India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 11:48

Philip wrote:At DG,the US pre-positioned vast amounts of supplies in merchant ships,etc. for use in the 2 Gulf Wars.DG however has v.limited facilities and infrastructure. Why the US during the CW had its eyes on Sri Lanka and Trinco. The ethnic crisis put paid to that.

With the seduction of India,it hopes to use the vast infrastructural resources of India as becoming its logistic and servicing/repair hub for the USN in the IOR and beyond.

1. The USN is repositioning to the Pacific. That's where it faces its primary foe. That's where it'll base the bulk of its fighting strength.

2. List of states within and near the IOR hosting USN bases -

- Australia
- Bahrain
- Djibouti
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Singapore
- UAE

Plus LSA-type support provided by South Africa, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3614
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Kashi » 22 Apr 2016 12:00

Viv S wrote:I'm quite sure almost everybody believes that. American BRFites (like TSJ & GWelch) strongly believe that. And not just India, any country being invaded by, or otherwise in conflict with China would receive US support.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Viv S wrote:Now the degree and nature of that support is a matter of debate. Unless the country in question is a treaty ally, US wouldn't militarily participate in the conflict. But in India's case, for example, one can be fairly sure that supplies of weapons & munitions (from US stocks) as well as military intelligence, would be available to us.


Absolutely, it's not like they'll switch off the GPS signals or send over John McCains to get us to stand down...oh wait..

(^ The latter would require Indian membership in the MTCR, something the US is pushing strongly for.)


With all due respect Viv S ji, are you on crack?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20597
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 22 Apr 2016 12:04

Private US firms oppose ISRO launching US satellites

Private US firms oppose ISRO launching US satellites

Apr 21, 2016,

WASHINGTON: Amid the US' push to expand cooperation with India in the space sector, the country's nascent private space industry has expressed its opposition to the large scale use of low cost ISRO launch vehicles for putting American satellites into orbits.
Such a move, corporate leaders and officials of the fast- emerging American private space industry told lawmakers this week, would be detrimental to the future health of the private sector US space companies. They feel it would be tough for them to compete against low-cost Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) launch vehicles, which they alleged are subsidised by the Indian government.
"I think the concern about using Indian boosters is not so much the transfer of sensitive technology to a nation that is a fellow democracy, but rather whether the Indian launches are subsidised by the government to a degree that other market actors would be priced out of the market," Elliot Holokauahi Pulham, CEO of Space Foundation, said.
Testifying before a Congressional committee, Pulham said there has been some discussion about allowing US built satellites to fly on boosters such as the Indian PSLV.
Eric Stallmer, president Commercial Spaceflight Federation, opposed efforts to facilitate a government-subsidised foreign launch company.
"In this case, India, to compete with US companies. Such policy runs counter to many national priorities and undermines the work and investment that has been made by the government and industry to ensure the health of the US commercial space launch industrial base," Stallmer said.
He said the challenge right now is that the satellite manufacturers are making satellites at a quicker rate right now than the US has the launch capability.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 12:19

Kashi wrote: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Absolutely, it's not like they'll switch off the GPS signals or send over John McCains to get us to stand down...oh wait..

With all due respect Viv S ji, are you on crack?

If you can bring yourself to put down more than a snarky one-liner, it may perhaps merit a real response.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3614
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Kashi » 22 Apr 2016 12:39

^^ My point is that even with Japan where US has a formal defense treaty and is committed to come to Japanese aid, they have been fairly non-committal to the point that in response to growing concerns, Obama had to clarify in 2015 that US was committed to come to Japan's aid in the event of a confrontation with China over Senkaku islands.

Even then, many in Japan remain sceptical. Why would GoI and others feel differently?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 13:02

Kashi wrote:^^ My point is that even with Japan where US has a formal defense treaty and is committed to come to Japanese aid, they have been fairly non-committal to the point that in response to growing concerns, Obama had to clarify in 2015 that US was committed to come to Japan's aid in the event of a confrontation with China over Senkaku islands.

Even then, many in Japan remain sceptical. Why would GoI and others feel differently?

'Fairly non-committal' how?

Before his 2015 statements, he said the same thing in 2014.

Obama says US will defend Japan in island dispute with China - Apr 2014

How is the US President's statement of unconditional military support, expressed multiple times, evidence of a 'non-committal' attitude.


Just for the record though:


USG support to Japan was spelled out in 2012 -

Treaty with Japan covers islets in China spat: U.S. official - Sept 2012

Thereafter the US Senate voted to explicitly place the Senkaku Islands under the ambit of Article V of its treaty with Japan.

U.S. Senate passes Senkaku backing - Dec 2012

That support was then reiterated in a 2013 resolution

US Senate okays reso on South China Sea disputes - Jul 2013

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SaiK » 22 Apr 2016 13:52

I think we are pushed into a zone where we are made to behave penny-wise & pound foolish on hyphenations. Our dork media thinks all purchases is against Pakistan, and a g-shift happens, the chips gets the crack.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby devesh » 22 Apr 2016 14:10

Karan M wrote:>>I'm quite sure almost everybody believes that. American BRFites (like TSJ & GWelch) strongly believe that. And not just India, any country being invaded by, or otherwise in conflict with China would receive US support.

:lol: :lol:


I'm glad somebody took the time to post the appropriate response to the above garbage. Thank you, Karan M.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby devesh » 22 Apr 2016 14:16

Viv S wrote:
Kashi wrote:^^ My point is that even with Japan where US has a formal defense treaty and is committed to come to Japanese aid, they have been fairly non-committal to the point that in response to growing concerns, Obama had to clarify in 2015 that US was committed to come to Japan's aid in the event of a confrontation with China over Senkaku islands.

Even then, many in Japan remain sceptical. Why would GoI and others feel differently?

'Fairly non-committal' how?

Before his 2015 statements, he said the same thing in 2014.

Obama says US will defend Japan in island dispute with China - Apr 2014

How is the US President's statement of unconditional military support, expressed multiple times, evidence of a 'non-committal' attitude.


