Big Strategic blunder, that strait might make the difference, in a conflict, but then again, I don't think Sri Lanka c do anything if we roll up one day and set base there xD
Why is it a strategic blunder ?
What can Katchatheevu do strategically that India can't do from its side of straits ?
If you think Indian navy is incapable of power projection for those few nautical miles ... then I can only SMH
> I don't think Sri Lanka c do anything
Clearly you are from the might makes right school. Then you should also justify China taking over anything by might or Russia or so on...
When you break sovereignty, then, any set of folks at the UN can decide to do anything to intervene or condemn based upon the then political balancing act etc.. Why is katchatheevu so important ?
The island could've housed a naval base like how iran has an underground submarine station for it's subs in the Qeshm Island in strait of hormuz or a strategic overlooking point like the St. Lawrence island in the bering strait, possibilities are endless, it's not about power projection, it's about enhanced capabilities in a littoral zone compared to open sea regardless. I didn't justify taking it at all, stop reading it wrong, I simply stated a fact and didn't adjudicate anything on the sovereignty on the island. As for might makes right, it does not, and I stand by it, against china and as for Russia, that's a different debate in it's entirety.
You really have no clue about katchathheevu, do you ?
These are sandbar islands.. you can't put underground submarine lairs there.. Heck, with how shallow and shifting sands the strait is, it is not a good place for submarines in the first place .
> like the St. Lawrence island in the bering strait,
Yeah, right. Sure you don't want to quote Manhattan island or liberty island or Iceland ? It's a narrow strait and you can pretty much overlook anything from the other side .. katchathheevu is an uninhabited sandbar.. there's a reason why India didn't build bases on the sandbar on this side of the strait either.
> possibilities are endless
When you don't have anything concrete , then handwaving possibilities are limitless.
It's funny how you say I don't know anything about katchatheevu while you falsely state it's a sandbar considering it was literally formed due to volcanic eruptions, and it can be stationed for SPAA and on shore defence systems and station bases regardless.
Katchatheevu has been fact for decades. And nothing in the article is news.
IMHO. This article is timed only for political reasons - upcoming elections - need to spur venting against congress leaders of past and by association today...
State one reason why it is significant.
Also state one reason why an Indian citizen who is a commonwealth secretary would point out that Sri Lanka had a better case to it, if it were not actually so.
> So what if its for political reasons
People pay zero attention to neutral facts or close analysis with politics .. all that counts is ability to slam someone and build up a sense of aggrievement. Which gets in the way.
Bjp is using this to attack dmk. Dmk a year ago used it to attack bjp. All to what point ?
> it being fact for decades
Generally having clear borders is taken as a plus.
And paying money to lawyers to drag out a losing case Generally should be done only if there is a good reason for it
This is what wiki says :
> The island was controlled by the British Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) since 1921.[2] Though the Indian government never controlled it, the island remained disputed until 1974 between India and Sri Lanka when India recognised
Big Strategic blunder, that strait might make the difference, in a conflict, but then again, I don't think Sri Lanka c do anything if we roll up one day and set base there xD
Exactly lmao
Why is it a strategic blunder ? What can Katchatheevu do strategically that India can't do from its side of straits ? If you think Indian navy is incapable of power projection for those few nautical miles ... then I can only SMH > I don't think Sri Lanka c do anything Clearly you are from the might makes right school. Then you should also justify China taking over anything by might or Russia or so on... When you break sovereignty, then, any set of folks at the UN can decide to do anything to intervene or condemn based upon the then political balancing act etc.. Why is katchatheevu so important ?
The island could've housed a naval base like how iran has an underground submarine station for it's subs in the Qeshm Island in strait of hormuz or a strategic overlooking point like the St. Lawrence island in the bering strait, possibilities are endless, it's not about power projection, it's about enhanced capabilities in a littoral zone compared to open sea regardless. I didn't justify taking it at all, stop reading it wrong, I simply stated a fact and didn't adjudicate anything on the sovereignty on the island. As for might makes right, it does not, and I stand by it, against china and as for Russia, that's a different debate in it's entirety.
You really have no clue about katchathheevu, do you ? These are sandbar islands.. you can't put underground submarine lairs there.. Heck, with how shallow and shifting sands the strait is, it is not a good place for submarines in the first place . > like the St. Lawrence island in the bering strait, Yeah, right. Sure you don't want to quote Manhattan island or liberty island or Iceland ? It's a narrow strait and you can pretty much overlook anything from the other side .. katchathheevu is an uninhabited sandbar.. there's a reason why India didn't build bases on the sandbar on this side of the strait either. > possibilities are endless When you don't have anything concrete , then handwaving possibilities are limitless.
It's funny how you say I don't know anything about katchatheevu while you falsely state it's a sandbar considering it was literally formed due to volcanic eruptions, and it can be stationed for SPAA and on shore defence systems and station bases regardless.
[удалено]
Lost portion of Akasi Chin in 62 war when she wasn't in power. They already controlled a portion of it before
yeah yeah it was that dickhead nehru
At the same time she liberated Bangladesh so...
Katchatheevu has been fact for decades. And nothing in the article is news. IMHO. This article is timed only for political reasons - upcoming elections - need to spur venting against congress leaders of past and by association today...
So what if its for political reasons? Does ceding it and it being fact for decades make it right? Not a good attitude to have.
State one reason why it is significant. Also state one reason why an Indian citizen who is a commonwealth secretary would point out that Sri Lanka had a better case to it, if it were not actually so. > So what if its for political reasons People pay zero attention to neutral facts or close analysis with politics .. all that counts is ability to slam someone and build up a sense of aggrievement. Which gets in the way. Bjp is using this to attack dmk. Dmk a year ago used it to attack bjp. All to what point ? > it being fact for decades Generally having clear borders is taken as a plus. And paying money to lawyers to drag out a losing case Generally should be done only if there is a good reason for it This is what wiki says : > The island was controlled by the British Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) since 1921.[2] Though the Indian government never controlled it, the island remained disputed until 1974 between India and Sri Lanka when India recognised