Why the United States Promotes India's Great-Power Ambitions

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
This is highly unlikely to happen. India was ready to place Indian troops in Afghanistan but it was rejected by USA. This reveals that Pakistan is more important than India in a military for hire(slave) role. An offer like this is unlikely to happen again for decades and it better to stay away from any formal military alliances to prevent India from turning into Pakistan.
It was rejected by the US after it was first rejected by India, yeah? But the rest of your post- where are you getting 2+ 2= 4? How is a single instance of rejecting troops in AF equated to master /salve- America has effectively shunned India and can't be trusted? For if it were the sentiment of people of india - it sure has a lot to ask of america ... gimme access to this and that...
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
This much I know that NSG waiver is not up to him and US, they changed the rules ( all members of the NSG group). Every bit of information latest I've have read so far from the US- does not elude ot anything with having India to sign the NPT under Obama administration. Let's stick to facts ...it could be another reason ... but there is No sign the NPT agreement or else -from reading so far on the " internets"
You are right Obama has said to India no NPT no deal and India has chose to abandon the deal. Is this a good political and buisness move by Obama Losing Billions on a deal that Bush spent months to pass.?? Then losing billions in MRCA ,creating mistrust and giving away billions more free to Pakistan. But this is the usual tax and spend democrat policies that have 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
You are right Obama has said to India no NPT no deal and India has chose to abandon the deal. Is this a good political and buisness move by Obama Losing Billions on a deal that Bush spent months to pass.?? Then losing billions in MRCA ,creating mistrust and giving away billions more free to Pakistan. But this is the usual tax and spend democrat policies that have 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty.
I'm right? But I have said that there nothing showing that says Obama is asking India to sign the NPT or else deal is gone...

can you show me a link that says that-- and some what reputable one and not someones opinion blogs
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
NEW DELHI — The U.S.-India nuclear deal, hailed as the centerpiece of a new partnership between the world's two most populous democracies, has drifted dangerously since it was signed in 2008, analysts and former negotiators from both countries say.

The risk is that other countries, particularly Russia and France, might benefit from all the hard work that the United States put into the deal.

.The landmark agreement was supposed to allow the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to India, even though the country has nuclear weapons but has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Advocates of the deal said it would bring tens of billions of dollars in business to the United States and create thousands of jobs, while also cementing a new partnership between the two nations to counter China's rise.

The deal, symbolic of the new alliance, is not in any political danger. But U.S. companies have not sold any reactors or equipment to India. American nuclear-fuel firms, which face no legal or policy hurdles, also have not begun selling to India.

Waning enthusiasm

The agreement, personally propelled by President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, overcame enormous opposition from the nonproliferation lobby in the United States and from some Indians, who said the conditions attached to the deal undermined their country's sovereignty. But once the ink was dry and the hard work of implementation began, the momentum stalled.

India's enthusiasm for nuclear power has been dented by the nuclear disaster in Japan and by problems in finding available land to build reactors. Meanwhile, onerous conditions imposed by the Indian Parliament on suppliers of nuclear equipment have tilted the playing field away from private-sector U.S. companies in favor of state-owned companies from Russia and France, analysts say.

"You can see a possible outcome where the U.S. has expended most of the diplomatic capital but companies in other countries are the main beneficiaries," said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visits India this week, the deal's supporters hope she can reignite India's enthusiasm to clear the remaining hurdles.

"The Obama administration has done everything it can to implement the agreement," said R. Nicholas Burns, who was an undersecretary of state in the previous administration and spent three years negotiating the deal. "The problem, from my perspective, is on the Indian side. We haven't seen the same degree of political commitment to follow it through."Singh put his government's survival on the line to pass the deal. But in a country scarred by the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster, which claimed more than 15,000 lives, he was powerless to prevent the passage last year of a law that would make suppliers of nuclear equipment liable for massive claims in the event of a nuclear accident during the reactor's lifetime.