Just for the record though:


USG support to Japan was spelled out in 2012 -

Treaty with Japan covers islets in China spat: U.S. official - Sept 2012

Thereafter the US Senate voted to explicitly place the Senkaku Islands under the ambit of Article V of its treaty with Japan.

U.S. Senate passes Senkaku backing - Dec 2012

That support was then reiterated in a 2013 resolution

US Senate okays reso on South China Sea disputes - Jul 2013



and yet with all of your Googling, you forget the basics of US behavior towards India over the past 70 years. It's constant backing of Pakistan, propping up the Jihadi State is completely lost on you. Even now, they continue to sponsor Paki military balance against India, and yet you ignore it with impunity. This is foolishness...NO - it's outright blind belief. All of the above is merely words and resolutions to a SUBJUGATED ALLY who hosts American troops on its soil. And you think somehow that USA feels the same level of obligation towards India....for once please think: why would USA go to extraordinary lengths to aid us in regaining sovereignty if PRC invades? are we a NATO ally? are we a non-NATO ally like Pakistan which allows its own people to be bombed by USA whenever they feel like it? Do the Americans have military bases on our soil and hence fundamentally obligated to protect a junior partner?

None of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative. When this is the case, exactly what gives you the moronic confidence that USA considers Indian an ally to go to war for?!!!

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby devesh » 22 Apr 2016 14:22

Viv S wrote:
Now the degree and nature of that support is a matter of debate. Unless the country in question is a treaty ally, US wouldn't militarily participate in the conflict. But in India's case, for example, one can be fairly sure that supplies of weapons & munitions (from US stocks) as well as military intelligence, would be available to us.




wow....this is a huge conclusion: do you know something which the rest of us don't? do you even realize the magnitude of what you've said above? There is nothing in American behavior since 1947 to prove your assertion with even >2-sigma probability.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 14:58

devesh wrote:wow....this is a huge conclusion: do you know something which the rest of us don't? do you even realize the magnitude of what you've said above?

What is so 'huge' about military equipment and intelligence?

Military equipment, we buy all the time from the US. Serving older or even even orders in an expedited time-frame is hardly a big deal for the US. And from the ongoing business in the SCS & ECS is pretty clear they're both able and willing to cross the Chinese.

Sharing intelligence on the PRC & PLA is again nothing that should really raise eyebrows. We already know the requisite channels exist and that they've been passing information on PLAN ops within the IOR.


On May 28, Navy chief Admiral R.K. Dhowan told reporters in New Delhi that India was "minutely" monitoring Chinese naval activity in the Indian Ocean. He signalled the start of a new great game over the world's most important water body. If the Cold War was about NATO snooping on the Soviet Navy in the Atlantic Ocean, the 21st century is about countries keeping tabs on the Chinese navy's expanding presence through the Asia-Pacific.

It is a surveillance game where India is assisted by the United States, whose 2011 strategic rebalance towards Asia-Pacific was prompted by China's blue water ambitions. Last December, the US passed on intelligence after its drones spotted a Chinese Han-class nuclear-powered attack submarine "running on the surface" in the Gulf of Aden. Submarine 335 was likely a result of this collaboration although Indian officials declined to confirm this.

Naval cooperation is one of the cornerstones of the 10-year defence framework agreement signed between US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and his counterpart Manohar Parrikar in New Delhi on June 3. Significantly, Carter began his trip with a visit to the Navy's eastern naval command base in Visakhapatnam, key to its "Act East" policy.
- India Today

There is nothing in American behavior since 1947 to prove your assertion with even >2-sigma probability.


On contrary, there's a very real record of the same thing happening on both counts.

For most Indians, the dominant memory of India-United States relations continues to be the presence of the USS Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 Bangladesh war.

During the 1962 border conflict, it was the US that came to India's rescue and there were plans to send the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal to support India against a possible Chinese invasion.

Many of my generation remember vividly how then American President John F Kennedy had become one of the most popular figures in India -- so much so that most paan shops, (the true barometer of public opinion in India) routinely had Kennedy's photograph alongside the familiar one of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

The Sino-Indian border conflict coincided with the Cuban Missile Crisis and was largely ignored in the world media. Yet today, in retrospect, this remains a major issue in the politics of Asia while the Cuban Missile Crisis is of academic value after the demise of the Soviet Union.

The future world will bear a heavy impact of this military clash between the two Asian giants. The Sino-Indian clash sounded a virtual death knell for the Communist movement in India, till then the best organised political party after the Indian National Congress.

If Communism was to triumph in India, the history of the Cold War era may well have ended very differently.

In November 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated, he was genuinely mourned by millions of Indians. He was seen by many Indians as the great big hope for the future of mankind. Aside from his obvious personal charisma, the influence Kennedy wielded in India had much to do with the policies his administration followed vis a vis India.

It was one period in the history of otherwise difficult India-US relations; when the Indians regarded the US as their friend. The prompt and generous American response to Indian needs at the time of military reverses against the Chinese in October/November 1962, had a deep impact on the Indian psyche.

President Kennedy was preoccupied in dealing with the Cuban crisis and he left it to then US ambassador Professor John Kenneth Galbraith to handle the situation, supporting him to the hilt.

When the Indian situation became particularly desperate, US Air Force squadrons in the Philippines were alerted; through its contacts in Warsaw, the US conveyed its resolve to the Chinese to come to India's assistance.

C-130 Hercules aircraft carried out drops of arms and ammunition supplies as well as essential clothing to Indian soldiers on the battlefront.

Indian national morale had hit rock bottom on November 18, 1962 when news of further reverses reached New Delhi. The Indians felt isolated, vulnerable and betrayed, when even the 'friends' of India took ambivalent positions.

On October 25, 1962, when war with the United States was potentially imminent, the Soviet newspaper Pravda published a front-page article that put the entire blame for the 1962 war with China on India.

The article called the McMahon line, which New Delhi accepted, 'notorious', 'the result of British imperialism', and legally invalid.

Pravda also accused India of being incited by imperialists and being the main ringleaders of the conflict. The Soviet Union's hostile attitude contrasted with President Kennedy's generous help to India in its hour of need. This made a deep impression on the Indians.

Professor Galbraith, speaking to me in 2003, recalled the sea change that had occurred in Indian attitude towards the Americans. American aircraft regularly landed in Delhi and carried out photo missions over the Indo-Tibet border.

These aerial photographs were of great value since India had no maps of the areas of conflict. Then US assistant secretary of state Roger Hilsman, himself a veteran of the Burma campaign in World War II, personally coordinated the aid effort. - Rediff

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3442
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arshyam » 22 Apr 2016 18:26

Viv S wrote:2. List of states within and near the IOR hosting USN bases -

- Australia
- Bahrain
- Djibouti
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Singapore
- UAE

Plus LSA-type support provided by South Africa, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia.

Excellent. Perhaps you could then elaborate this old question of mine I have been repeatedly asking:
arshyam wrote:Now, since they are already well stocked from the above, what are they gaining by getting access to our mainland Naval and air facilities? (viewtopic.php?p=2008268#p2008268)

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3442
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arshyam » 22 Apr 2016 18:38

Viv S wrote:
There is nothing in American behavior since 1947 to prove your assertion with even >2-sigma probability.

On contrary, there's a very real record of the same thing happening on both counts.

The prompt and generous American response to Indian needs at the time of military reverses against the Chinese in October/November 1962, had a deep impact on the Indian psyche.Rediff

Similarly, this so-called friend in '62 turned around and sent a nuke-armed strike force to threaten us 9 years later. Long time for a 180 degree turn indeed.

Saar, if there is one thing we can learn from history, it's that there are no permanent friends or enemies. I think all of us agree on this point. Where we differ is the seemingly naive trust placed on the US for some reason, which, history has shown, has behaved the most cold-bloodedly (again, nothing wrong with it, as long as we recognize it for what it is). Better to have a simple transactional relationship where both parties walk in with their eyes open. These agreements go beyond the transactional, and that's the bone of contention.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3442
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arshyam » 22 Apr 2016 19:14

Just quoting a piece of what NRao sir posted in support of his stand; I suspect most of us didn't read it, though with good reason :)
NRao wrote:I had earlier posted Part 1: What is holding up India-US foundational agreements - Part 1

Here is Part 2 for your consideration:

What is holding up India-US foundational agreements - Part 2
In order to secure the Indian Akula submarine fleet and protect Russian equipment from spying all India has to do is to deny the Akula home base to the Americans, or clearly identify which months in the year US ships can visit base – when the Akula’s are not berthed.

:eek: :eek:

This guy writes for the ORF? No wonder India has no strategic culture - this is the drivel output by them!

The first part above advertises to the world where the Akulas are berthed, and the second part, when they are. We might as well let CNN broadcast directly from our facilities? This fellow does not even know anything about operational matters, and the thrust of his argument seems to be that a)our stuff is mostly compromised, so b) let's openly compromise everything. What he does not reveal in his learned argument is that the Chinese hacked their way into US facilities too, so whatever we reveal to the US can be known to the Chinese as well. So way to go, Mr. Analyst, your recommendation talks nothing about how to actually secure our country. And way to go NRao-ji, I expected a better argument from you.

Lastly, that article was written by one Abhijit Iyer-Mitra - anyone knows who it is? Such people occupying advocacy positions is scary! This is what the BS article (pun fully intended) says about the author:
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra is an independent defence analyst. He has coordinated the National Security at the Observer Research Foundation & been visiting fellow at Sandia National Laboratories and the Stimson Centre. He writes about defence policy, technology & defence cooperation on his blog, Tarkash, a part of Business Standard's platform, Punditry.
Abhijit tweets as @abhijit_iyer

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Apr 2016 19:24

Y. Kanan wrote:Does anyone here seriously think if China invaded the US would support us in any way?

Does anyone here think the US will sell us game-changing weapons systems like F-35's, stealth drones, etc?
The US would love to sell us all they can sell. The problem is what they sell comes with conditions attached and their global interests and priorities are often in conflict with ours. Their ways are intrusive, seeks to mold our FP and ambitions through control of what they sell - effectively putting limits on when and how we use their wares. "Support" is a relative word for the conflicts we may be involved in. At the end of the day Russia may not "support" one of our conflicts, what we are sure of though is they will not seek to impede and control our FP through their defense wares. Russia has very little overlapping interests and ambitions in our region. In fact, my argument would be we can leverage Russia far more effectively to manage China. By adopting Russian wares fully we should take advantage of the fact that EU and US defense establishments are barred from selling to Russia. A major buyer such as India can have a far more effective control of Russian supplies to China than we have any control over, what the US may provide to Pakistan.

Let us take one example. If we did not have the support of Russia, we would be producing a first gen submarine, instead of the 3rd/4th gen submarine. Mind you Arihant is built for nuclear war. It does not come with a Russia rider of how and when we use this and neither do they seek to have an EUMA. No foundational agreements with their forces. So, the US may sell the F-35 (no joint production though - forget technology transfers, they will not even let it be serviced in our country) and will not allow India to even smell or see the F-22. Russia will share all they have with us and all they have is enough for us to deter our likely adversaries. The smart thing to do is to partner with the entity with the least overlaps with you and for you to smartly make investments to be less dependent on that partner over time. Who is this best partner for India that will work with India on India's terms?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 20:01

arshyam wrote:Excellent. Perhaps you could then elaborate this old question of mine I have been repeatedly asking:

Now, since they are already well stocked from the above, what are they gaining by getting access to our mainland Naval and air facilities? (viewtopic.php?p=2008268#p2008268)

In material terms, relatively little. In strategic terms, it serves to strengthen bilateral ties. Is also a stepping stone to the other two pacts.

arshyam wrote:Similarly, this so-called friend in '62 turned around and sent a nuke-armed strike force to threaten us 9 years later. Long time for a 180 degree turn indeed.

