Identify possible indian military foreign base locations

[Param]

Its not unrealistic. We will evict these powers just like we did the portuguese back in the early days. But as I and you keep saying we are not that mature yet. What i am trying to say is economic might and military might go hand in hand and we must never limit ourselves in either category.
I have already talked about bases in A&N, they will be extremely useful for constricting chinese SLOCs when required.

And how will we "evict" the US military from an island belonging to the UK that's leased to them?

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Instead of having unrealistic dreams we should identify islands in the Andamans and Lakshadweep for military bases. GoI is already in the process and have identified some.

Wake up dear, IN already has its base in Andaman and Nicobar at Port Blair.

Madagascar,not a good idea a state that has gone more than twice major political upheavals but then given it has dire economic needs India can make a move there.

India need to carry on with strengthening ties with Oman,Mozambique continue the work on Andaman islands as it is no one can challenge the Indian Navy in the Indian Ocean.

The Indian Navy is setting up a naval station in Madagascar, to monitor and patrol the coast of Mozambique as well as the Southern Indian Ocean.And the Indian Navy also has berthing rights in Oman.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC03Df02.html

 

[Param]

...
Indeed I do. @ your knowledge of the past and present geopolitical situation, especially when it comes to Americas foreign policy. Why do you think the US protects South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc...? All of those countries are democratic, and the US is allied or has good relations with all of them precisely to stop the spread of fascism (previously), communism, and theocracies. It's thanks to the US that the world has come to a stage it is now, rather than the old days of European colonialism dominating the world, with the looming threat of German/Japanese fascism and Soviet/Chinese communism.
.

Is Saudi Arabia democratic? Are most Arab allies of the US democratic? How democratic is Thailand with military coups? What about S.Korean democracy before the 90s? How democratic was the monarchy in Iran before 1979? You forgot latin American "democracies" that were often ruled by dictators during the cold war & before despite supported by the US.
The US protects allies not to preserve democracy but to protect US interests.

 

[AOE]

Yes the Kennedy Admn. but that is because they feared the rise of Communism.

So what's wrong with that?

You have got it wrong my friend. The US "protects" these nations because it has got interests in the vicinity, not because they are democratic(that maybe one of the reasons why they are allied with a nation but the primary one is "interests").

America is not the Soviet Union or the PRC, it does actually protect other states also because they're friendly democratic nations, and doesn't solely invade or befriend another country for economic interests. If it does, why would it protect Australia, New Zealand, or most European states tomorrow since they don't possess great amounts of oil? What about Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea? The fact that the US would try to protect India in 1963 even highlights this point. Anti-American stereotypes aren't also going to help India to diplomatically gain relations with any western power, or even help them to get Diego Garcia. That's a mentality that guarantees failure from the get go.

Also the criticism of the US being involved only in its interests is also discrediting to a rising Indian power. Why should the world think you will be any better if trying to liberate a dictatorship is ultimately always going to only be about oil or some precious resource? Have a think about that for a second. I'm not denying that all regional and world powers today don't have such an incentive, but such a remark can be counter-intuitive.

Has being allied to the US made you a super power. I do understand the importance of friendship and co-operation but not at the risk of sacrificing interests.

We are not a superpower for the following reasons:
A) Most Australians do not want to become a super power, we actually enjoy the fact our country has much fewer social problems than the rest of the world. Our national pride mostly focusses on the fact we're generally very friendly, jovial people who have created a place that most people in the world enjoy coming to; especially those who live in third world dictatorships. I'm not saying we don't have our interests, but the US doesn't slam us for most of our ventures.... well... with a few exceptions.
B) We're a small country made up of around 20 million people, so we're 1/10th or 1/15th the population of the US. How are we going to become a super power in the next century even if we wanted to with this kind of small population?
C) Most Australians, if they had to go to war, would rather go to one on the side of Americans and the British; just like the South Koreans, the Japanese, Taiwanese, Canadians, many European countries, etc... heck one of the drawbacks of being a small country in this world is that fighting a super power by yourself would be suicidal lol.
D) Many countries allied with the US are enjoying great economic prosperity, and a considerable armed forces of their own. England, France, and Germany are some examples of this. Unless you want to talk about Japan, most of Americas allies are either unable or unwilling to become one.

You misunderstand my emotions. I ll not be online for sometime will come back later. ciao.

It's the internet, these sorts of things are harder to tell.

 

[Oracle]

Its not unrealistic. We will evict these powers just like we did the portuguese back in the early days. But as I and you keep saying we are not that mature yet. What i am trying to say is economic might and military might go hand in hand and we must never limit ourselves in either category.
I have already talked about bases in A&N, they will be extremely useful for constricting chinese SLOCs when required.

Blind nationalism eh?