That raises the risk of doing business in India to levels that U.S. private-sector companies and their insurers cannot accept but that state-backed companies in Russia and France, with the much deeper pockets of their respective governments, might be able to live with. And it puts India far out of step with other countries, which hold plant operators solely liable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-dangerously/2011/07/07/gIQAJTbeGI_story.html
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
I'm right? But I have said that there nothing showing that says Obama is asking India to sign the NPT or else deal is gone...

can you show me a link that says that-- and some what reputable one and not someones opinion blogs
Latest from Obama regime: India, 3 other countries must sign NPT - Times Of India
Latest from Obama regime: India, 3 other countries must sign NPT

US wants India to sign NPT - World - DNA
US wants India to sign NPT.

US 'wants' India to sign NPT, hyphenates it with Pak - Express India
US 'wants' India to sign NPT, hyphenates it with Pak

Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy - upiasia.com
Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-...ng-India-to-join-NPT-as-nonnuke-state/699930/
'Obama should stop asking India to join NPT as non-nuke state'
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
USA isn't promoting India as a major power on a charitable whim,instead like a seasoned capitalist its investing valuable political capital in a promising enterprise whose stock is booming and will continue to soar into the perceivable future.The can choose to not to do so,but why would they when collective wisdom says it should.The vision of USA diminishing as a global super power is a misrepresentation,rather it appears so because other centers of economic-political power are doing an admirable job at catching up.

America realizes that it will not reign for ever as the sole omnipotent super power,while it did so was not on account of good fortune,it was either because it was too good or the rest of the world was not doping good enough.Whatever the past,USA is now interested it preserving that influence as much as it is allowed to so.This means revisit old alliances,build new ones and keep a check on competition.Given the geography,demography,economic potential,system of governance,past history of their ties,China appears to be USA's most consistent rival.Hence it makes sense for USA to build more robust ties with another country that appears to be the most consistent rival in the making against China,i e India.

For USA,China to have another healthy rivalry to worry and contend with,makes perfect geopolitical sense.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
Latest from Obama regime: India, 3 other countries must sign NPT - Times Of India
Latest from Obama regime: India, 3 other countries must sign NPT

US wants India to sign NPT - World - DNA
US wants India to sign NPT.

US 'wants' India to sign NPT, hyphenates it with Pak - Express India
US 'wants' India to sign NPT, hyphenates it with Pak

Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy - upiasia.com
Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in jeopardy

'Obama should stop asking India to join NPT as non-nuke state' - Express India
'Obama should stop asking India to join NPT as non-nuke state'
Dear man- I'm actually saddened by how easily some people can formulate an opinion. First the links you have provided are not only really old but they talk about two different issues.

take NPT for example - that is a stand alone statement " organic" made by the US - which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the nuclear deal :). It's a " organic statement " they made because look who else on the list...so putting that link as proof as a direct tie into the US- India nuclear deal is erroneous.

second Upasia piece is an really a blog piece which is years old ---- so how does it reflect the truth about the current nuclear deal and where it stands?

HERE IS THE LATEST - THIS YEAR"S 2011 article in the washington Post.
NEW DELHI — The U.S.-India nuclear deal, hailed as the centerpiece of a new partnership between the world's two most populous democracies, has drifted dangerously since it was signed in 2008, analysts and former negotiators from both countries say.

The risk is that other countries, particularly Russia and France, might benefit from all the hard work that the United States put into the deal.

.The landmark agreement was supposed to allow the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to India, even though the country has nuclear weapons but has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Advocates of the deal said it would bring tens of billions of dollars in business to the United States and create thousands of jobs, while also cementing a new partnership between the two nations to counter China's rise.

The deal, symbolic of the new alliance, is not in any political danger. But U.S. companies have not sold any reactors or equipment to India. American nuclear-fuel firms, which face no legal or policy hurdles, also have not begun selling to India.