Was it though? In 1989, the Russians were giving us firm support against a resurgent China. Three years later they were selling arms and transferring military technology to China. That's geopolitics for you.

Saar, if there is one thing we can learn from history, it's that there are no permanent friends or enemies. I think all of us agree on this point. Where we differ is the seemingly naive trust placed on the US for some reason, which, history has shown, has behaved the most cold-bloodedly (again, nothing wrong with it, as long as we recognize it for what it is). Better to have a simple transactional relationship where both parties walk in with their eyes open. These agreements go beyond the transactional, and that's the bone of contention.

People have friends, nations have interests. We can agree on that. And we also agree that US foreign policy is perfectly cold-blooded. So's ours BTW (eg. Op Leech). The US wasn't working to forge strong ties with India, its primary objective throughout was to keep the Soviet bloc contained. The relevance of the Indo-China equation faded away with the Sino-Soviet split. The Cold War took precedence over everything else until 1991, at which point everything reset, including the critical Russia-China relationship.

Point is, thanks to China, there is a convergence in Indian & US interests. I don't see these agreements as anymore controversial than the 1971 Indo-Soviet treaty. That too was basically a result of our interests converging vis-a-vis the US-Pakistan-China axis. What I do have trust in, is that everyone will continue to look out for their own interests.

And as I see it there are basically one of three arguments put out against it -

1. The US & China have formed a secret cabal designed to keep India down. - An obvious conspiracy theory.

2. China is destined to implode. - Wishful thinking; we need to plan for it sticking around for a long time. Not to mention, an unstable China is likely to be an aggressive China.

3. We can handle the PRC on our own. - Over the mid term the US isn't confident about handling China. That fact alone should tell us plenty.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2016 21:05

ShauryaT wrote:The US would love to sell us all they can sell. The problem is what they sell comes with conditions attached and their global interests and priorities are often in conflict with ours. Their ways are intrusive, seeks to mold our FP and ambitions through control of what they sell - effectively putting limits on when and how we use their wares. "Support" is a relative word for the conflicts we may be involved in.

Only two conflicts matter - Pakistan & China. We'd get outright support in China's case, and once the Afghanistan business concludes, a blind eye in Pakistan's case.

At the end of the day Russia may not "support" one of our conflicts, what we are sure of though is they will not seek to impede and control our FP through their defense wares. Russia has very little overlapping interests and ambitions in our region. In fact, my argument would be we can leverage Russia far more effectively to manage China. By adopting Russian wares fully we should take advantage of the fact that EU and US defense establishments are barred from selling to Russia. A major buyer such as India can have a far more effective control of Russian supplies to China than we have any control over, what the US may provide to Pakistan.

How has this worked in the 20 years since Russian defence sales to China began? How effective was our control of Russian supplies to China?

Let us take one example. If we did not have the support of Russia, we would be producing a first gen submarine, instead of the 3rd/4th gen submarine. Mind you Arihant is built for nuclear war.

The flipside is how fast would the Chinese modernization effort have proceeded without Russian support? Would they have had a Yuan without the Kilo? The J-11D without the Su-27? The HQ-9 family without the S-300? The HQ-16 without the 'Buk'? The PL-12 without the R-77? The WS-10 without the AL-31? YJ-12 without the Kh-31? YJ-18 without the Klub? CX-1 without the Yakhont?

Would far would the JF-17 have come without the RD-33 customized by the Russians for the aircraft? And this BTW was in the 90s, long before India made any major defence purchases from the US.

It does not come with a Russia rider of how and when we use this and neither do they seek to have an EUMA. No foundational agreements with their forces.

What it still usually comes with is a pile of reliability or performance issues (examples galore) often coupled with a mix of contractual breaches (eg. T-90 ToT, Invar ToT, Gorshkov, ).

So, the US may sell the F-35 (no joint production though - forget technology transfers, they will not even let it be serviced in our country) and will not allow India to even smell or see the F-22.

You're mixing up source codes and ToT. The Americans will not share F-35 source codes with anybody including their closes allies. On the upside, the F-35's threat libraries will continue to receive constant upgrades from US' global ELINT resources (esp. China-centric ones). A local FACO line for assembly, overhauls and servicing is very much on the table (a la Italy & Japan). As is the transfer of specific (platform-independent) technologies (a la South Korea).

Russia will share all they have with us and all they have is enough for us to deter our likely adversaries.

No they won't. They haven't shared everything on the Su-30MKI. The restrictions on ToT is one of the main hurdles to the FGFA deal. And their refusal to share even the basics in the T-90's case forced us to develop the base armor, ERA and main barrel indigenously.

Personally, given our record with 60 years of ToT based production vs the vastly outsized results from the peanuts invested in local R&D, I'm not a big supporter of forking out hard cash for tech (which unfortunately is never free) which will never enable the kind of institutional learning that a domestic effort will.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3442
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arshyam » 22 Apr 2016 21:15

Viv S wrote:
arshyam wrote:Excellent. Perhaps you could then elaborate this old question of mine I have been repeatedly asking:

Now, since they are already well stocked from the above, what are they gaining by getting access to our mainland Naval and air facilities? (viewtopic.php?p=2008268#p2008268)

In material terms, relatively little. In strategic terms, it serves to strengthen bilateral ties. Is also a stepping stone to the other two pacts.
And that is the bone of contention, given that there are no free lunches, and what the US gains from these agreements are not really clear. Hence the question of basing rights is raised by folks here - why else would they want these?

Viv S wrote:
arshyam wrote:Similarly, this so-called friend in '62 turned around and sent a nuke-armed strike force to threaten us 9 years later. Long time for a 180 degree turn indeed.

Was it though? In 1989, the Russians were giving us firm support against a resurgent China. Three years later they were selling arms and transferring military technology to China. That's geopolitics for you.
That "long time" was in sarcasm :)

Viv S wrote:Point is, thanks to China, there is a convergence in Indian & US interests. I don't see these agreements as anymore controversial than the 1971 Indo-Soviet treaty. That too was basically a result of our interests converging vis-a-vis the US-Pakistan-China axis. What I do have trust in, is that everyone will continue to look out for their own interests.

