Pak gives US 56-page wish list to counter India's might

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
Will our politicians ever wake up to such testimony’s, I doubt, they are too busy fighting amongst themselves. We the tax paying citizens of the Republic of India will have to pay the ultimate price. We are still not valued in our own country then the American's who just show a carrot and we run after them, I think our stand has weekend due to the fall of the USSR. Still in spite of having such a big economy we still beg in front of the USA for cutting edge technology. We should stop fighting amongst our selves and take India towards self reliance and growth. The Growth that we see today does not really look like Growth. Our Villages still don't have electricity and our economy is still dependable on agriculture. We should not worry what US things about us. We should force them to change the perception!!!

Well Pakistan will always be our arch enemy unless we remove them from the Map and include it as another state in India, any way they were born from us due to a cheap Joke when British left our homes. We should not return the Favor
COMMANDER2010,

good to have you join the discussion and you have raised a very imporatnt point on inward correction but then with the massive population that we have that correction does take time and i think we need to give time and also credit since a lot of good has indeed taken place but without digressing any further how do you feel should we be working around the US so that they get serious about what we say rather than pass it off as some sort of a joke as is happening now.

LF,

that is for time to tell, but from the looks of it these three countries joining hands and working together to counter the influence of the US looks highly unlikely given when our very own politicians and policy makers are too keen to suck up to the americans. even the chinese do not seem too keen on any such formation and i suspect the chinese will not show their true colours till the time their nominal gdp surpasses that of the US and that leaves the russians alone, but yes one good thing coming around is putin who remains quite keen on having russia rise again as an extremely important state in the world affairs, and as i said before the only sensible thing we have done for the past few years is not cut off our relations russia which were under strain for quite sometime.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
Well well from the look of things, beggars sure are turning choosers.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
This was the most important thing was to get relations back on track with Russia. USA has no clear policy and are playing a double role, very few non Anglo countries have any long term relations with USA outside of NATO.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
AJ,

Thanks for that post, it indeed does some tough talking, something that needs to be followed up by our policy makers and it is high time we told the Americans that south asia is indeed a zero sum game and they need to make their choice, they choose Pakistan its perfect, we have survived without them for good 4-5decades and we can do it pretty well even in the future.

Quite effectively what that person has highlighted is precisely what the Chinese have been doing and are doing with the Americans and they have in fact dealt with them quite effectively to the extent the US is forced to listen up to what they say.

A google gets thrown out and the Americans give no reaction, quite unprecedented indeed!

The more important question, are we ready to take our lessons or will be keep stumbling and falling with only to repeat the mistake over and over again in future? I recall Johnee saying that the younger generation has that kind of a temperament sighting the analogy of Indian cricket team where there are today an absolutely fearless bunch of lads but then are such young people to be found in our polity?
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,747
DD,

What you say makes sense but do our leaders really have the kind of balls, let alone taking on the US and its concerned officials and telling them of our dos and don’ts our rather docile MoEA SM Krishna and his babus cant even come up with the proper counter strategy to play around with Pakistan and their rather belligerent mouth pieces, the foreign minister and sect of foreign affairs.

You just have to look at afpak and more recently the snub these chaps have been handed out at the hands of Americans where today or yesterday hillary clinton went on to say what she had to on the proposed nuke deal to Pakistan and all that post the official reaction from our MoEA.

It is quite clear Americans give two hoots to what we say, with all the talk of India a strategic partner and a natural partner is just some hot air spread by people who are lobbing for their own interests in the bargain but the more important question is, is India ready to put its relations with the US on the backburner if they are not ready to listen and address our concerns, if not then well what is the solution around this persisting problem?
Ritesh,

The problem in the end boils down to leadership problem or the lack of. GoI should interact with US as an equal peer not as a subordinate ally if India has to be taken seriously by US. Presently, MMS govt. seems to toeing the line of US when it comes to the matter of Pakistan, Afghanistan and even foreign policy. This needs to be corrected sooner than later.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
New Delhi, Washington: Who gets what?

When the transformation of US-India relations was just beginning early in the Bush administration, the then US ambassador to India, Robert D Blackwill, asked a group of Americans and Indians gathered in Aspen, Colorado, a pregnant question. In Sanjaya Baru's recent retelling, Blackwill directly challenged his interlocutors: "India wants the US to invest, India wants the US to keep its markets more open, India wants more visas for its professionals, India wants us to be helpful on Kashmir and in dealing with Pakistan, India wants US support for membership of the UN Security Council, India wants this and India wants that. Tell me what will India give in return?"

The question of what India can give the United States in return for the advantages it often seeks has remained one that many Americans have asked for some time now-and with growing urgency ever since George W Bush decided to change the global rules pertaining to nuclear cooperation to singularly favour India. Yet, it is not an easy question to answer and three different responses have been articulated thus far.

The first, one that reflects a classic benevolent liberalism, was advanced by George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In an essay published in the Washington Quarterly in 2003, Perkovich, acknowledging both India's weakness and its fierce desire to protect its national autonomy, emphasised that New Delhi does not "have the interest or power to augment US interests in many areas." But, that disinclination or incapacity did not matter because India was "too big and too important in the overall global community to measure in terms of its alignment with any particular US interest at any given time." In his judgment, India's real contribution to advancing US goals consisted not of a partnership in support of American aims but rather getting things right on the issues that mattered for the success of global order.

As Perkovich argued, "It matters to the entire world whether India is at war or peace with its neighbors, is producing increasing prosperity or poverty for its citizens, stemming or incubating the spread of infectious diseases, or mimicking or leapfrogging climate-warming technologies. Democratically managing a society as big, populous, diverse, and culturally dynamic as India is a world historical challenge. If India can democratically lift all of its citizens to a decent quality of life without trampling on basic liberties and harming its neighbors , the Indian people will have accomplished perhaps the greatest success in human history."

If the United States could aid this endeavour without strings attached and without undermining the hope of creating a global system governed by law, great. But since India would pursue its own interests independently anyway - because it does not believe that "others might help without asking anything in return" - Perkovich's response, in effect, deflects Blackwill's question: Far from India doing something for the United States or vice versa, the best US policy turns out to be one that leaves India alone. Perkovich's later opposition to the US-Indian civilian nuclear agreement was consistent with this perspective because, despite his sympathy for India and its quest for autonomy, he viewed the agreement as subverting the larger goal of creating a rule-bound global nuclear order even as Washington attempted to suborn New Delhi into a "strategic partnership" that collided with India's own vision of itself as an independent great power.

At the opposite end of the spectrum to Perkovich lies the transactional approach, which was urged by many critics of the nuclear deal with India. This second response to Blackwill's question advocates matching US initiatives towards India to different acts of reciprocity on the part of New Delhi. During the extended hearings on the nuclear deal, for example, many US legislators, influenced by the opponents, asked what New Delhi would do for Washington if the global regime was changed to exclusively accommodate India: Would India support US sanctions against Iran? Or cease producing fissile materials and formally renounce nuclear testing?

While such queries were understandable given the organic linkages between nuclear cooperation and nuclear proliferation, other expectations of reciprocity were far more expansive: thus, for example, some wondered why the resumption of nuclear cooperation with India should not be made conditional on increased American access to the Indian market, or increased Indian defense purchases of American equipment, or even new Indian initiatives for peace with Pakistan. Whatever the quid pro quo suggested, this approach takes Blackwill's question at face value and answers it by asserting that US efforts to favour India should be conditioned by what New Delhi is willing to do for Washington in return.

In my November 2005 testimony before the US House of Representatives on the "The US-India 'Global Partnership'" , I sought to provide an alternative to this calculating transactionalism. This third response is rooted in a strategic realism that incorporates elements of the benevolent liberalism articulated by Perkovich, but embeds it in a vision that orients the bilateral partnership towards serving certain common purposes.

Like Perkovich, I argued that the appropriate question to ask was not "What will India do for the United States?" - however natural that might appear. Rather, the real question ought to be, "Is a strong, democratic, (even if perpetually) independent, India in American national interest?" Since I held that the answer to this latter question was "yes" - and since this query was in fact the only appropriate one from a strategic realist perspective - the real issue boiled down to how Washington could assist the growth of Indian power so as to secure its larger global aims at lowest cost to itself and (if that is relevant) to any other competing national security objectives. This strategic realist response to Blackwill, thus, appears to invert his original question, but arguably engages it more profoundly.

Unlike Perkovich, who is content to leave India alone in order to let it realise its developmental goals because these achievements suffice to improve global order, the strategic realist emphasises the importance of the United States aiding India not as an act of altruism, but as a calculated contribution to creating, in Condoleezza Rice's famous phrase, a "balance of power that favours freedom." In other words, assisting India to develop its national capabilities is intended not merely to uplift its humanity - the goal that Perkovich endorses - but also, and equally importantly, to advance the vital US interest in preserving a stable geopolitical balance in Asia and globally.

To the degree that the American partnership with India aids New Delhi in growing more rapidly, it contributes - along with Japanese, Australian, and Southeast Asian power - towards creating those objective structural constraints that discourage China from abusing its own growing capabilities , even as Washington preserves good relations with Beijing and encourages all its Asian partners to do the same. American strategic generosity towards India, thus, remains an investment in its own geopolitical well being. And India's success itself, so long as it is not used to undermine America's vital interests, becomes New Delhi's strategic bequest to Washington-and the answer to Blackwill's question , "What will India give in return?"

The strategic realist vision, obviously, does not preclude either Washington or New Delhi asking of each other for different forms of assistance or support . In fact, it presumes that such aid will be frequently solicited and will often materialise. But it rejects the notion that any "exchange of considerations" between these two states will prove infructuous because their worldviews and their relative power are different - a premise that animates many versions of benevolent liberalism - just as it rejects equally the idea that US assistance to India should be conditioned principally on notions of strict or specific reciprocity.

Instead, the strategic realist approach views Washington's concerted support of New Delhi as desirable precisely because it advances larger American geopolitical interests. And although such help will be initially asymmetrical because of the differences in American and Indian power, it expects that New Delhi would see cooperation with Washington as being fundamentally in its own interest - and, by extension, act in ways that confirm this expectation whenever possible. Such responses would materialise not so much out of gratitude to the United States but because aiding the preservation of the American-led global order, in contrast to, say, acquiescing to the rise of a Chinese alternative, is necessarily consistent with India's own vital national interests. A generous American support for the growth of Indian power today, then, is not an irrational investment for Washington: it advances the strategic aims of both states, while creating the incentives for more robust forms of cooperation as India's own national power increases over time.

The Bush administration, in extraordinary measure due to Blackwill's own efforts in the early years, pursued policies towards India that embodied this strategic realist perspective. In fact, it stayed the course until the very end. Thanks both to his affection for India and his conviction about the strategic importance of the US-Indian partnership, Bush declined to shift towards a transactional approach even when some in his administration believed that the president ought to use his nuclear initiative to press India for concessions in order to secure the political prize of completing the Doha Round.

To be sure, no policy will conform strictly to just one of the three "ideal types" outlined above. Rather, US policies in practice will always remain complex mixtures of benevolent liberalism, transactional calculation, and strategic realism, with one or more of these facets dominating the others depending on the administration in office. Today, when the imperatives of balancing against the growth of Chinese power appear to be less pressing in Washington, it is possible that the transactional approach will grow in attractiveness.

Yet it should be understood that Barack Obama's administration, for all its efforts to distance itself from its predecessor, is not oblivious to the problems posed by rising Chinese power. Nor is Obama personally insensitive to the difference between India as a democratic friend and China as an authoritarian rival of the United States. Consequently , although the current economic and political compulsions facing Washington may favour a transactional approach, there is good reason to believe, particularly after the recent Obama-Singh summit, that Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton will successfully prevent this attitude from fundamentally defining the US-Indian partnership.

While this is a tribute to all the personalities involved and the rapport that has developed between them, it should be viewed as an opportunity to be seized by New Delhi rather than merely a bullet dodged. India's recent foreign policy history has been marked by bold - and often unexpected - initiatives. From the nuclear tests to the peace process with Pakistan to civilian nuclear cooperation with the US, both Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh have pursued dramatic endeavors to India's advantage. There is no reason now to shy away from further bold actions that confirm India's continuing value to the US. From accelerated economic reforms at home to expanded bilateral defense cooperation to collaboration with Washington on regional and global issues, the opportunities for game-changing moves by New Delhi are legion.