Waning enthusiasm

The agreement, personally propelled by President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, overcame enormous opposition from the nonproliferation lobby in the United States and from some Indians, who said the conditions attached to the deal undermined their country's sovereignty. But once the ink was dry and the hard work of implementation began, the momentum stalled.

India's enthusiasm for nuclear power has been dented by the nuclear disaster in Japan and by problems in finding available land to build reactors. Meanwhile, onerous conditions imposed by the Indian Parliament on suppliers of nuclear equipment have tilted the playing field away from private-sector U.S. companies in favor of state-owned companies from Russia and France, analysts say.

"You can see a possible outcome where the U.S. has expended most of the diplomatic capital but companies in other countries are the main beneficiaries," said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visits India this week, the deal's supporters hope she can reignite India's enthusiasm to clear the remaining hurdles.

"The Obama administration has done everything it can to implement the agreement," said R. Nicholas Burns, who was an undersecretary of state in the previous administration and spent three years negotiating the deal. "The problem, from my perspective, is on the Indian side. We haven't seen the same degree of political commitment to follow it through."Singh put his government's survival on the line to pass the deal. But in a country scarred by the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster, which claimed more than 15,000 lives, he was powerless to prevent the passage last year of a law that would make suppliers of nuclear equipment liable for massive claims in the event of a nuclear accident during the reactor's lifetime.

That raises the risk of doing business in India to levels that U.S. private-sector companies and their insurers cannot accept but that state-backed companies in Russia and France, with the much deeper pockets of their respective governments, might be able to live with. And it puts India far out of step with other countries, which hold plant operators solely liable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-dangerously/2011/07/07/gIQAJTbeGI_story.html
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
Dear man- I'm actually saddened by how easily some people can formulate an opinion. First the links you have provided are not only really old but they talk about two different issues.

take NPT for example - that is a stand alone statement" organic" made by the US - which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the nuclear deal :). It's a " organic statement " they made because look who else on the list...so putting that link s proof as nuclear deal is held up is erroneous.

second Upasia piece is an really a blog piece which is years old ---- so how does it reflect the truth about the current nuclear deal and where it stands?

HERE IS THE LATEST - THIS YEAR"S 2011 article in the washington Post.
Do you agree Obama has placed India on the same level Pakistan reversing the NSG waiver from Bush??

US put India's N-status more on par with Pak than China - Times Of India
US (Obama) puts India's N-status more on par with Pak than China
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
Dear man- I'm actually saddened by how easily some people can formulate an opinion. First the links you have provided are not only really old but they talk about two different issues.

take NPT for example - that is a stand alone statement " organic" made by the US - which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the nuclear deal :). It's a " organic statement " they made because look who else on the list...so putting that link as proof as a direct tie into the US- India nuclear deal is erroneous.

second Upasia piece is an really a blog piece which is years old ---- so how does it reflect the truth about the current nuclear deal and where it stands?

HERE IS THE LATEST - THIS YEAR"S 2011 article in the washington Post.
This was because USA did not sign the liability bill with India( Bhopal disaster). Russia has signed the liability bill. USA does not want liablility for 30+ year old tech that has failed in USA (three mile island).

Hillary unhappy with India's N-liability law - Times Of India
Hillary unhappy with India's N-liability law

Russia and France have signed the liability law

The Hindu : Front Page : Liability law no longer an obstacle to Russian reactor deal
Liability law no longer an obstacle to Russian reactor deal

Nuclear reactor deal set to strengthen ties between France and India - CNN
Nuclear reactor deal set to strengthen ties between France and India

Areva SA's Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon said that while the French want "more clarity" on the Indian liability law, the issue would not be "a deal-breaker."
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
Do you agree Obama has placed India on the same level Pakistan reversing the NSG waiver from Bush??

