If India has to go for a two fronts war against China and Pakistan...

[Martian]

As you know, I'm still trying to figure out a way to increase India's defense budget to make her stronger. Here's my latest attempt.

India's economy at 1.2 trillion dollars is bigger than Mexico's 1.1 trillion or Turkey's 730 billion. See List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, it is strange that India's tax revenue is lower than both Mexico and Turkey. See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

India's budget is:
revenues: $126.7 billion
expenditures: $202.6 billion (2008 est.)

Mexico's budget is:
revenues: $257.1 billion
expenditures: $258.1 billion (2008 est.)

Turkey's budget is:
revenues: $160.5 billion
expenditures: $173.6 billion (2008 est.)

If India can collect tax revenues comparable to Mexico then India should have another 55 (i.e. 257 revenues - 202 expenditures) billion dollars to spend. Here we go guys. I have just found a way to increase India's defense budget from 32 billion to 87 billion; an increase of 150%. Listen up Tata, you're paying more in taxes from now on. You too Ambani. No more frivolous billion dollar skyscraper toys for you. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6712605.stm

 

[no smoking]

china is authoritarian and so they don't feel the need to answer people inspite of the same problems they face as in india. in pakistan, the army decides everything including their foreign policy, so nobody answer the people. india, being democratic can't escape that.

On the contrast, as a authoritanrian gov, CCP started the reform 17 years earlier than india. That means This dictator realised that they need to answer these problem even earlier than democratic indian gov. So, how much should be spent on defence is decided by how you evaluate the urgency of defence instead of the nature of gov.

israel lives under constant threat. apart they don't have the complexity of an indian scenario and they are pretty advanced. hence security is their main issue which explains their 9% budge.

No, because they have 3b dollars yearly aid from USA.

 

[Vladimir79]

If India can collect tax revenues comparable to Mexico then India should have another 55 (i.e. 257 revenues - 202 expenditures) billion dollars to spend. Here we go guys. I have just found a way to increase India's defense budget from 32 billion to 87 billion; an increase of 150%. Listen up Tata, you're paying more in taxes from now on. You too Ambani. No more frivolous billion dollar skyscraper toys for you.

I think you are forgetting India has over a billion people, while Mexico and Turkey do not. You have to provide alot more services and the current level is still inadequate.

 

[Martian]

I guess the lesson is that there is no easy answer. I now believe that if it were possible to relatively easily raise the Indian military budget then the people in government would probably have done it by now. I think it will be hard to move past the budgetary constraints.

India will have to resign herself to a smaller military budget with respect to China. Perhaps Indian strategists should consider asymmetric weapons and responses to China's bigger military budget.

 

[Vladimir79]

I guess the lesson is that there is no easy answer. I now believe that if it were possible to relatively easily raise the Indian military budget then the people in government would probably have done it by now. I think it will be hard to move past the budgetary constraints.

India will have to resign herself to a smaller military budget with respect to China. Perhaps Indian strategists should consider asymmetric weapons and responses to China's bigger military budget.

As long as India can hold off China for 3 months, which is their strategic energy reserve target (2020), they can cut off the flow of ME energy supplies with ease. They won't be able to wage war for much longer than that.

 

[ppgj]

However, it is strange that India's tax revenue is lower than both Mexico and Turkey.

martian, you are right. but do remember, india is still agrarian country. almost 60% of the population make their livelihood out of agriculture.
agriculture is not taxed in india. that explains your query. it is very sensitive issue for our politicians. they don't want to touch it.
however in the guise of service tax the govt is trying to increase tax base.

 

[ppgj]

On the contrast, as a authoritanrian gov, CCP started the reform 17 years earlier than india.

agree with you.

That means This dictator realised that they need to answer these problem even earlier than democratic indian gov. So, how much should be spent on defence is decided by how you evaluate the urgency of defence instead of the nature of gov.

the point is they don't have to answer people. anyway people do not have the freedom to question. in india it does not work like that.

No, because they have 3b dollars yearly aid from USA.

partly agree. israel still have to budget higher for defence.

