact as “alliance against terrorism”. Together, they might target Sunni Islam. How India and Iran are combating terrorism in the region is valuable question to be asked? Facts ran counter to their proclamations. India-Iran nexus is counter-productive to Pakistan’s interests in the region. India-Iran collaboration against Gwadar and Balochistan is unearthed by the arrest of Indian RAW’s agent Kukbhushan Yadav, having Iranian visa, who ran a gold shop at Chabahar. So far Pakistani authorities have not done investigation on this geo-strategic perspective.

Pakistan’s peace talks with the Taliban are not clear yet. They are sabotaged. Confusion runs across the Durand Line. Blame game continues. They say not the CPEC, but the trilateral agreement between India, Iran, and Afghanistan is a real game-changer in the region. They say that both Balochistan and Xinjiang are restive regions and not suitable for trade.

The draft of the Chabahar pact was written in New Delhi in April this year, which aims to create a free-trade corridor of road and rail networks from the Chabahar Port in Iran to Afghanistan. The corridor aims to bypass Pakistan, but it will also reduce distance, time and cost for trade among these countries.

The Chabahar pact will clear the way for India to build an infrastructure network of its own in the region to counter initiatives of both China and Pakistan. India will also help develop the 500 km long Chabahar-Zahedan railway line. Chabahar will be linked with Kandla port in Gujarat and it is only 940 km from Mundra port in Gujarat.

The treaty is a major breakthrough in India’s quarter century relations with Central Asia – an unprecedented step in its long-cherished desire to connect with Central Asia without Pakistan. India-Pakistan partition and conflicts blocked this opportunity to India to enter Central Asia. Now Iran has provided that opportunity to India, which was on limbo due to sanctions on Iran for many years.

India no longer waited to capture this opportunity. For India, it was the right time. The trilateral treaty has neutralised Pakistan and China bargaining position via-a-vis India to a large extent. India could flourish its ties with Afghanistan and Central Asia without the interference of Pakistan. India wants to enhance its US$ 9 billion trade with Iran by competing with Iran-China US$ 52 billion trade. Interestingly, Pakistan-Iran trade is hardly US$ 400 million.

Indian intentions against Gwadar and Pakistan-China corridor and its sabotage activities are well known. It opposes the CPEC as it goes through the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir.

India wanted to break the China’s encirclement from Myanmar to Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. It looks that India, Iran, Afghanistan, Japan, and the United States are working on re-balancing and pivot to Asia restlessly.

Japan has shown keen interest to be a partner of India developing Chabahar port and its industrial zones. Japanese Government has been considering investing in the infrastructural projects at Chabahar. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit Tehran in August to discuss the project. A Japanese delegation has already visited the site and JICA is undertaking feasible studies to execute projects. Japan and India have already built a robust economic partnership across Asia-Pacific. Chabahar is a great collaboration between India and Japan against China and Pakistan. On the contrary, Japan has not shown any interest in Gwadar and entangled with China in South China Sea on territorial issues.

The Chabahar pact is practical manifestation of that ambition. Opposing this, China, Pakistan, and Central Asia (not clear if all or some Republics) would be resisting. Russian support to this evolving bloc is not sure at this time, although America and NATO are opposing Russian moves in Europe and the Middle East and it would be having little choice to support the China-Pakistan partnership.

It is clear that Gwadar and Chabahar are rival and competing ports in the Arabian Sea on the mouth of the Gulf in the India Ocean where super powers rivalry has reached at the peak. They are not sister ports as repeatedly confirmed by Pakistani and Iranian leaders and diplomats over the years.

 

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/06/22/comment/the-chabahar-pact/

 

 

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration on Tuesday batted for India with regards to New Delhi's energy initiative with Iran and Afghanistan via Chabahar, amid residual suspicion and misgivings among some lawmakers whether there could be a strategic and military dimension to the tripartite agreement.

US senators closely examined assistant secretary of state for South Asia Nisha Desai Biswal on the Chabahar deal during a hearing, but the official said Washington recognized that from New Delhi's perspective that Iran represents a gateway into Afghanistan and Central Asia. She had not seen any sign of Indian engagement with Tehran in areas such as military cooperation, which might be of concern to the United States, she added.

