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.
These are some of the benefits or drivers we should agree on to:
- India as decision center point in conflict resolution gaining upper hand superseding UNSC charter
- IN's blue water capability and NFU assets gets more data points by joint patrols sub surface data/tech sharing[know each other well by coordinates rather spy]
- Perhaps use or takeover facilities from USN at DG [kinda extending our blues in "our own" ocean rim ]
- India can become the peace negotiator where US is clearly lacking how to handle ME region
- The logistics support helps us further aid in our niche weapons integration area, where we are becoming masters and jacks of it (interoperating with French, Russkie, Israeli and now Khan stores)
---- > will the think about a joint command as a fallback of increasing scratches? [possibility/vikas]
- Intersection of interests must be bigger than gains by these exchanges [loopholes?]
Aarre Krishnaji, why debate using one liners? I'm still waiting for you to be specific with you question in the first place. In the interest of other readers, I would prefer fewer posts...
Cosmo_R saar, if EU did not allow overflights in 1986 or Turkey did not allow access to base at one point in 2003, why is it a strong support for LSA or whatever morphed agreement ends up becoming? The burden of proof is on those who support it, not the other way around.
Very long time ago, as a young ingenue, doing a routine deal ~$1bn in funding for unspecified arms purchases by a middle eastern country, I saw a separate line item that called for $48MM to paid to a separate account. It turned out that was a 'facilitating payment' to one AK (this was the 1970s so he is not one of any AKs in India lest that start a CT). My lazy ?? led to the deal unraveling because it came under the FCPA.
US companies of any repute fear FCPA and will not do anything to trip it. Influence peddling is difficult to pin down but if they leave a trail which culminates in a payment, the DOJ would like to reach out and touch you in an intimate way with latex gloves.
udaym wrote:....
Cosmo_R saar, if EU did not allow overflights in 1986 or Turkey did not allow access to base at one point in 2003, why is it a strong support for LSA or whatever morphed agreement ends up becoming? The burden of proof is on those who support it, not the other way around.
Sorry, this burden of proof you speak of is like Groucho Marx's line: "who you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" kind of counter.
Many here have cited impeccable sources, linked actual LSA agreements and recounted practices by signatories. If you don't like any kind of heightened engagement between India and the US, fine. You have right to express your opinion which I will accept and defend. But, let's not couch it terms of "it's to our detriment" at least without a reasoned and factual and invested account of why we should not.
Counter arguments in debate are not mere "show me the proof", they are about reasoned, thoughtful, researched rebuttals.
chetak wrote:Don't underestimate the Japanese or misread their "peaceful" posture. A leopard never changes it's spots nor a tiger, it's stripes.
...
They had brought the amrekis to their knees in WWII and that kind of muscle memory in an old war making civilization is not easily lost.
No one compares with the Mongols as far as old war making civilizations are concerned. The wiped out 25% of the world's population at that point in time and trounced pretty much every one they clashed with. How good is their muscle memory at this point you think ?
Their warship, submarine and fighter aircraft building capabilities are second to none. They are only a few screwdriver turns away from becoming a nuke power. They have demonstrated launch capabilities too from their "space" program.
A far more reasonable argument. Japan's engineering capabilities are indeed top-notch. That alone does not make then capable enough to contain let alone take on a country 10 times in population size. For example - how capable is Japn when it comes to constructing a global technology denial regime against China and enforcing it ? Can they block europe from selling military technology to China ? A China with twice Japans' GDP and 10 times in population size with access to europe's technology will bring Japan to heel in short order.
so, it is entirely possible to have a trustworthy transactional relationship with Japan on a military level when they come out of the closet. We are better off with them rather than with the amrekis
This is the problem with emotion. It allows you to jump from old war making civilization to engineering capability to - trustworthy transactional relationship. Sure we can have a trustworthy transactional relationship with Japan. What has that got to do with moderating China's behaviour ?
china will not take on a nuke armed Japan or a nuke armed anybody. The Japanese are no pushovers, even without the nukes. They are the international good boys.
