邓丽君被成龙玩死内幕 内容太惊人

美国网友评论:从地缘政治看中印边境纠纷

T 大字体2017-08-12 10:16:52 五毛网

战略上,我觉得这对他们在印度洋的地位很有好处,他们与非洲的交易通过此处。

他们也坚决要求处理与不丹的单边问题,挑战印度与不丹之间的附庸国家关系。

sparky_sparky_boom 8分 10天前

There's also another scenario where a Chinese attack through the Chumbi valley is useless for cutting off the Indian northeast. If India can secure transit through Bangladesh, through treaty or force, then Chinese forces would have to cut off a much wider strip across Bangladesh, impossible with only Chinese infantry facing Indian tanks on flat ground.

Considering Bangladesh is smaller and weaker than India, they probably could force passage if necessary. I'm of the opinion that cutting off and holding the Northeast is more likely than not to fail. The recent dispute over Doklam probably isn't part of some larger plan. More likely some poor Chinese schmucks got sent up to pave a road they completely thought was in their country and accidentally sparked a standoff.

另外还有一种情况是中国人通过春丕河谷的袭击对于切断印度东北地区是无用的。如果印度可以通过条约或武力保证运输可以通过孟加拉国,那么中国军队就不得不切断孟加拉国更广阔的地带,这对中国步兵来说是不可能的,考虑到到平原面对印度装甲部队

考虑到孟加拉国比印度更小,更弱,如果有必要,他们可能会强行通过。我认为切断和掌握东北方的可能性并不大。最近对洞朗争议可能不是一些更大的计划的一部分。更可能的情况是,一些可怜的中国笨蛋被送上去铺路,完全认为这是在他们的国家,结果不小心引发了对峙

insipid-fauna 8分 10天前

Problem is going through Bangaldesh to NE India means going across the Jamuna river, and the nearest bridge crossing is ~250 km south of the trijunction area. India would need to secure safe passage through Bangladesh by political means, forcing through Bangladesh a la Blitzkreig style would destroy any goodwill India has with the US (unless China launched an unwarranted offensive). The Siliguri Corridor appears to be a natural chokepoint, otherwise I'm not sure why India is getting so worked up over Doklam.

The recent dispute over Doklam probably isn't part of some larger plan.

The Chinese rarely do anything in international affairs unless they have some greater plan. This would be a rare exception rather than the rule.

问题是通过班加尔德到印度东北部意味着穿过贾姆古河,最近的桥梁交叉点在三联区以南约250公里处。印度需要通过政治手段确保安全通过孟加拉国,强制通过孟加拉国,打闪电战将破坏印度和美国的友好关系(除非中国发动无端的攻势)。 西里古里走廊似乎是一个自然的咽喉,否则我不知道为什么印度在洞朗如此大动干戈。

除非有更大的计划,中国人很少在国际事务中做任何事情。这将是一个罕见的例外,而不是惯例。

sparky_sparky_boom 8分 10天前

If China were to use the Doklam plateau high ground, it would be during an attack. So I doubt any Indian violation of Bangladesh's border would be looked upon that badly. India's not going to randomly cross Bangladesh in peacetime. The fact that Chinese forces on Doklam might force India to cross Bangladesh explains why India wants to keep Chinese forces off, but I have doubts now about the value of Doklam for China or an invasion plan for the Northeast if the Siligiri corridor could be easily bypassed.

I'm not convinced the PRC is always capable of operating with all its parts in concert without ever making a mistake. That's on the level of accussing the CIA being behind every negative event to happen to the US's rivals. No point attributing events to malice when it can also be attributed to error.

