India-US relations: News and Discussions III

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 22 Dec 2016 18:41

This is from 2010: (emphasis added)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... an/307983/
A deal with the insurgents constitutes another part of a withdrawal strategy. While becoming more organizationally formidable since 9/11, the Taliban have also modified their behavior. Mullah Omar has sent out a directive banning beheadings and unauthorized kidnappings as well as other forms of violent and criminal activity, according to both Al-Jazeera and ISAF officials. “In a way, we’re seeing a kinder, gentler Taliban,” said both Commander Eggers and General Flynn. Moreover, in working with the tribes in the spirit of Churchill’s Malakand Field Force, Flynn, the intelligence chief, went so far as to suggest that the insurgent leaders Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are both “absolutely salvageable.” “The HIG already have members in Karzai’s government, and it could evolve into a political party, even though Hekmatyar may be providing alQaeda leaders refuge in Kunar. Hekmatyar has reconcilable ambitions. As for the Haqqani network, I can tell you they are tired of fighting, but are not about to give up. They have lucrative business interests to protect: the road traffic from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to Central Asia.” Lamb, the former SAS commander, added: “Haqqani and Hekmatyar are pragmatists tied to the probability of outcomes. With all the talk of Islamic ideology, this is the land of the deal.”


This is from 2008:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_bomb ... y_in_Kabul
Kabul Embassy bombing:

On 1 August 2008, United States intelligence officials said that the Pakistani intelligence services helped the Haqqani network plan the attack.[8] Their conclusions were based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and the perpetrators before the attack. CIA deputy director Stephen R. Kappes had visited Islamabad before the attack to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups. The officials said that the ISI officers involved had not been renegades, indicating that their actions might have been authorised by superiors in the Pakistan Army. It confirmed suspicions that were long held, an 'aha moment'.


Imagine if a Clinton surrogate suggests say that "Hafiz Saeed" is "absolutely salvageable" what the BRF reaction would be.

AFAIK, the "Haqqani is salvageable" public remark is around the same time Flynn is said to have improperly shared US intelligence with Pakistan's ISI.

PS:
This is from 2010, Pakistan's The Dawn:
http://www.dawn.com/news/541672/pakista ... fghan-deal
Pakistan trying to broker Afghan deal
But officials tell Dawn that the US attitude towards the Haqqani network will become less intransigent with time. Pakistan is aware that the Americans are keen to begin withdrawal by July 2011 - the deadline set by President Barack Obama -- and in order for this to happen, Kabul will have to start a dialogue with some Taliban groups.

American officials have, on more than one occasion, conceded that at some stage the Taliban can be engaged provided certain conditions are met, such as cutting off ties with Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups.

That this possibility does not exclude the Haqqani group is clear from the statements of officials within the US administration and military. For instance, US Central Command Director of Intelligence Major General Michael Flynn had been quoted by The Atlantic magazine as saying that Jalaluddin Haqqani was “absolutely salvageable”.

Karzai has in the past tried at least twice - in 2007 and 2009 - to woo the Haqqani group but to no avail. It even refused to attend the recent Kabul peace jirga. But since then Pakistani officials claim that the Haqqanis have been persuaded to talk to Karzai. The Haqqani network, which is operationally headed by Jalaluddin Haqqani's son Sirajuddin, is believed to have sanctuaries in Pakistan's North Waziristan region close to the Pak-Afghan border and is viewed as one of the most potent warring groups active in Afghanistan.

Though this group operates largely in the south-eastern provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika, allied forces have accused it of carrying out attacks in Kabul and Kandahar as well, including the one on the Indian mission in Kabul.

However, while military and foreign office officials are willing to talk about this initiative in off-the-record conversations, the official line from the Foreign Office remains ambiguous “Pakistan will continue supporting Afghanistan-led efforts towards reintegration and reconciliation.”


For the record, by 2012, the US decided to designate the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist organization. The citation includes this:
https://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/haqqani_network.html
The Haqqani Network is responsible for some of the highest-profile attacks of the Afghan war, including the June 2011 assault on the Kabul Intercontinental Hotel, conducted jointly with the Afghan Taliban, and two major suicide bombings—in 2008 and 2009—against the Indian Embassy in Kabul. In September 2011, the Haqqanis participated in a day-long assault against major targets in Kabul, including the US Embassy, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters, the Afghan Presidential Palace, and the Afghan National Directorate of Security headquarters. More recently, in October 2013, Afghan security forces intercepted a truck bomb deployed by the Haqqanis against Forward Operating Base Goode in Paktiya Province. The device, which did not detonate, contained some 61,500 pounds of explosives and was the largest truck bomb ever built. The group is also involved in a number of criminal activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and smuggling.


Quite a record for a "salvageable".

PPS: I would like to know the basis for Flynn's "disclosure regarding the haqqani was in an effort to impress upon the Bakis about the reach of the US spying capabilities." How do we know it was something to do with an effort to "salvage" Haqqani?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 22 Dec 2016 19:53

http://www.vox.com/2016/12/21/14044376/ ... varro-ross

Donald Trump’s trade team has based their analysis on a remarkably silly mistake
There’s a smart critique of current trade policy out there, and this isn’t it.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Arjun » 22 Dec 2016 22:34

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.vox.com/2016/12/21/14044376/trump-navarro-ross

Donald Trump’s trade team has based their analysis on a remarkably silly mistake
There’s a smart critique of current trade policy out there, and this isn’t it.

Yeah...the export-led mercantilist mindset of China, Germany, Japan is so unbelievably silly ! Just look at where it led these nations.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Dec 2016 05:23

Arjun wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:http://www.vox.com/2016/12/21/14044376/trump-navarro-ross

Yeah...the export-led mercantilist mindset of China, Germany, Japan is so unbelievably silly ! Just look at where it led these nations.


I take it you read and tried to understand the article, but failed.

To summarize, there is an accounting identity, which goes:

GDP = government purchases + consumer purchases + business investments + exports - imports

However, the effect of increasing government purchases by X, the first term on the RHS in the accounting identity, does not increase GDP by the same amount X, because the government spending has an impact on business investments, consumer purchases, etc., tending to reduce them. In the same way, cutting imports by an amount Y, say by applying a tariff does not raise GDP by the same amount Y, because the tariff will tend to reduce customer purchases because of raised prices and so on.

Yet, what Trump's expert economists use for their calculations is precisely that if a tariff reduced imports by Y, then GDP went up by Y.

What remains true is the accounting identity. If a tariff reduces imports by Y, exports are reduced a little say because of retaliation; consumer purchases may be down by some amount, say, because of higher prices, business investment may be up a little, say, because of the business opportunity of import substitution, and the accounting identity holds true using all these revised values.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 23 Dec 2016 07:19

Trump wrote:Earlier on Thursday, Mr Trump had urged the Security Council to veto the resolution.

In a statement, he said "peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.

"This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."


Go back to sleep folks.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 23 Dec 2016 08:53

Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35. Cannot link the article now, but does say he may ditch the F-35 due to cost overruns.

Image

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9747
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Yagnasri » 23 Dec 2016 09:36

With DT cost and financial matters may of great importance. While dealing with him, we have had to make those matter cornerstone of our argument. That being said, EJ gang with MP will be doing their bit and they are not going to go away totally.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8128
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Mort Walker » 23 Dec 2016 09:48

NRao wrote:Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35. Cannot link the article now, but does say he may ditch the F-35 due to cost overruns.

Image



He met with Boeing execs and in an attempt to undercut and take LM's business, Boeing threw out some proposals to him. Trumpanzee is just thinking out loud on Twitter.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Arjun » 23 Dec 2016 18:40

A_Gupta wrote:I take it you read and tried to understand the article, but failed.

