Would India allow US to use military bases?

[pursuit of happiness]

India is to throw open its military,air and naval bases to the US. In return India can use the US military facilities including communication setup. India can also get US to fight alongside it in case of a war. This move was mooted during UPA time and it was shot down by allies then like the Left parties. Defence Minister Antony too had vetoed it saying that it would compromise security of India. These clauses would come under the renewal of Defence pact signed in 2005. Under this pact, US had supplied India around $10 billion worth arms.

US had given draft of the agreements that offer sharing of communication, logistical support and cooperation of basic information. Sharing of communication would give US access to India’s secured communication systems. The advantage the defence ministry argues is that in turn Indian ships can get real time information through US networks which is not possible today. NDA ministry terms these agreements as just making it formal for an arrangement that is operational. It points out that Indian ships in Gulf waters do refuel from US ships in sea and neither countries have objected. Now that US has shifted base to Asia, India is seen as a partner by US.

Modi has told the defence ministry to complete the paperwork before Obama’s visit and get ready to push it through. Critics say that giving US the right to use Indian soil for their military adventures in Asia could take away the non aligned stance policy.

As the new regime in Sri Lanka has not dumped China and restoring all rights to ex-Army Chief Sarath Fonseka who led the army against Tamils and a pro-China man, India feels that it is time that the paranoia towards US be dropped. Left parties that were against the agreement are marginalized. Reactions from China and Russia to this new agreement have to be watched.

India to allow US to use military bases | idrw.org

is it good...??

@sancho @levina @OrionHunter @utraash @DRAY @nair @sreekumar @kurup @Soumitra @SarthakGanguly @Echo_419 and others

-
The source is offline .. so cant read fully..
if any one read it then can tell ,
1. Do india providing Military base to USA for force and aircraft in indian terroristy like pak does ?
2. Do its not departure of previous policy of no forgin force in land as militay base if true?
3.base facilty allowd in case of war.. but india did not gave any base in WOT to them. so if supose next WOT happnes then we are in ?
4. what is defenaition of war.. suppose is tomrrow USA goes offensive or use indian base aginst ukrain agianst russian ? ( i know indinas not that mad but still asking)
5. are we going too close to usa that we cant read the fine print ?
6. how china and russia will take it ..and how we balace them specially russia.. with all issue we have with them.. those guys supported us when we needed ( though it was there national intreset too ) but still they did..
how russia will react?

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

How so? UN not under US jurisdiction that US can dictate UN what to do.

I think you need to continue that line of questioning with @Chinese-Dragon . He speaks your language

 

[Shot-Caller]

Look where the interest in your country has led u to..

Yea we did in the past what you're doing now. Where ever we are, you'll get there sooner than later.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That is what I said in my last post...getting India candidature to table is hardest given that there is Japan, Germany in G4 that have direct rivals in P5. Japan has China, Germany has France.

Anyway P5 cannot claim to represent the world if it continues to ignore 20% of world population.

But the P5 has been delaying it.

According to the statement from the G4 (Brazil/Germany/India/Japan), these are "artificial delays" in the UNSC and they have been happening for a decade now.

Anyway it is pointless, the G4 reform proposal includes Japan, which will be vetoed by China since we already have enough American influence in the UNSC. (See the thread title for another example).

Otherwise it will keep being delayed until the end of time.

No P5 member has promised to expand veto powers, look how difficult it is already to get a resolution passed with only five vetoes! Why would any P5 member want 4 more headaches/vetoes to worry about?

If you want to be a UNSC member without veto, then maybe.

 

[ito]

Okay how about I say someone who attends high school?

Although your frequent posts taunting people about rape capitals is not personal I guess?

Negative rating show that you have hold your ground. More negative rating is better here on this forum.

