Good article touching upon India’s feelings toward China and the ecological warfare China has used.
Note: The United States is also involved in using ecological or environmental warfare.
"They want to infiltrate Egypt and keep a tight lid on Nile tributaries, necessary for Egyptians to survive."
If we control the Nile we are threatening every man, woman and child in Egypt with death unless they do as Bush says. #msg-3680101
At present India and Russia probably have one of the stronger alliances around, except, of course, Tony Blair’s devotion to Bush "Arf! Arf! Rrrrufff!" #msg-3600834
-Am
What If India Had Won The 1962 War Against China?
Magazine / Aug 23, 2004
WHAT IF.... What If India Had Won The 1962 War Against China? Tibet would have been liberated; the loss of face would have made China retreat into its shell instead of becoming an aggressive imperialist....and of course India's Marxists would have been defanged.
RAJEEV SRINIVASAN
Indians have been conditioned to believe that we had not a ghost of a chance against China in 1962; but that’s simply not true. If the Indian government had not been so blasé; if the military leadership had not been so ineffectual; if the Indian Air Force had not been grounded, ill-advisedly; well, all historic ifs, but the outcome would have been very different. China’s army is a lot less than invincible, as the battle-hardened Vietnamese proved by thrashing it in 1979. Even the timing was propitious for India, yet we fumbled. In 1962, China had just experienced four years of decreasing foodgrain production and a major famine.
In 1962, China was weak militarily. If defeated, Tibet would have been free, future water wars avoided, Chinese self-esteem hurt.
Chinese supply lines to the Indo-Tibet border were stretched thin, and could have been disrupted from the air. If only the Indian political and military leadership had not been criminally negligent—which is why the Henderson-Brooks Report on the war has been suppressed, for it would implicate too many in high places—India could have won. The end results would have been dramatic: Tibet would have been liberated; Indians would not have been starry-eyed about China; the loss of face would have made China retreat into its shell instead of becoming an aggressive imperialist.
Tibet was an avoidable catastrophe. First is the decimation of a vibrant Indic culture, that of the Tibetan Buddhists. They have been doubly unfortunate. For, Tibetan Buddhism owes its traditions to the few monks who escaped being beheaded by Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1197 when he sacked Nalanda. And now, in a repeat, they are being exterminated once again, this time by fascist Han Chinese.
In 1962, China was quite weak militarily. If India had created a coalition with Western powers, who worried about the Soviet-China axis, the Han Chinese could have been ejected, and Tibet saved from genocide. The Americans would have cooperated; in those Domino Theory days, they even trained a group of Tibetans for a guerrilla resistance movement back home. India, instead, chose to be gullible "useful idiots", in Chou En-Lai’s dismissive phrase.
However, in addition to altruistic concern for a sister culture, India would have gained concrete things from Tibetan freedom. The plateau is the source of many of the rivers in Asia, and benign Tibetan control over them would have given much of Asia water security: the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Mekong and the Irrawaddy all originate there.
Instead, China plans to divert the Brahmaputra northwards from Tibet. If so, the Ganga-Brahmaputra doab would dry up, and civilisation as we know it would end in North India. This is a national security issue of the highest order, and Indians ignore it at their peril.
Chinese dams across the Mekong are already causing drought in downstream riparian states like Laos and Cambodia. The Chinese deliberately created floods on the Brahmaputra in Arunachal not too long ago. There is every reason to believe China will proceed with diverting water, ignoring India’s objections.
This water war India could absolutely have avoided by routing China in 1962. Similarly, Chinese nuclear missiles in Tibet’s high plains, as well as the dumping of nuclear waste therein, both have serious security and environmental implications for India.
On a more subtle level, the ‘loss of face’ to China would have had incalculable value in geopolitics. At that time, China was viewed with disdain. They got into the UN Security Council only because Nehru, in his infinite wisdom, gave them the seat offered to India! Bizarre experiments with fundamentalist Leninism/Stalinism, including the Great Leap Forward, caused most observers to view China as a freak show.
The bonhomie with the Soviet Union was showing signs of wear; the experiments in collectivisation had not brought the expected benefits; the Great Leap Forward (1958-62), an attempt at using vast amounts of manpower to rapidly industrialise the country, was a colossal failure, and instead created a famine in which as many as forty million perished.
China was vulnerable, its self-image mauled by colonialism, as despised gwailo (foreign devils) had ruthlessly penetrated their hitherto smug, supercilious land, the allegedly impregnable Middle Kingdom. The British, through judicious use of opium, and the Japanese, through military might, had shown Chinese their imperial pretensions counted for nothing in the real world.
