The Coming Wars: India Moves Tanks To Chinese Border, Despite Warnings U.S. Vows To Continue South Sea Operations, Russian Citizens Are Preparing For War, The Hostage Air Base

India Moves Nearly One Hundred Tanks, Troops to Chinese Border

With tensions rising between China and India, New Delhi has deployed nearly 100 tanks to its eastern border.

The mountainous region of Ladakh, in northern India, lies in a tense location between disputed Kashmir and Tibet. In an effort to boost its military presence in the area, the Indian military has sent Russian-made T-72 tanks to Ladakh’s Chinese border.

"The vast flat valleys along the mountain ranges allow for armored movement; besides, there has been an increase in the force levels across the border," an unnamed military official told NDTV.

The tanks have undergone significant upgrades to be better outfitted for the region’s climate.

This marks the third regiment placed in Ladakh by India since 2014.

Tensions between the neighbors have been building recently. Earlier this month, the Indian Navy deployed three ships to the South China Sea

Beijing and New Delhi are also competing over Nepal. While Nepalese Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli has expressed an interest in working more closely with the Chinese government, India is unlikely to surrender its own influence over Kathmandu.

Despite Beijing’s Warnings, US Vows to Continue S. China Sea Operations

While China has warned against escalating tensions in the South China Sea, the Pentagon has remained defiant, announcing that its forces will continue to operate in the region.

In the wake of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration decision that determined Beijing has no legal basis for claiming historical rights to territories within the nine-dash line in the South China Sea, tensions have continued in the waterway.

On Monday, Sun Jianguo, admiral and deputy chief of the Joint Staff Department of China’s Central Military Commission, warned againstcontinued US military aggression.

"But China consistently opposes so-called military freedom of navigation, which brings with it a military threat which challenges and disrespects the international law of the sea," he said. "This kind of military freedom of navigation is damaging to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and it could even play out in a disastrous way."

But on Wednesday, US Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson maintained that the US will continue to operate in the region.

Describing a meeting between Richardson and Yuan Yubai, commander of the Chinese North Sea Fleet, the US Navy stated that the former "underscored the importance of lawful and safe operations in the South China and elsewhere professional navies operate."

"The US Navy will continue to conduct routine and lawful operations around the world, including in the South China Sea, in order to protect the rights, freedoms and lawful uses of sea and airspace guaranteed to all," Richardson said, adding, "This will not change."

The US and its Pacific allies have expressed opposition to China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago, accusing Beijing of attempting to establish an air defense zone. China maintains it has every right to build within its own territory and that the islands will be used primarily for civilian purposes.

Three Shots from North Korea Signals New Escalation

North Korea fired three ballistic missiles on Tuesday which flew between 500 and 600 km (300-360 miles) into the sea off its east coast, South Korea’s military said, the latest in a series of provocative moves by the isolated country.

The U.S. military said it detected launches of what it believed were two Scud missiles and one Rodong, a home-grown missile based on Soviet-era Scud technology.

North Korea has fired both types numerous times in recent years, an indication that unlike recent launches that were seen as efforts by the North to improve its missile capability, Tuesday’s were meant as a show of force.

“This smells political rather than technical to me,” said Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at the U.S.-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California.

“I think the number and distance of the missiles lets them remind the ROK (Republic of Korea) of what they are up against,” she said, referring to South Korea by its official name.

The launches came nearly a week after South Korea and the United States chose a site in the South to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system to counter threats from the North, which had prompted Pyongyang to threaten a “physical response”.

They Know What Comes Next: Russian Citizens Are “Stocking Up On Essentials In Case Of War”

The United States isn’t the only place where you’ll find citizens concerned with a rapidly deteriorating geo-political landscape and the real possibility of another World War.

According to a report from Newsweek titled In Europe and Russia There’s Talk Of War, plenty of Russians feel the same way:

Recently, I grabbed a taxi in Moscow. When the driver asked me where I was from, I told him the United States. “I went there once,” he said, “to Chicago. I really liked it.”