 

[ppgj]

I guess the lesson is that there is no easy answer. I now believe that if it were possible to relatively easily raise the Indian military budget then the people in government would probably have done it by now. I think it will be hard to move past the budgetary constraints.

india did have capital constraints till early 90s. so it was hardly in a position to budget for defence. remember india started to open up post 1990. now it is in a position to correct that. hence the recent increases. india has the cushion to manoevur. i would not be surprised they ramp it up to say 2.5-3% of gdp in coming year or 2.

India will have to resign herself to a smaller military budget with respect to China.

that is going to be the case for all the time.

Perhaps Indian strategists should consider asymmetric weapons and responses to China's bigger military budget.

india lays more emphasis on quality. there is no point having more than necessary. it only adds to cost and burden both in terms of manpower and otherwise.

 

[no smoking]

agree with you.

the point is they don't have to answer people. anyway people do not have the freedom to question. in india it does not work like that.

partly agree. israel still have to budget higher for defence.

Well, if they don't need to answer people, there should be no reform at all. If they don't need to answer people, there should be no the compaign of anti-corruption. If they don't need to answer people, our wages should stay on the same level as last 80s.

My friend, it seems all your knowledges about this dictatorship are coming from the myth built by media. If they really are the dumb evil as portraited by meida, I can promise you one thing: they should've become history already.
The smart part of CCP is that they know which problem raised by people should be answer and which can be ignored temporarily.

 

[Martian]

I think you're right. It's a myth that CCP is immunized from answering to the Chinese people. It is actually the CCP's fear that they have no legitimacy. Without question, the CCP has succeeded beyond anybody's imagination in their 30 years of economic reform. The CCP has staked its continued existence on delivering a better life to the Chinese people.

Technically, it's true that the Chinese people don't vote for the CCP. But the CCP is constantly worried that the Chinese people may question their legitimacy that the CCP is basically "answering people's" needs for reform.

 

[Vladimir79]

My friend, it seems all your knowledges about this dictatorship are coming from the myth built by media. If they really are the dumb evil as portraited by meida, I can promise you one thing: they should've become history already.

My friend, when CCP is willing to murder protestors by the hundreds, it is little wonder people rarely have the guts to stand up.

 

[Martian]

Are you referring to Tiananmen? From what I read, the CCP government was almost toppled. It appears that no one at the top leadership knew what to do about the student protesters. It was only Deng Xiaoping that finally decided to remove the students by force. Without Deng, I think the CCP might have been history in 1989.

Without Deng's vision to open China's economy in 1978 and his decision on Tiananmen in 1989, I don't think the New China that we see today would exist. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping

 

[ppgj]

Well, if they don't need to answer people, there should be no reform at all. If they don't need to answer people, there should be no the compaign of anti-corruption. If they don't need to answer people, our wages should stay on the same level as last 80s.

you are misunderstanding my post. i am not saying CCP is not for reforms. infact i admitted to your assertion china is ahead 17yrs when it comes to that. but my point is debate among people, intelligentsia, representatives of people about CCP decisions and influencing them. how many of your people can question CCP decisions? in india we can get info by right to information act. any citizen can ask about any project (except classified ones). the state is bound to answer.

My friend, it seems all your knowledges about this dictatorship are coming from the myth built by media. If they really are the dumb evil as portraited by meida, I can promise you one thing: they should've become history already.

myth or truth? you can always look at from whatever angle you want to look at it. if you are happy with it so be it. i am not sitiing on judgement which system you should or should not have. point is with ref to the topic martian raised.

The smart part of CCP is that they know which problem raised by people should be answer and which can be ignored temporarily.

good for you.

 

[ppgj]

I think you're right. It's a myth that CCP is immunized from answering to the Chinese people. It is actually the CCP's fear that they have no legitimacy. Without question, the CCP has succeeded beyond anybody's imagination in their 30 years of economic reform. The CCP has staked its continued existence on delivering a better life to the Chinese people.

point is not about whether CCP is answerable to the people or not. it is whether people have the freedom to question any decision by the CCP.

Technically, it's true that the Chinese people don't vote for the CCP. But the CCP is constantly worried that the Chinese people may question their legitimacy that the CCP is basically "answering people's" needs for reform.

when was there an election?

