Bharat Rakshak

kgoan

Deleted and posted on Shuklas thread.

kgoan

I recently found myself in a seminar on energy resources. The focus was on the "21st century fuels - Gas and nuclear". According to a couple of knowledgeable folks there, Baluchistan gas reserves, according to recent "confidential data" apparently, are: as large as Irans and poss...

kgoan

- leave us alone, we don't want to be a part of your international gang. Vijay: They won't. They care only about capabilities, not intentions. Nothing you say will change that. Because they've spent upteen decades, generations in fact, mouthing their sanctimonious high blown rhetoric while doing th...

kgoan

ok, who is this Lone Ranger dude :eek: Here poor ol' TSJ spends all his time taking on the Injuns and yer don' even know his name? Man, this just proves all Injuns, just like the ones who want meteorites to hit the US, suck big time. Old joke: The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by Injuns and ...

kgoan

Funny thing, recently I've spent a fair amount of time interacting with variour babu types, mainly in Bollywood land, virtually all of whom repeat what Shiv says above almost incessantly. In fact one of them said almost the same thing Shiv just did: He wants to be around to see the day when on an ea...

kgoan

. . .the nuclear deal is not as much about Energy....the civilian energy aspect is just a convenient facade for closer political & business relations between US and India. The actual impact on India's total power generation would be miniscule or marginal. The first part is true. The second part...

kgoan

>> DRDO/DODO Folks to repeat what I said to TSJ before, and what Vijay says above is the vital point: Hali has just told us that the Pakees do in fact believe that the US via Israel just gave us a nuke cover and therefore backstabbed decades of Pakee effort to have a "counter" to India. Th...

kgoan

Okay folks, finally they've started to bark a little tentaively: Heres Halis take. The first part is a lot of Pakee self reassurance that "DRDO doesn't work", mixed with the usual "its the evil Jews", "its the evil Americans" blah, blah followed by this: Pakistan does n...

kgoan

TSJ: FWIW, Pakland thinks the US has given the Israelis the go-ahead to pass us stuff - *your* stuff. Good luck trying to convince them otherwise. See, they remember the 60's when yer loudly proclaimed "no more toys for Pakees" and then got the Shah to hand them your goodies. Just another ...

kgoan

Vijay: It appears that it will be something like that. As long as the New Savoury can promise that he can conquer Afghans, get Kashmir, classify Uyghurs as nonmuslim and be moderately enlightened enough to stand upto Amreeka without getting bombed, it'll work. Some points: >> they have to give the g...

kgoan

I'm not convinced that the JDAM, (Jihadi Delivered Atomic Munition, for those who've come in late to this conversation), issue is as relevant in the Indo-Pak context. The real issue is one of power and control. Having a nuke isn't the issue - being able to *deliver* it is. Delivery is *everything*. ...

kgoan

Hi Rakesh: The first two threads on this are in the Mil archive but the last one is in the trash can. It would be worth keeping the last thread in the Mil archive as well, rather than throwing it away, becasue quite a few of the questions and uncertainties of the first 2 threads were answered in the...

kgoan

And still not a word from the Mad Madam, whose ranting about the Baroness' Kashmir report or the Group Captain, whose babbling about , get this, the Sachar Report in todays Jang and Nation. Folks, the *only* time this happens in PakeeLand is when the debate inside PakeeLand is full on and too danger...

kgoan

Oh, and I see that after being forced to give as payment to the Chinese most of the Pakee economy for those "lovely" sounding phrases - what was it again, oh yes: Pakistan and China: Higher than the Himalayas, Deeper than the Indian Ocean and Sweeter than Honey - some of them are now start...

kgoan

Strange. The techno babus rarely comment on anything Pakee related. Is Saraswat/GoI trying to provoke a response of some sort - some variation of the usual braying - from the donkeys next door? Are the Pakees being forced to wait while desperately trying to get our Asian Brothers to pony up a respon...

kgoan

Anoop, as vsudhir says, its China I'm thinking about. I'm currently not entirely sure that we can continue to view Pak-China as a single strategic space. The strategic quadrangle of our region, Pak-China-US-India, is undergoing some massive changes - even without the ABM impact. I don't think China ...

kgoan

Oh, N can say whatever he wants because he also adds little gems like these: why is it so tough to field a ship-based anti-missile system? Obviously it is not. Which should be enough for everyone to remember those photos of the ship based Prithvis being test fired. Now why would we still be spending...

kgoan

In our standard Yindoo style of arguing amongst ourselves, it seems we failed to notice the pindrop silence on this in PakeeLand. That (shocked?) silence is certainly drawing a lot of wondering attention from others. What they do and don't say when they start barking will tell us a lot more soon eno...

kgoan

Folks: aaahhh . . . . This is starting to make a little more sense now . . . You see, the issue is not Indian defence it's an Indian attack !! See, the thing is we're looking at this as *raising* the costs of a potential Pak attack while we defend, while our friends are looking at it as *lowering* t...

kgoan

Hullo folks: Okay, apparently the "resonance" of this test and it's ripples are based on an issue that we (on BR) perhaps need to pay more attention to. Note: I admit I don't fully grok the arguments, but from the gossip from people who do know this stuff, it is *huge*. Technological indep...

