India Military Must Fill Gaps To Become Top Pacific Power: The Four P’s

[arp2041]

There is no profit in providing free security, for a "Pacific Power" badge.

Who said we will provide it for free???

unka purra tel nikal lenge

 

[aniyan2020]

bil kul teek hi bhai

 

[satish]

India should have a policy of armed neutrality, we should be ready to defend ourselves against any kind of enemy. We should keep our sea lines of communication. We should be friends and not allies with all countries. We should not get into entangling alliances cause, alliances will push into more war than we would like it to be. Our policy should be similar to the policy of Switzerland during the two world wars. The best foreign policy should be "honest trade and honest friendship with all countries and entangling alliances with none" as suggested by George Washington for US of A.

 

[axisofevil]

India sould take its time. We cannot become a defence power even if we have a budget of 150billion dollars next year.
maybe around 2025 we can have a stable powerfull military cover with F INSAS programmme

Time is the crucial factor in a world with shifting aliances. If we are in a weak position adnd pressure is applied to us, we must be in a ood position that encompasses all including education, healthcare, nationalism, defence, psace, agriculture, etc. 2025 is a good time frame but keeping our eye on the ball in an everchanging politics is hard to accomplish if we don;t plan accoridingl now.

 

[Wright]

The technologically superior Russians and US forces, with their indigenous defence capabilities were defeated by Afghans and Vietnamese, although both of these countries were 100% dependent on foreign weapon supply.

Depends on how you define "defeat". The Afghans infastructure was completely obliterated whilst the Russian and Americans were untouched at home.

Of course Armies are not for policing and should not be judged based on that criteria.

 

[sancho]

Depends on how you define "defeat". The Afghans infastructure was completely obliterated whilst the Russian and Americans were untouched at home.

Because the Afghans never tried to attack Russia or America right? They protected their country against a foreign enemy and didn't allowed them to get control over their country, both Russia and the US failed in this regard and the US did before in Vietnam as well, that's why both are defeats, unlike the wars in Iraq.
Not to mention that the fact that after a decade of war, several thousands of death and huge ammounts of money wasted, the Taliban are still there and the US now wants to negotiate with them. Is there anything more needed to accept defeat?

 

[Wright]

Because the Afghans never tried to attack Russia or America right? They protected their country against a foreign enemy and didn't allowed them to get control over their country, both Russia and the US failed in this regard and the US did before in Vietnam as well, that's why both are defeats, unlike the wars in Iraq.
Not to mention that the fact that after a decade of war, several thousands of death and huge ammounts of money wasted, the Taliban are still there and the US now wants to negotiate with them. Is there anything more needed to accept defeat?

Like I said there are different ways of looking at it. Some would consider invasion, 10 year occupation, destruction of infrastructure a defeat. Some would count pockets of resistance a victory.

The point is not all wars are about occupation, the destruction of military and political infrastructure is usually the criteria used to judge the outcome of any war in a strict military and non political sense.

I agree politically the US has failed, but the army removed the Taliban from power and sent them running. They were a conventional force with political, military assets and institutions. Now they are a rag tag militia who kill more of their own people than the invaders.

Unconventional warfare has usually only made a difference when funded as a proxy.
Such was the case in Vietnam, Soviet - Afghan war.

 

[sancho]

Like I said there are different ways of looking at it. Some would consider invasion, 10 year occupation, destruction of infrastructure a defeat. Some would count pockets of resistance a victory.

Only those that are looking at lame excuses and want to distract from the facts! The only reason of the invasion of Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban and not to destroy the general (non existing ) infrastucture or to occupy the country and this goal was never achieved!
You might have made them running, but they still are there and a strong, that's why you want to negotiate with them about peace and that's why they will remain at least in partial power when the forces leave the country. Which is even not bad for the US, since they negotiated with them even before the war as well.

 

[OrionHunter]

Why is the US of A wary of India not militarily progressing as fast as the Americans would like it to? Because for the U.S., time is fast running out. China is rising militarily at a phenomenal pace which is threatening the pre-eminance of America on the world stage. It needs surrogates like India to help hem China in. That in short is the bottom line.

 

[peep]

Like I said there are different ways of looking at it. Some would consider invasion, 10 year occupation, destruction of infrastructure a defeat. Some would count pockets of resistance a victory.

The point is not all wars are about occupation, the destruction of military and political infrastructure is usually the criteria used to judge the outcome of any war in a strict military and non political sense.

I agree politically the US has failed, but the army removed the Taliban from power and sent them running. They were a conventional force with political, military assets and institutions. Now they are a rag tag militia who kill more of their own people than the invaders.

Unconventional warfare has usually only made a difference when funded as a proxy.
Such was the case in Vietnam, Soviet - Afghan war.

Victory is not dependent on the how one chooses to define victory. PERIOD.
It is decided in by the reasons for which the war was started in first place.
So why america invaded afganisthan ? Cause they refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Now pray tell me, since the fact is talibans are still there, what is the guarantee that in future talibans won't harbour any OBL-II ?