“But tell me something,” he added. “When are we going to war?”

The question, put so starkly, so honestly, shocked me. “Well, I hope never,” I replied. “No one wants war.”

At the office, I ask a Russian employee about the mood in his working class Moscow neighborhood. The old people are buying salt, matches and gretchka [buckwheat], he tells me—the time-worn refuge for Russians stocking up on essentials in case of war.

Older generations of Russians know exactly what the build up to a war looks like and signs around the world indicative of serious problems simply can’t be ignored.

With Vladimir Putin having recently purged 50 of his top commanders following an old Soviet doctrine that calls for exactly such maneuvers ahead of war, there appear to be a variety of actions being undertaken by both East and West in anticipation of a large-scale conflict. NATO is deploying more assets to the Eastern front and the Russians for, their part, are feverishly deploying new weapons systems, one of which is reportedly capable of obliterating an entire U.S. state the size of Texas, as well as a Tsunami torpedo that could wipe out entire coastal cities.

Articles: The Hostage Air Base – and Its Hydrogen Bombs

The United States runs its air operations against ISIS in Iraq from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The base, used by other NATO forces as well, is not American. It is Turkish, and the U.S. needs government permission to fly from there. 

Since the 15 July coup attempt in Ankara, U.S. forces at Incirlik are essentially hostages to the Turkish government. 

The Turkish base commander and his aides have been arrested; U.S. personnel are confined to base; outside power has been cut off; and while the U.S. has been permitted to resume operations over Iraq and Syria, it is working under adverse conditions, to say the least.  Most worrisome, about 50 hydrogen bombs are stored by the U.S. at Incirlik, ostensibly on behalf of NATO. These bombs are "protected" by Turkish troops and to some degree their potential use is shared with the Turkish Air Force.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO, one can ask why tactical nuclear weapons in NATO were retained as times and conditions have changed. The U.S. now finds itself escalating operations out of Incirlik as it increases the fight against ISIS, al Nusra, and al Qaeda. Turkey itself is increasingly authoritarian and increasingly involved in the wars in Syria and Iraq as well as fighting Kurdish separatists. But only late in 2015 did Incirlik see the beginning of security upgrades for its nuclear stockpile.

It should be noted that the weapons kept in Turkey are each about ten times more powerful than the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They should not be considered "tactical" at all. These are WMD -- that is, weapons of mass destruction. Keeping them in harm's way is an act of political irresponsibility.

And then there is the problem of Turkey. Increasingly radicalized, if Turkey were to acquire the weapons for itself -- say by expelling U.S. and NATO forces from Incirlik -- it would not only have the weapons, but the means to deliver them. Turkey has F-16s and nuclear-capable F-4 Phantom jets.

A nuclear Turkey would become a significant threat in the Middle East in a multitude of directions (i.e., against Greece/Cyprus, against Israel, against Russia, against Iran). It would absolutely cause Iran to mount nukes on missiles (which it could quickly acquire from North Korea if not locally produced). A nuclear Turkey is immense threat to involve NATO in a conflict with no clear or positive outcome.

Finally, there is always the possibility of terrorists getting nuclear bombs. Under current political conditions, with the Turkish general staff and military decimated, the time is ripe for an external attack on Incirlik. The acquisition of a potentially usable nuclear weapon by terrorists is the worst nightmare of all. 

It would be optimal to ship the weapons out of Turkey, but if that is not possible, there is a lesson from history. After the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the U.S. physically disabled the nuclear weapons under its control. In any case, a rescue team should be positioned in the area, ready to intervene if necessary. For the U.S. to continue operating in a business-as-usual mode, but under hostage-like conditions, is extraordinarily risky. 

Turkey Too Dangerous for Nuke Storage

Father Gabriel Naddaf: No Better Place For Christians Than Israel

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice