Increased military spending to worsen security in S Asia

[Neo]

Increased military spending to worsen security in S Asia​

* IISS says Pakistan, India continue defence shopping
* Militancy in Pakistani tribal areas despite military operations

ISLAMABAD: There are rising fears in South Asia that increasing defence spending will exacerbate countries’ internal and external disputes and further aggravate human security in the region, according to an International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) report.

The report titled ‘The Military Balance’ gives the composition of armies, weapons, economies and demographics of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

It says the military structure of India and Pakistan is the most cumbersome and huge, both in terms of men and material.

It says Afghanistan has 50,000 troops besides the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel, Bangladesh 126,500, India 1,316,000, Nepal 69,000, Pakistan 619,000, and Sri Lanka 150,900. About defence expenditure, it says that Bangladesh spends $840 million, India $21.7 billion, Nepal $139 million, Pakistan $4.14 billion and Sri Lanka $686 million per year.

Pakistan, India continue defence shopping: “India’s arms procurement programme continues to gather pace, with the decision to purchase the Trenton, an amphibious transport dock-class ship, along with four landing craft, from the US for $48.23 million in August 2006, its second major arms deal with the US since 2003,” the report notes.

It says India also ordered three modified Krivak III frigates on July 6, 2006, from Russia for $1.1 billion. In view of the Indian air force chief’s concern over the reduction of fighter squadrons from the current 32 to 28 by 2012, there could be an interim order for additional Mirage fighters from France. The air force is also seeking 126 multi-role combat aircraft, 80 new helicopters and light combat aircraft.

Pakistan is also purchasing arms for its forces, including a $1.15 billion order in June 2006 for six Swedish SAAB 2000 turboprop AWACS aircraft with radars from Ericsson Microwave Systems.

It says Pakistan signed a major $5 billion arms deal with the US on September 30, 2006, to purchase 18 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft equipped with AMRAAM - beyond visual range air-to-air-missiles - with the option to buy 18 additional new aircraft and upgrade its existing 34 F-16 aircraft.

It is also planning to acquire up to 150 JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft worth $2 billion and an estimated 36 J-10 fighter aircraft worth $1.2 billion both from China.

About Pakistan-India efforts to resolve disputes, it says although the bilateral security environment improved between India and Pakistan through expansion of transportation links, people to-people exchanges and a meeting between their leaders in Havana, there was little progress in their composite dialogue.

It quoted an Indian official report that says that 76 of 299 districts in nine provinces – Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh – are ‘badly affected’ by Maoists violence.

Militancy in Pakistan tribal areas: The report also highlights Pakistan’s problems in Waziristan and Balochistan where militancy has been going on despite military operations.“In early September, a senior Pakistani minister alleged that India was supplying arms and resources to tribal militants in Balochistan; this was sharply refuted by the Indian government,” it says.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[haviZsultan]

Militancy in Pakistan tribal areas: The report also highlights Pakistan’s problems in Waziristan and Balochistan where militancy has been going on despite military operations.“In early September, a senior Pakistani minister alleged that India was supplying arms and resources to tribal militants in Balochistan; this was sharply refuted by the Indian government,” it says.

I think we are learning from the Indians now! Allright this is giving the Indians a taste of their own medicine! Lets see what India says... I'm loving it!

 

[HK-47]

$840 million????we need to make it at least $ 2 billion though for the entire security forces and also paramilitary forces.

 

[BATMAN]

JWDI briefing: India's defence industry
18 September 2007
Full Article for Subscribers

JWDI briefing: India's defence industry - Jane's Defence Business News

With a defence budget that is set to increase from USD23.6 billion in 2006 to USD33.2 billion in 2009, Western defence companies have prioritised India as a key market. Although much of this money is committed to procurement of foreign equipment, local defence industries are also enjoying an unprecedented period of high profits as the country modernises its ageing equipment throughout its armed forces.

However, India's defence system is in need of repair. Too many - if not all - major indigenously designed and manufactured platforms are delayed and over budget, some by up to 20 years. Traditionally India's state-owned companies have been selected for all major defence contracts in the country and have been supported by a complex process that, judging by the continued delays, is archaic and ineffective.

The government, however, is aware that it needs to make changes to its defence system and, over the past few years, has started to introduce a number of measures - including offsets and the pending Raksha Udyog Ratnas (RUR) policy. Together, these policies and reforms could make a positive difference to India's defence industries and provide the 75 per cent self-reliance that the government craves. Without the government discipline and a level of ruthlessness that would be needed to make the policies work, however, the reforms will be nothing more than the traditional sound-bites that defence analysts are used to hearing from New Delhi.