The fact that americans are negotiating with the talibs is a sign of partial defeat i would say cause you guys did manage to kill OBL.. ironically not in afganisthan ( your enemy teritorry ) but in pakistan ( supposedly friendly teritorry ).

 

[acetophenol]

As long as India is importing, weapons from small arms to high tech jets,engines,tanks and subs, the dream of India becoming a power in the pacific will remain a pipe dream.No country can claim to be a power without having a credible indigenous, military R&D base. India, has a long future ahead, the dream of becoming THE Power will not come true until India is self sufficient, and technologically competitive based on its own indigenous technology.

If you take a closer look, we are already having a good local production base for military equipment, though its not enough for satisfying our entire needs. But we do have the capability to build ANY military equipment in the event of a sanction or something- from subs to aircrafts to ships.

For sure, we need to move a long way ahead.

 

[EXPERIMENT]

Posted this yesterday in another forum to the same article:



So the route of the article was clear right from the begining and that's not even surprising, since the US are searching for new allies to support them in their wars, like the European NATO countries did in the past. But with Europe in financial trouble and China catching up in the superpower race with the US, new partners are important to achieve the future goals and is there a better choice than a democratic nuclear power with the biggest force besides the US, Russia and China, that has land borders to China (possibility of a second front line if necessary), that has an important location between the sea lanes from the Gulf countries to the East?

The US pushing India to a "legal" nuclear power status, possibly even to a permanent UNC seat, convincing / pressering other countries to support India, offering nearly all high tech weapon systems of the US arsenal, even by disappointing Pakistan, their former ally in the region isn't just a nice gesture, but a clear sign for India what is possible if they follow US policies.
The problem is, India is non-aligned, balances it's foreign policies quiet well and has only the interest to deploy force in the Indian Ocean region, or to the Chinese east coasts, to complete it's nuclear deterrence against China in future. That are Indias area of interest and not to be a global military power, that deploys it's forces even to the Pacific and Atlantic.

What you say is true, bar the fact that the USA is naive when it comes to India. Even the Chinese know us better.

 

[Wright]

Victory is not dependent on the how one chooses to define victory. PERIOD.
It is decided in by the reasons for which the war was started in first place.
So why america invaded Afghanistan ? Cause they refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Now pray tell me, since the fact is talibans are still there, what is the guarantee that in future Taliban won't harbour any OBL-II ?

The fact that americans are negotiating with the talibs is a sign of partial defeat i would say cause you guys did manage to kill OBL.. ironically not in afganisthan ( your enemy teritorry ) but in pakistan ( supposedly friendly teritorry ).

Like I said it is subjective. Many people consider it a defeat when the Germans took control of France in WW2 and the French army retreated. There was the French resistance that still existed and was actively fighting the German occupation which the Germans failed to contain.

So perhaps the French did not lose that war....


Anyway from my understanding the objective in the current conflict, in addition to OBL was to remove the Talibs from power. They are now a fringe group, Nato has much of the country under their control.

I highly doubt that the US or any of the regional players (esp Iran) will let them come to power the same way as they were in the past. Nor is this what many Afghans want as not all are pukhtoon or sunni (See Sher Malungs posts).

A power sharing agreement is far more likely.


I personally would love to see the Talibs in power though...

 

[peep]

Like I said it is subjective. Many people consider it a defeat when the Germans took control of France in WW2 and the French army retreated. There was the French resistance that still existed and was actively fighting the German occupation which the Germans failed to contain.

So perhaps the French did not lose that war....


Anyway from my understanding the objective in the current conflict, in addition to OBL was to remove the Talibs from power. They are now a fringe group, Nato has much of the country under their control.

I highly doubt that the US or any of the regional players (esp Iran) will let them come to power the same way as they were in the past. Nor is this what many Afghans want as not all are pukhtoon or sunni (See Sher Malungs posts).

A power sharing agreement is far more likely.


I personally would love to see the Talibs in power though...

As for WWII, France lost the battle and retreated. With help of allied forces they gained back the lost land.

And as far as power sharing agreement is concerned, it is tantamount to saying, we were not successful against them, so let them come back to power.. albeit in a sugar coated form.

The main purpose of american war on terrorism was to prevent any group in any part of the world to come to power who can harbour terrorists as per american govt.

Now after 10 years Americans have lost the stomach for war and are retreating.. and coming to negotiating table.. it's a defeatist attitude.

With regards to your wish, if wishes were boats, then countless humans wouldn't have died in seas..

 

[sancho]

Like I said it is subjective. Many people consider it a defeat when the Germans took control of France in WW2 and the French army retreated. There was the French resistance that still existed and was actively fighting the German occupation which the Germans failed to contain.

So perhaps the French did not lose that war....

That's the point, Germans took total control of France and the French leaders admitted defeat, while the there are still areas in Afghanistan under control of the Taliban, which never admitted defeat and still remain a strong forces, which is why the US and many allied countries don't consider them as a partner next to the Afghan government, to negotiate about a peace plan!