To summarize, there is an accounting identity, which goes:

GDP = government purchases + consumer purchases + business investments + exports - imports

However, the effect of increasing government purchases by X, the first term on the RHS in the accounting identity, does not increase GDP by the same amount X, because the government spending has an impact on business investments, consumer purchases, etc., tending to reduce them. In the same way, cutting imports by an amount Y, say by applying a tariff does not raise GDP by the same amount Y, because the tariff will tend to reduce customer purchases because of raised prices and so on.

Yet, what Trump's expert economists use for their calculations is precisely that if a tariff reduced imports by Y, then GDP went up by Y.

What remains true is the accounting identity. If a tariff reduces imports by Y, exports are reduced a little say because of retaliation; consumer purchases may be down by some amount, say, because of higher prices, business investment may be up a little, say, because of the business opportunity of import substitution, and the accounting identity holds true using all these revised values.

Anybody who's been through basic economics or MBA is familiar with this identity, thank you !

I presume they must have used an ''all other things staying the same" caveat in their paper, and all this argument is saying is that all other things may not necessarily stay the same.

More fundamentally, the point of argument is whether the US should go back to basics and aim for trade surplus or reduced trade deficit following the well-worn path that many other dragons have taken. And Trump has clearly chosen his answer and his stance is hardly one that would not find endorsement from many economists. Navarro and his paper are just minor quibbling details... What will be more interesting is the course of action that Trump and Navarro intend to take with China. The course of action and his larger economic & trade policy is what will determine whether all other terms remain the same or not in the GDP identity.
Last edited by Arjun on 23 Dec 2016 18:58, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby TSJones » 23 Dec 2016 18:54

whutevah.......the trade imbalance is just too lopsided to sustain......end of story.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby UlanBatori » 23 Dec 2016 19:02

I wonder if the good ppl here would kindly refrain from the lazy practice of copying entire posts before posting a one-liner of great wisdom. It is a gross waste of bandwidth to read the same posts, picture, videos and all, time and again when there is nothing new being added. 90 percent of each page is just repeated posts copied. Why not post the relevant lines that you want to copy before responding, please?

That said, what I came to post was this:
price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35.


Wonder if that won't require adding a hot-air balloon and a parachute for VTOL? Or will it just leave the Marines out on the beach as usual?
This looks like a scam to sell the F-18 to India etc as "just as good as the F-35 except cheaper and better as mileage". Maybe Part 2 of the AF-1 cancellation threat, now to placate Boeing and threaten Lockheed?

OTOH, The Boeing Ugly-Guppy, the JSF entry from Boeing, may be excellent to export.

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

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby TSJones » 23 Dec 2016 19:18

the boeing vstol entry lost not because it was ugly but because it couldn't do some of the things as well as the LM vstol. this was documented in a vid that is available somewhere on you tube.

otherwise, Marines love ugly. Marines think ugly is more loyal.

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

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Viv S » 23 Dec 2016 19:36

NRao wrote:Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35.

Someone will explain to him in time that the SH is a naval fighter is not intended for AF use. And also can't be used from the USN's (ramp-equipped) LHAs. And costs nearly as much. And is not anywhere as capable.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Dec 2016 19:43

Proposed border adjustment tax:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/20/how-a-co ... to-17.html

I think that the numbers used to illustrate the concept are unrealistic. But it amounts to a form of tariff.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Dec 2016 19:51

Arjun wrote:I presume they must have used an ''all other things staying the same" caveat in their paper, and all this argument is saying is that all other things may not necessarily stay the same.


That is precisely what they do not do.

Since these two authors are going to head Trump's trade policy team, their paper is not some minor detail.

And this habit of "X could not have meant the idiotic thing that he said, surely he meant something that makes sense" is one that leads to danger.

shravanp
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2403
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby shravanp » 23 Dec 2016 19:51

Obama administration ending program once used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men

Washington (CNN)The Obama administration said Thursday it was ending a dormant program that once was used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men.