India of 2016 is not India of 1971. We must factor in changed economic and even military circumstances compared to 1971. Does the nuclear triad have no bearing here? I agree with the convergence of interests, but disagree on the benefits of signing these agreements. They are too one-sided and won't help us when needed. In that case, why have an agreement at all?

Viv S wrote:And as I see it there are basically one of three arguments put out against it -

1. The US & China have formed a secret cabal designed to keep India down. - An obvious conspiracy theory.
How so? It was the US that floated the G2 theory, remember? Whether it went anywhere or not, the thought exists in the US side, and they chose to even publicly articulate it - so much for the conspiracy angle. The economic interdependence of US and China has only continued to grow ever since (please read the posts ramana sir linked from the US-China relationship thread).

Viv S wrote:2. China is destined to implode. - Wishful thinking; we need to plan for it sticking around for a long time. Not to mention, an unstable China is likely to be an aggressive China.

3. We can handle the PRC on our own. - Over the mid term the US isn't confident about handling China. That fact alone should tell us plenty.

Points 2 and 3 are not my arguments, so will skip responding.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby KrishnaK » 22 Apr 2016 22:39

JE Menon wrote:>>The broad gist of US expectations of India is for it to take a committed stance far as that theater is concerned. Whether the US supports Pakistan, or it's past behaviour elsewhere in the world is completely irrelevant to our interest in keeping China in check.

Here there is a clear difference. Frankly, my position on this (as described above) cares only minimally if at all for "US expectations of India" - whether it is to take a "committed stance" or any thing else.
It is going to hurt the egos of a lot on this forum, but India cannot care minimally about anything the US says. India can choose to disagree, but ignore it she cannot. All the US had to do was send a CBG steaming into the bay of bengal to cause the collective blood pressure of the dharmic civilization to rise to this day.

Hence my stress on having a transactional relationship. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by transactional. What I envisage is this. We have "Scenario A". In that scenario, both India and the US will look at how far our interests converge and come to a deal on that particular scenario based on give and take. The LEMOA will create a foundation within which the deal can be executed within the legal frameworks of the US and India without having to negotiate certain fundamentals every time. We can look at Scenario A and tell them, this time no deal. You got yourself into this mess which we (probably) advised against. Kindly extract yourself. Or they can tell us the same.
JEM, my understanding of a transactional relationship is one centered around a transaction with clear understanding that there is no understanding prior or after that particular transaction. The LEMOA formalizes convergence with outs, especially in the light of regular military exercises with the US and Japan.

India has already made a choice as far as our position in SE Asia is IMO. That is NOT a transactional relationship. The level and formality of that relationship is a matter of evolution. If Japan is one of the largest and committed investors in India, they come with expectations beyond transactional. The only country capable of forging an alliance and restricting China is the US. As the costs of that alliance increases, members will expect those that benefit handsomely from it to share costs. The US for example is increasingly unwilling to bear major costs of such a relationship. It has forced the UK to keep its defence expenditure at 2% of its GDP and has tried to nudge Japan and the rest of NATO, with varying degrees of success. Indian interests lie squarely in the US camp in SE Asia. India cannot care minimally what happens there and it cannot play a substantial role alone.

My sense is that this is incorrect on several levels. First of all, I start with the assumption that every country, and I mean EVERY country (including Tonga) is operating on this fundamental principle: "India should be reduced in territorial size, cut up into parts, and those parts should be further subdivided and ruled by me alone or by me with in an alliance with others. To this end, I will work to attack it on all fronts in order to weaken it, to exploit its internal differences, to undermine its sense of itself, its identity and civilisational heritage, and its sense of hope for itself and the future of its people". Broadly speaking. In short, we have zero friends, zero allies, zero well wishers. Everything that contradicts the above assumption is a bonus, with an uncertain time limit.

All that we do, everything in terms of advancement of strategic interest, is aimed at minimising the possibility of the above quoted passage coming to fruition, and to the contrary, increasing our wealth, our territorial space, our ability to act with autonomy, and our position on this planet as a civilisation of prominence and strength. To this end, we will use sama, dhana, bheda, danda to the best of our ability.

So, yes, it is in our interest to ensure that China does not circumscribe our ability to do the above, but that does not mean our "interests lie entirely in the US camp". We also have an interest in moderating US behaviour, Russian behaviour, German behaviour, British behaviour and French behaviour, etc. For this, we will work with the others where possible. Nor does it mean that the US is the only power that can moderate Chinese behaviour. Others can do so in different ways. What it does mean is that what we do has to be well informed, well calibrated in terms of our objectives, and therefore considered not just with the tactical exigency in mind, but also the long view. An India that is roiling is not good for the world, but neither is a China in that position or a US, or an EU. We have to be dharmic in our worldview, and let it sink over time that greater intervals between violent globalised confrontations is part of what that entails. That can only be assured by having consummate wealth, and military power that matches our worldview.
You have stated your worldview, here's mine. All countries are not equal in the threat pose or even the opportunity they provide. The most important as far as long term relationships are concerned is their predisposition towards India. There are those that see the relationship as a zero sum game. Only Pakistan lies in entirely in that camp, not even China. There are those that view it as capable of win-win. That does not necessarily mean they won't extract their pound of flesh. The US, Russia, Germany, British and French all fall in that camp. We don't face any threats from them bar trade disputes, which is a good problem to have. We have moderated the behaviour of all these players, even the US, with nothing more than strong diplomacy and minimal financial clout so far. China alone presents a problem which requires us to form alliances. So comparing our need for moderating with Chinese behaviour with those of the rest of the world is simply not right. The challenges they pose are entirely of a different order.