Such actions would only strengthen President Obama's reluctance to pursue the transactional approach advocated by many in Washington towards India but it would also create the conditions for exploiting the full-fledged return to American strategic realism when that occurs. The importance of New Delhi boosting the bilateral partnership in this way cannot be underestimated. After all, it was barely a decade ago that Vajpayee set the ball rolling rapidly in the direction of decisive transformation through his government's audacious and astonishing decision in 2001 to cheer Bush's controversial revision of American strategic nuclear policy. What followed is now history. And it can be repeated.

India-born Ashley Tellis is a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing on international security and Asian strategic issues. Previously, while on assignment to the US state department, he was intimately involved in negotiating the nuclear deal with India. He is the author of ‘India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture’ and ‘China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present and Future’ . He is a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute of Strategic Studies
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
107
Well well from the look of things, beggars sure are turning choosers.
I think the art of begging is the essential skill for any top post in Pakistan, especially their military chiefs can't do without it.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
Developing ICBM intended for america is a joke. That too in retaliation for it giving weapons to pakistan.
People need to just calm down.

I read someone talking about how we are begging for some technology and not developing it. I had a good meeting with a high ranking design person in a major defense establishment and asked him the same. He said its happening but will take a long time. India has a lot of short coming which is yet to be fixed. Even steel for weapons and platforms are coming from abroad even now. Metterlurgy is still a big problem. Anyways, we do require tech from others yet.

Some of the other points like showing the finger on the nuke reactorss will only hurt india as it was the US which worked hard to get it passed in the first place. Remember that the direct impact of a failed nuke deal is on our nuke weapons program. Nuke deal has freed up our limited uranium for weapons.

Yes we can put some pressure as far as the MRCA is concerned. But then they will block sales of the P8, and the hercules and some other stuff that we have bought. There are no substitutes right now for those.


So what do we do? Do what the pakistanis do. Lobby and play the game properly. funny enough that the indians have forgotten to play the great game of chess that it invented. Time to play some good international diplomacy.

Using iran is a one such point. Sabotage of Astan exit plan can be another good option. Start arming anti Taliban rogues to fight the PA. Ask them to start attacking pakistan inside pakistan. So pakistan has two headaches. One Taliban and one anti Taliban. Use balochistan as well. All this will put pressure on pakistans western front. At the same time start shelling along the IB and kashmir. That will then create real problems for pakistan. Run to protect its eastern or western border? If it runs to the east, uncle sam will get upset. Then it calls india. India says don't arm pakistan we back off. Not easy, but we have to start such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
AJ,

Thanks for that post, it indeed does some tough talking, something that needs to be followed up by our policy makers and it is high time we told the Americans that south asia is indeed a zero sum game and they need to make their choice, they choose Pakistan its perfect, we have survived without them for good 4-5decades and we can do it pretty well even in the future.

Quite effectively what that person has highlighted is precisely what the Chinese have been doing and are doing with the Americans and they have in fact dealt with them quite effectively to the extent the US is forced to listen up to what they say.

A google gets thrown out and the Americans give no reaction, quite unprecedented indeed!

The more important question, are we ready to take our lessons or will be keep stumbling and falling with only to repeat the mistake over and over again in future? I recall Johnee saying that the younger generation has that kind of a temperament sighting the analogy of Indian cricket team where there are today an absolutely fearless bunch of lads but then are such young people to be found in our polity?
ritesh ,you given nice analogy of indian cricket team which has absolutely what it was in first 3 decades if i take that concept futher than it has to be pointed out that indian cricket team has done better under young captain from small towns for example:kapil dev and dhoni.under both leadership india won cricket world cup and under kapil india for 1st time won overseas tour in 1986.IF we take cricket analogy india is ruled by generation of 1940,50,60.If india has to look for fearless leader then he/she has to come fro 1970 or later generation that too from small town/village.coz these are the people who have real leadership qualities.city people are compromising lot.