"For India to be able to contribute to the economic development of Afghanistan, it needs access that it does not readily have across its land boundary. And India is seeking to deepen its energy relationship with the Central Asian countries and looking for routes that would facilitate that," Desai-Biswal told the Senate foreign relations committee, assuring members that the Obama administration has been "very clear with the Indians what our security concerns have been and we would continue to engage them on those issues."

"They (Indians) have been very responsive and receptive to our briefings, to what we believe the lines are. And we have to examine the details of the Chabahar announcement to see where it falls in that place," she added.

Given President Barack Obama's own outreach towards Iran and US difficulty in maintaining a toe-hold in landlocked Afghanistan because of its problems with Pakistan, Washington is broadly supportive of the Chabahar deal, particularly since it outflanks the China-Pakistan axis in neighboring Gwadar. But such is the reflexive suspicion in US over Iran, often stimulated by the so-called Israeli lobby, that many lawmakers still have reservations about any deal with Tehran.

While some senators wanted to know if the deal to develop the Chabahar port violated any sanctions against Iran, others wanted to know if India was ready to sign a formal security cooperation agreement with the US during Prime Minister Modi's visit to Washington next month. India and the United States have already strengthened their security cooperation in several areas and ''We're looking at what additional areas we can engage in to deepen that cooperation," Biswal replied cautiously.

The pow-wow over India-Iran relations came amid a precipitous slide in US-Pakistan ties over the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mulla Mansour, purportedly while he was returning from Iran under the impression that Pakistan had bought an insurance for him against drone strikes because he was a key figure in talks.

But US officials said he was taken out because he was an obstacle to peace. "Mansour represented an effort to rekindle the war, rekindle the conflict, re-stoke the violence in Afghanistan, and was not interested in pursuing peace. We believe that an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process is the way ultimately to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan," state department spokesman Mark Toner said.

Pakistan's de facto military ruler Raheel Sharif also jumped into the fray on Tuesday, summoning US ambassador to Islamabad David Hale to the GHQ and warning that Pakistan-US ties would be affected, even as the Pakistani media has been kvetching about why Mansour was killed only after entering Pakistan and now while he was more accessible while traveling freely in the Gulf.
TV anchors have been working up a lather wondering if Iran sold him down the drain, even as some Pakistani commentators have been marveling at India's ability to strike a balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia, something Pakistan has been unable to do.

On its part, the Obama administration has pretty much said it will continue to attack terrorist targets in Pakistan if they don't sue for peace and Islamabad and Rawalpindi can stuff it if does not like it.

QUESTION: Do you trust Pakistan when it comes to war against terrorism?
State department spokesman Mark Toner: I think that we have been very clear-eyed and very clear in our interaction with Pakistan where we've believed that they need to do more to root out terrorists, as I said, who find safe haven on some of their territory, and we're going to continue to do that. I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: But is it fair to say, given that you didn't inform Pakistan before the attack, that you do not trust them on these sensitive issues?

Toner: Again, I think what I said just now holds, which is that operational security trumps a need to inform other governments.

 

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-backs-India-Iran-Chabahar-port-deal-despite-residual-suspicion-over-Tehran/articleshow/52438034.cms

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...all this talk about Gwadar and Chabahar are just wish-wash right now. Gwadar was supposed to become operational a decade ago, but to date it can't even compete with Karachi in terms of how many commercial ships actually utilize the port. The recent 45 billion dollar promised investment from China might change this, but again, it's really up in the air. There have been many rumors of the Chinese using Gwadar as a naval base, but again, nearly a decade after inauguration, there hasn't been much Chinese naval activity in that area.

 

Chabahar will very likely go down the same path. Assuming that port actually becomes operational, what incentive is there for ships to utilize Chabahar or Gwadar versus the massive ports in the Gulf countries? Naval bases sound awesome, except they don't generate nearly as much revenue as commercial ports do. It also won't make much financial sense for either Iran or Pakistan to build a port just so a foreign navy can utilize it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...all this talk about Gwadar and Chabahar are just wish-wash right now. Gwadar was supposed to become operational a decade ago, but to date it can't even compete with Karachi in terms of how many commercial ships actually utilize the port. The recent 45 billion dollar promised investment from China might change this, but again, it's really up in the air. There have been many rumors of the Chinese using Gwadar as a naval base, but again, nearly a decade after inauguration, there hasn't been much Chinese naval activity in that area.

 

Chabahar will very likely go down the same path. Assuming that port actually becomes operational, what incentive is there for ships to utilize Chabahar or Gwadar versus the massive ports in the Gulf countries? Naval bases sound awesome, except they don't generate nearly as much revenue as commercial ports do. It also won't make much financial sense for either Iran or Pakistan to build a port just so a foreign navy can utilize it.

 

Lots of people thought China's 9 dash line claim was silly and a lot of hype as well, but then they started the man-made island construction. People thought economic ties would keep tensions raising further, but that has not been the case. PLA Navy is very young in blue water Navy standards. I don't know about the circumstances before China's involvement but China's involvement changes the potential factor by a lot. Planners from all around will have to take it into account now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Eh...all this talk about Gwadar and Chabahar are just wish-wash right now. Gwadar was supposed to become operational a decade ago, but to date it can't even compete with Karachi in terms of how many commercial ships actually utilize the port. The recent 45 billion dollar promised investment from China might change this, but again, it's really up in the air. There have been many rumors of the Chinese using Gwadar as a naval base, but again, nearly a decade after inauguration, there hasn't been much Chinese naval activity in that area.

 

Chabahar will very likely go down the same path. Assuming that port actually becomes operational, what incentive is there for ships to utilize Chabahar or Gwadar versus the massive ports in the Gulf countries? Naval bases sound awesome, except they don't generate nearly as much revenue as commercial ports do. It also won't make much financial sense for either Iran or Pakistan to build a port just so a foreign navy can utilize it.

Lots of people thought China's 9 dash line claim was silly and a lot of hype as well, but then they started the man-made island construction. People thought economic ties would keep tensions raising further, but that has not been the case. PLA Navy is very young in blue water Navy standards. I don't know about the circumstances before China's involvement but China's involvement changes the potential factor by a lot. Planners from all around will have to take it into account now.

 

 

Except that took place in China. The Chinese can do just about anything in their own country....in Pakistan, not so much. Also, most of the 45 billion dollar is pledged. It is to be seen whether even half of that is delivered to Pakistan, and judging by how often international donors (including China) pledge developmental funds to Pakistan yet rarely pay the full amount, I'm not very optimistic...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None of the USAF trainers my sister has encountered have much respect for the Saudi air force.

 

 

But AMRAAM dont care who pushes the launch button. Anyways, Im surprised no one has developed software to allow something like an S-400 to control fighters in battle.

Air to air combat is significantly more complicated than launching BVRs at the enemy. In the last few conflicts that saw widespread use of BVRs (the Iran-Iraq war and 1982 Bekka valley), there was a tremendous amount of coordination between AWACs, ground controlled radar stations, etc. I have serious doubts that such coordination exists within the Saudi military.

 

The Iranians on the other hand displayed some pretty serious skill and managed to thrash the Iraqis time and again.

 

 

 

Those Iranian pilots were all US trained and are now 70 years old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Eh...all this talk about Gwadar and Chabahar are just wish-wash right now. Gwadar was supposed to become operational a decade ago, but to date it can't even compete with Karachi in terms of how many commercial ships actually utilize the port. The recent 45 billion dollar promised investment from China might change this, but again, it's really up in the air. There have been many rumors of the Chinese using Gwadar as a naval base, but again, nearly a decade after inauguration, there hasn't been much Chinese naval activity in that area.

 

Chabahar will very likely go down the same path. Assuming that port actually becomes operational, what incentive is there for ships to utilize Chabahar or Gwadar versus the massive ports in the Gulf countries? Naval bases sound awesome, except they don't generate nearly as much revenue as commercial ports do. It also won't make much financial sense for either Iran or Pakistan to build a port just so a foreign navy can utilize it.

 

Lots of people thought China's 9 dash line claim was silly and a lot of hype as well, but then they started the man-made island construction. People thought economic ties would keep tensions raising further, but that has not been the case. PLA Navy is very young in blue water Navy standards. I don't know about the circumstances before China's involvement but China's involvement changes the potential factor by a lot. Planners from all around will have to take it into account now.

Except that took place in China. The Chinese can do just about anything in their own country....in Pakistan, not so much. Also, most of the 45 billion dollar is pledged. It is to be seen whether even half of that is delivered to Pakistan, and judging by how often international donors (including China) pledge developmental funds to Pakistan yet rarely pay the full amount, I'm not very optimistic...