 

[Steakhouse]

-
The source is offline .. so cant read fully..
if any one read it then can tell ,
1. Do india providing Military base to USA for force and aircraft in indian terroristy like pak does ?
2. Do its not departure of previous policy of no forgin force in land as militay base if true?
3.base facilty allowd in case of war.. but india did not gave any base in WOT to them. so if supose next WOT happnes then we are in ?
4. what is defenaition of war.. suppose is tomrrow USA goes offensive or use indian base aginst ukrain agianst russian ? ( i know indinas not that mad but still asking)
5. are we going too close to usa that we cant read the fine print ?
6. how china and russia will take it ..and how we balace them specially russia.. with all issue we have with them.. those guys supported us when we needed ( though it was there national intreset too ) but still they did..
how russia will react?

Military alliance with the US which mean any US foreign policy India have to agree with. India will force to condemn Russia action in Ukraine.

 

[Ind4Ever]

India and USA to use their bases .

India benefits from American communication systems which is very high tech shared only with NATO . And which means India will have full support of Americans in the case of war with Pakistan and China . Not to worry about indo russian partnership as we won't do anything which will hurt Russia . So its a great boost for our Image. So ur lil neighbours don't upset our interests

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

If they allow India, then every nation deserve to join the P5 membership club, what make India any special compare to the rest of the nations in this world? Every nation with veto power P5 is a useless club with or without the original P5 membership.

Again I will need to you go to @Chinese-Dragon on this. He speaks to your level . I'm not not someone you would understand.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Yea we did in the past what you're doing now. Where ever we are, you'll get there sooner than later.

but you're mixing your case with us..we're not providing any base.no foothold in our country of any sort.

 

[ito]

But the P5 has been delaying it.

According to the statement from the G4 (Brazil/Germany/India/Japan), these are "artificial delays" in the UNSC and they have been happening for a decade now.

Anyway it is pointless, the G4 reform proposal includes Japan, which will be vetoed by China since we already have enough American influence in the UNSC. (See the thread title for another example).

Otherwise it will keep being delayed until the end of time.

No P5 member has promised to expand veto powers, look how difficult it is already to get a resolution passed with only five vetoes! Why would any P5 member want 4 more headaches/vetoes to worry about?

If you want to be a UNSC member without veto, then maybe.

Either veto stays or gone from all. It cannot be selective.

 

[Steakhouse]

I think you need to continue that line of questioning with @Chinese-Dragon . He speaks your language

You make the statement India will become a new member of P5, you should have the convince reason why Russia and China will agree with the candidacy?

 

[Ind4Ever]

If Chinese want to knock knock as the out western door . We will bring your best friend closer than u think .

 

[Armstrong]

If you want to be a UNSC member without veto, then maybe.

Maybe ?

You would make this decision without asking me ?

 

[Steakhouse]

Again I will need to you go to @Chinese-Dragon on this. He speaks to your level . I'm not not someone you would understand.

US not a sole power in the UN, Russia and China can't be dictate to.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Either veto stays or gone from all. It cannot be selective.

Then complain to the P5?

Oh wait, you guys have already complained about it constantly over the past few years.


Delays in UNSC reforms will diminish its relevance: G4 bloc - Economic Times

May 10, 2014, 02.42PM IST

UNITED NATIONS: The G4 bloc of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan has said "status quo" and "artificial delays" in implementing the UNSC reforms will diminish the relevance of the United Nations, even as Pakistan called the grouping a "minority" that wants to reconfigure the Security Council to secure "their national interests."

---------------------------


What is the result?

More "artificial delays", which can be kept up till the end of time.

Which again is pointless, since the G4 reform proposal includes Japan, which means it's going to get vetoed by both China and Russia (who both have territorial disputes with them, and neither one wants more US influence in the UNSC).

It's a losing proposition either way. It can be delayed forever (as it has been for the last decade) or simply knocked down because of a disagreement with any one member in the reform proposal.

Remember America's outrage at China vetoing the Syria resolution? And that wasn't even important to our national interests, yet we vetoed it anyway.