COMMANDER2010,
Problem with indian leadership is that they react to the situation never proact.and they always need kargil type,26/11 type slap to wake up.but they do wake up to give hard blow.but it also true that they sleep too long until something untoward happen.
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
248
Developing ICBM intended for america is a joke. That too in retaliation for it giving weapons to pakistan.
People need to just calm down.

I read someone talking about how we are begging for some technology and not developing it. I had a good meeting with a high ranking design person in a major defense establishment and asked him the same. He said its happening but will take a long time. India has a lot of short coming which is yet to be fixed. Even steel for weapons and platforms are coming from abroad even now. Metterlurgy is still a big problem. Anyways, we do require tech from others yet.

Some of the other points like showing the finger on the nuke reactorss will only hurt india as it was the US which worked hard to get it passed in the first place. Remember that the direct impact of a failed nuke deal is on our nuke weapons program. Nuke deal has freed up our limited uranium for weapons.

Yes we can put some pressure as far as the MRCA is concerned. But then they will block sales of the P8, and the hercules and some other stuff that we have bought. There are no substitutes right now for those.


So what do we do? Do what the pakistanis do. Lobby and play the game properly. funny enough that the indians have forgotten to play the great game of chess that it invented. Time to play some good international diplomacy.

Using iran is a one such point. Sabotage of Astan exit plan can be another good option. Start arming anti Taliban rogues to fight the PA. Ask them to start attacking pakistan inside pakistan. So pakistan has two headaches. One Taliban and one anti Taliban. Use balochistan as well. All this will put pressure on pakistans western front. At the same time start shelling along the IB and kashmir. That will then create real problems for pakistan. Run to protect its eastern or western border? If it runs to the east, uncle sam will get upset. Then it calls india. India says don't arm pakistan we back off. Not easy, but we have to start such things.
I dont see a Thanks Button, If I Did, I would have thanked and I am sure many others would too! This is the thinking we need, this is what needs to be done. Everytime such a news comes to the fore and we have boys running around saying Nuke America, sanction america, nuke pakistan, embargo the world! They should realise that the folks running our country might be corrupt, but they are no Traitors, trust me. Cutting across Parties and people, they are not Traitors, and they wont sell us to America for 7 Silver Coins or whatever! Its time for a Game of Chess Like Yusufji said! Let it begin! God Speed
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Developing ICBM intended for america is a joke. That too in retaliation for it giving weapons to pakistan.
People need to just calm down.

I read someone talking about how we are begging for some technology and not developing it. I had a good meeting with a high ranking design person in a major defense establishment and asked him the same. He said its happening but will take a long time. India has a lot of short coming which is yet to be fixed. Even steel for weapons and platforms are coming from abroad even now. Metterlurgy is still a big problem. Anyways, we do require tech from others yet.

Some of the other points like showing the finger on the nuke reactorss will only hurt india as it was the US which worked hard to get it passed in the first place. Remember that the direct impact of a failed nuke deal is on our nuke weapons program. Nuke deal has freed up our limited uranium for weapons.

Yes we can put some pressure as far as the MRCA is concerned. But then they will block sales of the P8, and the hercules and some other stuff that we have bought. There are no substitutes right now for those.


So what do we do? Do what the pakistanis do. Lobby and play the game properly. funny enough that the indians have forgotten to play the great game of chess that it invented. Time to play some good international diplomacy.

Using iran is a one such point. Sabotage of Astan exit plan can be another good option. Start arming anti Taliban rogues to fight the PA. Ask them to start attacking pakistan inside pakistan. So pakistan has two headaches. One Taliban and one anti Taliban. Use balochistan as well. All this will put pressure on pakistans western front. At the same time start shelling along the IB and kashmir. That will then create real problems for pakistan. Run to protect its eastern or western border? If it runs to the east, uncle sam will get upset. Then it calls india. India says don't arm pakistan we back off. Not easy, but we have to start such things.
Yusuf, both soft power and hard power go hand in hand one is incomplete without other.We have soft power of bollywood ,tv serial and humanitarian work in afghanistan but we are completely confused there today.USA has soft power of hollywood but it has hard power of 12 super carriers to protect its soft power,china has soft power of its economy ,food,culture but it do ve hard power of of ICBM .and regarding developing ICBM---you never know who gonna be your enemy in future.so better be prepared from no then to grope in future at last moment as we did in 1962 and 1999.We always neglected our military.If you ask me then its bad idea to cap agni-5 at 5000km and not testing the fusion device to its potential yield in 1998.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
494
Johnee,