Indian defence spending in the years between 2001 (USD13.81 billion) and 2007 (USD22.1 billion) has seen an increase of 60 per cent. The 2007 budget has been set at USD25.08 billion, a 12.6 per cent increase over 2006. The published defence budget covers, and is the sum of, the following six areas: military pensions; the army; the navy; the air force; capital expenditure; and research and development.

The actual execution of the defence budget, however, is plagued by inefficiencies and corruption, the former resulting in billions of rupees remaining unspent and returned to the Ministry of Finance (MoF). In 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence revealed that up to INR10 billion (USD246 million) set aside for capital investment and modernisation was unspent during that year; while two years earlier the same committee said that, since 1999, a total of USD7 billion had remained unspent and was consequently repaid to the MoF. All this has had a significant impact on the defence budget as, according to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, monies repaid to the MoF are removed from the next year's budget. This is part of the reason that expenditure as a percentage of GDP is on the decline. This seems likely to remain the case until defence procurement processes are significantly improved.

450 of 3,294 words
© 2007 Jane's Information Group
End of non-subscriber extract

We can see very well who is leader in worsening security in S.Asia.

 

[blitz]

Nothing to accuse anyone of. Every nation spends according to its threat perception. US spends more than the rest of the world combined on its defense, despite having no territorial threat or hostiles at its borders. Why do they do that ?

India spends according to its own threat perception, and its future ambition. Nothing wrong with that. Pakistan does what it feels right, China does what it feels is required to fulfill its defense and ambitions.

There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[IceCold]

Dont you think blitz india has rather too ambtious plans. Look at the increase $23.6 billion in 2006 to $33.2 billion in 2009.

 

[blitz]

IceCold, what does 'too ambitious' really mean ? How do you differentiate between 'too ambitious' and 'just ambitious enough' and 'not so ambitious' ?

Tiny nations like UK, France, Italy and even Saudi Arabia spend more than India. What kind of threat do they face ? India has two powerful nuclear armed adversaries at its border and multiple insurgencies running inside its territory simultaneously. Combine that with just the expenditure that goes into salaries, medical facilities, accommodation etc etc of the almost 2 million strong Indian military and the actual military spending on fancy toys comes down significantly. Add to that the fact that out of this defense budget, a substantial amount is anyways wasted by the corrupt and inefficient procurement system.

Ideally, considering the threats it faces, India should be spending 3% of its annual GDP, which would be more than the the figures mentioned in the article. But then again, we also are a poor developing country with a massive population, so it is excusable if we don't. The old Guns v Butter dilemma.

One thing i can assure you though, India spends less on its defense than it minimally requires.

 

[Bull]

Dont you think blitz india has rather too ambtious plans. Look at the increase $23.6 billion in 2006 to $33.2 billion in 2009.

Well speaking about budgetory allocation to defence, why dont you look at China first.

 

[Marathaman]

Dont you think blitz india has rather too ambtious plans. Look at the increase $23.6 billion in 2006 to $33.2 billion in 2009.

Have money will spend.

 

[IceCold]

Well speaking about budgetory allocation to defence, why dont you look at China first.

Bull what do you think it will take us anyways? China defence budgetory allocation is to counter US, india's to counter China while pakistan's to counter India. Its basically a triangle going on in southasia which will lead us no where.

 

[IceCold]

IceCold, what does 'too ambitious' really mean ? How do you differentiate between 'too ambitious' and 'just ambitious enough' and 'not so ambitious' ?

Tiny nations like UK, France, Italy and even Saudi Arabia spend more than India. What kind of threat do they face ? India has two powerful nuclear armed adversaries at its border and multiple insurgencies running inside its territory simultaneously. Combine that with just the expenditure that goes into salaries, medical facilities, accommodation etc etc of the almost 2 million strong Indian military and the actual military spending on fancy toys comes down significantly. Add to that the fact that out of this defense budget, a substantial amount is anyways wasted by the corrupt and inefficient procurement system.

Ideally, considering the threats it faces, India should be spending 3% of its annual GDP, which would be more than the the figures mentioned in the article. But then again, we also are a poor developing country with a massive population, so it is excusable if we don't. The old Guns v Butter dilemma.

One thing i can assure you though, India spends less on its defense than it minimally requires.

Well blitz when we talk about saudiarbia, it does faces threat, you have seen it in gulf war, it faces threat from israel, and not to forget Iran too. UK France well they dont face any immanent threat but they keep there status quo with the Unitedstates but the important point that we are forgeting here is that these countries are developed, whereas neither India nor pakistan is. They are still developing countires.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Well blitz when we talk about saudiarbia, it does faces threat, you have seen it in gulf war, it faces threat from israel, and not to forget Iran too. UK France well they dont face any immanent threat but they keep there status quo with the Unitedstates but the important point that we are forgeting here is that these countries are developed, whereas neither India nor pakistan is. They are still developing countires.

The fact that ours are developing countries does not provide us with a shield from attacks from our neighbours. Fingers have been pointed at India for worsening the security situation in S.Asia in this thread(post no. 4). We have two hostile nuclear armed countries on either side , one of which has a much bigger military and spends more than twice as much as we do on defence. can you blame us? IMHO we don't spend enough. If India had been a developed country our military budget might have been in excess of $50 billion with a large portion being spent on defence R&D. That is what is actually needed.

 

[Spring Onion]

IceCold, what does 'too ambitious' really mean ? How do you differentiate between 'too ambitious' and 'just ambitious enough' and 'not so ambitious' ? .

Well Pakistan= 'just ambitious enough' trying to have a safegaurd against its adversary
China= 'not so ambitious' she never been too keen to take the world millitarily.
India= 'too ambitious' there is no real threat to her even Chian had never been a millitary threat to her, china rather believs in slow and steady Economic progress and thats the real threat to even US.
So India basically is too amitiouse to come on a par with the super power US, in other words she wants to bully every nation in South Asian region.

Tiny nations like UK, France, Italy and even Saudi Arabia spend more than India. What kind of threat do they face ? India has two powerful nuclear armed adversaries at its border.

Its understandable why Saudi Arabia spends more as she is in a hostile region with Isreal and Iran both not so friendly to her.
on the other hand UK, France, even US as u had mentioned in your earlier post, they spend more and more for two reasons, firstly to maintain their super power status and secondly they had to create more and more opportunities for their own companies in this business.
Its another matter that these reasons are just excuses and they should not spend this much.

and multiple insurgencies running inside its territory simultaneously. Combine that with just the expenditure that goes into salaries, medical facilities, accommodation etc etc of the almost 2 million strong Indian military and the actual military spending on fancy toys comes down significantly.

Add to that the fact that out of this defense budget, a substantial amount is anyways wasted by the corrupt and inefficient procurement system.

blitz the kinds of arms and equipment India is buying is not used to supress the insurgencies these can be done with even less spending on Defence.
as far your point about the salaries and other expenditure i agree with that.
BUT even then India is the biggest buyer or arms in the world, so dont you think so it should be cut down.

 

[Contrarian]

It should be increased IMHO slowly and steadily. India will keep on increasing her defence expenditure as long as China spends a humungous amt on her defence. Does it matter how much Pakistan spends? Pakistan only complains cuz they cannot keep up with it. I dont see Indians ever compain that China spends too much on defence, or if this is provocative. Its simple, they have the money, they spend it as they see fit. The same goes for India.

Dont give BS reasons that China is not hostile towards India or Pakistan is not. India will spend as she deems fit, as long as there is money.

 

[blitz]

Well Pakistan= 'just ambitious enough' trying to have a safegaurd against its adversary
China= 'not so ambitious' she never been too keen to take the world millitarily.
India= 'too ambitious' there is no real threat to her even Chian had never been a millitary threat to her, china rather believs in slow and steady Economic progress and thats the real threat to even US.
So India basically is too amitiouse to come on a par with the super power US, in other words she wants to bully every nation in South Asian region.

Its understandable why Saudi Arabia spends more as she is in a hostile region with Isreal and Iran both not so friendly to her.
on the other hand UK, France, even US as u had mentioned in your earlier post, they spend more and more for two reasons, firstly to maintain their super power status and secondly they had to create more and more opportunities for their own companies in this business.
Its another matter that these reasons are just excuses and they should not spend this much.

blitz the kinds of arms and equipment India is buying is not used to supress the insurgencies these can be done with even less spending on Defence.
as far your point about the salaries and other expenditure i agree with that.
BUT even then India is the biggest buyer or arms in the world, so dont you think so it should be cut down.

Why are you so obtuse ? The very question was aimed at conveying that there is no way of defining the categories of 'ambition'. You on the other hand went right ahead and applied your senseless logic to it and came up with ridiculous answers. Those precious gems are YOUR perceptions, not definitions. So if i disagree with you, who is right ? How do you prove that you are right and i am wrong ?

No nation should be apologetic about its ambitions. Applies for the US, and applies for India.

As it is, India spends considerably less on its defense than it ideally should. As for weapons for power projection, same reason as US, UK and France, we owe no explanation to anyone. India is the biggest buyer because it has such vast requirements, and not much of an indigenous arms indusry to full fill them. By the way, i am quite sure CHINA is the world's largest arms importer.


Indian defense spending should be pegged at 3% of annual GDP. If GDP increases, spending should increase, if economy contracts, spending should decrease. Sounds fair ? Its less inpercentage terms than both China and Pakistan's.

Let me state this categorically, India, owes no explanation to any one.