"The Department of Homeland Security is removing outdated regulations pertaining to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration Systems (NSEERS) program, with an immediate effective date," said Neema Hakim, a department spokesman.
The program was suspended in 2011. Hakim said the "intervening years have shown that NSEERS is not only obsolete, but that its use would divert limited personnel and resources from more effective measures."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/obama-nseers-arab-muslim-registry/index.html


Well chosen timing.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 23 Dec 2016 20:37

As a FYI.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us ... trump.html

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s selection of Gen. James N. Mattis as defense secretary signals a more assertive American posture in the Middle East — one that people close to him say would most likely include more American troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, more Navy patrols in the Persian Gulf and more fighter jets in the Middle East.

“The closest thing we have to Gen. George Patton,” Mr. Trump said in announcing his selection on Thursday night. At first glance, the similarity is there: Like General Mattis, General Patton, who led American troops into Nazi Germany during World War II, was a colorful, hard-charging advocate of aggressive offensive action.

But officials who know General Mattis caution that he views a tough American posture overseas as something to deter war with potential foes like Iran, not to start one. And although he was so hawkish on Iran as head of United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013 that the Obama administration cut short his tour, General Mattis has since said that tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement, as Mr. Trump has vowed to do, would hurt the United States.

General Mattis now favors working closely with allies to strictly enforce the deal.

“I don’t think that we can take advantage of some new president, Republican or Democrat, and say we’re not going to live up to our word on this agreement,” General Mattis, a retired Marine, said in April. “I believe we would be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have anywhere near the impact of an allied approach to this.”

working more closely with allies in the region to strengthen ties with their spy agencies and to expand naval exercises, including international efforts to stop Iran from using mines to cripple the flow of oil and other global traffic.

As the head of Central Command, the general pushed for “maintaining and diversifying the U.S. military presence in the Middle East amidst the Iraq drawdown, budget pressures and the rebalance to Asia,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration.

Three years later, General Mattis’s hard-line views on Iran have not softened as he points out the country’s “malign influence,” whether it is shipping weapons to rebels in Yemen or training Shiite militias bound for Syria or Iraq.

“The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East,” General Mattis said in April at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “Iran is not a nation-state; it’s a revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem.”

Sunni allies in the Persian Gulf, who have criticized the Obama administration for improving relations with Shiite-majority Iran, cheered General Mattis’s selection.

“He brings a fingertip feel and familiarity to the region that will serve our interests much better, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll pour in a whole bunch more troops,” said Vice Adm. Mark I. Fox, who served under General Mattis as head of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf.


Normally, an examination of a president-elect’s top pick for the Pentagon would look at the policy differences between the incoming president and the nominee. But it is difficult in this case because Mr. Trump has publicly expressed so many conflicting views on national security. (He supported the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq but says he did not. He said during the campaign that he would reinstate waterboarding “in a heartbeat” but appeared to backtrack on that assertion last week during an interview with The New York Times, after listening, he said, to General Mattis’s views.)

Still, it is difficult to see how the two men would find agreement on Mr. Trump’s professed admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, given that General Mattis, like most military officers at the Pentagon, has a healthy skepticism for the Russian leader.

General Mattis’s selection also raises potentially consequential questions about the issue of civilian control of the military, a standard set by the framers of the Constitution. The founding fathers were adamant that the country be led by a civilian president who exercises control over the military as commander in chief so that the nation will not become a military state. Similarly, the leader of the Defense Department is always a civilian who is superior to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top military official.

General Mattis’s retirement from the Marines in 2013 means that he would need a congressional waiver to be defense secretary because American law requires a seven-year waiting period between active duty and serving in that role. There is little doubt that General Mattis, who is well liked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the head of the Armed Services Committee, will be able to get that waiver.


Mr. McCain said he was pleased with the general’s nomination, saying in a statement that he “looked forward to moving forward with the confirmation process as soon as possible in the new Congress.”

But Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said she plans to vote against the waiver. “While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service,” she said in a statement Thursday night, “civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”


The congressional waiver has not been used in 66 years, since Gen. George C. Marshall, then five years out of active service as the Army chief of staff, received a waiver to be President Harry S. Truman’s defense secretary.