A stinging defeat by India would have so seriously hurt Chinese self-esteem that they would not have dared to dream of dominating Asia. They would not be bullying all their neighbours, as in irredentist adventures in Xinjiang, Tibet, Arunachal Pradesh, Spratlies, Mischief Reef, and the Senkaku Islands. Their Sino-Islamic axis, aimed at containing India, would have been stillborn. And they would not have been proliferating nuclear technology so openly to North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
To consider the psychological effect of such a defeat, just look at India. Even though Indians are not quite so worried about ‘face’, the loss damaged the Indian psyche. The shock of betrayal, and the Macaulayite history of defeat that we imbibe through textbooks, have caused Indians to see themselves as losers. The Chinese would have been far more humiliated after a defeat by India.
There would have been more fringe benefits. Everyone respects power and the will to use it. India’s case for the Security Council would have been much stronger. The containment of China through alliances with Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and Russia would have proceeded apace. Pax Indica in the Indian Ocean would have given India a choke-hold on critical shipping routes transporting Persian Gulf oil to China. India would have acceded to the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear weapons state, instead of being bulled by the offensive Chinese-drafted Security Council Resolution 1172 condemning the Pokhran II blasts.
Another side-effect—and in a way, this might have been the greatest benefit to India—would have been the defanging of India’s Marxists. These evangelists for the Church of Marx would have been laughed out of court if they plugged the sayings of Chairman Mao immediately after China had been defeated by India. This would have prevented Marxist infiltration into academia, institutions and the media, which urgently need to be de-toxified from their baleful influence. Furthermore, both West Bengal and Kerala would have been spared decades of under-development and degeneration.
Thus, winning the 1962 war would have made an enormous difference to India. But there is no mistaking the civilisational conflict between India and China. In this millennia-old Grand Narrative, 1962 is a mere skirmish. India colonised Asia softly: with a few exceptions, without military conquest or migration. China colonised by demographic warfare.
Indic ideas went everywhere—West Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Tibet; even China and through it, Korea and Japan. The ideas were enormously influential, and they included religion and philosophy, martial arts, mathematics, language, architecture and mythology. China, on the other hand, depended on demographic thrusts: periodic emigration of Han Chinese took their culture and their industrial arts with them. They were looking for survival, for lebensraum: for China has poor land, and either too little or too much water. This process has continued to the present, with the large Chinese diaspora.
The last word in this monumental competition has not been written.China may be leading right now, but India is surely no pushover any more.
I would have let this pass except for the fact "The first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." China’s two PLA Air Force senior colonels who authored "Unrestricted Warfare" see many new kinds of warfare emerging. These include trade war, financial war, terrorism in the future using new technologies, ecological warfare and news media power. http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:VL4mSpIRuvcJ:www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw2.htm+.... #msg-2380195
And India has complained that Tibet lake could be a weapon in China's hand.
The threat of a lake burst in Tibet portending a catastrophic flood in Himachal Pradesh has exposed India's vulnerability to environmental warfare where nature's forces are manipulated to create deadly weapons, a senior defence official has said. #msg-3806558
While Tsunamis are some of the deadliest natural disasters that can befall populations I also think within our reach to produce.
-Am
Russia, Japan experts start joint tsunami study
17.10.2004, 07.29
YUZHNO-SAKHALINSK, October 17 (Itar-Tass) - Russian and Japanese specialists have started a joint tsunami phenomenon study.
The research work is carried out at the Sakhalin tsunami centre. Representatives of the Japanese agency of sea technologies are taking part in the study.
The specialists within two weeks will be analysing all seismic sea wave phenomena registered in Sakhalin, Kurile Islands and Japan over the past 50 years.
Head of the Sakhalin tsunami centre Tatyana Ivelskaya told Itar-Tass the joint work is aimed at prompt reacting to the appearance of huge dangerous waves in the ocean caused by underwater earthquakes.
The Russian Pacific coast had seen the most horrible tsunami wave hitting the Paramushir island of the Kuriles in 1952. Then the Severo-Kurilsk tow was wiped out and over 2,000 people died.
The monstrous wave was 15-18 metres high. It entered two kilometres inside the island. The wave was evoked by a colossal earthquake of the ocean bed at a front of 800 kilometres.
An underwater earthquake with the magnitude of 5.5 points was registered in the Pacific near the Japanese cities of Yokohama and Tokyo on the night to Sunday.
According to Sakhalin seismology exerts, the quake was weak and did not cause tsunami and even was not felt on the Kuriles.
The worst in history tsunami wave hit the Kurile islands about 6,000 years ago. It was about 30 metres high, Russian specialists established.