如果中国要使用洞朗高原的高地,那将会是在进攻中。所以我认为到时任何印度对孟加拉国边界的违法行为都会被谅解。印度在和平时期不会随机穿过孟加拉国的。事实上,中国在洞朗的军队可能迫使印度越过孟加拉国正说明了印度为什么要中国撤离。但是现在我对洞朗对于中国的价值或印度东北的入侵计划很困惑,如果西里古里走廊可以很容易地被绕过的话。

我不相信中华人民共和国总是能够在不犯错误的情况下与其所有部分合作。这就像指责中情局在每一个负面事件中落后于美国竞争对手一样。把它归因于错误不一定是恶意的。

insipid-fauna 5分 10天前

If China were to use the Doklam plateau high ground, it would be during an attack. So I doubt any Indian violation of Bangladesh's border would be looked upon that badly. India's not going to randomly cross Bangladesh in peacetime. The fact that Chinese forces on Doklam might force India to cross Bangladesh explains why India wants to keep Chinese forces off, but I have doubts now about the value of Doklam for China if the Siligiri corridor could be easily bypassed.

Agreed. I have my doubts as well.

That's on the level of accussing the CIA being behind every negative event to happen to the US's rivals.

False equivalence. The CIA doesn't have authority over the behavior of its US rivals, while the CPC/PLA has authority over its own soldiers. I have extraordinary doubts the expansion of a road in contested territory, and with China reportedly providing a statement to Bhutan and India prior to road construction that they would proceed to build the road, was done by some rogue company of engineers. You don't have to look deeply that China is making deals with its other neighboring countries either.

同意,我也有自己的困惑。

错误的类比,中央情报局对美国对手的行为没有权力,而中共中央军委对自己的士兵有权利。我感觉在争议领土扩建道路是非常可疑的,据中国报道,中国在道路建设之前已经向不丹和印度知会了他们将修路,这是由一些流氓工程公司完成的。你也不必对于中国与其邻国进行交易想得太多。

sparky_sparky_boom 3分 10天前*

If your source is correct and that China asked for permission before starting construction, and only started after receiving no objection, then it seems like they weren't expecting Indian opposition and were blindsided by it. Not really behavior planned to raise tensions at this particular point in time. More likely that they were expecting routine maintenance after notifying neighbors.

Of course, we're running off of rumors at this point. I'm still inclined to believe that large organizations are difficult to control due to many moving parts, personnel interactions, and inner political struggles. Even something that looks as united as the CPC from the outside isn't infallible and probably makes errors even a quarter of the time.

如果你的资料是正确的,中国在开始施工之前要求许可,只有在没有人反对的情况下才开始施工,那么似乎他们没有料到印度的反对,被蒙蔽了。他们没有计划在这个特定的时间点提高紧张局势。更像是在通知邻居之后的常规维护。

当然,在这一点上,我们已经说了很多了。我仍然倾向于认为,由于许多移动部件,人员交往和内部政治斗争,大型组织是很难以控制的。即使是外界认为非常统一的中共也不是绝对的,甚至也会经常出错。

loscrimmage 18分 11天前

That seems to be India propaganda. While it is a remote possibility, I can't see any interests from the Chinese side for actually implementing it. In short, India is not that important.

这似乎是印度的宣传。虽然这是一个遥远的可能性,但我看不到中方实施它会有任何的好处。总之,印度并不重要。

devils_advocate8 0分 11天前

In short, India is not that important.

Really? This is your conclusion? The only peer in Asia that can rival China both economically and militarily, one which shares a border where they’ve already had a war and has $60B worth of trade imports from China isn’t important for China? You’re either seriously misinformed or downright delusional.

That seems to be India propaganda. While it is a remote possibility, I can’t see any interests from the Chinese side for actually implementing it.

Would you care elaborating why this might be Indian propaganda? It’s well documented that this region is strategically important for both India and China. Just because you can’t see why it’s important for the Chinese, doesn’t mean it’s propaganda.

