Debunking the Myth making machine over ''defense spending''.

[Kompromat]

Incorrect ,it is 6.2 X of Pakistan's. Even you know your population isn't 125mill to be 10X smaller to India's.

Incorrect, difference is $235bill,which accounts for 18% of Pakistan's percapita.

Debatable.

To some extent it is as it is mentioned by you in your first post. Was just trying to correct you were you were wrong.

You literally have more than 1.05 billion people more than we have. That is not 6 times.

 

[Levina]

All Pakistani missiles are called Hatf - XXX - The nickname is given to make it look unique.

I pointed at WHY it was named Ghauri.

I am talking about a conventional war. Pakistan's doctrine of warfare is not offensive but defensive under the theory of 'active effective deterrence', while India's past doctrines and the present one are inherently aimed at power projection which is an offensive doctrine.

India's past doctrine??
which one?? Sunderji ,is it??
I've already proven you wrong on that.

The Op Brasstacks is also a reflection of India's past offensive doctrines.

so what was Op Brass Tacks??
Brasstacks crises was nothing but accidental crises, caused by Pakistan's misinterpretation.The magnitude and large scale direction of the exercise led to Pakistan fears that India was displaying an overwhelming conventional superiority and was planning to invade Pakistan, which came out of the lessons from '71 winter war.
Was India being offensive by not even firing a shot???
To prove its intentions were peaceful during the exercise, India took the unusual step of inviting diplomats and journalists to observe the operation separately. AFAIK even a Pakistani diplomat was invited.
ON INDIA'S BORDER, A HUGE MOCK WAR - New York Times

The Op Parakram was also a manifestation of India's offensive doctrine so was India's decision to escalate 1965 war by invading Lahore then later East Pakistan.

One,Operation Parakram was launched in the wake of the December 13, 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and the 10 month deployment ended without a conflict.
Two,Op-Parakram had 3 aims mobilising the army to the border — defeating cross border terrorism without conflict,containing the national mood to “teach Pak a lesson” and in the case of war,degrading the neighbouring nation’s war fighting capabilities.
Three,after US and other western governments stepped in with diplomatic manoeuvres General Musharraf made an ashen faced commitment in a nationally telecast speech on January 12, 2002, that Pakistan “will not permit any terrorist activity from its soil” and then India backed-off.
Again was India being offensive here?

Please don't waste my time unless you have something i haven't read already.

I wasnt expecting you to accept it with alacrity.You could 've avoided this debate had you not been polemic about India in your article.You should've restricted it to debunking the myths ONLY.

 

[Nova2]

You literally have more than 1.05 billion people more than we have. That is not 6 times.

Pakistan's population is 196mill as of 2014
Population Clock
It's literally not even 7X less than that of India's it is 6.2/6.4 times, which what i said before awell.

 

[Kompromat]

I pointed at WHY it was named Ghauri.


India's past doctrine??
which one?? Sunderji ,is it??
I've already proven you wrong on that.

so what was Op Brass Tacks??
Brasstacks crises was nothing but accidental crises, caused by Pakistan's misinterpretation.The magnitude and large scale direction of the exercise led to Pakistan fears that India was displaying an overwhelming conventional superiority and was planning to invade Pakistan, which came out of the lessons from '71 winter war.
Was India being offensive by not even firing a shot???
To prove its intentions were peaceful during the exercise, India took the unusual step of inviting diplomats and journalists to observe the operation separately. AFAIK even a Pakistani diplomat was invited.
ON INDIA'S BORDER, A HUGE MOCK WAR - New York Times


One,Operation Parakram was launched in the wake of the December 13, 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and the 10 month deployment ended without a conflict.
Two,Op-Parakram had 3 aims mobilising the army to the border — defeating cross border terrorism without conflict,containing the national mood to “teach Pak a lesson” and in the case of war,degrading the neighbouring nation’s war fighting capabilities.
Three,after US and other western governments stepped in with diplomatic manoeuvres General Musharraf made an ashen faced commitment in a nationally telecast speech on January 12, 2002, that Pakistan “will not permit any terrorist activity from its soil” and then India backed-off.
Again was India being offensive here?


