Pakistan's defence budget cut - retracted. Increased by 7.

[fatman17]

cutting the defence budget of india would probably be viewed as disarmament which india has rejected outright so i dont see the point of continuing this debate.

 

[kidwaibhai]

This is a good step. this will show the poeple that the army is suffering with the people and again restore the image of the army which was tarnished by musharraf. for all the poeple that say that as soon as the new government has come things have gone wrong are very ignorant things went wrong because mr musharraf and company made some very bad decsions while they were in power.

 

[fatman17]

This is a good step. this will show the poeple that the army is suffering with the people and again restore the image of the army which was tarnished by musharraf. for all the poeple that say that as soon as the new government has come things have gone wrong are very ignorant things went wrong because mr musharraf and company made some very bad decsions while they were in power.

here's a bit of Gup-Shup:the present PPP govt and especially the current defence minister wants to cut the armed forces down to the extent that we will only have a ceremonial force. give up kashmir. food for thought and its implications.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

here's a bit of Gup-Shup:the present PPP govt and especially the current defence minister wants to cut the armed forces down to the extent that we will only have a ceremonial force. give up kashmir. food for thought and its implications.

Fatman, I think your current governmnet is doing Pakistan more good than ever

1. By cutting and stramlining spending your governmnet effectively avoids being soviet union.
2. I also doubt whether there will be cut in already planned procrurement cycle, so once you have already eatrmarked cash for current procrement cycle, you need more cash in the next procrurement cycle, so for some years you dont necesarily need an increased defence budget.

Cheers

 

[fatman17]

Fatman, I think your current governmnet is doing Pakistan more good than ever

1. By cutting and stramlining spending your governmnet effectively avoids being soviet union.
2. I also doubt whether there will be cut in already planned procrurement cycle, so once you have already eatrmarked cash for current procrement cycle, you need more cash in the next procrurement cycle, so for some years you dont necesarily need an increased defence budget.

Cheers

lets consider for a minute that your logic makes sense, would india follow suit.?? i doubt it very much. we wont go the way of the soviet union because our doctrine is of minimum detterence (conventional or nuclear).

 

[Always Neutral]

lets consider for a minute that your logic makes sense, would india follow suit.?? i doubt it very much. we wont go the way of the soviet union because our doctrine is of minimum detterence (conventional or nuclear).

Dear FTM (cant insult you by calling you FM)

Are u implying that you suspect the Govt. of cutting of funds to the mujahideen on both sides of the border (Afghanistan and India) as after all minimum deterrence takes care of an attack but limits ones role over the borders.

Regards

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

lets consider for a minute that your logic makes sense, would india follow suit.?? i doubt it very much

Why does India need to follow suite when we have no need to divert defence budget to tackle other economic problems, when we already have enough fund in or coffers?

we wont go the way of the soviet union because our doctrine is of minimum detterence (conventional or nuclear).

Fatman, your country had already achieved minimum ditterance and had ensured its survivability by testing a nuke, what makes you think a few odd planes or subs will make a difference in an allout war?

 

[Energon]

Actually I think India is eventually going to be forced to increase its defense spending, possibly even a little over the 3% GDP mark. This is not because there is a need to directly challenge Pakistan militarily; that equation is already on India's side. There is undoubtedly a dire need to maintain credible deterrence against China in the North East; however even in this case the chance of an all out conflict is minimal.

The main reason for the increased spending is going to be on account of the human resource crunch that the Indian armed forces will be facing soon (its already in full flow, but hasn't reached the critical point just yet). The simple truth is that there is so much opportunity in the private sector these days as a civilian that the military for many young people isn't even an alternate option worthy of mention. Eventually the government is going to have to exponentially increase pay and benefit packages for their officer and JCO corps just to keep their recruitment drives competitive. The caveat however is that with the new pay scales the nation will no longer be able to sustain a massive military as it does now. Subsequently, there will be no other option but to turn towards expensive and sophisticated technology to ensure high operational readiness and lethality akin to the western military doctrines.

This paradigm shift will nonetheless require a massive budgetary increase and this issue should be clarified with Pakistan in order to avoid any misunderstanding. The worst thing India can do right now is to engage Pakistan in an arms race because doing so will certainly mean the further destabilization if not outright dissolution of the Pakistani economy and the automatic empowerment of the military which will only feed the vicious cycle.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why does India need to follow suite when we have no need to divert defence budget to tackle other economic problems, when we already have enough fund in or coffers?