Wake up dear, IN already has its base in Andaman and Nicobar at Port Blair.

Did you read my post? I suggest a double read, next time. Glasses on!

 

[AOE]

Is Saudi Arabia democratic? Are most Arab allies of the US democratic? How democratic is Thailand with military coups? What about S.Korean democracy before the 90s? How democratic was the monarchy in Iran before 1979? You forgot latin American "democracies" that were often ruled by dictators during the cold war & before despite supported by the US.
The US protects allies not to preserve democracy but to protect US interests.

It actually does both, yes it allies with non-democracies to protect its interests, but to say it doesn't protect democracies at all is false.

 

[Param]

It actually does both, yes it allies with non-democracies to protect its interests, but to say it doesn't protect democracies at all is false.

America protects democracies that are friendly with it and serve US interests.
Btw I dont hate America.

 

[AOE]

America protects democracies that are friendly with it and serve US interests.
Btw I dont hate America.

My apologies. It's hard to tell whether someone is being anti-American or not here, given the polarising views.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Did you read my post? I suggest a double read, next time. Glasses on!

All glasses on dude. Dont worry, we already have a military base their at Port Blair with the presence of both IN and IA so better luck next time.

 

[Neil]

we can have a base at Vietnam and Qatar both are strategically important for are trade and commerce which means securing them and protecting them is vital to are growth

 

[Godless-Kafir]

My apologies. It's hard to tell whether someone is being anti-American or not here, given the polarising views.

The US supported Pakistan against us for the past 60years. Uncle Sam also sold pakistan arms to fight against India in almost every major war and not to mention Pakistan is an Major no NATO ally! No one here is deluded about USAs intentions and we see the friendship as merely an strategic alliance. Which is untill US stops aiding Pakistan with money and weapons.

 

[AOE]

lol. The US has drones and agents in Pakistan bombing and shooting up the country side, which is having a destabilizing effect. Perhaps the game has changed and you don't realize it yet GK.

 

[Razor]

So what's wrong with that?

Whats wrong with it is that the Kennedy admn did it because its interest lies in containing Communism and not because it loves India.

America is not the Soviet Union or the PRC, it does actually protect other states also because they're friendly democratic nations, and doesn't solely invade or befriend another country for economic interests. If it does, why would it protect Australia, New Zealand, or most European states tomorrow since they don't possess great amounts of oil?

Maybe, but what about war in Iraq. In Iraq they said "WMD" and went in(sounds kinda familiar with what's happening with Iran). They dint find shit. And now they go back home with puppet govt installed to take care of the oil and bags of construction contracts. Take a look at Diego Garcia they (UK) threw out the native population. Thats just not right.

What about Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea? The fact that the US would try to protect India in 1963 even highlights this point. Anti-American stereotypes aren't also going to help India to diplomatically gain relations with any western power, or even help them to get Diego Garcia. That's a mentality that guarantees failure from the get go.

Hey dude don't get the idea that i hate americans. Its just that i don't agree with a lot of things their govt does. Thats all.

 

[Razor]

Blind nationalism eh?



Did you read my post? I suggest a double read, next time. Glasses on!

Dude In case you dint read the first post i made. I said we need to take care of our borders and internal security and stuff but then after that we must not shy away from the Indian Ocean. I am sure in the near future India will be able to maintain peace and security in the region. And that is why i said we must try to base ourselves in DG coz its in a strategic position.

and btw India already has a triservices base at A&N if i am not mistaken.

 

[amitkriit]

Dude In case you dint read the first post i made. I said we need to take care of our borders and internal security and stuff but then after that we must not shy away from the Indian Ocean. I am sure in the near future India will be able to maintain peace and security in the region. And that is why i said we must try to base ourselves in DG coz its in a strategic position.

and btw India already has a triservices base at A&N if i am not mistaken.

West will never let India to dominate in Indian Ocean. They will do everything to prevent India from becoming the policeman, if they cannot do it alone, they will join hands with China, even Russia might go against us. India will stand alone on this issue. Its better to cooperate with west than to challenge it. USA has built it's power over several centuries, let us not try to do things too fast, like Germany or Japan in 1940s.

Worst part, USA might become weaker, but USA will still remain the most dominant force during next 50 years, barring a miracle. India may think about challenging UK/US presence in DG when we become confident of winning a war against united west and it's allies. Not happening in next 150 years.

 

[AOE]

Whats wrong with it is that the Kennedy admn did it because its interest lies in containing Communism and not because it loves India.

Err... what? Hmm... well that is a weird response. Did India get chocolates and flowers from the Soviet Union? Is Putin having a love affair with Manmohan Singh? rofl

In all seriousness, what exactly do you mean when you say love?