US put India's N-status more on par with Pak than China - Times Of India
US (Obama) puts India's N-status more on par with Pak than China
Okay, let's establish this - you are throwing whatever at the wall and hoping it sticks. First, I proved you wrong about " why the Us- India nuclear deal has issues" . It is nothing to do on the US part on Obama on NPT whatever you came up with , Its India which is to be so call 'blamed' for the issues.... clearly my post above and the highlighted parts help explain in detail why it is so :)


Now to answer your question above: " err, where DID you come to that conclusion from?" that " Obama has placed India on the same level Pakistan reversing the NSG waiver from Bush??"- FROM THE article you cite?

where is the NSG link to it in that article and did you even really read what context was the article speculating about? It was talking about if India's nuclear bomb - if it is really a potent bomb and if it even works..thats all...

READ IT AGAIN


NEW DELHI: The US feels that by signing the civil nuclear deal, India has for all practical purposes chosen to forego future testing but its voluntary moratorium gave it the comfort of not formalizing a commitment never to test.

In a perceptive cable, after the 1998 Pokhran thermonuclear test was run down by a former defence scientist as a "fizzle", US diplomats argued "doubts about India's thermonuclear deterrent thus diminish India's strategic stature — putting it more on par with Pakistan than China — thereby stoking popular perceptions not only of insecurity, but also of inferiority".

The then national security adviser M K Narayanan rubbished the claims of an under-cooked nuclear bomb test.
 
Last edited:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
ahh effectively your theory is " How dare they compete" if they are my eye to eye pal...they should give me all the finest technology ( remove India from restricted list) , they should be the reason why nuclear deals happened in India - because they lead the charge, they should make available their markets to export to , have their industries invest in India ----- BUT " How dare they compete" if they are my eye to eye pal

--tell us was Russia your eye to eye pal when it stopped the formation of an Indian airbase from being leased in Tajikistan or whatever 'Stan' that place was
Well not really the way you put it, China is not USAs eye to eye pal or what ever you want to call it, yet China developed because of its own potential and ability, there is no thanks to the US on that, same way we are developing with little thanks to the US, most of our DRDO org are still in the ententes list, i am just saying its just show-men-ship by the part of US to say such words, in the end if you dont pull your ass out of poverty no one will do it for you, they will only watch you die and send some aid to watch you starve slowly. So competition is the only language the west understands, thats why they respect us more after our nuclear tests. In effect what i am saying is there will be no difference between China and India, so why use such cuddly words to fool us, if we buy weapons from USA because of this so called closeness, then we are only less well of than China and reliant on a strings ridden purchase which gets pulled like a noose of an horse. We should not get carried away by such words, its every man and nation for himself now.

As you said US or Russia are pretty much the same, there are no friends in the geo politics only mutual interests.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
This was because USA did not sign the liability bill with India( Bhopal disaster). Russia has signed the liability bill. USA does not want liablility for 30+ year old tech that has failed in USA (three mile island).

Hillary unhappy with India's N-liability law - Times Of India
Hillary unhappy with India's N-liability law

Russia and France have signed the liability law

The Hindu : Front Page : Liability law no longer an obstacle to Russian reactor deal
Liability law no longer an obstacle to Russian reactor deal

Nuclear reactor deal set to strengthen ties between France and India - CNN
Nuclear reactor deal set to strengthen ties between France and India

Areva SA's Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon said that while the French want "more clarity" on the Indian liability law, the issue would not be "a deal-breaker."
Ahh so finally you are coming around to My truth now but not all the way there yet :). First it was because litany of reason ( all false I may add :))

1. Obama stalled it
2. Obama wanted NPT signed or else no US India nuke deal
3. Obama did not respect NSG waiver
4. Other US fault blah blah issues


again, here is why the deal has issues- NOT BECAUSE OF " This was because USA did not sign the liability bill with India( Bhopal disaster). Russia has signed the liability bill. USA does not want liability for 30+ year old tech that has failed in USA (three mile island) " - blah blah :D

IT IS BECAUSE- India changed the playing field and MMS could not stop a law ( new one) in the INDIAN Parliament which made - THE NUCLEAR PARTS suppliers liable for a mishap and not traditionally the NUCLEAR OPERATORS being liable only" ...