The only possible way for India to have a transactional relationship with any of the major players is if we go back to our isolated economic ways, dhoti shibbering about the Portugese, assorted East India companies, the British, yanquis, .... We could carry off the non-aligned rubbish only because we chose to isolate ourselves economically AND presented a win-win for the rest of the world by simply being a stable political system that posted no threat to the global world order with a revisionist streak. Interestingly all the bhoot-jolokia chewing nationalists are advocating exactly that.

Note: Edited to fix quoting.
Last edited by KrishnaK on 23 Apr 2016 05:02, edited 2 times in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby TSJones » 23 Apr 2016 04:45

Really and truly, India is doing OK with its present positions and strategies in regard to both military and economics. The last 25 years has proven this. In short, there is no short term crisis on the horizon that India cannot respond to. It can keep right on going the way it is for the next few decades. Not only that, we will see some stunning space projects achieved by India also.

However, nice as that is, it won't match China's plans for SE Asia and some parts of the Indian Ocean. Thy are not shy about establishing foreign bases and ports, Nor are they holding back on military spending. So I think it is reasonable to assume some big changes coming in the next few decades.

India can face these changes along with Russia as a back up for weapons modernization and China is using the same vendor. But it is understandable that India wants no relationship other than ad hoc random event driven process with the US. It will at least have its dignity and honor intact no matter what happens.

Personally I think the US is over extended in its relationships anyway which is causing us problems in the middle east, Afghanistan, and Korea. We can't move w/o ticking somebody off. It's gotten beyond ridiculous.

So my feeling is keep it ad hoc, keep it random, and there are no guarantees. I think a lot of my countrymen feel the same way. But rest assured the US will resist Chinese global aspirations however it can, even though a lot of our elites and oligarchs are compromised by China.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby KrishnaK » 23 Apr 2016 05:21

TSJones wrote:Really and truly, India is doing OK with its present positions and strategies in regard to both military and economics. The last 25 years has proven this. In short, there is no short term crisis on the horizon that India cannot respond to. It can keep right on going the way it is for the next few decades. Not only that, we will see some stunning space projects achieved by India also.

However, nice as that is, it won't match China's plans for SE Asia and some parts of the Indian Ocean. Thy are not shy about establishing foreign bases and ports, Nor are they holding back on military spending. So I think it is reasonable to assume some big changes coming in the next few decades.

India can face these changes along with Russia as a back up for weapons modernization and China is using the same vendor. But it is understandable that India wants no relationship other than ad hoc random event driven process with the US. It will at least have its dignity and honor intact no matter what happens.

Personally I think the US is over extended in its relationships anyway which is causing us problems in the middle east, Afghanistan, and Korea. We can't move w/o ticking somebody off. It's gotten beyond ridiculous.

So my feeling is keep it ad hoc, keep it random, and there are no guarantees. I think a lot of my countrymen feel the same way. But rest assured the US will resist Chinese global aspirations however it can, even though a lot of our elites and oligarchs are compromised by China.
Ad hoc, random is increasingly less likely with every passing year. Every major player wants to know exactly where the other major players lie and ensure some degree of consistency in their stance without taking away all room for manoeuvre. This is true for India as it is for the US. I am arguing the trend not the exact timing.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1278
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chanakyaa » 23 Apr 2016 07:09

I agree partially. Right now we have to box in PRC and eliminate the threat that it posses to us. USA does not claim any territory of India, PRC does. USA is not occupying any 30000 sqkms of Indian territory. PRC is. USA is not assisting terrorist groups in North East. PRC is. Right now the clear and present threat is PRC. Not only by its actions but by its words too. Right now our interests and USA align as far as PRC is concerned. So let us make the most of this. Once PRC's threat is eliminated we will no longer need USA and we can go our own independent merry way.

Very nice...now everything is becoming clear. Isn't it amazing that in the above para, you could replace words "India" with "Ookraine" and "PRC" with "Russia", change some numbers and most of the paragraph would hold true and very convincing.

Groucho Marx's quote -- "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13117
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby UlanBatori » 23 Apr 2016 07:30

It is such an honor to be able to read all about the future here, written by expert ppl who are so knowledgeable about US and Indian policies, and will stay interested for the next 20 years....

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20597
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 23 Apr 2016 08:10

Even the israelis are selling very high tech Mil stuff to the chinese. Are we to get upset about that too??

Either we buy entirely, what ever military stuff the russians have for sale or stop whining about where else the russians are legitimately doing business??

what will the chinese buy from the russians?? onions??

we should seriously be introspecting as to why the chinese are able to reverse engineer, in part or otherwise, produce local copies of supplied russian ( or any origin ) systems, be it electronics, airframe or engines and come up with their own credible "shenyang" versions, leverage that into their own designs and go on from there.

The chinese carrier also has a lot of russian advisors to help the chinese navy quickly master the ropes. They learned to build their carriers by studying a scrapped carrier which they bought from the soviets. By now, they would have leveraged into their naval designs stolen amreki tech too.

they purchase at great cost, crashed amreki drones, missiles and even tail rotors like they did from the pakis after the bin laden strike.

The answers are out in the open, glaringly obvious and yet no one wants to look, instead of always harping on total TOT and always asking for garam garam halwa on a plate.

unfortunately, in our Mil eco system, we only have plenty of copy cat narayana murthys and infosys, with more in the pipeline. We don't need these coolie companies or coolie mentality because there is no payoff in real terms for us in military technology.

The chinese stole, lied, cheated, bought clandestinely, bribed their way into mil high tech and in this effective methodology there should be a hidden (?) lesson for us.

no one is going serve you garam garam halwa. If your eco system is used only to the ready halwa culture, it's time that we also learned to make it or buy at extortionist prices like the "friendly" french are doing to you. They have rafaled us and we are arguing price, thinking ourselves very smart.

The garam garam halwa, something that you are really very keen on getting, you are not going to get at any price.

either we learn to make in India, by hook or crook, or continue to crib and pay extortionist prices.

