Increased military spending to worsen security in S Asia

[Spring Onion]

blitz im not against any country's intenion to get more millitary equipment, if super powers are doing so every country has the right. The only objection is the lame excuses.
You may be right about the GDP- expenditure sequence but then we also need to look at out other problems which can not be over-looked just to become more strong millitarily.

BTW why you are sure about China and form whome she can import such number of arms

 

[blitz]

blitz im not against any country's intenion to get more millitary equipment, if super powers are doing so every country has the right. The only objection is the lame excuses.
You may be right about the GDP- expenditure sequence but then we also need to look at out other problems which can not be over-looked just to become more strong millitarily.

BTW why you are sure about China and form whome she can import such number of arms

I made a mistake. China is not the 'developing' worlds largest arms buyer, India is. You were correct.

 

[bhangra12345]

Indian defense spending should be pegged at 3% of annual GDP. If GDP increases, spending should increase, if economy contracts, spending should decrease. Sounds fair ? Its less inpercentage terms than both China and Pakistan's.

Let me state this categorically, India, owes no explanation to any one.

Not 3%, 2.1% in the latest budget

and you are explaining to people(pakistan and china) who spend ~5% of gdp on defence. kinda interesting isnt it?

shows who got what priorities, doesnt it?

 

[IceCold]

Not 3%, 2.1% in the latest budget

and you are explaining to people(pakistan and china) who spend ~5% of gdp on defence. kinda interesting isnt it?

shows who got what priorities, doesnt it?

Its not the percentage that counts, we are a small nation and have to some extent keep it up to India so the percentage can get as high as 5% of the gdp or even higher, similarly goes for china who policies are US centric regarding defence. India on the other hand has a threat (pakistan) that is much smaller to her own size and so is her defence allocations. China isnt involved in India phobia but it seems indians are determine to keep it up with china or even surpass it. Someone mentioned earlier pakistan cries because we cannot keep it up with india, well ture but not because we cant do that but because we dont need too.

 

[Munir]

Tha fact is that western powers give them self the god given right to destroy other nations. Western powers still posses most dangerous weapons on that scale that we can destroy the world more then once. They destroy environment that fast that we will be out of energy and environment within a few decades. Frankly, if you count the number of F16's the Israeli "defence" airforce has then one might wonder whether we should take these reports seriously. Both India and Pakistan (and China) spend just a percentage what USA spends every year... No reporter has that figured out yet? I say it is nothing more then normal that asian nations are buying more arms cause they are developing and they were fucked up by western colonial strategies so they have to settle disputes or defend against the typical western arrogance...

I read the report and had a big laugh... Why is USA getting a few hundred F22 and hundreds of F35 while the rest of the world would not able to fight against 1 F22?

 

[Contrarian]

China isnt involved in India phobia but it seems indians are determine to keep it up with china or even surpass it. Someone mentioned earlier pakistan cries because we cannot keep it up with india, well ture but not because we cant do that but because we dont need too.

I am sorry, but India has fought a war with China. If you think that that does not count for some animosity then your very very mistaken.

And secondly, dont flatter yourself, Pakistan CANNOT match India in her arms purchases or defence expenditure, because we have a far greater amt to spend. Same as how we cannot match China, which cannot match the US. The only way is to increase your economy. But your not winning any prizes there either.

 

[Munir]

no longer valuable statement, my friend Malay. Let me try to explain it. You have certain grades/levels in weapons. If you have reached next level you can reach asymetric relationship. Ballistic missiles are one, just like cruise missiles and nukes. Those are gate keepers. Under that level you have to master certain technologies to produce high tech weapons and if able to on e must develop better technologies for conventional arms like tanks, sea vessels and airplanes...

You already know that China, India and Pakistan are well above the level of deterrents. There is no logic about one can spend more or less. Just remember that your sea marshall told on your news that defending against Babur (which was a big shock) is possible but the cost are tremendous. So here you have seen a sign for asymetrical spending... Same goes for defending againdt ballistic missiles... You should stop using the famous Keymag logic of India being 5 times bigger or x times better anything. It is a stalemate. Whether India is big or not.