kgoan

Funny thing folks: But the degree of interest in this test in some places is astonishing - staggering in fact. "Staggering" because it's been suggested that the Yindoos have again blindsided the all-knowing, all-wise folk again and is being compared to Pok II ! Not being up to date on this...

kgoan

. . . other truants here You called? It's a very nice take on things. One that should be promoted widely. No point in leaving the field open for only the PRC drones or gora think tankers and academics to spout their spin. Lets play the subaltern (non-quiet type) and get out our perception and versi...

kgoan

Vijay: I simply cannot see Musharraf or any Pak Army/RAPE/ISI_LeT type *ever* agreeing to hand over *any* Jihadi type regardless of how unimportant they are, to India openly. If they do so, even *once*, they would break their own backs - because no anti-India killer they've sponsored would ever agai...

kgoan

Folks: Pay attention to what Vijay J is saying. Just a request* for those members and lurkers who've around long enough to understand whats what. This is important. *Yes I know his abbrasive style is annoying and no I'm not asking you to stop arguing with him, that is IMO actually a good thing - jus...

kgoan

On various internet fora and in real life, whenever we come across a Pakee and Kargil comes up, the Pakees are usually hysterically insistent on their "victory". Shafqat Mahmood has a nice take on this in todays jang . It happened seven years ago but the wound is still raw. Hundreds of our...

kgoan

Folks, may I suggest that the conversation on this thread would be really helped along by reading the following article: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-381es.html Forget the summary. Read the actual pdf file, it's only 25 pages and is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa381.pdf It's old of course,...

kgoan

You know reading some of the posts on this thread indicates that a lot of the arguments and threads on nuclear doctrine and use we've had over the last few years have been perfectly useless. Nothing, absolutely *nothing* seems to be capable of penetrating through the fog of the Great Indian Whine: W...

kgoan

Rudradev: Thanks. We've been through this before, starting from 4 years back when discussion of Paks nuclear doctrine first came up and a number of times on various nuclear threads since. But the same issue of "nukeing China" keeps coming up regularly like some magic talisman. The post tha...

kgoan

No point in making a big deal about it, but:

I do find ORF's relationship to the Brookings Institute (q.v. a certain S. Cohen), which is the only place to rate a link on ORF's "Partnership" page and the only "Partner" to rate it's own page on ORF's site, terribly interesting.

kgoan

Occasionally the "we are like this onlee" whining gets to be so ridiculous as to be barely believable. Folk who think that we're going to *wait* and ascertain *where* a nuke attack came from before the first response are living in a state so delusional as to be almost Pakistani like. The s...

kgoan

BTW: That Tom Donnelly paper was posted somewhere on BR. This is the link:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 ... detail.asp

kgoan

X-Post what I wrote from from the "Pakistan Int Terror" thread: I find it difficult to believe that KS could only now be coming to a conclusion that BR had postulated a couple of years ago. Mostly because of Sunil's analysis from the time we ran the pakee "Nuclear doctrine thread"...

kgoan

X-Posting this from the TEF forum. Strictly speaking, and at first glance, it seems to have nothing to do with this thread. That, I think, is incorrect. If they succeed in this, the political impact and strategic significance would be larger than Chinese Carriers in the Pacific and possibly of more ...

kgoan

Strikes me that one thing that may make life easier is a set of links to Chinese news that's in English from China and from outsiders. Suraj, perhaps you could add these in the first post. Others could add other links as well. MAIN SITES: Official Chinese Govt info: http://www1.cei.gov.cn/govinfo/en...

kgoan

Some intersting points from an article in the link that Anoop provided on the actual realities of the RMA in the month long conventional phase of the Iraq war. At heart, the promise of the information revolution as it applies to the military realm is to allow (1) a reduction in the mass and density ...

kgoan

As I've said before: One obvious explanation for US behaviour with respect to Pak nukes is because the Pak nuke program contains US tech in it. i.e. The US helped Pak as they did the Israelis. This isn't to discount the Chinese role, but we'd be naive and more than a little idiotic, given US behavio...

kgoan

Acharya: That discussion maybe a bit early just yet. Lets see how the actual nuke deal goes first. BTW, that article posted by Rajan Roy above is interesting about what it doesn't say. It claims AQ Khan gave the nuke designs to Iran and the US has said they want to "interview" Khan. Funny ...

kgoan

KS also seems to be saying that the US was as interested in making sure PakLand had nukes to protect them from an Indian reaction to Pak terrorism as China was.

Which makes his support for the nuclear agreement and the US strategic link more than a little interesting.

kgoan

umm, it's an emotive topic, but may I suggest that six odd decades later, if the Japanese have made their peace** with the US on that issue, *we* let it lie. **No, I'm not saying they've forgoten it or they accept it or whatever. But Japan *is* one of the US' closest allies. Sure, we need to note US...

kgoan

Rien: You're not paying attention to details** and your arguments are overly emotional. GoI does not owe either Iran or the US anything. What's more, if Iran has a hankering to find out what the USAF and Navy can do, they're quite free to do so. GoI will, most likely, smoke a beedie and watch while ...

Search found 262 matches