Maybe, but what about war in Iraq. In Iraq they said "WMD" and went in(sounds kinda familiar with what's happening with Iran). They dint find shit. And now they go back home with puppet govt installed to take care of the oil and bags of construction contracts. Take a look at Diego Garcia they (UK) threw out the native population. Thats just not right.

George Bush and Tony Blair did overconfidently claim that Iraq still contained WMDs, but we only know how from hindsight that it wasn't true. It's easy to judge something like that from an informed point of view compared to 2002-2003 when Bush was being signalled by the CIA intelligence and other evidence circling that Iraq was attempting to amass weapons again. If you were in that position and had to make a decision; you would have a choice on taking Saddams word, and if you were wrong; that would be an impeachable offense.

One of the other major points discussed before and during the invasion was that the US was also there for regime change, and you have no idea how many Kurds, Iraqis, and even some Arabs were greatful for the fact that the Americans removed one of the worlds most brutal dictators since Hitler and Stalin. This isn't denying that what you're saying about oil either, so no need to repeat it. Also Ahmadinejad of Iran has admitted he has a nuclear program running, and one of his slips was him mentioning that after testing some of his new long ranged missiles, he claimed it was part of that program. Yeah, not suspicious at all.

On a sidenote, George Bush has actually extended himself a lot to the government of India during his two terms in office. This is especially the case in contrast to what Obama has done of late.

Hey dude don't get the idea that i hate americans. Its just that i don't agree with a lot of things their govt does. Thats all.

The government there looks out for its people and also, to a considerable extend; the rest of the world. Had it not have been for the Americans, the world would be in a far less prosperous and free place than it is now. Americans are the people who have fought all manners of totalitarianism, and also convinced many European powers to give up colonialism after WWII; including the British.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

lol. The US has drones and agents in Pakistan bombing and shooting up the country side, which is having a destabilizing effect. Perhaps the game has changed and you don't realize it yet GK.

Not really...They just gave Pakistan a shit load of money as military aid and not to mention the sale of f-16s!

Why not keep a base in Brisbane!

 

[Razor]

Err... what? Hmm... well that is a weird response. Did India get chocolates and flowers from the Soviet Union? Is Putin having a love affair with Manmohan Singh? rofl

In all seriousness, what exactly do you mean when you say love?



George Bush and Tony Blair did overconfidently claim that Iraq still contained WMDs, but we only know how from hindsight that it wasn't true. It's easy to judge something like that from an informed point of view compared to 2002-2003 when Bush was being signalled by the CIA intelligence and other evidence circling that Iraq was attempting to amass weapons again. If you were in that position and had to make a decision; you would have a choice on taking Saddams word, and if you were wrong; that would be an impeachable offense.

One of the other major points discussed before and during the invasion was that the US was also there for regime change, and you have no idea how many Kurds, Iraqis, and even some Arabs were greatful for the fact that the Americans removed one of the worlds most brutal dictators since Hitler and Stalin. This isn't denying that what you're saying about oil either, so no need to repeat it. Also Ahmadinejad of Iran has admitted he has a nuclear program running, and one of his slips was him mentioning that after testing some of his new long ranged missiles, he claimed it was part of that program. Yeah, not suspicious at all.

On a sidenote, George Bush has actually extended himself a lot to the government of India during his two terms in office. This is especially the case in contrast to what Obama has done of late.



The government there looks out for its people and also, to a considerable extend; the rest of the world. Had it not have been for the Americans, the world would be in a far less prosperous and free place than it is now. Americans are the people who have fought all manners of totalitarianism, and also convinced many European powers to give up colonialism after WWII; including the British.

1. Ok i meant cares. Its not because they care about India.
2. I was not aware of Ahmedni...'s claim.
3. Yeah I agree dubya was friendlier to India.

They should stop interfering with smaller nations thats all i am saying. And above all stop the military aid to pak.

 

[Razor]

West will never let India to dominate in Indian Ocean. They will do everything to prevent India from becoming the policeman, if they cannot do it alone, they will join hands with China, even Russia might go against us. India will stand alone on this issue. Its better to cooperate with west than to challenge it. USA has built it's power over several centuries, let us not try to do things too fast, like Germany or Japan in 1940s.

Worst part, USA might become weaker, but USA will still remain the most dominant force during next 50 years, barring a miracle. India may think about challenging UK/US presence in DG when we become confident of winning a war against united west and it's allies. Not happening in next 150 years.

I dont think they have fifty years. In 20-30 years their power in the Western Pacific will diminish. Japan will develop better ties with Korea and china and soon US will not have much to do there.

That will make DG even more precious to them.

 

[AOE]

Not really...They just gave Pakistan a shit load of money as military aid and not to mention the sale of f-16s!

Why not keep a base in Brisbane!

We've already got one at Pine Gap! Put one at Bangalore instead lol

To anyone lacking a sense of humor; I was joking.