Other part is the fact that TOT for F22P, Agosta, JF17, El Khaled, SAM etc etc has brought Pakistan in a much better position then India. We know India has big marketing and lots of super programs but yet it is importing more then exporting. Yet is behind Pakistan in certaindevelopments like UAV's. WE might see LCA with composites but is that 100% Indian invention? The Pakistani could do the same but do not see the need for it.

 

[Contrarian]

I agree Munir sir about assymetrical relationships. But my point was in conventional weapons which would be used in a border war. Its a stale mate in high end weapons, babur for Pakistan, India has brahmos, so the costs would be equal on both sides, its not as though one side has particularly managed some weapon that the other has not.

However, when we talk of a border war, then we refer to conventional weapons, tanks, planes, ships, etc. India has considerably more resources to put in. The same is with China, India has weapons like Pakistan to make sure any Chinese entry in India would be a costly affair. But we do realise the massive threat their sheer numbers pose to us in a wartime, from the number of planes to the troops. And China does not field any fighter that is technologically ahead of India or ships for that matter.

While in India and Pakistan's case, the last defences are there, but India enjoys superiority in the number of weapons and the technology. Yet there is stalemate because of the weapons you mentioned.

 

[Munir]

I agree with you my friend when it comes to conventional weapons and "restrictions" to the higher weapons but we both know that in case of danger the weaker party will use the maximum power. The politicians are known for peace-rules but sooner or later onesided steps or even national rules are turned aside. No one cares about Geneva conventions when it comes to "terrorism". The USA did use nukes on Japan to lower their own casualties. In case of Pakistan there will be nukes and exactly that is the reason that it is draw. Otherwise India would use it fll conventional strike and say that they promise not to use nukes. If that would restrict Pakistan cause they do not want to use first strike option then there is no logic for the Pakistani to sign any deal. To be even more realistic... Both are running for second strike capability (nukes on planes or ships or subs) and both will go after space to go even beyond second strike and to defend own borders (star wars). India does enjoy numerical superiority but not in every field and certainly not only on Pakistani side. India is surrounded by "hostile" nations. They cannot afford to put every flanker/Awacs on Pakistani border... In that respect it is easier for Pakistan cause there is only one enemy... They will be everywhere in Pakistan within short flighttime and they will be able to attack every city in India... So with BM/CM/nukes India did lost its strategic depth or conventional numerical advances.

 

[bhangra12345]

. India on the other hand has a threat (pakistan) that is much smaller to her own size and so is her defence allocations.

Dont you think blitz india has rather too ambtious plans. Look at the increase $23.6 billion in 2006 to $33.2 billion in 2009.

How do you reconcile both these two statements? Second post made in first page somewhere

too ambitious and yet too small?

 

[Munir]

India is a big spender and is entitled to be so (size/economy) but it will not make it much safer due to the extent of nukes on the same continent.

 

[bhangra12345]

India is a big spender and is entitled to be so (size/economy) but it will not make it much safer due to the extent of nukes on the same continent.

Another form of the above:

India is not a big/ambitious spender but unfortunately due to size, even with the ambitious spending of Pakistan, it is not able to match.

i.e. India is not the aggressive spender or India is in no way the guilty party. The guilt lies in the small size of Pakistan compared to India.

 

[Munir]

Tell Israel not to spend billions and billions. If you have goovy neighbours and if they are bigger then there is little choice left how much to spend. We should end this talk about India being bigger and Pakistan spending more then normal. Pakistan does pretty much cheaper then an average nation could do under same situation. India should think about the reality cause there is no immediate risk for them accept the arrogance of the politicians and rich... That is surely not the case for Pakistan...

 

[bhangra12345]

Tell Israel not to spend billions and billions.

Where did Israel come into picture?

If you have goovy neighbours and if they are bigger then there is little choice left how much to spend. We should end this talk about India being bigger and Pakistan spending more then normal. Pakistan does pretty much cheaper then an average nation could do under same situation. India should think about the reality cause there is no immediate risk for them accept the arrogance of the politicians and rich... That is surely not the case for Pakistan...

Pakistan has an immediate risk?
if it is from india(I cant think of anywhere else), shouldnt India be ready to take that anti-risk and so according to your own logic, India should spend even more.