General Mattis’s selection has also resurfaced an accusation from “The Only Thing Worth Dying For,” a 2010 book by Eric Blehm, who wrote about a group of Green Berets after they were hit by an American smart bomb in Afghanistan in 2001. In the book, Mr. Blehm quotes a former Army Special Forces officer accusing General Mattis, then a brigadier general, of refusing to send helicopters to rescue the Green Berets. The general declined to be interviewed for the book.

Mr. Trump has so far shown an affinity for retired military officers as he assembles his government. Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been named national security adviser, while Mr. Trump’s aides sounded out Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander in Afghanistan, for defense secretary. David H. Petraeus, a former C.I.A. director and a retired four-star Army officer who served as the military’s top commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been under consideration for secretary of state.

But the nomination of General Mattis could make Mr. Petraeus’s selection less likely, because Democrats will object to the prevalence of retired generals in jobs that normally go to civilians.

While General Mattis is revered by Marines and enlisted soldiers, several military officials interviewed on Friday raised questions about whether his proven combat skills as a military leader will be the right tools to overcome the calcified bureaucracy that is the Defense Department.

A defense secretary must navigate the politics of the White House and Congress while balancing and, in some cases, steering the views of his top military officers.

When Robert M. Gates served as defense secretary during the most bloody periods of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he overruled senior generals and forced through a speedy development of more heavily armored MRAPs — mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles — to save American lives from roadside bombs. Generals outside the war zone were reluctant to spend so much money on a new vehicle that had not been part of their long-term planning and budgeting.


A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Dec 2016 21:08

The San Diego Tribune editorial:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opi ... story.html

President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of UC Irvine professor Peter Navarro to lead the newly created National Trade Council was no surprise, given Trump’s praise of Navarro for his criticism of China’s trade policies and their effects on U.S. workers.

For veterans of local politics, Navarro is a familiar figure. ....
....

Unfortunately, Navarro’s views have become outlandish in recent years.
....

Fortunately, Trump has said Ross will be the leader of his trade strategy, not Navarro, and Ross has come across as far more coherent on trade in other forums.....Ross doesn’t remotely sound like Trump did on the campaign trail. He grasps the value of international trade. He doesn’t glibly claim that manufacturing jobs lost to technological gains — not foreign competition — can readily return.

The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board nonetheless remains on edge about what might happen in coming years.....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 24 Dec 2016 16:23



chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4241
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby chola » 24 Dec 2016 20:24

NRao wrote:........... Now codified. Next implementation.

US' $618 Billion Defence Budget Boosts Ties With 'Major Defence Partner' India



I usually stay away from thread but this something that must be highlighted.

This is something that is historic and can be all transforming for Bharat. Beginning in the
defense industry and then into the rest of the SOEs feeding at the trough, it could get us off the inefficient soviet way of doing things and more in line with the modern West. Something our private industries have hooked into a long time ago.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Dec 2016 21:11

When we vote with our feet to come to the west, crave western goods, western ways of life....we get the drift and think that it is only with integration with the west lies our salvation....err economic progress and preservation of security interests under her umbrella then why blame the government and armed forces for pursuing the same? No wonder then that the IUNCA deal had such broad support across the board. But there was a very small group that did articulate a different vision for India and opposed the deal under the principles of something called "strategic" interests. They were aiming for a different type of strategic positioning of our nation-state. Even the opposition at that time, now in power was hollow as has been proved, when they continue with the same policies of its previous government that they had opposed.

I can only hope that I am wrong and this small group opposing this close "strategic" alignment are wrong to fear an embrace by the US, for India's sake. What it means for India's own place, its power, its position and its ability and willingness to use such power to further her interests is something to watch out for. I do not ever want our PM to go out with a begging bowl to save us.