真的吗?这就是你的结论?亚洲唯一能够在经济军事上与中国竞争的对手,领土接壤并打过战争,每年从中国进口600亿美元的国家对中国而言并不重要?你不是被严重误导就是一个彻底的妄想症。

你会关心为什么这可能是印度的宣传?文件表明这个地区对印度和中国都具有战略意义。只因为看不出它对于中国的重要性,并不意味着它是政治宣传。

id815 17分 10天前*

The only peer in Asia that can rival China both economically

India has a lower GDP than France

and militarily

India still relies on Russian tech which is already starting to fall behind China's indigenous tech in several areas.

Russia and Japan are the only 2 countries in Asia that can arguably be considered "peers" of China (not even really) and India isn't even in THAT league.

The only comparable thing India has to China is its population.

印度GDP比法国还低。

印度仍然依赖俄罗斯技术,在很多领域已经开始落后于中国的国产技术了。俄罗斯和日本是亚洲唯一可以被勉强视为中国“对手”的两个国家(甚至不是真的),印度甚至不在其中。印度和中国唯一可比的事情就是人口。

Ali_Safdari 3分 10天前

Lower nominal GDP than France. By PPP terms, India is the third largest, at around 9.5 trillion dollars; which, however, is still less than half of that of China.

And yes, India does rely primarily on Russian tech, only military. Apart from Russian nuclear reactors, not much of Russian tech and products are used in India. Also, what point are you trying to make?

名义GDP比法国低。按PPP计算,印度是世界第三大,约9.5万亿美元; 然而,这仍然不到中国的一半。

是的,印度确实主要依靠俄罗斯科技,但只有军事。除俄罗斯核反应堆外,俄罗斯的技术和产品在印度也不多。此外,你想说明什么?

id815 10分 10天前*

Seems like people like to pick measures to paint a picture they want to tell. Why use PPP over nominal when comparing the spending power between 2 economies? Using PPP is especially absurd when discussing GDP and military together, seeing as a large proportion of Indian money would be spent on Russian military equipment bought on an open market. I'll paste my other reply in this thread below.

PPP GDP isn't a good measure of economic power that a nation can leverage on the world stage compared to Nominal GDP. Nominal GDP shows the total productive output of a country indexed to USD which provides a better base for comparison than PPP, which adjusts for the cost of living in different countries. While adjusting for the cost of living matters when looking at individual well-being in these countries, in the context of the world stage where many different countries trade on an open market, Nominal GDP is a better measure at how much "ammunition" / spending power each economy has.

I didn't really have a point. I was just refuting OP's point about India being the only "peer" / "rival" that can challenge China, and we had a little debate over what "challenge" actually meant.

似乎像人们总喜欢挑选对他们有利的事实。为什么比较两个经济体之间的消费能力时,用PPP而不是名义GDP?在讨论国内生产总值和军事力量时,使用PPP尤其荒谬,因为印度的大部分资金用于在公开市场上购买的俄罗斯军事装备。我将在下面的回帖中粘贴我的其他回复。

与名义GDP相比,购买力平价GDP不是衡量一个国家在世界舞台上的经济实力的一个很好标准。名义GDP显示了一个为美元为单位的国家的总产出,它提供了一个比购买力平价GDP更好的比较基础,购买力平价GDP根据不同国家的生活成本进行了调整。在考虑到这些国家的个人福祉时,根据生活费用调整很重要。但在许多不同国家在公开市场上进行贸易的世界舞台上,名义GDP是衡量每个经济体有多少“弹药”/消费能力的更好指标。

我不想表达什么,只是反对你印度是唯一可以挑战中国的对手的观点,我们对“挑战”实际上意味着什么有个小争论。

Ali_Safdari 2分 9天前

I agree on both your points. India isn't a peer of China, and it'll need atleast 2 decades of the current growth rate to reach China's current nGDP. In the distant future, perhaps both the countries will be on an equal footing, now they definately aren't peers.

精彩推荐

4小时前

分享:

全部评论

网友热评

登录/注册后发表评论

发表评论

应用推荐

战略军事

下载

军情速览

下载

军林秘史

下载

我的路

下载

探索世界

下载