Despite repeated and grave provocations, when you are not willing to strike or even wound the pakis, militarily, diplomatically, economically or even socially ( not to talk of china), WTF do you need advanced weapons??
Last edited by chetak on 23 Apr 2016 09:28, edited 1 time in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby TSJones » 23 Apr 2016 09:27

India military budget for 2014 about $40 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_India

Chinese military budget 2014 about $132 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2016 09:45

Of course China benefited from Russian arms when Russia was at an eco low during the Yeltsin years,but they did it,reverse-engineering on the sly without Russian permission.This has been a bone of contention for decades and why Russia does not trust Chin with its best eqpt. which it is willing to provide to India! China has now accepted its criminality and is paying compensation to Russia for all the weapon systems it has cloned and built without permission .The details of compensation are classified but without it the Chinese would not have been allowed to buy their 24 SU35s which are of lower std than RuAF ones.

American lust for its rent-boy Pak far exceed its protestations of love for us.It merely wants to use India as a catspaw against China and effectively castrate our independent mil capability by penetrating our armed forces through critical arms sales which are accompanied by an invasive US inspection/conditions regime. "None so blind as those that cannot see",this myopia in Indian establishment is now reaching epidemic status. What is astonishing is that all this willingness to be seduced by Uncle Sam is at a time when he is being dumped by his long-time allies in the MEast when he failed to deliver on his promises. The Modi regime would do well to examine the track record of Uncle Sam right from abandoning the South Viet regime during the Vietnam War,the inglorious panic retreat from Saigon,the retreat from Afghanistan,the retreat from Iraq, the abandoning/betrayal of the Shah,Noriega,Saddam,Ghadaffi,..the list goes on. Compare and contrast this with Russia and Putin.They came to Assad's aid with a bang.Now he is secure while his enemies ,supported by the US,the Ottomans,the Saudis and Gulfies are all in retreat.Mr.Modi,pick your comrade in arms wisely.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Austin » 23 Apr 2016 10:01

TSJones wrote:India military budget for 2014 about $40 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_India

Chinese military budget 2014 about $132 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China


More than those raw numbers in USD , it would be interesting to measure those numbers against PPP of each nation , else mere number dont give away much

Not to say China budget is not much bigger but its also a function of how much they earn versus spend and own priorities

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5559
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby vishvak » 23 Apr 2016 10:20

There is a difference between what USA can do and will do, the Syrian thread is a good read as an example. The alphabet soup can be used as misused if some paki/Chin/etc interest groups make a mess of it. What could USA do in middle east for example, if NATO member Turkey could smuggle ammo and oil across Syrian border for more than 5 years. The Chinese/paki lobby groups are as legit in USA as the Indian one though it is the Indians facing 2 nuke armed nations across the border.

The US policy of propping up Pakistan and playing such games has not changed for decades since Bangla liberation war, and is not going to affect mainland USA or even shores.

Wonder what made people keep quite about US politicking all these decades in the first place.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20597
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 23 Apr 2016 10:27

vishvak wrote:There is a difference between what USA can do and will do, the Syrian thread is a good read as an example. The alphabet soup can be used as misused if some paki/Chin/etc interest groups make a mess of it. What could USA do in middle east for example, if NATO member Turkey could smuggle ammo and oil across Syrian border for more than 5 years. The Chinese/paki lobby groups are as legit in USA as the Indian one though it is the Indians facing 2 nuke armed nations across the border.

The US policy of propping up Pakistan and playing such games has not changed for decades since Bangla liberation war, and is not going to affect mainland USA or even shores.

Wonder what made people keep quite about US politicking all these decades in the first place.


don't forget the intolerable US assault on India through their EJs, their rabidly militant churches and their filthy govt sponsored NGOs. The SD is also no friend of India.

their three letter outfits have supported militant groups in the northeast and TN for the longest time

If they did the same to the pakis, we would have seen a very different relationship by now

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23760
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 23 Apr 2016 11:13

TSJones wrote:Chinese military budget 2014 about $132 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China

The Chinese military budget hides much, much more than what it reveals. They aren't open with their books.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby RajeshA » 23 Apr 2016 13:01

Going forward, I have been trying to see how a Trump Presidency can help India's strategic position. Now I don't really for a second believe that Trump Administration would for some reason be pro-India, in spite of Mr. Trump having some business interests in India. However, Trump's policies could be useful for India indirectly.

  1. I believe the corner-stone of Trump Presidency is going to be US-Russian relations. Trump sees the cold-war with Russia as a yuge waste of time and energy. Trump would most probably try three things with NATO
    ---- Dilute its common anti-Russian stance
    ---- Try to bring in Russia into the Western tent
    ---- Try to change NATO's orientation to more of a terrorism-fighting organization, especially of the Jihadi kind

  2. There is going to be a trade-war with China
    ----- This means China would need access to other big markets like India even more, and thus China may play nicer

  3. Managing Chinese Threat
    ----- Bringing in Russia into the Western tent
    ----- Japan and South Korea going nuclear, taking more responsibility for their own security and that of the Pacific
    ----- Bigger American military
    ----- Perhaps better relations with India on this front too

  4. Managing Islamist Threat
    ----- Till date, USA has been in bed with the worst terrorism-sponsors of the world - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan and even Turkey. That policy could change
    ----- Change from "nation-building" to Jihadi hunting
    ----- Stronger curbs on freedom of movement of Islamists and Muslims in general

  5. Pakistan
    ----- My BIG concern is that Paul Monafort of Monafort and Black Lobby firm are playing a major role in Trump's election campaign. These were close to ISI and Kashmiri separatists
    ----- Despite that, it could be possible that Trump would see Pakistan for the shitta it is, and be supportive of an Indian move to do another Bangladesh on Pak. At least he brings in some fresh thinking, separate from the institutional support Pakistan has enjoyed in Washington D.C.
    ----- Trump may also have a different attitude to Pakistan and nuclear weapons there.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ldev » 23 Apr 2016 19:15

Austin wrote:
TSJones wrote:India military budget for 2014 about $40 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_India

Chinese military budget 2014 about $132 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China