Tsunamis are some of the deadliest natural disasters that can befall populations. These deadly phenomena, commonly referred to as "tidal waves," wreak havoc on thousands and are threats to tens of millions. What causes tsunamis, though? Why are they so deadly? These are questions that scientists have struggled with for years and are not even totally solved yet.
The Cause
Until recently it was believed that earthquakes and submarine volcanoes were the primary causes of tsunamis. We now know that a major factor in the creation of tsunamis are undersea landslides. Scientists largely came to this conclusion only around 1998 when a submarine slope collapse caused a 50 foot tidal wave to hit Papua New Guinea. The wave claimed 2200 lives.
Now the waves are caused by some sort of disturbance in the water. Usually that disturbance is wind or tides, but in the case of tsunamis they are more dramatic events. Violent submarine eruptions can cause tsunamis to sweep over nearby areas. The eruptions need not even be totally submarine. Krakatau, Indonesia, in 1883, had so massive an eruption that the island literally blew itself apart, creating a tsunami that killed 31,417 people. When the eruptions occur, they basically push the water and send massive shockwaves that travel through the ocean, radiating as a giant circle around the source (depending on geography). (2.4mb computer simulation of a tsunami)
Earthquakes also cause tsunamis to occur, largely through the same mechanism; that is, sending shockwaves through the water and pushing it. Earthquake-caused tsunamis are more common than volcanic ones simply because earthquakes are more common than catastrophic eruptions.
Finally, as mentioned above, undersea landslides create tsunamis. All that is required to create a "tidal wave" is any sort of displacement of water and a land slide accomplishes just that. Sediments are constantly being deposited in the ocean and, just like on land, there can be a great deal of erosion along slopes beneath the sea. Eventually it will collapse. There are currently studies off the coast of San Francisco, California, looking at past landslides and correlating them with major tsunamis from the past. The most recent one in the area appears to have occurred in 1812 at Santa Barbara.
As the above causes are studied, it becomes apparent that the latter two are not wholly separate. This is because most submarine landslides are the direct result of earthquakes, which means that both are the culprit.
Mechanics of the wave
Above, tsunamis were compared to regular oceanic waves, but in many ways they are quite different. Regular waves usually travel at a brisk pace, but nothing compared to the insane 500 mph of a traveling tidal wave over deep water. Over deep ocean, however, the tsunami is not much larger than the rest of the normal waves. It runs just several feet high, but there is good reason for this. Normal ocean waves only affect the water at the surface, but tidal waves act as shockwaves, often moving thousands of feet deep. Tsunamis are rarely singular, but travel in sets. That is, there are a series of waves following each other, usually of similar magnitude.
When the waves reach shore, however, it is a different situation. In the open sea, the wavelength (horizontal distance between identical points on two successive waves) of the tsunami set is very large; sometimes hundreds of miles. When the waves hit shallow water, they slow down dramatically due to friction. Since the waves have less depth to travel through, they become much larger at the surface and begin looking the way we picture tidal waves. As the front waves slow down, the back ones catch up so that the wavelength now becomes much shorter than before.
Often, the trough can come before the crest. In tsunamis, this can be particularly disastrous. When the trough comes, sea level drops and can completely empty harbors. With fish flopping on the ground and boats sunk in mud where there has always been water, people rush to the shore to see what has happened. It is a fatal mistake as a massive wall of water rushes over the area. This is the only warning the wave gives before it makes landfall and it's a tricky one. When the crest comes first, the only warning it gives is a loud roar as it crashes over you and a big shadow. When tidal waves hit, they aren't like your baywatch surfer waves with nice curls. If you've ever seen a wave break on the beach, picture that times several hundred or thousand. Just a wall of rushing water.
The sea floor can also have a dramatic effect on the shape and size of the wave. For example, if you have a valley shaped floor and/or coastline, the wave can get pinched or trapped, making it rise higher and become even more dangerous. To find out more about the behavior of waves, visit the waves fact.
Predicting the waves
Predicting tsunamis isn't an easy chore at all. When they are formed by undersea collapses, they can't be predicted at all except to say that a submarine region is relatively unstable. The best that can be done is to say that there is a risk of one in the Pacific Ocean due to an earthquake or volcano. Because the waves are so small at the surface, they can hardly be tracked at all. 75% of all tsunami warnings never result in a tsunami. Some, such as the slope collapse in New Guinea in '98 never had a warning. Earthquakes can never be predicted so neither can the tsunamis that result from them except for just after they are produced. Likewise, we can never know the timing and magnitude of a volcanic eruption, making advance notice of a resulting tsunami impossible beforehand.