How did this affect the US? well First all It was not BECAUSE USA GOVTdid not want sign blah blah as you have stated. Rather the USA ( govt) has already done its part... Its USA " PRIVATE companies" that are not going for it because their " Insurance" companies won't cover such a risk BECAUSE- suppliers have NEVER been been a part of the " must be liable" group.

How does France and Russia get away with it? BECAUSE they are GOVT backed entities and the US is private entities. A GOVT ARM can take that risk which no single private company can...

Now do you understand where/ why is there a stall ?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
India is pursuing Russian and French tech more aggressively, USA has not produced a new reactor design in over 30 years. Areva is offering the latest state of the art design in reactors EPR, even the Chinese buy Areva and Russians are building the fast breeders for India. USA is not a leader in nuclear reactor technology in any sense. India is not missing anything by letting the US deal go too many conditions were tied to the deal(Hyde act, 123 etc...). Historically all this happened under the Obama administration and nothing will change this fact. And it will leave India room to do nuclear tests in the future.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
a query if one of you can answer. who are the people running monthly review, quite a leftist article that was, though informative, and who wrote this article.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
India is pursuing Russian and French tech more aggressively, USA has not produced a new reactor design in over 30 years. Areva is offering the latest state of the art design in reactors EPR, even the Chinese buy Areva and Russians are building the fast breeders for India. USA is not a leader in nuclear reactor technology in any sense. India is not missing anything by letting the US deal go too many conditions were tied to the deal(Hyde act, 123 etc...). Historically all this happened under the Obama administration and nothing will change this fact. And it will leave India room to do nuclear tests in the future.
Okay I give up- I think your agenda is not for the truth but to put this on Obama's lap. Which factually and emphatically incorrect but you will cite ACME industry if it plays into your agenda. I have over and over again shown you that Govt to Govt deal was done, It was an Indian amendment which put the the entire deal away from its its intended spirit ( private suppliers to govt backed foreign suppliers)... happens but not US's fault.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
Okay I give up- I think your agenda is not for the truth but to put this on Obama's lap. Which factually and emphatically incorrect but you will cite ACME industry if it plays into your agenda. I have over and over again shown you that Govt to Govt deal was done, It was an Indian amendment which put the the entire deal away from its its intended spirit ( private suppliers to govt backed foreign suppliers)... happens but not US's fault.
sometimes deals don't work out but this may be revived under a new administration?? I don't see USA and Australia missing out on the Indian nuclear pie. From all the nuclear deals India has signed it spent the most amount of time and money lobbying for the US deal. The US deal was much more complicated than other deals which were signed in one day. The US deal had many extra clauses and elements that were from NPT,FMCT,MCTR,Nuclear testing etc... Officially the deal is still alive on paper but in all practicallty it is dead for the time being. US corporations had the US govt "working" for them Corporations like GE/Hitachi just like Areva had Sakorsky go to India. If corporations can't explain to Obama what needs to be done to seal the deal then someone has failed in doing their job.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Despite years of trying to prevent any foreign state from getting near Diego Garcia and Eastern Sri Lanka's base and port of Trincomalee, India has acted on behalf of the US Navy to secure its access to these ports and offered Washington access to its own ports for the GWOT (Global War on Terror). In return, Washington successfully pressured the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to persevere in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government"¦.[A]ccess to these bases in the Indian Ocean"¦is extremely valuable for operations and missions from the Middle East to Southeast Asia and could thus also serve as a check on Chinese naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean"¦.Moreover, at the moment, US ships and planes now enjoy a case-by-case access to Indian bases.
The September 11 attacks in the United States, and India's eager offer of its bases for the invasion of Afghanistan, marked a turning point. Before that point, a U.S. Navy ship visited India approximately every three years; now, according to U.S. Pacific Command officers, there are regular trips. Before September 11, the Indian government would not allow U.S. troops with weapons on the ground when responding to the Gujarat earthquake. "Today, after September 11, the US military has full access," says MacDonald.
The United States also wants facilities for training in India; according to MacDonald, "India has a variety of landscapes, from ice-clad mountains to deserts, and it would help the Americans because military training ranges are shrinking and becoming increasingly controversial in the United States." And for the U.S. Navy, training with the Indian Navy is the best way to become "proficient in the Indian Ocean region."
This is already happening with the COIN training in the north east.