I will kind of disagree where you say the PM has to do the posturing, the top office of the country need not be involved in there, it’s the job of his lieutenants and that is precisely where a MS Krishna fits the bill and has to do the talking rather than do a no show at all and come across as a perfect fool, each time he is handed out a snub at the hands of the pak foreign minister.
TR, I agree with you that PM himself need not do the posturing if he doesnt want to, but if he does any posturing I would like him to convey the Indian position clearly and emphatically. If our PM keeps quiet and all the posturing is done by the ministers, its fine. But instead we come across our PM giving lovey dovey messages to Pak(and thereby to those who use Pak as a tool to bog down India). This is what I have prob with.

More importantly and leaving the individual aside, did the US and the NATO have any other choice of not listening to the paks since they are they ones who will be of great use to the US once they leave a’stan.
TR, we have to give the credit to Paks here, they created a nuisance value to themselves. Their bargain is simple, appease us or we will spoil your plans for the region. The same strategy is followed more subtly by China as well, you know that. Then why cant India do that? I am not saying India has to go to the absurd lengths of Pak, but we can certainly use the negative leverage of spoiling US plans for the region if they dont appease us on some subject. US wants the region to be offloaded, that no country should rise too high so that it can threaten US. India can threaten to make it a zero-sum game by threatening a war on Pak if a terrorist attack happens or something similar. We may or may not carry forward the threat, but the threat has a lot of effect in itself. It will create new dynamics. Right now, Indian policy is giving US no incentive to care for India. Pakistan and China are giving US negative incentive of not spoiling anything as long as they are humoured. On the other hand, India is simply too happy to go along with whatever US says or thats how it looks.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
494
AJ,

The more important question, are we ready to take our lessons or will be keep stumbling and falling with only to repeat the mistake over and over again in future? I recall Johnee saying that the younger generation has that kind of a temperament sighting the analogy of Indian cricket team where there are today an absolutely fearless bunch of lads but then are such young people to be found in our polity?
I still have that hope, TR. I think once the new gen of Rahul G or Varun G or even Priyanka G or perhaps Modi occupy the power, then we will see the dynamism in Indian policy. Right now, our policy is being framed by the oldies who were born in and around partition who still have some soft corner for Lahore...
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
494
Developing ICBM intended for america is a joke. That too in retaliation for it giving weapons to pakistan.
People need to just calm down.
Yusuf, just a nitpick. Why would be develop ICBM 'intended for america'? We will develop ICBM for our general defense or thats what we can say. But having an ICBM in our armory will definitely change the calculations in Washington DC. Its not whether we intend to use it or what the consequences would be to it. It is simply that our capability would increase and that would be noted in Washington, Beijing and Islamabad and underline a message that India is developing an aggressive capability which is a message: 'dont mess with us too much'.
 

xebex

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
536
Likes
68
Arms race or not, but india is indirectly paying for subsided pakistani weapon acquisition by buying weapons from usa.What pakistan gets for free or on subsidized rates from usa, india has to shell out hard earned dollars to acquire the same from usa.
thats not true, if that was the case then the very operating system yours and my computer running on, be it Windows or Mac, has something to do with US weapon export to Pakistan, aint it?. The thing is, money is floating around all over the world, so one nation's action do have effect on another one way or other, like a side effects of globalization if u will.