Enough countries out there to gang up against china, economically, politically and diplomatically, if push came to shove, including India.
china needs to be taught a lesson to curb and contain it's needlessly hegemonistic streak, silk road and the like be damned. China's fear of isolation is what drives it most of the time making it strive to keep and further open lines of trade and communication to ensure a fail safe way of getting goods to it's mainland.
If the class bully is to be taught a lesson, the others in the class will gang up.
NRao wrote:
First. "Product Owner" for all but two items is given as "US Government". Not so. It is a joint ownership between the two nations
So, the obligation on you to prove the latter part?
Nope. It is there for everyone to read (and report properly), including you.
But to help you, DTTI is NOT a US Gov or industry effort. It is a collaborative effort between the two nations (started during the Rumsfeld era) (see the second point).
NRao wrote:
Nope. It is there for everyone to read (and report properly), including you.
But to help you, DTTI is NOT a US Gov or industry effort. It is a collaborative effort between the two nations (started during the Rumsfeld era) (see the second point).
No, you are claiming that the "product owner" where listed as US government should actually be "joint ownership". I am well aware of the DTTI being a joint program between the governments. You are being asked to prove that India is a "joint" owner of the products / technologies / IP in question. Let me know, if I have indeed missed any such "joint product ownership" deeds, say on the lines of a Brahmos, which is a jointly owned product/company.
udaym wrote:BRFites are very knowledgeable in this space and subject, so I generally find myself reading more than writing on this dhaga, but I could't resist myself in this case.
Forget about a non-Nato country like India, NATO countries with a plethora of joint defence commitments have snubbed the USA at various times in the last few decades. For instance, white European NATO allies France, Italy and Spain refused USA overflight rights when Reagan decided to bomb Libya in 1986.
In the end, didn't Libya end up getting fcuked? we are talking about logistics agreements, what has Libya's past or future have any relevance?
In the end, didn't Iraq end up getting fcuked? and Turkey finding itself getting f**ed? I mean "na ghar ka na ghat ka" Repeat, what is the relevance?
The Philippines kicked out USA from the Clark Air base and Subic Naval base after the Vietnam war. These were occupied by the USA since Philippines was occupied by the US in the early twentieth century. It is another matter that the US is welcomed back now that China is bullying Philippines in the South China sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay
Last I read Philippines LSA was renewed second time with physical presence on 5 bases.
It is baffling how so much dhoti-shivering continues here. India has every right to not honor the treaty when it feels that it is not in its best interests..
Evidence you have presented is not very strong enough...
So. have Spain, Italy. France and Philippines been fcuked, as you put it? They are also part of my argument, isn't it?
The US is using the bogey of China to seduce us into a US coalition of the "scaredy cats" who only mutter "miao". China is doing itself a disservice by acting like a street bully.Its arrogance is forcing smaller nations to coalesce together behind Uncle Sam.India,an elephant,which should on its own strength counter China and form a coalition of nations at least to cooperate economically,is behaving like a mouse.The agreement on LEMOA displays weakness not strength. China will be further emboldened when it deals with India well knowing that India will not stand firm on its own but rush to its "Uncle" whining.The China-US equation is on a higher plane,as it encompasses huge economic factors which could have a devastating effect on the US economy.China knows what scares the US and from past experience,both nations cooperated with each other trying to tame India after P-2.Clintonesque perfidy.
The "Bangladesh with nukes",as Madbright described Russia,has made a mockery of the US's ineffective military might in Syria in the fight against ISIS. India and Mr.Modi should learn the hard truth from this example of brute politics as demonstrated by Pres.Putin.Diplomacy without the military strength to call a bluff is "Nehruvian". When little Maldives tells India to "eff-off",it is hilarious to imagine that even with Uncle Sam's anointing oil India will be taken seriously as an honest broker in any Asian dispute,especially when we are perceived as a US lackey. LEMOA is the entrance door of the "Lackey Club".It is going to further cement ties between Russia and China.Thus far Russia has give us preferential treatment vis-a-vis China in mil eqpt,more advanced eqpt. than that provided to China.With the Modi "tilt" towards the US,this may end and we may have to face a china with even more worrisome weaponry of Ru origin in the future.Should that happen,we will have only ourselves to blame.
Based on your email id, sometimes you do wind up in the weirdest of seminars or product launches where you know nobody. at worst it's a boring half day or at best it is entertaining, informative and at the end of it all good lunch awaits too.
a lot of these are firang companies, vaguely familiar products and what not.
What's not to go, if one has the time??
journos are on everyone's email list for invitations.
>>JEM, one problem with that statement - strategy is shaped to protect business and the direction of military engagement follows.
I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but let's say it does not matter to this particular discussion and you're right.
>>The US defended Western Europe during the Cold war to keep those economies and their productive capabilities from being added to the Soviets basket. Same with Japan. As a result of giving them free access to its own markets, those economies and their fortunes (a substantial sum) are intertwined with those of the US. The US cannot let Japan and the other economies of SE Asia be dominated and coerced into an alliance with China for the want of another option.
So far I cannot see anything to contradict what I have said above.
>>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. 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.
>>Just like it is China's core interests to keep India bogged down with Pakistan, it is ours to keep China hemmed in, in its own backyard. On that score, our interests lie entirely with the US camp. No other country is capable of shaping an alliance to moderate China's behaviour.
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.
>>If our business interests become heavily intertwined with Japan's, which is the direction in which we're heading, it is not possible to have a transactional relationship with Japan on a military level anymore. Their security interests are ours. We can still choose to take different stances on Pakistan, our immediately neighbourhood excluding Pakistan, the middle east or anywhere else.
I think Secretary Jaishankar has stated our view clearly: "leverage the dominant, collaborate with the convergent, and manage the competition". Too clearly in my view...but I'm paranoid.
I am not sure what this treaty give to India. But it is quite possible that we may be looking for a short-term arrangement with the US in this. As said above, Khan or any dominant power will allow us ( or any other nation) to become a strong and independent nation. We have to be very clear on that. So we can have a short terms arrangements in the meanwhile and concentrate on increasing our economic and other strengths.
With strength comes options and weak can not chose things.
Christopher Sidor wrote:PRCThe US knows that unlike Japan, Korea or Vietnam or even USAPRC its long term competitor and challenger is India. And I am damn if I would want my country to play second fiddle to PRCthe US. We can cooperate with PRCthe US as long as our interests coincide, we are the top dog and PRCthe US our side kick. Otherwise no. We do not want to dominate PRCthe US but we damn hell will not be dominated by them.
I hope you will agree that the above statement is equally true. Note that I said "equally". People are talking about the PRC threat over the next couple of decades, I am talking about the long term.
Ultimately, we are on our own. Let's not lose sight of it - the US certainly hasn't.
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.
At the same time, US and its proxies fund thousands of NGOs to damage out the economy. It support and supply pakiland and so on. The US is not our friend. As Chanakya said, there is no permanent friends or enemies. Let us use the US or any other nation for our purpose only. We need not get emotional etc. in any relationship now.
Christopher Sidor wrote: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.
Hmm...
Christopher Sidor wrote: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.
Agree with this. Just don't see the need for the agreement. Remember, the US calls them "foundational", whatever that means.
Yagnasri wrote:At the same time, US and its proxies fund thousands of NGOs to damage out the economy. It support and supply pakiland and so on. The US is not our friend. As Chanakya said, there is no permanent friends or enemies. Let us use the US or any other nation for our purpose only. We need not get emotional etc. in any relationship now.
Yagnasri, You are a learned person. Tell me how can a small power/nation partner with a big super power on equal basis? Such relations always benefit the bigger power/nation. And don't forget the bigger power/nation has done its maximum to keep the small power/nation smaller. So there is track record of ill will.
The small nation becoming bigger is in spite and not because of the bigger power.
Philip, You know the Indian bureaucrats. They are driven by rule book. Having LEMOA on the books they will ensure its implementation regardless.
Let US sort its problems with China.
I think they are psy-ops.
US is tying up India to help China have a free run.
India should not be tied up.
Having become a nuke power it makes no sense to align with far away US so they can continue to dominate the Asia via Indian and Pacific oceans.
In part 1, I had explained why the Logistics Support Agreement between India and the US is held up due to turf battles within the Indian government, CISMOA & BECA are a different cup of tea. The grouse here is that they somehow “compromise” our existing tactical and strategic information sharing datalinks. That’s jargon for “if we sign this the Americans will snoop in on our most secret communications, divert our missiles mid flight, and worst case scenario pass on our shortcomings to the Pakistanis”. Some have even suggested that Russia will cancel its lease of nuclear submarines to us based on the signing of such a deal. These arguments are something of a sad, pathetic joke.
Consider this – India’s Air Force One – the Boeing 737 business jet that our Prime Minister flies in – equipped as it is to launch a nuclear attack and the crown jewel of our “sovereignty” is already subject to CISMOA like provisions. Should the Americans have any doubts as to a security breach, they have to be allowed access to the plane. There is also equipment on that plane that Indian technicians are not allowed to touch. Also consider this – our prize electronic snooping capabilities – be it the airborne AWACS or more recently electronic intelligence gather aircraft are sourced from Israel a close US ally and virtually every product in our defence and space line-up has a compromised supply chain. As we now know from revelations in Yediot Ahronoth, Israel’s secret communications systems have been thoroughly compromised by a joint Anglo-American effort – to such an extent that Prime Minister Netanyahu feels exposed and insecure in his own office – an office that US technicians have no access to unlike our Air Force 1. Our cyber abilities are on display for everyone to see given how the Chinese hacked into every single computer in every single Indian embassy abroad, turning on the cameras and microphones at will. And guess what? Our own counter intelligence couldn’t detect the intrusion – it was an American commercial data security company that detected the bug in our computers. All this begs the question what exact capability do we have that isn’t already compromised to the Americans?
In any case even if we go with the counterfactual delusion that we have capabilities that even the Israelis and Americans can only dream of then a cursory reading of CISMOA and BECA agreements with Sweden and Norway respectively should lay doubts to rest. Sweden has its own highly classified datalink – one of only 4 countries to do so (the US, Russia and Israel to a very limited extent being the 3 others). The Swedes configure a part of their fleet to be interoperable with NATO and US forces – thereby only requiring those parts of the fleet or geospatial capabilities to be exposed, and still allowing the rest of their capabilities to be shielded from prying eyes. 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. At any rate the alleged Russian “objections” are outright bogus. Interviews for this essay with high Russian defence officials in Moscow brought angry rebukes “when have we ever asked India not to sign this agreement? At any rate you have been using Russian equipment like the Kilos (submarines) & Talwars (frigates) in exercises with the Americans … Please don't blame us for your incompetence”.
For those of you unfamiliar with datalinks – they are the single most important element of modern warfare and technologically the most difficult to master. To explain this is lay terms – do you remember how difficult it used to be to direct a friend to your house before google maps, smart phones and mobile phones arrived? In the 1980s you would have a hand drawn map, and once you left home no proper means of communication. In the 90s you could direct your friend using his/her mobile. Now all you have to do is mark the location on google maps, share it with your friend over WhatsApp and provide last minute over the phone guidance if at all necessary. In effect buying a fighter aircraft without the datalink is like buying a box of chocolates without the chocolates. Even though it accounts for a mere 10-15% of a new equipment’s wiring, the data and sensor equipment can account for upto 60% of cost and 80% of combat capability (in your smart phone it accounts for 90% of the cost price – excluding the camera, speakers and brand value). Consider this – in our near 70 year old friendship with the Russians, they actively denied us this critical technology. America on the other hand is offering you these capabilities – the use of them, but not the technology – at least initially. The fact that India cannot understand the importance of acquiring these systems is an indicator of how obsolete and out of touch with reality our military education system has become..
If you go by the media reports, you’d think the foundational agreement negotiations are about avoiding a repeat of the Dronacharya - Ekalavya situation. The reality is far from that – America is a bit like the Harvard professor of quantum physics, trying to teach Schrödinger’s Cat to a 2nd class pass from the Meerut municipal school convinced that the professor is out to get him. What is worrying though is that mature people who formulate the so called “debate” in this country revel in the counterfactual, and can’t even do basic Google searches. As long as these severe institutional conflicts, and educational deficiencies continue, our fact free public “debate” will only muddy the waters with signing of the LSA, CISMOA & BECA nowhere in sight.
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. At any rate the alleged Russian “objections” are outright bogus. Interviews for this essay with high Russian defence officials in Moscow brought angry rebukes “when have we ever asked India not to sign this agreement? At any rate you have been using Russian equipment like the Kilos (submarines) & Talwars (frigates) in exercises with the Americans … Please don't blame us for your incompetence”.
I think BK and the writer of this article should have a face off on the Big Fight!!
first time I have seen very in-depth detailed post. this is indeed very serious data which cannot be overlooked.
Even After one generation something else might crop up, which would bring more interdependence. I think this
will be perceptual in nature.
Last edited by sukhish on 22 Apr 2016 03:54, edited 1 time in total.
For one, we ALL know when Obama became Prez, he invited China to form a G-2 (and China declined) and somewhere near that time A Chinese invited the PACOM to divide the seas between the US and China and PACOM declined.
Yes, there are two diff threads: Economics and Defense. And, within Def there is PACOM.
For another, the second source is from William Lind!!!!! Indians complain about Christians and right wingers, but use Lind as a source?
Finally, has Indian situation improved over the past few years? That some of these ideas do not hold water any longer? So, has China replaced India in A'stan and now there is noise that India is playing RAW in Pakistan and some others saying India can contribute?
Even with all this what is the game plan to move forward? Not sign the LEMOA? Will it solve India's problems?
signing LEMOA might complicate the problem, rather than solving it ? India will never use US inland bases, only bases operated by US in foreign nations. And that's the big difference, while US will use Indian country wide bases.
The two sides has huge wide gap of inequality, as this will help US much more than India. US will find it hard to operate bases in middle east as the turmoil continues.
So even on that account India may not benefit whole lot.
For the nth time, LEMOA is NOT about "bases". Nothing to with them. It is about "logistics". And, today the IN makes use of those logistics. US assets use Indian logistics.
^^^^NRao Insanity is defined as doing same thing over and over again expecting different results each time even though history has proved to the contrary. So it is much better to travel to wonderland than ....
Like someone has said just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no one is out there to get you.
And, sanity is defined as taking control of your own destiny, after taking into account all other factors and moving forward without fear.
BRiets are very good at producing pertinent and very good quotes, but have no history of doing this to solve problems and then complaining. The same complains for nearly 20 years now.
The authors of those quotes actually went about solving problems after they made their statements.
BTW, the Indian response is your definition of insanity it seems. Doing the same thing and expecting others to change.
Anyways, I am done. Need to respond to one or two people. Thx.
chinese didn't advance without any strategy. and they were playing games, when our gullible mindsets were pulling each other's pants down.
sometimes it is necessary to trade with both friends and foes, but at different yardsticks.
ahimsa alone is not dharmic. dharma himsa is necessary when it is called for.
Y. Kanan wrote:Does anyone here seriously think if China invaded the US would support us in any way?
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.
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.
Does anyone here think the US will sell us game-changing weapons systems like F-35's, stealth drones, etc?
Again... everyone thinks that.
F-35:
"There is nothing on our side, no principle which bars that on our side, Indian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter." - Ashton Carter
Stealth Drone:
India Seeks Avenger Drone From U.S. To Boost Capability Against Pakistan, China - Link
(^ The latter would require Indian membership in the MTCR, something the US is pushing strongly for.)
>>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.
Remember the old adage."Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
When did this become the prevalent way of thinking in military theory?
Even to this day, we don't really hear much about logistics.
The modern US military is not the greatest military because it has the most shiniest guns (although it certainly doesn't hurt), but because it can get those guns anywhere in the world and keep them there and shooting.
Other famous militaries/generals such as Gen.Wellesley and WW2 US Army & Gen. Eisenhower were moderately famous for their efficient logistical systems, but it is not attributed for their success.
The success of D-Day was not so much the surprise it had in fooling the Germans about where the landings would take place,but the enormous logistic success using Mulberry modular harbours,etc. and seeing that the flow of supplies to the troops ashore went off without a hitch.The rapid offloading of cargo onto the beaches turned the landings into a victory.
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. This will definitely affect the secrecy of operations of the IN as it would've invited "the fox into the henhouse"!
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.
]
we are talking about logistics agreements, what has Libya's past or future have any relevance?
Indians complain about Christians and right wingers, but use Lind as a source?