There was a very articulate and respected member here with the handle JCage. About 10 years back, there were many more who feared a military embrace of the US. He was amongst one of them. In a short exchange, I pointed out that India is increasingly allowing the US to be one of the defense suppliers and we should expect more and more wares from them. After a short exchange, he got my point but I wish I was wrong. The circle of opposition for this strategic embrace gets smaller and smaller - I wish I could honestly say that yes, I and some others were wrong on these fears and it has served the Indian national interest - in a manner that befits the ambitions of an independent and sovereign civilization state and matches its innate capacities.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby UlanBatori » 24 Dec 2016 21:29

It may be useful to remember that the USA does not buy arms from foreign nations, except maybe for some Special Forces personal weapons, or Foreign Technology / combat training purposes.

This may be well-correlated with the pace of indigenous innovation and development in Defence.

So countries who expect to become suddenly modern by starving their own indigenous innovation and importing shiny toys from the US, will go the Pakistan/Saudi/Turkey way.

The most important thing to import from the US is the culture of bloody-minded indigenous innovation and constant improvement/development. Most defence innovators in the US are strongly nationalist at the core. This is a point seldom mentioned in these sorts of discussions.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Dec 2016 21:48

UlanBatori wrote:The most important thing to import from the US is the culture of bloody-minded indigenous innovation and constant improvement/development. Most defence innovators in the US are strongly nationalist at the core. This is a point seldom mentioned in these sorts of discussions.
True but this culture does not even need importing. It exists at the root of our civilization narrative. Our rebellious and scant respect for the centralized rule of law, our fierce sense of independence, our community and network centric organization are all pointers that the innovation component exists in spades. What we lack is the nurturing and trustful environment to seed these properly and allow them to grow and flourish. BTW: This issue is not just limited to defense and is an issue across the board for innovation where for decades the message from the top to the bottom (innovators) has been - I do not trust you. I will make sure you have every bottleneck imagined to grow and prosper. The issues on this aspect are largely internal and only a revolution in governance can resolve this.

I have often joked that if there is one thing we should import wholesale from the US is its "culture" of governance. The structures are most apt to the Indian environment but at this point we are at diagonal opposites right from the level of defining, who is the sovereign?

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Hitesh » 25 Dec 2016 01:48

NRao wrote:Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35. Cannot link the article now, but does say he may ditch the F-35 due to cost overruns.

Image


No way the marines would let him do that. The us Air Force certainly won't let him do that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 25 Dec 2016 02:46

Hitesh wrote:
NRao wrote:Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35. Cannot link the article now, but does say he may ditch the F-35 due to cost overruns.

Image


No way the marines would let him do that. The us Air Force certainly won't let him do that.


No way is he going to cancel the F-35 either. He only cares about cost and he has a commitment now from the CEO. Now he will go back to sleep until the next dream.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Dec 2016 05:56

Dang! I have to get a live twitter feed of DT on my cellphone. Boeing first, now LockMart. You buy on a DT tweet, sell 2 percent higher by the day's close. 2% per day is equivalent to 700 percent in a year.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby LokeshC » 25 Dec 2016 08:54

UlanBatori wrote:Dang! I have to get a live twitter feed of DT on my cellphone. Boeing first, now LockMart. You buy on a DT tweet, sell 2 percent higher by the day's close. 2% per day is equivalent to 700 percent in a year.


Then you pay tax and trading commission and find the gain is about -2% :lol:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Dec 2016 09:31

I once made enough to buy a few dosas when Boeing stock went down after 787 - aag. Took one look at the aag location and bet that it had to be that some mohterma-ul-hava left the coffee-maker plugged in. It was lithium battery, but small difference.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Hitesh » 26 Dec 2016 05:11

NRao wrote:
Hitesh wrote:
No way the marines would let him do that. The us Air Force certainly won't let him do that.


No way is he going to cancel the F-35 either. He only cares about cost and he has a commitment now from the CEO. Now he will go back to sleep until the next dream.


A meaningless gesture from LM. She's just nodding and saying yes yes we will lower costs and then snicker in private and roll her eyes. It's all a publicity stunt. Costs have already been factored in and the F-35 is a golden cow that the US Congress is loathed to ax since LM made sure the benefits are spread all over the nation.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby devesh » 26 Dec 2016 05:16

who is LM?