The death toll
Why are tsunamis so deadly? Well, the problem is with the location of human populations. We like coastlines. In developed countries, they are popular to the wealthy and are big tourist spots. In less developed countries, they remain popular as harbors and fisheries. Either way, you usually get quite a few people by the sea. Moreover, most coastal areas are rather flat and so when a massive wave comes, it can travel over a great deal of land and reach a large number of people. You can't outrun a tidal wave due to the speed, and you can't swim through it if you've been hit with the main body of it.
Background: In addition to altruistic concern for a sister culture, India would have gained concrete things from Tibetan freedom. The plateau is the source of many of the rivers in Asia, and benign Tibetan control over them would have given much of Asia water security: the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Mekong and the Irrawaddy all originate there.
Instead, China plans to divert the Brahmaputra northwards from Tibet. If so, the Ganga-Brahmaputra doab would dry up, and civilisation as we know it would end in North India. This is a national security issue of the highest order, and Indians ignore it at their peril.
Chinese dams across the Mekong are already causing drought in downstream riparian states like Laos and Cambodia. The Chinese deliberately created floods on the Brahmaputra in Arunachal not too long ago. There is every reason to believe China will proceed with diverting water, ignoring India’s objections.
This water war India could absolutely have avoided by routing China in 1962. Similarly, Chinese nuclear missiles in Tibet’s high plains, as well as the dumping of nuclear waste therein, both have serious security and environmental implications for India. #msg-3809132
The threat of a lake burst in Tibet portending a catastrophic flood in Himachal Pradesh has exposed India's vulnerability to environmental warfare where nature's forces are manipulated to create deadly weapons, a senior defence official has said.
The United States is also involved in using ecological or environmental warfare.
"They want to infiltrate Egypt and keep a tight lid on Nile tributaries, necessary for Egyptians to survive."
If we control the Nile we are threatening every man, woman and child in Egypt with death unless they do as Bush says. #msg-3680101
-Am
Water wars are next in South Asia —Khaled Ahmed’s tv Review
SECOND OPINION:
Where there are treaties on river waters, the trouble could be managed through diplomacy. But in cases where there are no treaties, the lower riparians with weak resources will have to eat humble pie. It is better for a lower riparian to have what looks like an unequal treaty. Having no treaty at all goes in favour of the upper riparian
As the climate changes, the states in South Asia will forget their territorial disputes and prepare to go to war on the sharing of waters. Pakistan has two crucial rivers Jhelum and Chenab coming through territory controlled by India. Bangladesh has over 50 rivers controlled by India. In Southeast Asia fully five countries have their rivers controlled by China. In Syria and Iraq, the two famous rivers Euphrates and Tigris can get dried up unless the states have equitable treaties with upper riparian Turkey. Israel controls the water of West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
Writing in Nawa-e-Waqt (August 29, 2004) Malik Habibullah Butt stated that when Nehru offered to Nawab of Bahawalpur that he join India he also told him that Sutlej would be taken away by India. The Nawab rebuffed the offer and joined Pakistan. The Bhakra-Nangal Dam was 90 percent complete under the British and was programmed to water Cholistan, thus a portion of the water was allocated to what became Pakistan. In 1948 India crossed the Ganda Singh Barrage and stopped the waters of Sutlej flowing into Pakistan, thus starting a water dispute. Pakistani committee for assets was incompetent but Ayub Khan proved to be a traitor. He signed an Indus Waters Treaty with India, which gave three rivers — Ravi, Sutlej, Beas — to India. This kind of giving away entire rivers had never been done in human history. What was neglected in negotiations was the underground water which is 40 percent of a river’s real discharge. It is because of this that the underground water of South Punjab had become poisonous, unfit for crops and for drinking.
‘Rivers were sold’ is a slogan being raised in Sindh, Indian Punjab and Held Kashmir. Scarce water is being fought over not by the states alone but provinces within the states. In the coming days, there will be trouble over water. Where there are treaties, the trouble could be managed through diplomacy. But in cases where there are no treaties, the lower riparians with weak resources will have to eat the humble pie. It is better for a lower riparian to have what looks like an unequal treaty. Having no treaty at all goes in favour of the upper riparian. India has a 30-year treaty over the Ganges waters with Bangladesh, but has no treaty over the other 50 rivers that come down through India. The demand for water is so high inside India that it will go ahead with its ‘river-linking project’ even though it knows that Bangladesh’s 50 rivers will go dry as a result of it. Pakistan has been able to successfully challenge some of the Indian water projects over Jhelum and Chenab rivers under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Imagine if it had no treaty binding India to an agreed apportionment of water!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