US military seeks a competent military partner that can take on more responsibility for low-end operations in Asia, such as peace-keeping operations, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and high-value cargo escort, which will allow the US military to concentrate its resource on high-end fighting missions.
Though the US sees a lower end role for the Indian forces, which suits us just fine, it would also mean that when a firm alliance takes place, the US will use force to protect its and its allies interest. These things will only unravel slowly.

The most immediate candidate for such "partnership" is the Indian Navy. Cooperation between the two navies took off after the September 11, 2001, incidents in the United States. For six months the Indian Navy undertook joint patrols with the U.S. Navy to escort commercial ships and patrol the busy sea lane running from the North Arabian Sea to the Malacca Straits.
The "New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship," agreement of June 2005 specifically mentions, among other things, that Indian and U.S. militaries would conduct joint and combined exercises and exchanges; conduct joint responses to disaster situations; and collaborate in multinational operations and "peace-keeping" operations. Note that there is no mention of the United Nations; these operations will evidently not be carried out even nominally under its banner.
India is willing to join up even for non UN sanctioned eventualities. This is in departure from its stated position.

The "New Framework" agreement of June 28, 2005, also mentions that the United States and India would collaborate "to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." In fact, India is set to become a part of the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a dangerous and illegal development. The PSI is not a treaty or an organization, but an informal coordination among a group of states, without binding terms or regulations, under the banner of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Discarding the United Nations route, the PSI calls for the participating states to arrest (the term used is to "interdict") the transport of WMDs, WMD delivery systems, and "related materials" to or from states or others who may be proliferating them.
I dont remember discussing this or remember this coming out in any news. Even if it has, this is new to me. From the earlier point and now this, it seems that India is more and more likely to bypass the UN to suit its interests. Ah, if Nehru was like this, Kashmir would not have gone to the UN.

Ok remember an incident about India intercepting NoKo boat with missile parts for Pak. Dont remember when was that. Must be part of this deal.


India as the linchpin of a proposed 'Asian NATO'

Meanwhile, the Indian public is unaware that their country may be made the linchpin of a broader U.S.-sponsored military alliance for Asia:

during 2003, if not since then, American and Indian officials discussed a possible 'Asian NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)' although the content of these discussions and of India's significance for them has not been made public.

An alliance is meaningless unless it is against something. NATO was originally fashioned as an alliance against the Soviet Union; the principal target of an Asian version would be China. Toward that end the Indian armed forces, particularly its navy, have been active. According to the new Maritime Doctrine, the Indian Navy is to dominate the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) "choke points, important islands, and vital trade routes." By late 2004, it was to have started policing the IOR together with the Singaporean, Thai, and Philippine navies.
Accordingly, the Indian Navy has embarked on a "Look East" program, sending goodwill missions to Southeast Asia (during which Indian vessels took part in naval maneuvers with Japan and Vietnam); making port calls in Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan; and conducting joint patrols with Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The purpose is to build links with countries near China, to familiarize the navy with the South China Sea as a potential theater of operations, and to develop the navy's ability to operate far from home.
Very important point and we are already seeing this by the IN.

The Indian government's stepped-up plans for the Indian Navy and its massive expansion of the Andaman and Nicobar bases should be seen in this light. According to one report,

The plan to set up the Far Eastern Naval Command (FENC) was set in concrete in 1995 following a closed-door meeting in Washington between then Indian prime minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, and [then] US president, Bill Clinton"¦.