More than those raw numbers in USD , it would be interesting to measure those numbers against PPP of each nation , else mere number dont give away much

Not to say China budget is not much bigger but its also a function of how much they earn versus spend and own priorities


A comparison based on PPP cuts both ways e.g. I would say that the total employee strength of DRDO + all AEC facilities in India will be either equal to or greater than the entire US National Lab system. So this complaint of chronic underfunding of DRDO may not be as relevant, based on PPP comparisons.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Christopher Sidor » 23 Apr 2016 20:51

udaym wrote:
I agree partially. Right now we have to box in PRC and eliminate the threat that it posses to us. USA does not claim any territory of India, PRC does. USA is not occupying any 30000 sqkms of Indian territory. PRC is. USA is not assisting terrorist groups in North East. PRC is. Right now the clear and present threat is PRC. Not only by its actions but by its words too. Right now our interests and USA align as far as PRC is concerned. So let us make the most of this. Once PRC's threat is eliminated we will no longer need USA and we can go our own independent merry way.

Very nice...now everything is becoming clear. Isn't it amazing that in the above para, you could replace words "India" with "Ookraine" and "PRC" with "Russia", change some numbers and most of the paragraph would hold true and very convincing.

Groucho Marx's quote -- "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

The problem between "Ookraine" and "Russia" is not comparable to the situation between India and PRC. PRC does not see India as the cradle of it civilisation. "Ookraine" and Russia have a longer intertwined history which India PRC do not have. Moreover Russia and "Ookraine" are not competing for the same prize. India and PRC are.

But I would like to know how does the "Ookraine" - Russia -US triangle have sailence as far as India-PRC-US triangle is concerned?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13117
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby UlanBatori » 23 Apr 2016 21:28

Mr. Trump having some business interests in India

I hope to see krikkit betting made halal.
Trump Casino and Sports Prediction Center

Also, Trump may set up Miss Bharatiya Samsthan Competition.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SaiK » 23 Apr 2016 21:38

Krikkit is haram because it is Brit$. Of course, the cash cow is halal as the agenda fits any capitalistic setup.

trump must be treated like a trump card in bridge play. nothing more or less. if you don't use him, pakis will.

but again, this is valid only if he make it all the way up!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16417
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby NRao » 23 Apr 2016 22:16


TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby TSJones » 24 Apr 2016 00:22

ldev wrote:A comparison based on PPP cuts both ways e.g. I would say that the total employee strength of DRDO + all AEC facilities in India will be either equal to or greater than the entire US National Lab system. So this complaint of chronic underfunding of DRDO may not be as relevant, based on PPP comparisons.


you are aware that a lot of US universities do military research work? such as John Hopkins, University of Wisconsin, etc.

Like China, the US budgetary items are not all reported under DoD. It's spread out under various other agencies like Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Department of Agriculture, etc. I think other nations may do the same....... :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 24 Apr 2016 02:01

arshyam, those affiliations tell you for who pays the piper.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Karan M » 24 Apr 2016 03:13

ldev wrote:A comparison based on PPP cuts both ways e.g. I would say that the total employee strength of DRDO + all AEC facilities in India will be either equal to or greater than the entire US National Lab system. So this complaint of chronic underfunding of DRDO may not be as relevant, based on PPP comparisons.


Look into the facts ldev, does good. Even the high level stuff from wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_ ... n_of_China
Number of employees
535,942 (2015)[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Avi ... poration_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Avi ... oration_II

http://chineseposters.net/themes/milita ... omplex.php

The People's Liberation Army must have one of the most extensive military industrial complexes in the world, employing some 700,000 employees in about 10,000 enterprises.


HAL - 32108 (March, 2014)[1]
BEL- 9952
DRDO - 30,000 (7,200 scientists approximately and 12000 technical officer and assistants)

In short, with regards to funding, you are going about it all wrong.. the key metric in this area is investment in infrastructure including capex and the amount invested per program which correlates to the first. China has a bunch of labs for an Indian one, with far more funding doing similar stuff.

Yes, its wasteful and replicates stuff and often creates mini empires (Famous statement in old mandarin - Beijing is far away, and the mountains are tall.. talking about how different places run by their own rules).. but at the end of the day, the money poured in and the benefits from the unrestricted IP theft PRC does, do accrue.. to some specific labs and groups. CATIC vs SAIC for instance.

India, we have done very well for the limited funding we employed.. but our priorities are different. Not to be supahpawah but to enrich a certain clan. Also, the private sector in PRC is tied at the hip to the state.. private only in name and hence they enjoy state support.

In turn, they give preferential treatment to folks seconded from PLAAF/PLAN etc or big fishes locally from the state who get a nice cabin, good renumeration.. its all part of the game.
Last edited by Karan M on 24 Apr 2016 03:25, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Karan M » 24 Apr 2016 03:20

devesh wrote:
Karan M wrote:>>I'm quite sure almost everybody believes that. American BRFites (like TSJ & GWelch) strongly believe that. And not just India, any country being invaded by, or otherwise in conflict with China would receive US support.

:lol: :lol:


I'm glad somebody took the time to post the appropriate response to the above garbage. Thank you, Karan M.


What else is one to say to such unadulterated rubbish? Will Khan give us all this out of the goodness of its heart? We would be lucky if we even got basic support and for that we would have to pay via our noses.

Some sample things which folks like the above would probably be A-ok with, hey lookie we get new toys, but the rest of this forum wouldn't be.

#1. Khan led rules on our social structures and policy decisions - including missionaries getting more access
#2. Strictures against our pharma, and other industries to play by Khan rules on generics and all sorts of odious crap
#3. Play nice with TSP on Kashmir. More access from Khan to our poor oppressed folks.
#4. Play nice with Khan on climate change, GM seeds and pretty much everything..

The list will go on and on..

Its kind of obvious there are folks on this forum who are mentally conditioned to accept one set of rulers over the other.. either Khan or Russia.. it becomes hilarious though, when they state that everyone else (almost) will think like them.. yeah sure!!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: greatde and 70 guests