 

[Martian]

If the CCP is doing a great job reforming the economy and since the people appear to be willing to wait 20 years or so for democratic reforms, why is the current arrangement unacceptable in your eyes?

The CCP is one of those rare benevolent authoritarian governments that a country wins in a lottery; once in 5,000 years. Without the CCP, if the KMT were still in charge, we would not see the New China.

 

[mattster]

Coming to the original question of fighting a 2 front war - there is almost no country except the US that can handle a 2 front war with 2 major adversaries simultaneously.

Only the US can probably pull of such a feat and even then it would be with great difficulty. Thats not to say that Pakistan would not take the opportunity to launch a 2nd front with India if India ever had a significant conventional border war with China.

Pakistan's military establishment has shown time and again that they are willing to take very high risk gambles if they see a weakness or an opportunity arises. Kargil is a classic example of a high risk strategy that was taken because they saw an obvious weakness.

This is where a country that has a powerful nuclear deterrent can prevent a simultaneous attack against it by 2 allied enemies because in such a scenario the enemy has to take into consideration that country being attacked is going to go all out and launch a nuclear first strike. This would be a doomsday scenario, but if you are attacked by both sides and looking at a massive defeat; then the opponents have to consider that fact that this conflict could escalate and become a full blown nuclear conflict in which there are no winners, only losers.

But if you dont have the SLBM based nuclear deterrent, then its possible that you are vulnerable to a 2 front attack.

 

[Martian]

What you say is true. Only the US can possibly fight two major adversaries at once. However, the US has this ability because its economy and stockpile of weaponry is unparalleled.

India is in a different situation. India is facing a neighbor that has an economy that is 3 1/2 times bigger and whose weaponry is more advanced. Also, China has a numerical advantage (see Our Air force strength is one third of China: IAF chief - Instablogs) in weaponry.

The other adversary Pakistan, though smaller, is armed to the teeth. There is no realistic way that India can prevail in a two-front conventional war. The good news is that at the height of tensions between Pakistan and India, I read that Musharraf went to Beijing to ask for their nuclear umbrella protection against India. As a power interested in the status-quo, Beijing reportedly told Musharraf "no."

"India's continued (though highly covert) nuclear weapons programs and China's refusal to have its nuclear forces considered in any sub-continental nuclear equation also means that both countries will include qualitative and quantitative improvements in their respective nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems as a key part of their modernization efforts."

"At the same time, China clearly does not want to make any firm commitment to Pakistan's security for fear of unwanted nuclear entanglement with India." See http://www.nti.org/db/china/nsascris.htm

 

[Vladimir79]

Coming to the original question of fighting a 2 front war - there is almost no country except the US that can handle a 2 front war with 2 major adversaries simultaneously.

Really? US Army is so strung out they couldn't fight anything except an air war. Only two countries that can really fight a war on 2 major fronts are Russia and China because we are not overextended.

Only the US can probably pull of such a feat and even then it would be with great difficulty. Thats not to say that Pakistan would not take the opportunity to launch a 2nd front with India if India ever had a significant conventional border war with China.

US would have to completely withdraw from the ME and Korea, which would take years, by such time it would be irrelavent. India would have a hard time against a combined China/Pak full scale assault. 3 million troops rushing over your borders is not something even US could face without a draft.

 

[ppgj]

If the CCP is doing a great job reforming the economy and since the people appear to be willing to wait 20 years or so for democratic reforms, why is the current arrangement unacceptable in your eyes?

i don't think anybody feels it is unacceptable. if anybody can then it is only the chinese people. i was only answering 'no smoking' about a point on dictatorship. that is all. i do admit CCP has done a lot for their country.

The CCP is one of those rare benevolent authoritarian governments that a country wins in a lottery; once in 5,000 years. Without the CCP, if the KMT were still in charge, we would not see the New China.

that is hypothetical. we will never know 'cos that never happened.

 

[mattster]

When you look at the US being bogged down in a Iraq and Afganistan....these are not really conventional ground wars.....They are mainly counter insurgency wars where only a fraction of the full military weight can be used because of issues like civilian casualties.

My statement was that if the US were to take on 2 all out conventional wars, provided that it was not distracted somewhere else.....it is probably the only country that has the ability to project the level of power needed to defeat 2 enemies.