The 9 dash line area does not belong to China.

 

Fortunately, China's economy is on the slowdown. So they may not be able to pursue stated plans with the port. We'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lots of people thought China's 9 dash line claim was silly and a lot of hype as well, but then they started the man-made island construction. People thought economic ties would keep tensions raising further, but that has not been the case. PLA Navy is very young in blue water Navy standards. I don't know about the circumstances before China's involvement but China's involvement changes the potential factor by a lot. Planners from all around will have to take it into account now.

 

 

Except that took place in China. The Chinese can do just about anything in their own country....

 

Errr - no. The reason why there's a fuss about the 9-dash line is because it is NOT in China. It's in international waters & the waters of other countries. It's like ... oooh ... Iran announcing that the Persian Gulf up to a few miles from the coasts of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. is Iranian territorial waters, & justifying it on the basis of fishermen from the Persian Empire fishing in those waters.

 

Hey! Portugal could claim the sea up to Newfoundland on that basis! The EU Common Fisheries Policy now applies to the Grand Banks. :D

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK, Island did some pretty shady things in the Cod Wars and they got them legitimized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceland extended its fisheries zone to 50 nautical miles - & got it recognised. The UK was unusual in objecting. Most affected countries accepted the Icelandic move because they were thinking of similar moves themselves. Things were already moving that way, with international discussions about EEZs up to the current 200 nm. All that was codified & internationally accepted under UNCLOS. The Icelanders wouldn't have done it if they hadn't seen that they had a following wind.

 

What China's doing now is saying that it accepts UNCLOS & wants its provisions enforced - except in the South China Sea, which is different from every other piece of sea in the world because China says so & don't you dare argue!

Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK, Island did some pretty shady things in the Cod Wars and they got them legitimized.

As swerve explains, when the cod wars happened it was shady and a bit premature. The world was moving into that direction though.

 

But since then we have the 200 nautical miles zones off the coast. And "coast" may mean a rock barely sticking out of the ocean surface. These most recent rules are the biggest run for claims in history. But apart from the Spratleys etc. susprisingly peaceful so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the same time, China is not a bully and is being victimized.

Reminds me of third wave feminism each tine I read something PRC puts something out. Oh poor china, always violated by evil western colonial powers. Really, since Mao took power that has not been the case anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But since then we have the 200 nautical miles zones off the coast. And "coast" may mean a rock barely sticking out of the ocean surface.

 

Actually, no. "Rocks, shoals and reefs" are specifically excluded under UNCLOS rules from having territorial waters or EEZs. China's objection to Japan's claim of territorial waters & an EEZ around Okinotorishima is based on this exclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A major point that people seem to continually overlook is that China's 9 dash line grossly violates the EEZ boundaries of the Philippines and Vietnam. And China talks as if it, not the Philippines, follows the UNCLOS rules properly. It is so outrageously wrong.

 

South-China-SeaEEz9dashline.jpg

 

Scarborough Shoal is within the EEZ of the Philippines. Yet PRC coast guard ships go there and block the Philippine fishermen from fishing there. They blocked it for 4 years. It was only a month or two ago that they stopped because of the up coming tribunal and an attempt to carrot the new Philippine president.

 

If you carefully compare the map above and the next map, you will see how Mischief reef is also within the EEZ of the Philippines.

 

 

Mischief reef is 250km from Palawan island. Palawan island is the long slim Philippine island. So MIschief Reef's 250km distance is within the 200 nautical mile of the Philippines EEZ. Yet look what China who is doing to it...

 

Mischief%2BReef0001.jpg

 

Mischief%2BReef0002.jpg

 

Mischief%2BReefSept2015001.jpg

 

Mischief%2BReef004.jpg

 

 

Was Iceland building 3,000 meter long military base runways in the EEZ's of other countries too?

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But since then we have the 200 nautical miles zones off the coast. And "coast" may mean a rock barely sticking out of the ocean surface.

 

Actually, no. "Rocks, shoals and reefs" are specifically excluded under UNCLOS rules from having territorial waters or EEZs. China's objection to Japan's claim of territorial waters & an EEZ around Okinotorishima is based on this exclusion.

True, but one man's rock is another's island. ;) And then the arguing starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...