- Instead of eliminating the invaders, Nehru made a deadly mistake: He took the matter for mediation to the United Nations.
- UN member states have never even been able to agree on a definition of terrorism. Some of the states, such as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, overtly or covertly practice, promote or fund terrorism.
- Emboldened by international and Indian inaction, Pakistan has continued masterminding terror strikes against India.
- New Delhi might do well bear in mind a central message from the history of wars: The dialogue of peace and non-violence alone is futile with those who understand only the language of power and punishment.
- India, like Israel, would do better to fight its own war on terror.
In the wake of the recent coordinated terror strikes in Paris on November 13, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has made a fresh appeal for a concerted global strategy to fight terrorism. In his opening remarks at the ASEAN-India Summit in Kuala Lumpur on November 21, he said, “Terrorism has emerged as a major global challenge. … we should see how we can enhance our cooperation at the regional and international level, including through support for adoption of Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.”
Washington: Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had sought American assistance and wrote to the then US president John F Kennedy to provide India fighter jets to stem the Chinese aggression during the 1962 Sino-India war, according to a new book.
The main objective of Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People’s Republic of China, to attack India in 1962 was to “humiliate” Mr Nehru who was emerging as a leader of the third world, the book said.
“India’s implementation of the Forward Policy served as a major provocation to China in September 1962,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official, wrote the book titled ‘JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA and the Sino-Indian War’. Continue reading
What most people blindingly don’t know is that countries like China are willing to take a hit. They are prepared to take a nuclear hit because they are prepared and sheltered by thousands of miles of underground tunnel networks, which also likely store their nuclear arsenals. America is not. The CCP/PLA doesn’t put much value on human life whereas America does and has less of a stomach for war — which is being strongly proven with overwhelming opposition at this moment as a forced war against the citizen’s will with Syria approaches.
Another website, through historical context has put it quite simply:
Dr. Li, in his Private Life of Chairman Mao, wrote that a few years later, Mao recalled his meeting with Nehru. Hethen realized the meaning of Mao’s words about the atomic bomb:
… it was so hard to accept, how willing Mao was to sacrifice his own citizens in order to achieve his goals. I had known as early as October 1954, from a meeting with India’s prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, that Mao considered the atom bomb a “paper tiger” and that he was willing that China lose millions of people in order to emerge victorious against so-called imperialists. “the atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru.
China has many people. They cannot be bombed out of existence. If someone else can drop an atomic bomb, I can too. The death of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.
Nehru had some strong reservations. First of all, for him, “even without war, India would have attained freedom.” He thought that in fact India would have been freed earlier without the war.
Dr. Li added: “In 1957, in a speech in Moscow, Mao said he was willing to lose 300 millions people – half of China population. Even if China lost half its population, Mao said, the country would suffer no great loss. We could produce more people.”Nehru’s second point was that though the US had won the war, they were still unhappy. He could therefore not accept Mao’s argument; he had told him that though a war was bad and therefore should be avoided, still if it comes, one should welcomed it.
China to this day, still pushes forward the agenda of Mao Zedong.
A previous entry covering this can be found here: Mao’s ‘Nuclear Mass Extinction Speech’ Aired on Chinese TV
“Nuclear Weapons Are Cold War Relics.”
Not so. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the era of nuclear competition seemed to be at an end, and the United States and Russia began to get rid of many weapons they had used to threaten each other for more than 40 years. In 1967, the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal peaked at 31,255 warheads, but by 2010, under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) signed with Russia, the United States had promised to deploy no more than 1,550.
In June of this year, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his intention to go even lower, to around 1,000 warheads — a move that would leave the United States with fewer nuclear weapons than at any time since 1953. What’s more, influential figures around the world, including erstwhile American hawks, have increasingly supported steps toward total disarmament. In his major 2009 address in Prague, Obama committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Continue reading