The US is expected to partly fund FENC because it is considered part of a US-led security arrangement for Asia in which India plays a key role. US funding was cleared in 2000 when Clinton visited India.
Huge point. US funding Indian expansion of AnN base. Talk about a falkland like crises now!!

India is increasing military sales to Vietnam, providing spares for overhauling its"¦aircraft"¦sending its officers to Vietnam for training in counter-insurgency and jungle warfare operations, while India's coast guard and Vietnam's sea police would cooperate to fight piracy. India is also providing help to build up the Vietnamese Navy"¦.India has also agreed "in principle" to sell Vietnam the"¦Prithvi missile, train Vietnamese scientists in Indian nuclear establishments, and help Vietnam establish its own arms industry for small arms"¦.The Indian Navy has also conducted combined exercises with the Vietnamese Navy
It is reported that, in exchange for transfer of missile technology, India may ask for an option to use Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay, the finest natural deep-water harbor in Asia.
.
India in principle agreed to sell the Prithvi missile? Has this happened already or still remains on paper?

The U.S. War College study spells out the benefits of an "Asian NATO":

What's in it for the United States? For one, the proposed security system is principally an in-region solution for dealing with two of the biggest international security threats—an over-ambitious China and the spread of Talibanised Islam. Second, this scheme being entirely indigenous, there is none of the odium that attends on US troops deployed locally as in South Korea and Japan"¦.And, finally, it in no way precludes the presence in the extended region of the US armed forces or limits US military initiatives.

However—and this is crucial—the entire scheme will fall apart if India does not nurse great power ambitions. Only if India sees itself as a great power, a "counterpoise to China in the region," will it want to promote a broad anti-China alliance. And so the United States must push India to pursue its "manifest destiny":

But crucial to making this system work is India's being convinced of its 'manifest destiny' and for it to act forcefully. It will require in the main that New Delhi think geostrategically and give up its diffidence when it comes to advancing the country's vital national interests and its almost knee-jerk bias to appease friends and foes alike. The corrective lies in the Indian government expressly defining its strategic interests and focus and, at a minimum, proceeding expeditiously towards obtaining a nuclear force with a proven and tested thermonuclear and an ICBM reach. Nothing less will persuade the putative Asian allies that India can be an effective counterpoise to China in the region, or compel respect for India in Washington.
India's great-power ambitions, then, are crucial to the success of U.S. plans for Asia. Indeed, the further Indian foreign policy is subordinated to U.S. strategic designs, the better India's chances of winning U.S. backing at last for its single-minded drive to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. While admitting that the United States had not supported India's claim to UNSC membership, Manmohan Singh told Parliament that "when the time comes, I have reason to believe that we will not be ignored."
Important, the US will not be averse to India building an ICBM force. Funny that after denying any plans of long range missiles, India finally embarked on A5, though it caps it at just around 5000kms or below ICBM range, it shows that India under active US encouragement will make an ICBM force. Missile defense that India is mounting is also now making sense. It sure has active "blessings" of the US and from what we have heard recently, and also mentioned earlier in the article, India will be part of a global ABM shield.


At the end of it, its all on India as to how it wants to see itself. If we want to call ourselves a world power, then we will have to tie up with the US for now which is looking to help us. Though it does it for its own interests, but Indian interests are also being served. Well thats what mutual cooperation is all about!!
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
The US is one of the major impediments in the Indo-Pak scenario.The puke bastards act cocky seeing US at the back.the reason India did not wage a war with pakistan after 26/11 is not Paki crown jewels as many think its the US which prevented the action
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
The US is one of the major impediments in the Indo-Pak scenario.The puke bastards act cocky seeing US at the back.the reason India did not wage a war with pakistan after 26/11 is not Paki crown jewels as many think its the US which prevented the action
It is in yankee interest that pak-India-china are at each others throats. Currently pak and china are playing there part very well.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top