Now on the topic: its just a wishlist, and I don't think every wish gonna be fulfilled. Still, India have an edge over Pakistan as far as the sophistication of weapon offered by US is concerned IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
TR, we have to give the credit to Paks here, they created a nuisance value to themselves. Their bargain is simple, appease us or we will spoil your plans for the region. The same strategy is followed more subtly by China as well, you know that. Then why cant India do that? I am not saying India has to go to the absurd lengths of Pak, but we can certainly use the negative leverage of spoiling US plans for the region if they dont appease us on some subject. US wants the region to be offloaded, that no country should rise too high so that it can threaten US. India can threaten to make it a zero-sum game by threatening a war on Pak if a terrorist attack happens or something similar. We may or may not carry forward the threat, but the threat has a lot of effect in itself. It will create new dynamics. Right now, Indian policy is giving US no incentive to care for India. Pakistan and China are giving US negative incentive of not spoiling anything as long as they are humoured. On the other hand, India is simply too happy to go along with whatever US says or thats how it looks.
Johnee,

I am not shying away from giving the paks credit where it is due, they indeed have played their cards well and in bargain got what they wanted right from playing a much bigger role in a’stan to trying their hand on seeking some sort of a parity with us the result of which is awaited but are well and truly on that track, and having played the double game that they did on a’stan, the world still finds the ever powerful and the sole super power seeking their help, and framing their policies after looking out for pak's concerns, but did the US there have any other choice, they tried bringing India into the picture but failed miserably for we do not want to play the bigger role with boots on that soil and I guess rightly so since the Indian public and polity alike do not have the heart to see bodies wrapped in tri colour heading back home the backlash of which would have been huge a lesson we learnt from the IPKF operation where eventually vp singh did a hasty and an abrupt retreat the after effects of which are felt even today with us loosing out on a lot of clout on srilanka (mind you i am not faulting the act of sending the force to srilanka but the decision of pulling off and the foreign policy followed by india since).
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,052
Likes
39,782
Country flag
This is what I feel is US's grand strategy with respect to middle east and Asia. India should be careful in dealing with US keeping this viewpoint of US in mind
Reply to that article:

It's not entirely true that the US uses regional power balancing to stop emerging powers that threaten its position. China has virtually no counter. It is not able to have hegemonic ambitions only because it's stabilizing internally, and its growing economy is helping that. Once it achieves a reasonable degree of that, it will be a little too late for the US to by itself or using another local power, counter it. India at the moment cannot be used to counter China. While it can defend itself in a situation, it certainly can't needle China. Leaving China aside, US itself has tough competition in a rapidly homogenizing European Union. The EU aspires to some day have a more homogenized power structure, maybe even a unified military. With the economic stability and self-sufficiency EU enjoys, it will be tough for US to really counter it.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,747
Reply to that article:

It's not entirely true that the US uses regional power balancing to stop emerging powers that threaten its position. China has virtually no counter. It is not able to have hegemonic ambitions only because it's stabilizing internally, and its growing economy is helping that. Once it achieves a reasonable degree of that, it will be a little too late for the US to by itself or using another local power, counter it. India at the moment cannot be used to counter China. While it can defend itself in a situation, it certainly can't needle China. Leaving China aside, US itself has tough competition in a rapidly homogenizing European Union. The EU aspires to some day have a more homogenized power structure, maybe even a unified military. With the economic stability and self-sufficiency EU enjoys, it will be tough for US to really counter it.
Yes, but US is now trying to use India as a counter to China. That is why they are willing and offering to sell their advanced weapons systems to us which they weren't doing earlier (of course they are earning the money also which is still paltry compared to their domestic military sales). And at the same time US is using Pakistan to check mate India. Its all part of grand strategy.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
494
^^Earlier US wished to use China as a counter to Soviet Union. Thats the general policy of US...
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,052
Likes
39,782
Country flag
Yes, but US is now trying to use India as a counter to China. That is why they are willing and offering to sell their advanced weapons systems to us which they weren't doing earlier (of course they are earning the money also which is still paltry compared to their domestic military sales). And at the same time US is using Pakistan to check mate India. Its all part of grand strategy.
That's merely profiteering, not using us as a counter. It's not like they're 'giving away' their advanced weapon systems to us like it throws away stuff at Pakistan. They're making offers, we're paying them in full. Besides, despite these sales to India, India can't needle China the way Pakistan needles India. So if India can't, US won't bother. Hence these weapon sales can be seen as just profiteering without any strategy attached to it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top