Brace for two-front war, Indian Army told

[prototype]

The US has numercially smaller armed forces. WHat they have showed to the rest of the world is that it's not the nos. that count but technology and training. Our success will depend upon:
a) Better Tech Capabilities (Network centricity through sats, comm. equipments etc. and superior tech weapons)
b) Force Multipiers: AWACS, CJ 17, Nuke Subs, Stealth ships etc.
c) Cutting edge Training and Doctrine
d) Better equipped soldier

If we want to be among the very best armed forces in the world, we have to focus on all of these anyways. We've never known to just sit by the sides and twiddle our thumbs, always wanted to be counted among the best. So why don't we go all out and do it? Not just coz we want the two front doctrine but because we want to be OUR best.

their is a big difference,cant compare India and U.S

U.S is not surrounded by hostile nations,have a look into their history,each and every war U.S fought is away from its mainland(exception WW 2),that is not our case,even if we have the above facts mentioned by u,as it is not only as who have access to technology

 

[prototype]

India needs to order 3 more Israeli Phalcon Awacs and base them in the NE, so they can monitor 2 fronts.

well India is indeed planning for 6 AWACS in total

 

[Guynextdoor]

well India is indeed planning for 6 AWACS in total

Plus the 10 indigenous platforms- that makes it some 16 total survellance platforms right? Not adding the navy pieces.

 

[faithfulguy]

their is a big difference,cant compare India and U.S

U.S is not surrounded by hostile nations,have a look into their history,each and every war U.S fought is away from its mainland(exception WW 2),that is not our case,even if we have the above facts mentioned by u,as it is not only as who have access to technology

This is totally not true. Some wars are fought in the US. At one time, the invader took over Washington DC and burned down White House, caused the president fleeing and also burned down the capital building. Though that is long long long time ago.

US also fought war with neighbors.

Even in WWII, it was a oversea war from the perspective of the US

 

[faithfulguy]

The US has numercially smaller armed forces. WHat they have showed to the rest of the world is that it's not the nos. that count but technology and training. Our success will depend upon:
a) Better Tech Capabilities (Network centricity through sats, comm. equipments etc. and superior tech weapons)
b) Force Multipiers: AWACS, CJ 17, Nuke Subs, Stealth ships etc.
c) Cutting edge Training and Doctrine
d) Better equipped soldier

If we want to be among the very best armed forces in the world, we have to focus on all of these anyways. We've never known to just sit by the sides and twiddle our thumbs, always wanted to be counted among the best. So why don't we go all out and do it? Not just coz we want the two front doctrine but because we want to be OUR best.

The US has technology that is unparallel. If India wants to have the capability to invade its neighbors and defeat them in 96 hrs, then it would need to buy a lot more weapons. If it just want a defensive war, why not allow US to protect India. Buying a little bit here and there is not sufficient for the task of defending India as India is a big country. Having even a little number of US soldiers station there make a big deterrant. for example, south Korea.

 

[RAHUL INDIAN]

The US has technology that is unparallel. If India wants to have the capability to invade its neighbors and defeat them in 96 hrs, then it would need to buy a lot more weapons. If it just want a defensive war, why not allow US to protect India. Buying a little bit here and there is not sufficient for the task of defending India as India is a big country. Having even a little number of US soldiers station there make a big deterrant. for example, south Korea.

i think China needs to have some troops stationed from Pak to feel safe...

 

[Guynextdoor]

The US has technology that is unparallel. If India wants to have the capability to invade its neighbors and defeat them in 96 hrs, then it would need to buy a lot more weapons. If it just want a defensive war, why not allow US to protect India. Buying a little bit here and there is not sufficient for the task of defending India as India is a big country. Having even a little number of US soldiers station there make a big deterrant. for example, south Korea.

Am I supposed to take this question seriously and actually answer it? U really telling me you don't understand why it is ok for the koreans to be under US protectorate and not ok for India?