I wasnt expecting you to accept it with alacrity.You could 've avoided this debate had you not been polemic about India in your article.You should've restricted it to debunking the myths ONLY.

Open up a new thread. I won't respond to this anymore. Its off topic

Pakistan's population is 196mill as of 2014
Population Clock
It's literally not even 7X less than that of India's it is 6.2/6.4 times, which what i said before awell.

We haven't had a census since 1998.

 

[SMC]

Pakistan's GDP is in the neighbourhood of 270 billion. Pakistan spends 2.7% of its GDP on defence. This is on the lower side for a country that faces so many different threats, and in fact is close to the world average. US, for e.g., spends about 4.5%.

 

[Levina]

Open up a new thread. I won't respond to this anymore. Its off topic
.

Aye Aye sir!
Did India really 've OFFENSIVE doctrines??

 

[Joeblow]

I think Mr. Lodhi comments range from idealistic to unrealistic to disingenuous. On his comment regarding the missile, why shouldn't a country celebrate having created something? What he views as a instrument of death can also be viewed as instrument of deterence that could save lives by preventing conflict.

The assumption that had Pakistan not spent on defense, it would all be rainbows and unicorns and there would be no polio, poverty or death is another fantasy. Pakistan army may have made its share of mistakes but to lay all the ills of Pakistan at its doorstep is a bit unfair. Bad goverance has more to do with what ails Pakistan today than the military (I know, there was a military goverment half the time, so don't say it)

Pakistan does spend a slightly larger percentage of its GDP on defense than India. However, that is almost an automatic result of being next a larger and unfriendly country. India spends a larger percentage of its GDP on defense than the larger, more powerful China.

There are 14 countries in the world without armies but the question needs to asked how many of them are in South Asia? And how many have serious disputes with their neighbhors? A quick look at these countries will show that they are mostly in Europe or the Caribbean which basically protected by the U.S.

He is right to the the extent that having a strong military doesn't protect Pakistan from forces within but those forces exist because of the failure of a lot institutions to provide people with opportunities. That cannot be blamed on the army alone.

Finally, if Pakistan armed forces were not a credible deterrent, India might not takeover Pakistan over but it will definitely be pushing it around at every opportunity. And before all the Indians jump in with Bhutan, Nepal or Sri Lanka, I just want to remind you that we like them, we're not so sure about Pakistan

 

[Xeric]

Okay, okay!

I admit it, it's my fault.

I refused the 1K Mr Faiq once tried to give me for one of my writeups which topped ET blogs.

Yaar Faiq, itna gusa?!

 

[SSG-Korea]

What author mentioned it is very true! countries those only invest on one side they will not able sustain longer it is international accepted, militaristic states have chances to move to failure! Some time putting too much money and resource can backfire as in 1971 Pakistan civil war! and current conditions are very similar now.

Pakistan carefully have to sort out his strategic depth. Yes I am agreed national interest, national security is much important so making strong military is not bad idea but it should be some limitations too. So other sectors can breath and develop them salves.

In Modernization theory that, for development state need active bureaucracy to resolve civilian issues in state. However, Pakistan bureaucracy is very disqualified due political, military and feudal involvement from 1952. Bureaucracy, unable to play its role due strong and military dominance in the state of Pakistan. So more resources were and are military utilizing. I am again balance is much important in this both. Pakistan bureaucracy leaders every years for training in UK/USA/Korea/ and various countries to study their models and development but unlikely, they failed to bring Pakistan on civilian strong role.

As strong military, have to come forward should have to set some targets regarding , development of state and sensitized bureaucracy and should set some targets rather inefficient! which also should be blamed not only military.