His point was that India would not follow suit and therefore Pakistan would potentially be left open to attack or coercion.

Fatman, your country had already achieved minimum ditterance and had ensured its survivability by testing a nuke, what makes you think a few odd planes or subs will make a difference in an allout war?

A nuclear deterrent is realistically only a means of preventing a conflict form getting out of control, it would be of little use if India wanted to "absorb" smaller sections of Pakistani territory, or blackmail Pakistan.

A strong conventional military allows for a deterrent against even small military incursions.

Operation Parakaram, initiated under the pretext of terrorism, is an excellent example of how the nuclear deterrent has limitations, and how Pakistan's conventional military was able to stave off that particular aggression.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As an example from the Indian side - a nuclear deterrent did little to prevent the Kargil incursion by Pakistan.

Had India not been able to fight back conventionally, would it have "nuked" Pakistan?

Probably not, and the result would have been a loss of territory for India, despite its "nuclear deterrent".

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

His point was that India would not follow suit and therefore Pakistan would potentially be left open to attack or coercion.

Much of it depends on Pakistan and its security establishment. India does not have the need to attack Pakistan in the first place and with the way millitancy has reduced in Kashmir along with proactive CBM's from your government, I doubt whether there will be future conflicts or instances where India would have to launch strikes in Pakistan.

A strong conventional military allows for a deterrent against even small military incursions.

AM read my post again, I have indicated that Pakistan must have earmarked funds for the current procrurement cycle to face off India, so it will take another two decades to increase the spending to accomodate anothre procrurement cycle.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Much of it depends on Pakistan and its security establishment. India does not have the need to attack Pakistan in the first place and with the way millitancy has reduced in Kashmir along with proactive CBM's from your government, I doubt whether there will be future conflicts or instances where India would have to launch strikes in Pakistan.

From the Pakistanis perspective until there is a settlement with India over Kashmir, keeping in mind the aggression in 1971 by India, Operation Parakaram, Siachen, the downing of the Atlantique, there remains a very strong reason to maintain a credible military deterrent against India.

AM read my post again, I have indicated that Pakistan must have earmarked funds for the current procrurement cycle to face off India, so it will take another two decades to increase the spending to accomodate anothre procrurement cycle.

You are replying off subject - my comments were specifically in response to your "nuclear deterrent is enough" comments.

 

[Energon]

A nuclear deterrent is realistically only a means of preventing a conflict form getting out of control, it would be of little use if India wanted to "absorb" smaller sections of Pakistani territory, or blackmail Pakistan.

What parts of Pakistani territory has India tried to "absorb"? In any conflict that has occurred to date all of the captured Pakistani territory has been returned with the exception of Bangladesh; and even in this case no foreign land was occupied or retained. I have as yet to see any Indian government sanctioned plans (the military does not operate independently) of cutting off supplies or roadways in order to capture a Pakistani valley in order to force the international community to "redraw the map" or any such thing. The point being that as long as the Pakistan Army leaves Indian Kashmir alone they do not face a threat from the Indian army. If this position is clarified, the nuclear status quo is a great deterrent.

A strong conventional military allows for a deterrent against even small military incursions.

Operation Parakaram, initiated under the pretext of terrorism, is an excellent example of how the nuclear deterrent has limitations, and how Pakistan's conventional military was able to stave off that particular aggression.

First, there was no incursion during operation Parakram. It was a reactionary mobilization on account of Pakistani orchestrated terrorism. The support of terrorism has since this event precipitously dropped on account of international pressure; and as long as these efforts are continued earnestly there should be no problems. Also, the conflict was avoided on account of US pressure through its private sector and not by the prowess of the Pakistan army. There is no way the latter can hold out against a full onslaught from the Indian army in a conventional war. Having said that India is not in a position to go to war of choice at this point in time since its priorities seem to be on the economic front.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

You are replying off subject - my comments were specifically in response to your "nuclear deterrent is enough" comments.

My comments were to clarify that along with nuclear detterant Pakistans conventional detterant is intact for next two decades. I had mentioned this since you had mention that nuclear detterant is not enough to deal with India

 

[fatman17]

Dear FTM (cant insult you by calling you FM)

Are u implying that you suspect the Govt. of cutting of funds to the mujahideen on both sides of the border (Afghanistan and India) as after all minimum deterrence takes care of an attack but limits ones role over the borders.

Regards

first priority would be min.deterrence.so no funds left for extra-curricular activities so to speak - things will be tight