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Kashi » 26 Dec 2016 05:57

Lockheed Martin

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 Dec 2016 06:55

NRao wrote:Washington Post reporting Trump has asked Boeing to price out a F-18 comparable to the F-35. Cannot link the article now, but does say he may ditch the F-35 due to cost overruns.

..


A F-18 comparable to the F-35 will cost cost 5X. A non comparable F-18 will cost ~$75-80MM vs ~$85MM for a 2020 block of the F-35.

The Donald is off his rocker


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

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby Austin » 26 Dec 2016 16:10

Snowden Full Yahoo! Interview With Katie Couric on DT , DNC Hacks etc


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21854
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby chetak » 26 Dec 2016 18:19

chola wrote:
NRao wrote:........... Now codified. Next implementation.

US' $618 Billion Defence Budget Boosts Ties With 'Major Defence Partner' India



I usually stay away from thread but this something that must be highlighted.

This is something that is historic and can be all transforming for Bharat. Beginning in the
defense industry and then into the rest of the SOEs feeding at the trough, it could get us off the inefficient soviet way of doing things and more in line with the modern West. Something our private industries have hooked into a long time ago.


beware of a blackman carrying gifts!!.

obama's generosity usually has a poisonous sting in the tail.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 26 Dec 2016 20:41

This is something that is historic and can be all transforming for Bharat. Beginning in the
defense industry and then into the rest of the SOEs feeding at the trough, it could get us off the inefficient soviet way of doing things and more in line with the modern West. Something our private industries have hooked into a long time ago.


Neither the SOviet way nor the Western way, it better be the Indian way. At least, here on out.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby GShankar » 26 Dec 2016 21:03

Is this the new bill or resolution that is enacted especially because they don't want to recognize India in the same level as UK, Japan, AUS, s.korea, etc.?

All this probably means is that we may get a few more off the shelf hardware that were denied before. The carrots are slowly coming at a cost.

Bonus is probably more restrictions on the pakis.

Wonder what restrictions this places to our various independent national interest based geo political moves in northern arunachal, sindhudesh, gilgit, kyber and Balochistan. May be we are going to slow things down, allowing cpec to prosper..

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21854
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby chetak » 26 Dec 2016 21:23

GShankar wrote:Is this the new bill or resolution that is enacted especially because they don't want to recognize India in the same level as UK, Japan, AUS, s.korea, etc.?

All this probably means is that we may get a few more off the shelf hardware that were denied before. The carrots are slowly coming at a cost.

Bonus is probably more restrictions on the pakis.

Wonder what restrictions this places to our various independent national interest based geo political moves in northern arunachal, sindhudesh, gilgit, kyber and Balochistan. May be we are going to slow things down, allowing cpec to prosper..


we have yet to fully understand or even appreciate the shady role played by the amrekis regarding the CPEC.

They seem to have made a deal, on the side, with the hans and India may have simply been hung out to dry.

sort of like purposely leaving a trapped animal the one escape route, gwadar.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Postby NRao » 26 Dec 2016 21:27

Is this the new bill or resolution that is enacted especially because they don't want to recognize India in the same level as UK, Japan, AUS, s.korea, etc.?


Not worth such comparisons.

India needs to figure out if she is getting most, if not all, of the technologies that she absolutely needs.

Geopolitics is a totally different Venn diagram. Anyone who confuses the two is bound to be disappointed. No two ways about it.

The only exception being Indo-Pacific region. Even there it is a sliver. However, that small sliver (hmmmm sliver itself is tiny) is big enough to push for such a deal.

Finally, the US is actually grown too big for her political presence. Recall Rome. Too many egocentric interests. See the Israeli predicament.

I would not recommend India wades into these silly geopolitical games, unless she must (CPEC,A'Stan,), but treat them separately. Do not mix A'Stan with DTTI. They should not be a zero sum game.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests